Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mmmmm.....Are they roasted on an open fire? With Jack Frost nippin' at your nose?Another old chestnut.
What all this meaningless tit-for-tat shows is that there is, after all, no absolute way of knowing if Jesus meant the words he spoke at the Last Supper literally or elsewise.
It does? Maybe the 'tit-for-tat' shows that we understand exactly what Jesus meant.[/size]
Six? How many sides does that fence have? And of course it would be very naive indeed to suppose that people always say what they mean, especially in matters 'Christian'.Except that we represent about six different views on that.
So the Vatican's hierarchs will be visiting the Plymouth Brethren for Breaking of Bread, instead of Mass?But on the other hand, if it means that we are not supposed to over-theologize every last thing, but just observe the Lord's Supper, you could be right.
No kidding.I think your sarcasm flew right over their heads dude![]()
I think discerning the truth is vital.What all this meaningless tit-for-tat shows is that there is, after all, no absolute way of knowing if Jesus meant the words he spoke at the Last Supper literally or elsewise.
So....does it matter awfully much to any of us that other Christians are on the opposite side of the fence with this matter? If so, why?
Which of course must be figurative flesh and blood.I think discerning the truth is vital.
If you believe the bible is the word of God, you must believe that Christians should have the correct interpretation of the following, among other verses:
John 6
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
You lost me.Not going to be visiting the brothers, then?
Why, because that is how you interpret it?Which of course must be figurative flesh and blood.
Logic. Plain common sense, that the world has passed by, in its fear of the truth.Why, because that is how you interpret it?
Based on what authority?
Paul agrees with me.Why should I believe you above Paul
Why are they not in the RC canon?St. Ignatius, St. Justyn Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.?
Like I said, your interpretation. Most Christians in the world interpret the bible differently than you do. What is your source of authority? You own understanding?Logic. Plain common sense, that the world has passed by, in its fear of the truth.
Paul agrees with me.
Why are they not in the RC canon?
Protestants say that people who are merely water baptised aren't Christians at all. In any case, argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument.Like I said, your interpretation. Most Christians in the world interpret the bible differently than you do.
Quite right, too.Paul said that if you partake of the eucharist without discerning(recognizing) the body that you bring condemnation on yourself.
Even more reason to wonder why these people are not in the RC canon.The early Church fathers are quoted throughout the catechism.
I have as much authority as Justin, or Ignatius, if he existed.You are still avoiding the question.
By what authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture?
Then prove that what you are staing has been taught by the Apostles, handed down through the generations...in writing through ECF's........then we can talk......until thenI have as much authority as Justin, or Ignatius, if he existed.
Why are these guys not in the RC canon?
Then prove that what you are staing has been taught by the Apostles, handed down through the generations...in writing through ECF's........then we can talk......until then![]()
You are trying to argue that the Early Christians had it wrong from the "get go".......if that is so.........then you are basically saying that Christ lied........and that the Gates of hell prevailed..................no thanks