[Didymus Much]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Moron.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Moron.

Apparently the software did not change your M-o-r-o-n to moron. This makes me suspicious about your credentials. I tried it again and it changed it for me.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

How about another one for redundancy?

No one attacking Catholicism here has given a reasonable explanation of John 6:51-54. They say they take the Bible literally, but they reject a literal interpretation of the cited passage.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

No one attacking Catholicism here has given a reasonable explanation of John 6:51-54. They say they take the Bible literally, but they reject a literal interpretation of the cited passage.

Dear sinner,

Your post I cited has embedded some grains of the actual Truth™. We "take the Bible" literally. This does not mean that every single verse would only contain its own literal message. Jesus used parables, as you might know. Obviously, you are not quite honest as you do not really seem to be interested in the false Catholic doctrines of the commemorative supper but only about catching us off guard. Instead of winning a debate, you should be mostly concerned about the state of your soul.

However, sometimes correct information can help a person find Jesus, so we can assess the bread and wine. We have mostly discussed these things before with the minor and mostly insignificant Catholic spin-off called the Lutherans, who share the same delusion of the bread and wine being real agents of cannibalism (that per se is not necessarily condemned in every single case; Jeremiah 19:9).

Matthew 26:26 and John 6:51.54 are of course nice and beautiful verses, but your misunderstanding of the Bible as a whole regarding the last supper probably derives from the dismissal of some pivotal verses after Matthew 26:26. We must examine them!

Matthew 26:26-29
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

In your educated opinion, did Jesus lie? First He says that "This is my body" but in Matthew 26:29 He still claims that the substance remains"this fruit of the vine". Had He meant to allure people into cannibalism, He'd have maintained here that the wine had turned into His blood. As He did not, the first verse of the pericope must be taken as a parable. He did not maintain the blood debacle, and He cannot lie.

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Now, let us also consider what God had to say channeled by Paul! In 1 Corinthians we are informed about the practices of the first True Christians™.

1 Corinthians 11:25-16
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

"This cup is the new testament in my blood" [Not "my blood"]! "Ye eat this bread [still bread], and drink this cup [still wine]..." Only by ignoring parts of the Bible and concentrating on one verse that fits the preconceptions of those who have indoctrinated you can you reach the consensus of transubstantiation. As True Christians™, we never ignore the Bible.You should be assessing the most pivotal points of Catholic doctrine, such as Jesus being unnecessary to Salvation (as evidenced in your Catechism, where paragraph 841 states that theists, especially Muslims, who ignore Jesus are first and foremost among those destined to Heaven), and Faith in God™ also being unnecessary to Salvation (regarding atheists). Do you think that believing in the cannibalism is a prerequisite for Salvation if Jesus Himself isn't? Of course, this is also a test. Jesus Himself taught us that those who are not on the narrow path to Salvation will fail to understand Him.

Matthew 13:11-12
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Taking the Bible literally is different from picking up a verse and taking itliterally. If every single verse were examined individually, we would have to accept the claim that Jesus was actually a numb animal of the Created Ovine Kind.

John 1:36
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Your way of picking up points instead of actually examining your claims in an unbiased manner free from confirmation bias inevitably leads to interpreting the photo below as a man having a discourse with Jesus!




Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Matthew 26:26-29
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Catholic teaching, as I understand it, is that this is to be taken literally. As is John 6:51-54.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Matthew 26:26-29
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Catholic teaching, as I understand it, is that this is to be taken literally. As is John 6:51-54.

Think that underhanded tactic is going to fly in here, you sneaky asshole? Only quote the part of Elmer's citation of Matthew that agrees with you, and ignore the rest:

Matthew 26:29 "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."

Bolded is the bit where Jesus Himself says the stuff is still wine.

If that's Catholic teaching, then aren't they ignoring what Jesus said (which was Elmer's whole point, you thick duplicitous twat)?

...As is John 6:51-54.

Trying to make horse soup, or what?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

...your misunderstanding of the Bible as a whole regarding the last supper probably derives from the dismissal of some pivotal verses after Matthew 26:26. We must examine them!

Matthew 26:26-29
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Please see above the post and the verses that I posted. Now, please see below how these verses were manipulated by a Catholic proponent.

Matthew 26:26-29 [???]
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Catholic teaching, as I understand it, is that this is to be taken literally. As is John 6:51-54.

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

In fact, Mr. Tomdstone, your "argument" basically just repeats my post. As I stated, the Catholic church dismisses other parts of the Bible that would show us, how Jesus did not mean Matthew 26:26 to be taken at face value. In addition, you've omitted Matthew 26:29 from your quote but still show it on the Title of your Bible citation. Your citation is, in fact, Matthew 26:26-28.

Was this deliberate? Furthermore, you did not assess the actual issue at all, not the other issues that I raised. I do know that it is very hard to raise above your preconceptions but you could try a bit more, don't you think?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Think that underhanded tactic is going to fly in here, you sneaky asshole? Only quote the part of Elmer's citation of Matthew that agrees with you, and ignore the rest:

Matthew 26:29 "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."

Bolded is the bit where Jesus Himself says the stuff is still wine.

If that's Catholic teaching, then aren't they ignoring what Jesus said (which was Elmer's whole point, you thick duplicitous twat)?




Trying to make horse soup, or what?

