johnny Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 selekExplain why these statements could not be symbolism.There is nothing to suggest symbolism ...NOTE: I will reply later this evening since I am going away from my computer for the rest of the afternoon!
selek Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 selekThere is nothing to suggest symbolism ...NOTE: I will reply later this evening since I am going away from my computer for the rest of the afternoon!That's not an answer, Johnny.And it's not even factual. A great many people interpret it precisely as symbolic.Where is the suggestion of symbolism in Peter being the stone upon which the Church will be built?And you still haven't answered my question- despite the fact I've asked it three times now.I guess that means you don't have an answer.
Flyonthewall Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 FlyonthewallIn scripture there are some verses that have symbolism and some that don't ...Agreed.Why are you chopping up the words?I was emphasizing for clarity for your benefit.Jesus said "Take, eat; this is my body". Explain how the words "Take, eat; this is my body" can be interpreted as symbolic without chopping up the words like you have.Ok. When He gave them a piece of broken bread, it was bread not His body. He said "take, eath; this is my body", He gave them one thing and told them it was another. He gave them a symbol and told them what it represents.It is not a final sacrifice ... The Sacrament is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit. The bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.This is a word game you've got going here. Christ's sacrifice is the last blood sacrifice accpeted. No more animal sacrifices were going to be accepted after the sacrifice of Christ. When we take the sacrament, we are not re-sacrificing Christ, we are remembering HIS sacrifice and partaking of its atonement.The Sacrament is a memorial of Christ's Passover and it is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Sacrament is manifested in the words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood".This, again may be a game of words. The sacrament is not a sacrafice, it is in REMEMBRANCE of THE sacrifice of Christ, of which Christ instituted with emblems, at the last supper.
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 It is not a final sacrifice ... The Sacrament is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit. The bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.Keep crucifying Christ afresh, Johnny, keep crucifying Christ afresh....
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 The sacrament is not a sacrafice, it is in REMEMBRANCE of THE sacrifice of Christ, of which Christ instituted with emblems, at the last supper.Good morning, Flyonthewall! I hope that this message finds you in the pursuit of wisdom.I must admit that I am not confused about your exclusivity of "rememberance" and "sacrifice", for in the faith that you have been taught, there is an important distinction. But I do not understand why that distinction must be so. Please, explain the exclusivity of the word "rememberance", and why that rememberance cannot be thrown together (συνβολή) with that final sacred act (sacrifice).
Anijen Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Take, eat: this is my body, Explain why these statements could not be symbolism.There is nothing to suggest symbolism ...Well, since his body was breaking the bread, how did the bread become his body at the same time? To me and anyone with a common sense would choose symbolism.Flyonthewall adds a brilliant observation that is worthy of repeating;"He gave them one thing and told them it was another. He gave them a symbol and told them what it represents."
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Well, since his body was breaking the bread, how did the bread become his body at the same time? To me and anyone with a common sense would choose symbolism.Perhaps I am overstepping my thinking-cubicle-wall here, but it almost sounds like you are insulting the sense of those successors to the Apostles that handed on the tradition that there is more to the Holy Eucharist than meets the eye.Even if I disagreed with a position, I certainly wouldn't want to run around shouting raca at the poor souls with whom I disagreed.
selek Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Perhaps I am overstepping my thinking-cubicle-wall here, but it almost sounds like you are insulting the sense of those successors to the Apostles that handed on the tradition that there is more to the Holy Eucharist than meets the eye.First and foremost, you're begging the question with that "successors to the Apostles" line.Most assuredly, that's what Catholics claim- but then so do others.Second, we don't deny that there's more to the Eucharist than meets the eye- we don't however, subsribe to the extrabiblical notion that it is necessarily and automagically the literal body and blood of Christ.Even if I disagreed with a position, I certainly wouldn't want to run around shouting raca at the poor souls with whom I disagreed.Funny- that's precisely what your fellow Catholics are doing to us.This thread is about whether Mormons are Christians- it's your fellow travellers who have arbitrarily decided that we are not and then proceeded to derail the thread on a tangent.We do not deny you your claims of Christianity nor your right to worship according to your conscience.We have not come to a Catholic site and accused you. We did not invade your home and dictated your beliefs to you.You, however, do not reciprocate.Who then, is standing in self-appointed judgement of their brethren?
