Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question to all protestants

AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:23:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

I joke with Dogknox but I don't really deny what the Bible says. What I deny is that it's an important enough issue to cause division among the body of Christ. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I also believe that since all food is from God, as long as we recognize that fact, there is nothing in the doctrine of salvation that requires that particular tradition. Am I not really saved, according to the Bible, without it even though I give thanks to God for all food?? I would say that observing that tradition has nothing to do with salvation.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:25:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:23:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

I joke with His Holiness St. Dogknox but I don't really deny what the Bible says.

Fixed
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:31:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:25:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 2/28/2013 5:23:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

I joke with His Holiness St. Dogknox but I don't really deny what the Bible says.

Fixed

lol...My apologies.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:05:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:23:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I joke with Dogknox but I don't really deny what the Bible says. What I deny is that it's an important enough issue to cause division among the body of Christ.

Every issue is important. The body of Christ has been critically wounded by the efforts of the anti-Christs Michael Caerularius and Martin Luther in ages past, so it's pretty much pointless trying to avoid causing division at this point.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider an issue important enough to cause division?

'one Lord, one faith, one baptism'

I don't see anything wrong with it, but I also believe that since all food is from God, as long as we recognize that fact, there is nothing in the doctrine of salvation that requires that particular tradition.

'So Jesus said to them, "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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' - John 6:53-56

Am I not really saved, according to the Bible, without it even though I give thanks to God for all food?? I would say that observing that tradition has nothing to do with salvation.

I would say it is essential to observe everything.

'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."' - Matthew 28:19-20

'To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.' - 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:02:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

Real presence is not the same thing as transubstantiation. After all, there's also consubstantiation, which is also real presence. It's possible that I could be persuaded to believe in real presence of some sort, but I don't think transubstantiation is viable. I have thought about initiating a debate on that.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:07:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:02:31 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

Real presence is not the same thing as transubstantiation.

This was primarily directed at those who disbelieve in any sort of presence.

After all, there's also consubstantiation, which is also real presence.

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'This is my body, and also a loaf of bread'.

It's possible that I could be persuaded to believe in real presence of some sort, but I don't think transubstantiation is viable.

If I may ask, why not?

If I may not, I'm asking anyway because I'm a rebel like that.

I have thought about initiating a debate on that.

If I knew what I was talking about, I would debate you.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:05:31 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 5:23:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I joke with Dogknox but I don't really deny what the Bible says. What I deny is that it's an important enough issue to cause division among the body of Christ.

Every issue is important. The body of Christ has been critically wounded by the efforts of the anti-Christs Michael Caerularius and Martin Luther in ages past, so it's pretty much pointless trying to avoid causing division at this point.

So are you saying that Catholics are against any efforts to make peace, in an attempt to try and reunite that body into one group??

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider an issue important enough to cause division?

'one Lord, one faith, one baptism'

There are always going to be minor disagreements, but as long as we acknowledge that we're worshiping the same God, for the same reasons then why do we need to be divided??

I don't see anything wrong with it, but I also believe that since all food is from God, as long as we recognize that fact, there is nothing in the doctrine of salvation that requires that particular tradition.

'So Jesus said to them, "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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' - John 6:53-56

Am I not really saved, according to the Bible, without it even though I give thanks to God for all food?? I would say that observing that tradition has nothing to do with salvation.

I would say it is essential to observe everything.

Well, I guess maybe this answers the question that you asked in the above paragraph. I don't believe in a God who will condemn me for attempting to follow the Bible, and giving thanks to Him for every meal I eat, just because I didn't take communion.

'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."' - Matthew 28:19-20

'To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.' - 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

So do these verses tell you that I can't go to Heaven because I didn't take communion??
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:07:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:07:16 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:02:31 AM, philochristos wrote:
It's possible that I could be persuaded to believe in real presence of some sort, but I don't think transubstantiation is viable.

If I may ask, why not?

Mostly because I think it violates the law of identity, but also because I don't think it's the most reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

I have thought about initiating a debate on that.

If I knew what I was talking about, I would debate you.

If you want to debate me, I can recommend a couple of resources that might help prepare you.

