Questions for Flat Earthers

[Bungle_Bear]

They ate the bread and drank the wine. <snip> Any Jesus believing person would verify that. Once properly examined, it is common sense to a person.

Several million Catholics would disagree with you.

 

[morse86]

Did Jesus have real flesh?
Did Jesus break real bread?

If you want to promote seemingly Docetic and/or Gnostic ideas, go right ahead.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, Jesus did have real flesh and break real bread.

His body represents something that is pure that was broken for us.

He broke his body meaning the lamb that knew no sin, took upon himself the world's sins.

2 Corinthians 5:21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus spilled his blood for us.

Matthew 26:28:
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did the apostles eat Jesus body and drink his blood literally OR did they eat the bread and drink the wine?

My position? The answer is yes.

They ate the bread and drank the wine. The meaning of the verse is salvation is by grace through faith. You can either trust in your righteousness or Jesus righteousness. You can provide yourself the bread or eat the bread God has provided. Your righteousness or Jesus righteousness, which one are you going to use to stand in front of God? Jesus did the entire works (it's impossible for man) and took upon himself the world's sins.

You seem to be dodging what I was saying at this point. I'm not asking how is one saved. I'm asking why we shouldn't take Jesus literally when He takes some bread and says "This is Me" and tells His followers to eat and drink bread and wine and that they are, in fact, His body and blood.

However, that we should take literally a story about, say, talking snakes and danger-apples.

That is what the verse means. Any Jesus believing person would verify that. Once properly examined, it is common sense to a person.

So any Christian who really believes Jesus and using common sense would come to the conclusion that when Jesus took bread and called it His flesh, and took wine and called it His blood, and gave as His instruction to take, and eat, and take and drink and for which Christians continued to gather together to break bread and share of the cup of wine for the sharing, participation, communion, koinonia of the body and blood of Jesus--it means some sort of other tangent?

When God created the earth, he did it literally. Stop trying to play semantic games.

Right. I mean when Jesus says "this is my body" He doesn't mean bread and body or take and eat, He means something else entirely unrelated to those things. But when the text mentions days before the existence of the sun and other celestial bodies, and when it mentions talking snakes, trees that have the ability to bear fruit which can either give life or bring knowledge of good and evil, that's definitely literal. Because....obviously. That's why.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

Several million Catholics would disagree with you.

The bible talks about independent churches....not universal churches. The apostles wrote to independent churches....not universal churches.

The head of every church should be Christ. Not man or any denomination.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Several million Catholics would disagree with you.

And Lutherans, and Anglicans, and Orthodox. The majority of Christians would disagree with it because it is out of line with 2,000 years of consistent Christian teaching and belief. To give a sense of how out of sync it is with normative Christian belief and thought, Martin Luther referring to Zwingli and his followers as "fanatics", having said, "I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics." The same Pope Luther also called "Antichrist" and depicted as a man's rear end playing a trumpet in a cartoon he drew. Just in case there was any doubt about just how seriously this matter was taken.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Anyway, I think I've gotten this discussion off topic--not my intent and my apologies.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

And Lutherans, and Anglicans, and Orthodox. The majority of Christians would disagree with it because it is out of line with 2,000 years of consistent Christian teaching and belief. To give a sense of how out of sync it is with normative Christian belief and thought, Martin Luther referring to Zwingli and his followers as "fanatics", having said, "I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics." The same Pope Luther also called "Antichrist" and depicted as a man's rear end playing a trumpet in a cartoon he drew. Just in case there was any doubt about just how seriously this matter was taken.

-CryptoLutheran

Matthews 23:9:
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Everyone has a physical father and a spiritual father. Is your spiritual father God the father?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthews 23:9:
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Everyone has a physical father and a spiritual father. Is your spiritual father God the father?

My only response to this will be:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

My only response to this will be:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen".

-CryptoLutheran

God wants us to speak in easy to understand "commoners" language when talking about things of God.

1 Corinthians 14:9:
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air

Is Latin a language spoken by the common man today? No, it was always reserved for the "aristocrats" throughout history.

When you give the gospel to a unsaved person, you don't speak latin. When you goto church, the pastor isn't suppose to teach you the things of God in latin.


If you're not speaking to the crowd in their language, you're speaking to the air.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God wants us to speak in easy to understand "commoners" language when talking about things of God.

1 Corinthians 14:9:
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air

Is Latin a language spoken by the common man today? No, it was always reserved for the "aristocrats" throughout history.

When you give the gospel to a unsaved person, you don't speak latin. When you goto church, the pastor isn't suppose to teach you the things of God in latin.


If you're not speaking to the crowd in their language, you're speaking to the air.

What does this have to do with anything?

Though I think it's somewhat fascinating that you think Jacobean English is the common man's language today, while being ignorant of the fact that Latin was, in fact, an actual spoken language; all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar (Common) Latin.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There's no reason to think he was talking about a flat earth.

Talking concerning the south pole,
wouldn't it be "flat ice" ?
.
.

 

[rturner76]

This has already been done. Why don't you spend some time doing research?!?

Here is a simple video:

Do you see the distance and hotspot?

There are countless other evidence for the flat earth.