Anijen Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Perhaps I am overstepping my thinking-cubicle-wall here, but it almost sounds like you are insulting the sense of those successors to the Apostles that handed on the tradition that there is more to the Holy Eucharist than meets the eye.By your own wording (meets the eye) suggest that the eye cant see it, hence symbolism not actual.The Holy Eucharist is Holy and is very important but it is a ordinance of remembrance of Christ sacrifice for us and that we are to partake of him (by remembering him). I think there is something very Holy and divine that happens as one partakes, it is not transubstation but being renewed from your sins.Even if I disagreed with a position, I certainly wouldn't want to run around shouting raca at the poor souls with whom I disagreed.I didn't think I was shouting (i did not capitalize my words) and this whole site is apologetic in nature there is going to be disagreement. All I am doing is offering opinion as is servant as are you.
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 . . . [W]e don't however, subsribe to the extrabiblical notion that it is necessarily and automagically the literal body and blood of Christ.No, and I certainly wouldn't question that you do not. My questions rely rather on the why of both sides. But everyone seems to be so far up offended creek that I won't be able to get a paddle from an otter.Funny- that's precisely what your fellow Catholics are doing to us.And it hurts me when my fellows sling stones at my fellows. Read that line again, because I will stand up for you just as quickly as I stand up for these honored men and women of history who have professed the faith that is slightly different from your own.
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 By your own wording (meets the eye) suggest that the eye cant see it, hence symbolism not actual. And I think that the question must be: Do all things actual require visibility to be so?I didn't think I was shouting (i did not capitalize my words) and this whole site is apologetic in nature there is going to be disagreement. All I am doing is offering opinion as is servant as are you.I should hope there would be disagreement! Christians make for the best arguers (funny how that is). But what I would not hope for is the argumentum ad hominem on the common sense of people. We have not come to a Catholic site and accused you. We did not invade your home and dictated your beliefs to you.You, however, do not reciprocate.Who then, is standing in self-appointed judgement of their brethren?Sorry, I just now caught your edit. I was not aware that I had done anything like this yet. Please, forgive me.
Servant Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Well, since his body was breaking the bread, how did the bread become his body at the same time? To me and anyone with a common sense would choose symbolism.you believe that Jesus can feed thousands of people with only starting with a few fish and bread...you believe that Jesus walked on wateryou believe that Jesus cured the blind and sickyou believe that Jesus rose the dead back to life...but you cant believe that Jesus can do this?or do you believe that Jesus when cured the blind and sickness and the other miracles he performed was just a "symbolic"? With God....anything is possible...
selek Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 you believe that Jesus can feed thousands of people with only starting with a few fish and bread...you believe that Jesus walked on wateryou believe that Jesus cured the blind and sickyou believe that Jesus rose the dead back to life...but you cant believe that Jesus can do this?or do you believe that Jesus when cured the blind and sickness and the other miracles he performed was just a "symbolic"? With God....anything is possible...Still ducking my questions, Servant?
Servant Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Still ducking my questions, Servant?instead of assuming...and implying that i cant answer.....why dont you ask "did you see my question"...apparently I dont know what you are talking about...so what is the question?
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 you believe that Jesus can feed thousands of people with only starting with a few fish and bread...you believe that Jesus walked on wateryou believe that Jesus cured the blind and sickyou believe that Jesus rose the dead back to life...but you cant believe that Jesus can do this?or do you believe that Jesus when cured the blind and sickness and the other miracles he performed was just a "symbolic"? With God....anything is possible...God could also return as a toadstool, but it's not very likely....
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 God could also return as a toadstool, but it's not very likely....Now that would be a feat!
Servant Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 First and foremost, you're begging the question with that "successors to the Apostles" line.Most assuredly, that's what Catholics claim- but then so do others.Second, we don't deny that there's more to the Eucharist than meets the eye- we don't however, subsribe to the extrabiblical notion that it is necessarily and automagically the literal body and blood of Christ.Funny- that's precisely what your fellow Catholics are doing to us.This thread is about whether Mormons are Christians- it's your fellow travellers who have arbitrarily decided that we are not and then proceeded to derail the thread on a tangent.We do not deny you your claims of Christianity nor your right to worship according to your conscience.We have not come to a Catholic site and accused you. We did not invade your home and dictated your beliefs to you.You, however, do not reciprocate.Who then, is standing in self-appointed judgement of their brethren?but you had no problem in participating in the discussion, right? you had no problem in throwing out anti catholic remarks right? maybe you can bring the subject back in hows that? im game...i invite you to my stomping grounds...come come come...http://forums.catholic-convert.com/index.p...c97e63406e023aaGod could also return as a toadstool, but it's not very likely....you are comparing a toad stool to a sacrament? yeah that is a nice thing...i dont know about you and your belief in God, but I know that My God is not limited...