The accidental appearance is wine, but the substance is not according to the Catholic teaching.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Please see above the post and the verses that I posted. Now, please see below how these verses were manipulated by a Catholic proponent.

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

In fact, Mr. Tomdstone, your "argument" basically just repeats my post. As I stated, the Catholic church dismisses other parts of the Bible that would show us, how Jesus did not mean Matthew 26:26 to be taken at face value. In addition, you've omitted Matthew 26:29 from your quote but still show it on the Title of your Bible citation. Your citation is, in fact, Matthew 26:26-28.

Was this deliberate? Furthermore, you did not assess the actual issue at all, not the other issues that I raised. I do know that it is very hard to raise above your preconceptions but you could try a bit more, don't you think?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

The Catholic teaching on transubstantiation or the similar Orthodox teaching on metousiosis explain this since the accidental form remains bread and wine, while the substance has changed. It is not wrong to refer to the accidents of the Sacrament.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

The Catholic teaching on transubstantiation or the similar Orthodox teaching on metousiosis explain this since the accidental form remains bread and wine, while the substance has changed. It is not wrong to refer to the accidents of the Sacrament.

The issue is that several passages of the Bible oppose your claim; not what the Greek Orthodox claim and not if they agree with you. A simple opinion that fails to assess the data you've been presented with is not argumentation, just a continuation of your habit of stating personal testimonials and opinions as facts, a continuation of confirmation bias by dismissing all data that oppose your claim. For instance, you've failed to explain why you presented the passage from Matthew 26 in a form where you deprived it from the verse that does not agree with you.

I've assessed this elsewhere, as you've been spreading these unsubstantiated sentences on other threads, too. Please, surprise us. Show us that you've not fallen to the trap described by Isaiah:

Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Make this conversation meaningful. If you continue ignoring the data that were presented to you, be not surprised if no-one will be interested in your unsupported claims any longer.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Make this conversation meaningful.

It can be meaningful to those who understand the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. For a start to begin to understand this teaching, you can read the wikipedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
After reading that, an interested person can read what the Catholic encyclopedia says:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

It can be meaningful to those who understand the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. For a start to begin to understand this teaching, you can read the wikipedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
After reading that, an interested person can read what the Catholic encyclopedia says:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

We are very well aware of what the Catholics claim. These claims have been opposed by us by using the Bible. You must now construct a useful argument of your own based on not only the sources that you like and cherish but also by assessing the data that do not support you. This will not be possible by referring to an online encyclopedia that has been written by unknown authorities.

You must go back to the basics (as indicated elsewhere for your personally), understand the difference between opinion and evidence. An article that tells how the Catholics believe does not mean that their beliefs are based on the True Word™ of God. You really do need an education about the basic concepts of hypothesis, proof, and falsification. Being a parrot is not wisdom. This is very sad.

Ecclesiastes 10:3
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Being a <font color="#008000"><b>parrot </b></font>is not wisdom. This is very sad.

Very true. That is what I was thinking also.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

We are very well aware of what the Catholics claim.

I am very well aware that the Poincare conjecture has been proven recently by a brilliant Russian mathematician. However, at this point in time, I do not understand the proof and further study is required for my understanding. Similarly, the fact that someone is very well aware of Catholic claims on Transubstantiation does not necessarily imply that he will understand the teaching. That is why I gave the two links above. Further study may be required for those who do not understand this teaching.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Dear Brethren and Sisters,

This is what we're dealing with. False Christians come and argue but never ever actually answer the questions that they find too difficult. This is no surprise, as God warned us that this would happen.

Nehemiah 9:16
But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments,

Thankfully, our fathers have chosen the correct path!. Let us revise some of the questions that Catholics never answer:

...your misunderstanding of the Bible as a whole regarding the last supper probably derives from the dismissal of some pivotal verses after Matthew 26:26. We must examine them!

Matthew 26:26-29
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

In your educated opinion, did Jesus lie? First He says that "This is my body" but in Matthew 26:29 He still claims that the substance remains"this fruit of the vine"...

In 1 Corinthians we are informed about the practices of the first True Christians™.

1 Corinthians 11:25-16
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

...You should be assessing the most pivotal points of Catholic doctrine, such as Jesus being unnecessary to Salvation (as evidenced in your Catechism, where paragraph 841 states that theists, especially Muslims, who ignore Jesus are first and foremost among those destined to Heaven), and Faith in God™ also being unnecessary to Salvation (regarding atheists). Do you think that believing in the cannibalism is a prerequisite for Salvation if Jesus Himself isn't?

No answer and even a vile atheist can ask the right questions, where the Catholics fail!

Matthew 26:29 "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."

Bolded is the bit where Jesus Himself says the stuff is still wine.

If that's Catholic teaching, then aren't they ignoring what Jesus said ***some profanities removed***?

No answer...

...you've omitted Matthew 26:29 from your quote but still show it on the Title of your Bible citation. Your citation is, in fact, Matthew 26:26-28.

Was this deliberate? Furthermore, you did not assess the actual issue at all, not the other issues that I raised. I do know that it is very hard to raise above your preconceptions but you could try a bit more, don't you think?

I then mentioned I the dismissal of our legitimate questions made us sad and weary. However, no answer was received, instead...

Very true. That is what I was thinking also.

I had high hopes that finally someone would actually assess the points that we raise. I am afraid that once again, the Catholic doctrine remains unsubstantiated and a tu quoque response is the best we can receive.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer