The Bread of Life

[lforrest]

I don't think that is correct forrest, as putting someone on ignore would do all that. In any event I have asked for clarification. Do you really think it's also correct to tell him he can respond in whatever way he wants to?

You can ask the Angelina if you want. Of course everyone must abide by the forum rules regarding spam but outside of that there is no established rule regarding the structure of posts.

 

[lforrest]

Thank you. I didn't realize that. How do I multiquote? OR break up one big post into smaller post?

I clicked multi-quote for this post and for your other post then clicked reply to quoted posts at the bottom of the screen. However it doesn't show the whole conversation which can get confusing sometimes. I sometimes find myself copying a pasting to get more of the conversation.

I'm torn on this one. Personal contact seems to mean one on one email. But if you respond to someone in a post it seems personal also. <_<

Suppose the person wanting you to break contact decided to participate in a topic you were passionate about. Then they get into a conversation with some third in that topic. By responding to this third party you are indirectly addressing the person that wants you to break contact with them. Should you be required to avoid all conversations this person participates in, like a restraining order?

 

[mjrhealth]

Suppose the person wanting you to break contact decided to participate in a topic you were passionate about. Then they get into a conversation with some third in that topic. By responding to this third party you are indirectly addressing the person that wants you to break contact with them. Should you be required to avoid all conversations this person participates in, like a restraining order?

Wouldnt worry too much, it seems that when someone disagrees with Him he beats them in to submission with big words if that dont work He ignores you, which mean he probably wont read this post since he has being ignoring me for a loooooong time.

 

[StanJ]

Suppose the person wanting you to break contact decided to participate in a topic you were passionate about. Then they get into a conversation with some third in that topic. By responding to this third party you are indirectly addressing the person that wants you to break contact with them. Should you be required to avoid all conversations this person participates in, like a restraining order?

That would not be considered personal if you addressed a third person.

 

[StanJ]

Thank you. I didn't realize that. How do I multiquote? OR break up one big post into smaller post?

This site has all the information you need to learn BB coding;
https://www.phpbb.com/community/faq.php?mode=bbcode

 

[tom55]

I clicked multi-quote for this post and for your other post then clicked reply to quoted posts at the bottom of the screen. However it doesn't show the whole conversation which can get confusing sometimes. I sometimes find myself copying a pasting to get more of the conversation.

Suppose the person wanting you to break contact decided to participate in a topic you were passionate about. Then they get into a conversation with some third in that topic. By responding to this third party you are indirectly addressing the person that wants you to break contact with them. Should you be required to avoid all conversations this person participates in, like a restraining order?

Thank you.

I was thinking if you address that person in a topic (even if you stay on topic) then it would be a violation. But then again I guess that wouldn't really be a personal communication......if it stays ON TOPIC!!??

 

[tom55]

Wouldnt worry too much, it seems that when someone disagrees with Him he beats them in to submission with big words if that dont work He ignores you, which mean he probably wont read this post since he has being ignoring me for a loooooong time.

I don't care about big words. I can always google them to figure out their meaning. (and I do a lot of googleing) I just don't like it when a person makes valid points using scripture, history, quotes etc. etc. and the person you are debating with shuts down the conversation by accusing the other person of using the wrong format or color or logical fallacies etc. etc.

Instead of rebutting valid points or showing them where they are wrong they just accuse the other person of doing something wrong and end the conversation. I have been proven wrong before on this website and admitted it. I am a simple and humble man!!

 

[lforrest]

Thank you.

I was thinking if you address that person in a topic (even if you stay on topic) then it would be a violation. But then again I guess that wouldn't really be a personal communication......if it stays ON TOPIC!!??

Pretty much.

 

[StanJ]

I don't care about big words. I can always google them to figure out their meaning. (and I do a lot of googleing) I just don't like it when a person makes valid points using scripture, history, quotes etc. etc. and the person you are debating with shuts down the conversation by accusing the other person of using the wrong format or color or logical fallacies etc. etc.
Instead of rebutting valid points or showing them where they are wrong they just accuse the other person of doing something wrong and end the conversation. I have been proven wrong before on this website and admitted it. I am a simple and humble man!!