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 you are comparing a toad stool to a sacrament? yeah that is a nice thing...i dont know about you and your belief in God, but I know that My God is not limited...You said God could do anything. I was being facetious. But it almost sounds like you are implying that your god could come back as a toadstool "my god is not limited..." Note: I don't have much problem with understanding of the Real Presence. I have every problem with Transubstantiation.
Servant Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 You said God could do anything. I was being facetious. But it almost sounds like you are implying that your god could come back as a toadstool "my god is not limited..." Note: I don't have much problem with understanding of the Real Presence. I have every problem with Transubstantiation.really that is your only problem? so you had a problem when Jesus turned water into wine???same thingbtw...My "God" is with a captial "G" however you may have done that by an oops...sometimes when i type i get lazy and dont use capitals either...maybe that is what you did???
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 really that is your only problem? so you had a problem when Jesus turned water into wine???same thingRead Acts 15:28-29. " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." No, saying that we have Christ as present in the sacrament/eucharist is totally different from saying that we eat and drink that which is one of the few things the Bible absolutely condemns, both in the OT and the NT.really that is your only problem? so you had a problem when Jesus turned water into wine???same thingbtw...My "God" is with a captial "G" however you may have done that by an oops...sometimes when i type i get lazy and dont use capitals either...maybe that is what you did???Your co-religionists have been saying that I pray to a false god... I was just returning the favor.
Servant Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Read Acts 15:28-29. " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." No, saying that we have Christ as present in the sacrament/eucharist is totally different from saying that we eat and drink that which is one of the few things the Bible absolutely condemns, both in the OT and the NT.sorry...but this has nothing to do with the Eucharist...Jesus is not an idol...he is God..Your co-religionists have been saying that I pray to a false god... I was just returning the favor.oh so you did it on purpose..and i gave you the bennifit of the doubt...ok...well you are only insulting the Creator...the Almighty God.how are you returning the favor by directing it at me? that would be like if an LDS threw an anti catholic remark........and I paid the favor back by directing it to you...dont you think that is a little bit...........childish?
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 sorry...but this has nothing to do with the Eucharist...Jesus is not an idol...he is God..oh so you did it on purpose..and i gave you the bennifit of the doubt...ok...well you are only insulting the Creator...the Almighty God.how are you returning the favor by directing it at me? that would be like if an LDS threw an anti catholic remark........and I paid the favor back by directing it to you...dont you think that is a little bit...........childish?God hates the sin of partaking of blood. He condemns it throughout the scriptures. The idolators never thought that they were praying to stones, they always understood that there were "actual beings" who were actually gods that they were praying. Nonetheless, God hated their sin and they were damned. Same happens to those who believe that God wants them to drink his blood. God hates sin, and they are damned. I'm not insulting the true Creator, Almighty God, who is my heavenly Father and a personal being who knows me, just a false idol or conception which involves a nebulous substance. A person must repent of their dead works and false beliefs, have faith in Jesus Christ, being baptized by one having authority, receive the laying on of hands of the gift of the Holy Ghost by one having authority, endure to the end, or they'll be damned.
Ambrose Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Note: I don't have much problem with understanding of the Real Presence. I have every problem with Transubstantiation.Many of the disciples had problems with Transubstantiation (cf. John VI,66).
Notquitewetyet Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Many of the disciples had problems with Transubstantiation (cf. John VI,66).Partaking of blood is condemned throughout the Bible. Transubstantiation is a false, damning belief. See Acts 15:28-29.Goodbye.
selek Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Servant, I asked this before and you've ducked it for five posts now:Do you believe that Peter was actually transmuted into granite when Christ said, "This is the rock upon which my Church will be built"?If not, why not?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.