"The Eucharist: Real Presence and Real Absence" by Alexander Pruss http://tinyurl.com...

"The Way In Which Christ is in this Sacrement" by Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:17:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:07:42 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:07:16 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:02:31 AM, philochristos wrote:
It's possible that I could be persuaded to believe in real presence of some sort, but I don't think transubstantiation is viable.

If I may ask, why not?

Mostly because I think it violates the law of identity, but also because I don't think it's the most reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

I have thought about initiating a debate on that.

If I knew what I was talking about, I would debate you.

If you want to debate me, I can recommend a couple of resources that might help prepare you.

Like AMTY, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

HOWEVER, though I'm sure you've already thought this over and are ready to violently debunk me, where does changing the essence of bread into the essence of body while it remains accidentally bread violate the law of identity? For instance, if we were saying that the wafer is essentially bread and essentially body simultaneously, I can understand, but the argument is that it changes essentially while remaining static accidentally.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:17:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:07:42 AM, philochristos wrote:
Mostly because I think it violates the law of identity,

How so?

but also because I don't think it's the most reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

I disagree, clearly.

If you want to debate me, I can recommend a couple of resources that might help prepare you.

"The Eucharist: Real Presence and Real Absence" by Alexander Pruss http://tinyurl.com...

"The Way In Which Christ is in this Sacrement" by Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org...

Nah, I'll get owned no matter what.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:39:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:17:31 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
HOWEVER, though I'm sure you've already thought this over and are ready to violently debunk me, where does changing the essence of bread into the essence of body while it remains accidentally bread violate the law of identity? For instance, if we were saying that the wafer is essentially bread and essentially body simultaneously, I can understand, but the argument is that it changes essentially while remaining static accidentally.

That's not really where I think the problem of identity lies, although I do think that's a problem as well. The problem of identity comes in identifying the host with Christ's actual flesh. I would go into detail right now, but that would destroy the element of surprise in case we ever have a formal debate on it. :-)

I will tell you, though, that if you're a good googler, you can find my arguments.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:42:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:17:58 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:07:42 AM, philochristos wrote:
Mostly because I think it violates the law of identity,

How so?

Two things cannot be the same thing, and it's impossible for the bread to be identical with Christ's flesh.

but also because I don't think it's the most reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

I disagree, clearly.

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we agreed. :-)

If you want to debate me, I can recommend a couple of resources that might help prepare you.

"The Eucharist: Real Presence and Real Absence" by Alexander Pruss http://tinyurl.com...

"The Way In Which Christ is in this Sacrement" by Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org...

Nah, I'll get owned no matter what.

You should still read those.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:45:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:39:01 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:17:31 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
HOWEVER, though I'm sure you've already thought this over and are ready to violently debunk me, where does changing the essence of bread into the essence of body while it remains accidentally bread violate the law of identity? For instance, if we were saying that the wafer is essentially bread and essentially body simultaneously, I can understand, but the argument is that it changes essentially while remaining static accidentally.

That's not really where I think the problem of identity lies, although I do think that's a problem as well. The problem of identity comes in identifying the host with Christ's actual flesh. I would go into detail right now, but that would destroy the element of surprise in case we ever have a formal debate on it. :-)

I will tell you, though, that if you're a good googler, you can find my arguments.

You're the heretic, I'm supposed to be debunking you, not the other way around. I'm not a good Googler anyway, so looks like I'm screwed. I can probably just get out of this embarrassing gap in my understanding of theology by telling you I'll debate you and never doing it, to spare whatever reputation I still have.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:48:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:42:41 AM, philochristos wrote:
Two things cannot be the same thing, and it's impossible for the bread to be identical with Christ's flesh.

Why? I'm not trying to be dense here, it comes naturally.

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we agreed. :-)

Why don't you think it's reasonable? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

You should still read those.

I hear and obey.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:42:41 AM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree, clearly.

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we agreed. :-)

A debate for the ages, and both people agreed.

http://debate.org...
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:52:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:45:09 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:39:01 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:17:31 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
HOWEVER, though I'm sure you've already thought this over and are ready to violently debunk me, where does changing the essence of bread into the essence of body while it remains accidentally bread violate the law of identity? For instance, if we were saying that the wafer is essentially bread and essentially body simultaneously, I can understand, but the argument is that it changes essentially while remaining static accidentally.