Then maybe you should learn to cooperate, use the established format, and stop deflecting and being obfuscative?

 

[tom55]

Breaking bread in the New Testament is about eating a meal not about having communion.



Genesis 14:18 does not say this was a sacrifice. It was a normal tradition to greet a guest with bread and wine. You make associations where there are none and that is called eisegeting. Same goes with Hebrew 7. What it is doing is demonstrating the fact that the Levitical priesthood is no longer applicable under the New Covenant and that Jesus is our only priest. In fact, Melchizedek was a physical manifestation of the Word of God in Genesis 14. Jesus was/is that WORD incarnate. It has nothing to do with communion, despite your attempt to make it so.


Again you're looking with your physical eyes and not your spiritual eyes. Jesus was comparing physical food with spiritual food. Obviously the physical food didn't keep them from dying, but Jesus as our spiritual food gives us eternal life. Celebrating that fact doesn't mean we actually eat food. Having him as our Savior is how we assimilate him into our lives and how we inherit eternal life. Your constant attempt to make the spiritual reality a physical one is why you keep failing at associating what Jesus was actually saying. Celebrating the example of communion he set for us at the Last Supper is exactly what he wants is to you.


Doesn't really matter what some Greek said in the latter part of the second century and how he did not understand Christian communion. It matters only with the Bible and what Jesus said about it. In that regard it is quite obviously a spiritual matter and not a physical food experience. Your insistence on making it a physical matter shows you really have no spiritual perception whatsoever.


I've answered this a couple of times now so I'm not going to continually repeat myself. Read my responses when I make them. Who exactly do you think you sin against when you sin?


The fact is you refuse to recognize sound hermeneutical exegesis in favor of RCC tradition and teaching. The fact is until you recognize your erroneous interpretation you won't ever understand the spiritual reality of who Jesus is in our lives. The Bible says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." You can't do that by making things physical.

Your right. Jesus just wanted all of us to get together and eat bread and drink wine in his remembrance. It's just a regular old meal. And that's what the first Christians did in scripture. (except for the fact that scripture and Christian history disagrees with you)

Genesis 14:18-20 shows that bread and wine were brought out by the priest of the God Most High and then a blessing was said over Abram. A priest of the God Most High wouldn't be bringing out bread and wine like a SERVANT from the kitchen. In scripture a priest is authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion and is a mediator between man and God. The priest wasn't just bringing out a meal or an appetizer; there is a deeper meaning. I realize you may have overlooked this obvious fact and you may have learned it at one time in your studies of scripture and history. I hope I have refreshed your memory. My memory needs refreshing sometimes also.

You accuse me of eisegeting, however, I don't see where Jesus said He who eats My "spiritual" flesh and drinks My "spiritual" blood has eternal life. He is saying totally the opposite. I am not attempting "to make the spiritual reality a physical reality". I am quoting scripture and you are eisegeting. As we know from scripture and the early Christian writings they didn't think the bread and drink was normal food. They believed and followed scripture. Except the ones that walked away. I will admit it is a mystery to me how God performs this miracle of turning the bread and wine into Jesus body and blood but God does a lot of things that are a mystery to me.

It also doesn't really matter what YOU or the other heretics said 1500 years after Jesus death or how YOU or they do not understand Christian communion. I agree with John 6:50-51 and as you can see the word spiritual is not in there. As you know Clement, Ignatius and the Didache were not in the latter part of the 2nd Century. Stop trying to re-write historical facts.

I have not quoted anything from RCC tradition or teaching. I have only quoted scripture and the historical writings of the people who walked and talked with the Apostles. I didn't not consult or quote any Catholic website. It seems you may know more about RCC teaching and traditions than I do. I believe scripture when it says whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. How can one eat or drink a metaphor in an unworthy way and commit a sin?? I, Tom55, don't want to be guilty of that sin. The ones who consider it a metaphor or a symbol or who walk away (John 6:66) are guilty of that sin.

Most Christians believe and it is generally accepted what Jesus said; Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. Therefor anyone that doesn't agree with Jesus and holds an opinion with what is generally accepted in a heretic or an apostate.

Heretic defined: a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted