This just shows you two think of yourselves as equal to the Apostles and feel this forum is in need of your special message.ISeeU said:
You would be wrong, and NOT amusing.
The Bread of Life
- Thread starter InSpiritInTruth
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You would be wrong, and NOT amusing.
No, it just shows us all how ridiculous your tag team comments are, when its a fact he has been posting long before I decided to jump onto his thread and touch base with him after some months.StanJ said:
You are full of your own fathers accusations thats for sure
My Father knows, He doesn't accuse. Your reasons are of no concern, just your words & actions now.ISeeU said:
Here is a summary of what the Christianity Board rules are: All members should be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy at all times...No insults are allowed. Included in this are all forms of flaming, harassment, and trolling/goading..... Trolling/Goading is defined as repeated attempts through the use of images, cartoons, smileys or text that is designed to be explicitly demeaning, patronizing, embarrassing, or otherwise upsetting to a member or group of members in the community. This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member. Sarcasm is not included under this rule. Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Christianity Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians. If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish. Blasphemy will not be tolerated. Do not lie.StanJ said:
I do not know of anywhere I have violated any of these rules in my debate with you. I have articulated my position by citing multiple passages from scripture and facts about Christian history. In my humble opinion you did not articulate a understandable (hence my use of the word confusing) rebuttal of my position or my quotes.
I understand you object to my use of red and blue. I use red when quoting scripture which is my way of holding scripture above my own words of which I make blue which is not against the "rules". I underline and make some words/sentences bold to emphasize those points which I think are important. Out of respect for you I stopped using most if those techniques. Out of respect for you I answered your questions. In my opinion you did not show me respect when you shut down our discussion by not answering my questions nor did you clearly rebut my points. You shut down our discussion by accusing me of not using the proper tools and just flat out say you won't bother addressing my messy posts, HOWEVER, you did not tell my what you think the "proper tools" are and you did not tell me what was "messy" about my posts. You further said .."in any event you didn't really answer anything here, you just denied". You did not tell my what I denied and I pointed out how I only re-affirmed my beliefs by articulating my points. I am not denying that we eat his flesh, you are. Therefor, I do not understand how I denied anything hence my use of the word confused when responding to your accusation of me being in denial.
You have accused me of using a "ploy to AVOID dealing with my poihts (points)", however, I do not know what ploy I have used AND I wrote a rebuttal to your points. YOU did not give me that courtesy.
If you think I am playing a "game" by quoting scripture and citing historical facts then we have a different definition of "playing a game"!
You said, "I can't help you if you truly don't understand what I write, but I seriously doubt that is the issue." You are correct in saying you can't help me; that burden is on my shoulders. However, what would help is if when I articulate a rebuttal to your statements is if you would clarify your statement to help me better understand it or rebut mine with quotes from scripture or historical facts. One example was when you said, "Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented". I rebutted your statement (of which you did not initially back up by quoting Paul) by quoting what Paul actually said. Once I quoted what Paul actually said you, in my opinion, became defensive and wanted to shut down our conversation/debate. When you say "seriously doubt" it almost sounds like you are calling me a liar, which is against the rules.
I do not want to violate the rule of: If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish. Since you have not asked me to cease contact with you on this matter I hope my response to you does not infuriate you. You said to me, "You know what to do,...." when talking about addressing you any further in this regard. I think I am taking the proper step to clear the air between us in this regard and I feel I have not violated any rules of this board. I feel I have articulated my position well and do not know how I can make it any clearer. I believe I have made it clear to you that you have not articulated your position well and I do not understand how you can say it is not His flesh/blood when He and Paul and the early Christians show us that they clearly thought it is His flesh/blood.
Respectfully.........Tom
I am unable to find where CB says "it should not be overused" when referring to the use of colors or caps or underlining.StanJ said:
I am not saying it isn't posted somewhere, I just can't find it!!
iakov
Member
- Jan 17, 2016
- 117
- 12
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the scholastics trying to define exactly when the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord and whycome it still looks, tastes, and feels like the same bread and wine it was before. That's how they came to the notion of "transubstantiation." Being enamored with Aristotle, they needed everything to be rational and to explain everything.StanJ said:
I don't. Jesus said we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and He said that the bread is His flesh and the wine is His blood. He didn't explain how so it's probably above my pay grade. I'll just take what He said at face value and not try to second guess God.
That His word are spirit and life does not negate anything he said previously. It doesn't mean that everything he said was some kind of allegory with no real connection to reality.
The word "spiritually" does not mean "make believe." The Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, not Tinkerbelle. Saying that it isn't literal but spiritual is just another way of saying, "I don't believe you, Jesus."