That's not really where I think the problem of identity lies, although I do think that's a problem as well. The problem of identity comes in identifying the host with Christ's actual flesh. I would go into detail right now, but that would destroy the element of surprise in case we ever have a formal debate on it. :-)

I will tell you, though, that if you're a good googler, you can find my arguments.

You're the heretic, I'm supposed to be debunking you, not the other way around. I'm not a good Googler anyway, so looks like I'm screwed. I can probably just get out of this embarrassing gap in my understanding of theology by telling you I'll debate you and never doing it, to spare whatever reputation I still have.

Ha! I have thought about blogging on this subject. I'm just a terrible procrastinator.

I think if I were Catholic, I would want to be pretty heavy on this subject. It's central to the whole Mass, which in turn is central to Catholicism. It's a pretty important doctrine.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:54:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:52:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:45:09 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:39:01 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:17:31 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
HOWEVER, though I'm sure you've already thought this over and are ready to violently debunk me, where does changing the essence of bread into the essence of body while it remains accidentally bread violate the law of identity? For instance, if we were saying that the wafer is essentially bread and essentially body simultaneously, I can understand, but the argument is that it changes essentially while remaining static accidentally.

That's not really where I think the problem of identity lies, although I do think that's a problem as well. The problem of identity comes in identifying the host with Christ's actual flesh. I would go into detail right now, but that would destroy the element of surprise in case we ever have a formal debate on it. :-)

I will tell you, though, that if you're a good googler, you can find my arguments.

You're the heretic, I'm supposed to be debunking you, not the other way around. I'm not a good Googler anyway, so looks like I'm screwed. I can probably just get out of this embarrassing gap in my understanding of theology by telling you I'll debate you and never doing it, to spare whatever reputation I still have.

Ha! I have thought about blogging on this subject. I'm just a terrible procrastinator.

I think if I were Catholic, I would want to be pretty heavy on this subject. It's central to the whole Mass, which in turn is central to Catholicism. It's a pretty important doctrine.

And here I am halfheartedly reading Not By Scripture Alone... you're actually right about the necessity to defend transubstantiation, as always...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:55:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:48:31 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:42:41 AM, philochristos wrote:
Two things cannot be the same thing, and it's impossible for the bread to be identical with Christ's flesh.

Why? I'm not trying to be dense here, it comes naturally.

I'm going to hold back going into detail in case somebody wants to debate me on it later. I mean if we talk about it here in the discussion forum, then a debate would be anti-climactic.

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we agreed. :-)

Why don't you think it's reasonable? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

What philochristos said.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:55:34 AM, philochristos wrote:
I'm going to hold back going into detail in case somebody wants to debate me on it later. I mean if we talk about it here in the discussion forum, then a debate would be anti-climactic.

K.

What philochristos said.

Yeah, that guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:00:07 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:55:34 AM, philochristos wrote:
What philochristos said.

Yeah, that guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Of course he could be bluffing.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:04:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:02:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:00:07 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:55:34 AM, philochristos wrote:
What philochristos said.

Yeah, that guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Of course he could be bluffing.

Naw, I trust him.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:26:35 AM, medic0506 wrote:
So are you saying that Catholics are against any efforts to make peace, in an attempt to try and reunite that body into one group??

No. I speak for myself, not Catholics everywhere.

I am against making concessions on points that are not to be conceded. There's no point in reuniting everyone if they're all reunited in heresy.

I'll re-ask this, because I'm wondering what issues you would deem unworthy of concession yourself, if any.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider an issue important enough to cause division?

There are always going to be minor disagreements, but as long as we acknowledge that we're worshiping the same God, for the same reasons then why do we need to be divided??

As St. Paul wrote, one faith. I don't consider this a minor disagreement, and no one ought to.

This a major disagreement. This and baptism are probably two of the most frequently dismissed topics of import.

'So Jesus said to them, "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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' - John 6:53-56

As Jesus himself said, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. You're dead. That doesn't seem to be a minor disagreement in any way.

After all, how could you enforce belief in Jesus or belief in the Bible as necessary without running into a problem of arbitrariness?

I would say it is essential to observe everything.

Well, I guess maybe this answers the question that you asked in the above paragraph. I don't believe in a God who will condemn me for attempting to follow the Bible, and giving thanks to Him for every meal I eat, just because I didn't take communion.

'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man...'

'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."' - Matthew 28:19-20

'To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.' - 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

So do these verses tell you that I can't go to Heaven because I didn't take communion??

I think you'll run into more trouble with John 6 and having eternal life, but the main point of these, particularly 2 Thessalonians, was to illustrate the importance of observing everything.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:57:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
philochristos & medic0506
you reject the bread is the Flesh of Jesus because it looks as bread..
I ask: If you could see the Priest hold up "real flesh" and proclaim this is the "Body of Jesus" would you then eat it?!

Don't you think if you were god would you also not make your flesh look and taste as bread or your blood look and taste as good wine!?

Jesus said he is the real MANNA.. Manna is BREAD!!!
The CHRISTIANS in the Church Jesus formed ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread!
Ignatius of Antioch is a CHRISTIAN
He said..
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

philochristos & medic0506 clearly you believe different in what Christians believe!

medic0506 Your words.. What I deny is that it's an important enough issue to cause division among the body of Christ.

I reply: Is it not FAITH in Jesus!, believing the words of Jesus? Denying the flesh of Jesus as lie from the mouth of Jesus is lacking ALL FAITH!
Jesus spent the whole chapter teaching, first> "Your work is to believe Him" then teaching the rest of the chapter> "His flesh is real food!"
You say... "Forgetaboutit" God did not mean the words he taught in the whole chapter! You say.. Cross Chapter 6 off as hot air coming from the mouth of Jesus!

medic0506 Fact is, You CONDEMN yourself. Don't you think your very condemnation an important enough issue!??? Rejecting the words of Jesus is REJECTING Jesus! There is no such thing as a 1/2 Christian!

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, "It is written: "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.""

The question I ask you is.. "Is Jesus God"?!
Jesus said.. From God' mouth: "My flesh is real food"!
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:14:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:54:01 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
'I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament.'

(http://debate.org...)

Mr.Infidel can see it. Why can't you?

Because I'm not a infidel!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:41:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
dogknox said:
MMMM... Human flesh!!

AGGHHGHG!! Cannibals!!
Seriously though.. the idea of needing to eat the flesh of jesus is creepy.

I was a Catholic too... an alter-boy in fact!...

And my view on the matter is that their literal interpretation of this (what seems to be a metaphor) is mostly b/c it makes the priest important...

For ONLY a priest can make the bread the flesh of jesus..
Therefore, if you want to go to heaven.. You've got to stay in good with the church.. Or they'll deny you their special cannabalistic feast, and in that way DAMN YOU TO HELL!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:42:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:41:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
an alter-boy in fact!...

Actually.. that's probably 'altar-boy' :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:45:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:41:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
And my view on the matter is that their literal interpretation of this (what seems to be a metaphor) is mostly b/c it makes the priest important...

also though, admittedly.. When the whole having a special book thing's ridiculous in the first place, being a literalist about such passages isn't, relatively, that much more crazy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:41:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
dogknox said:
MMMM... Human flesh!!

AGGHHGHG!! Cannibals!!
Seriously though.. the idea of needing to eat the flesh of jesus is creepy.

I was a Catholic too... an alter-boy in fact!...

And my view on the matter is that their literal interpretation of this (what seems to be a metaphor) is mostly b/c it makes the priest important...

For ONLY a priest can make the bread the flesh of jesus..
Therefore, if you want to go to heaven.. You've got to stay in good with the church.. Or they'll deny you their special cannabalistic feast, and in that way DAMN YOU TO HELL!

The Eucharist is either a sophisticated but still unholy evolution from exotic pagan rituals or a cunning and manipulative practice invented by the Church to maintain its authority over the ignorant masses.

It just can't be what the Church says it is, huh?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:28:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
AMTY and Pope Dogknox...Look at Matthew 4:4.

It says man shall not live by bread alone. So is it more important that I fill up with wafers from the preist, or should I fill myself with the word of God??