Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[ViaCrucis]

Now if you want to say it contains his presence, ok. But not one person literally believes they are eating human flesh and drinking blood.

I literally believe I am eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood. It's literally Jesus.

I'm not being cryptic here, I'm telling you what I believe. Jesus said the species of the Eucharist are His body and blood, I'm saying I believe that the species of the Eucharist are His body and blood.

At the Marburg Colloquy in Luther's disputes with Zwingli over the Eucharist, Luther wrote on the table with chalk, hoc est mea corpus, "This is My body", covered it with the tablecloth, making clear his refusal to budge even a tiny bit on this point.

So my question, why don't you believe what Jesus plainly tells you, it is His body, it is His blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Frank Robert]

No, that's a wafer. You realize that in the same place where he said "this is my blood" he said they were drinking the fruit of the vine?
And said that the cup was a covenant?
Now if you want to say it contains his presence, ok. But not one person literally believes they are eating human flesh and drinking blood.

It is interesting that you are questioning another Christian's religious belief. If you examine why you do so you might gain insight into why others question your religious beliefs.

 

[durangodawood]

....So my question, why don't you believe what Jesus plainly tells you, it is His body, it is His blood.

-CryptoLutheran

Especially when he says it "means what it says" and acts like youre an idiot if you disagree.

 

[renniks]

Sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating is also inspirational for making art, but no one would call that science. Boring bones (more likely fossils) are evidence that merely sitting in the woods and contemplating will never be able to replace.

Saying "puppies iz cute and flowers iz pretty" is not a rebuttal of hard science and is UNproductive at producing anything other than warm fuzzy feelings..

I never said it was a rebuttal. And it produces more than fuzzy feelings.

Evidence is easily misinterpreted.

 

[renniks]

That depends what it is you're trying to produce.

Exactly. If you are trying to produce evidence for a missing link, you will be sure to interpret whatever you find in accordance with that, to advance your career.

 

[renniks]

Even history requires evidence. Outside of a few Hebrew and Roman inscriptions and/or historical references purported to be about Jesus and his family and followers (and a whole bunch of fake stuff) there is very little of that in support of the NT and none in support of the OT.

Except for scads of archaeology discoverys...

 

[renniks]

So my question, why don't you believe what Jesus plainly tells you, it is His body, it is His blood.

Spiritually, sure, but not materially. Again he also said a cup was a covenant. He didn't bleed into the cup. He didn't cut off a finger and feed it to his disciples. He broke bread and they drank wine.

 

[renniks]

It is interesting that you are questioning another Christian's religious belief. If you examine why you do so you might gain insight into why others question your religious beliefs.

Why do you keep stating the obvious?

 

[Frank Robert]

Exactly. If you are trying to produce evidence for a missing link, you will be sure to interpret whatever you find in accordance with that, to advance your career.

"Missing link"
a non-scientific term for a transitional fossil. It is often used in popular science and in the media for any new transitional form. Wikipedia​

I would add that "mission link" is often misused by creationist apologists to discredit science they have a religious conflict with.

​

 

[Frank Robert]

Why do you keep stating the obvious?

Because your comments show you don't get it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly. If you are trying to produce evidence for a missing link, you will be sure to interpret whatever you find in accordance with that, to advance your career.

I can attest that the fossil succession is accurately portrayed by paleontologists. I dig up fossils regularly and while I am a geologist, it's more of a hobby than it is anything related to career advancement.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Spiritually, sure, but not materially. Again he also said a cup was a covenant. He didn't bleed into the cup. He didn't cut off a finger and feed it to his disciples. He broke bread and they drank wine.

No one is saying He cut off a finger or bled into the cup.

But He said the bread and cup were His body and blood.

That's what He says they are. In the 6th chapter of John when Jesus says the one who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life, many of His followers abandoned Him. It would have been very easy for Jesus to correct them if they misunderstood what He was saying. But they did not misunderstand Him, He wasn't being vague.

Jesus says to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He took bread and a cup of wine and said those were His flesh and blood, to take and eat, to take and drink, for the anamnesis--remembrance--of Him. That in the same way that the one who eats of the Passover lamb partakes in the sacrifice of the altar, so does the one that receives these elements of Christ's Table partake in His sacrifice. So that by this broken bread we receive Christ's true body; and that by this cup we receive Christ's true blood.