He said what He said. You don't have to believe Him. You have free will to reject his teaching like all the followers in verse 66. Your choice. Suit yourself.
Jesus wasn't talking in a physical sense, which is why He was so often not understood by people then. Apparently the same issue holds true today.iakov said:
All His messages and parabolic statements conveyed spiritual realities. In order to accept transsubstantiation, one has to ignore ALL the OT laws about cannibalism and drinking blood. Jesus Himself said He did not come to do that, so you are left with a huge problem in reconciling the two. This is when cognitive dissonance comes into play. You can deal with that and tell me how far you get?
iakov,iakov said:
You have articulated your position well on this issue. I agree with you 100% when you suggested Jesus warned them not to think carnally but spiritually. He made this VERY CLEAR when he said, "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life".
Sadly some people on this site don't believe what Jesus said and have walked away from him just like in verse 66. They obviously don't think God can perform miracles. Some people think THEY are infallible and have rejected what He CLEARLY SAID, what Paul preached and the early Christians believed/practiced. I choose to believe Jesus, Paul, scripture and what the Christians that walked and talked with the Apostles believed. I think they would know more about this subject than any of use could possibly comprehend. I believe in miracles.
They fail to recognize Him in the bread like Cleopas and his companion failed to recognize Him until He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him...". Cleopas and his companion then found the eleven Apostles and told them how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. Sadly some people fail to accept what Jesus told the Apostles at the last supper, Take and eat; this is my body.” Some people today, 2000 years later, still have their eyes closed.
THEY can't explain how one can be "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" when they eat the bread and drink the cup if it is just a metaphor? WHY would someone need to "examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup" if it is just bread and wine or a symbol? How can one bring judgment upon ones self if it is a metaphor?? How can you eat or drink a metaphor in an "unworthy manner"?
I agree with Paul when he said, Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. If you think the bread and wine is just a symbol you should consume your bread and wine at home when you are hungry. When you meet together in the name of our Lord AND you do what He told us to do in remembrance of Him then it becomes his body and blood, not a metaphor, not a symbol. If you do believe or practice anything but this it will result in your judgment.
Respectfully, Tom55
Every sin is against the body and blood of Jesus, as it was He who died for ALL sin.
Heb 6 reads:
who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Are we to think Jesus is actually crucified again when some become apostate?
If one doesn't understand understand the symmetry and figures of speech in ANY book, they have no chance of assimillating the truth therein
.
Heb 6 reads:
who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Are we to think Jesus is actually crucified again when some become apostate?
If one doesn't understand understand the symmetry and figures of speech in ANY book, they have no chance of assimillating the truth therein
.
Are you saying that when Christians around the world partake in communion and they believe it to be his body/blood that they are re-crucifying Jesus?StanJ said:
Are you also saying that YOU "understand the symmetry and figures of speech" in all the books you read?
I am truly trying to understand exactly what you mean instead of assuming I know what you mean.
As I continually reiterate, I'm not going to explain every post I make to you. You seem to have a good handle on the English language, judging from your posts. IF you are pasting someone elses comments, I suggest you stop doung that and make your own comments. Then you may understand responses to them.tom55 said:
When us Christians partake in communion we are doing what Jesus told us to do at the last supper. We have been doing this for 2000 years. You should join us.StanJ said:
I am not posting someone else's comments. I am quoting scripture and citing historical facts.
That's right, but I have no idea how that answers my post? I'm sure I have participated far more than you have, so this comment is a tad derisive.tom55 said:
Unless you actually show the reference, you're not quoting scripture, and just asserting something is NOT citing.
I am not sure which post of yours I haven't answered?StanJ said:
YOU believe that communion is only a symbolic gesture. I believe communion is His body/blood just like Jesus and Paul said it was and the early Christians believed it was. Therefor you have not participated in "far more" than I have since the only thing YOU have consumed is bread and wine.
I quoted scripture multiple times. I refer you back to post #4, 13, 15, 21, 24 and 73 of which all or most have quotes from scripture backed up by historical writings that support or mirror scripture.
I assumed you knew scripture therefor I didn't always quote chapter and verse when I cited it!
It's the one you responded to here.tom55 said:
Yes that much is obvious, but, the point is you haven't proven transubstantiation, you just assert it. The practice of communion was a point of celebration in Jesus's sacrifice as He himself commanded. He clearly identified the bread and wine as bread and wine, even though he referred to it as his body and blood metaphorically.
As I said quoting scripture involves using the reference not just paraphrasing what it says. I know Scripture but in order to avoid equivocation the common practice is to quote the verse using the reference. If you actually do that then you don't have to show the words because the site creates an automatic link to the verse using a pop up box. It also confirms that you're not miss quoting or paraphrasing the scripture to suit your own purposes.
Similar threads