What do you think you are seeing in this video? The weather balloon goes into the upper atmosphere and pops. A few times as the camera falls to Earth you can see the Sun far off in the distance. It's the thing you seem to think is a "hot spot" whatever that is. Actually, what is a "hot spot?"

Also, I beg to differ that there is "countless other evidence for the flat Earth." In reality there is none. Weather balloons can rise to an altitude of 24 miles (39 kilometers) or more before they burst. Outer space doesn't technically begin until you get 62 miles (100 km) above Earth's surface, the views are still great from 24 miles up. At that altitude, the sky is black and the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible, I believe your "evidence" is likely a weather balloon that didn't reach a high enough altitude to see the curvature of the Earth. I'll look for more examples to show you.

 

[morse86]

What does this have to do with anything?

Though I think it's somewhat fascinating that you think Jacobean English is the common man's language today, while being ignorant of the fact that Latin was, in fact, an actual spoken language; all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar (Common) Latin.

-CryptoLutheran

This is rubbish fake history. The common language of the day was greek not latin. You might want to study geography. All the ancient countries spoke greek. The scholars spoke latin.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe your "evidence" is likely a weather balloon that didn't reach a high enough altitude to see the curvature of the Earth. I'll look for more examples to show you.

When you do provide some videos, expect "fish eye lens" responses.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is rubbish fake history. The common language of the day was greek not latin. You might want to study geography. All the ancient countries spoke greek. The scholars spoke latin.

In the 1st century Koine was the langua franca of the Roman Empire. But Latin was still spoken in the western part of the Roman Empire even then. Just as Aramaic was spoken in Judea and Galilee, and Coptic was spoken in Egypt. People didn't just forget how to speak Latin after the conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean.

But, for real, are you trying to say that it is "fake history" that French, Catalan, Italian, Occitan, Castillian, Portuguese, Lombard, Romanian are related to Vulgar Latin? Really?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

What do you think you are seeing in this video? The weather balloon goes into the upper atmosphere and pops. A few times as the camera falls to Earth you can see the Sun far off in the distance. It's the thing you seem to think is a "hot spot" whatever that is. Actually, what is a "hot spot?"

Also, I beg to differ that there is "countless other evidence for the flat Earth." In reality there is none. Weather balloons can rise to an altitude of 24 miles (39 kilometers) or more before they burst. Outer space doesn't technically begin until you get 62 miles (100 km) above Earth's surface, the views are still great from 24 miles up. At that altitude, the sky is black and the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible, I believe your "evidence" is likely a weather balloon that didn't reach a high enough altitude to see the curvature of the Earth. I'll look for more examples to show you.

Just some quick examples:
1) Decorated hero Richard Byrd who disapproves globe earth (either he is right or NASA/climate changers are right, in 1930s there were more scientists than $cientists). People would more likely trust a decorated national hero than a bunch of $$$ seeking public tax payer funded $cientists and paid actornauts.
2) The rocket travels at a rate of 9 football fields per second. Does it really look like that in the CGI videos? It always cutaway to some CGI animation when it picks up the speed.
3) Planes do not take into account curvature (This is confirmed by a leveler tool, an experiment anyone can do). NASA takes into account the curvature during rocket launches. You CANNOT have it both ways.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In the 1st century Koine was the langua franca of the Roman Empire. But Latin was still spoken in the western part of the Roman Empire even then. Just as Aramaic was spoken in Judea and Galilee, and Coptic was spoken in Egypt. People didn't just forget how to speak Latin after the conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean.

I saw EXODUS, and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS a few years ago.

They all spoke english most of the time.
.
.
.
.

 

[Jimmy D]

Flat earthers LOL

1) Decorated hero Richard Byrd who disapproves globe earth (either he is right or NASA/climate changers are right, in 1930s there were more scientists than $cientists). People would more likely trust a decorated national hero than a bunch of $$$ seeking public tax payer funded $cientists and paid actornauts.

Cartography over many centuries shows the Earth as a globe. Were the Dutch East India Company for example in the pay of this evil cabal? What about Magellan?

2) The rocket travels at a rate of 9 football fields per second. Does it really look like that in the CGI videos? It always cutaway to some CGI animation when it picks up the speed.

Couldn't 'they' CGI it to look like what you think it should look like?

3) Planes do not take into account curvature (This is confirmed by a leveler tool, an experiment anyone can do). NASA takes into account the curvature during rocket launches. You CANNOT have it both ways.

LOL Planes.

How long does it take to fly from Sydney to Buenos Aries?
How long does it take to fly from Sydney to Toronto?

How do those times compare to the distances on the globe us 'sheep' use and the flat earth map you free-thinkers use?

(I'll give you a clue - they correspond to what we would expect to see on a globe, there is no way you can deny it.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How long does it take to fly from Sydney to Buenos Aries?
How long does it take to fly from Sydney to Toronto?

Sydney to Santiago 12 hours 45 minutes
Sydney to London 22 hours 40 minutes with 1 stop

How does that work?

(I'll give you a clue - they correspond to what we would expect to see on a globe, there is no way you can deny it.)

Well blow me down, who would have thought?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Were the Dutch East India Company for example in the pay of this evil cabal? What about Magellan?

Without any relation to the topic or the thread,
just a footnote you might say,
yes. And yes.