However I feel like I've made my point pretty solidly.

I believe that Jesus literally means what He says concerning His Supper. It's what Christians have always believed. But I don't believe in a literal talking serpent, or a literal six day creation.

Since I do not take the early chapters of Genesis literally then I am condemned as someone who doesn't believe God's word. But when I confess the Eucharist to be the true flesh and true blood of Jesus Christ, literally, plainly, I am told I am taking the Bible too literally.

Which, if I am to choose, should I take literally: A story involving talking snakes, a boat defying the rules of the physical universe, or perhaps God Incarnate Himself, with His own words saying plainly and without any cryptic meaning, this bread and wine is His flesh and blood, and that in these therefore is my very salvation.

All I really mean to say here is that those who yell loudest about taking the Bible literally, refuse to take it literally when it comes to what the Bible says about the Sacraments.

Talking snakes? Of course. But let us not dare believe that "mere water" can, when connected to God's Word in Baptism, actually wash us clean and grant us new birth by the power of God's grace (John 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, et al). Or that "mere bread and wine" can, by Christ's very Word, be His flesh and blood given for us, and that His flesh and blood are indeed true food and true drink.

God is all powerful to make the universe look older than it is, and to expect that we should believe in a 6,000 year old cosmos in spite of it having every appearance and evidence of being billions of years older than that; but God is then somehow totally impotent in fulfilling His promises attached to water, bread, and wine.

At which point, I think it only fair to ask: Who is the one who does not believe the word of God, the one who understands that ancient Hebrew poetry and prose may be intended to teach us theology, rather than a science lesson; or the one who denies the true flesh and true blood of Jesus Christ in His Holy Supper?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

But He said the bread and cup were His body and blood.

Is Jesus a literal door?

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is Jesus a literal door?

If you really want to debate the Christian and Biblical doctrine of the Real Presence, that should happen on one of the theology boards. I'm not going to get into that here. I only raised this subject for the purpose of making a point. Actual meat and potato discussion on Sacramental Theology should be had in the appropriate places of CF.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MIDutch]

I never said it was a rebuttal.

Good, because it definitely wasn't.

And it produces more than fuzzy feelings.

I did mention art. And I suppose you could throw in poetry and literature.

Evidence is easily misinterpreted.

As are art, poetry and literature.

On the flip side, art, poetry and literature aren't going to produce any amazing scientific breathroughs, brilliant feats of engineering, or astonishing new medical treatments.

And creationism most certainly never has, despite over 150 years worth of promotion by creationists.

 

[MIDutch]

Except for scads of archaeology discoverys...

The Middle East has been intensly studied, researched, explored for literally decades (going on centuries). There has never been any evidence found for the Garden of Eden, Noah's ark, the Tower of Babel, Moses, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews lost in the wilderness for 40 years, etc..

Why is that, exactly?

 

[renniks]

"Missing link"
a non-scientific term for a transitional fossil. It is often used in popular science and in the media for any new transitional form. Wikipedia​

I would add that "mission link" is often misused by creationist apologists to discredit science they have a religious conflict with.

​

Mission link?

 

[renniks]

Because your comments show you don't get it.

Get what? I get that people believe what they believe. What's to get?

 

[renniks]

can attest that the fossil succession is accurately portrayed by paleontologists.

What does that mean? How would you know if it wasn't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not wrong.
Evolution theory is full of holes.
The more I look into the actual finds that are used to support it, the more absurd it becomes

But bones are kinda boring compared to sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating what kind of God created all this. That's more productive.

At best there only appear to be holes in your understanding. You do not seem to provide one single "hole" here. In fact when people demand that you support your claims, which you are supposed to be able to do in an internet debate, you won't provide evidence. The rule in internet debates is "Links or it did not happen".

You lack the education to properly understand the evidence and refuse to learn even the basics of science. That makes your personal opinion worthless. The only way that you can maintain your beliefs is to purposefully avoid learning what those basics. And you appear to know this.