Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar said:

Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,

Also, constructed a straw-man by arguing against a point, not made:

And one more thing: If Jesus' sacrifice took place at the Last Supper, why did he need to go to the Cross? Wouldn't his "sacrifice" at the meal have made his trip to the Cross redundant and superfluous -- pointless?

The only pointless thing is your logic. Follow along. You say it is symbolic, ignoring the declaration of fact by Jesus. Even if I agree with your logic Jesus caused the apostles to sin. Well if it is symbolic per your interpretation, then Jesus made the apostles sin symbolically. We know real sin can be symbolic in our hearts we can murder, without actually taking someone's life, and commit adultery though thought. So any way you examine the issue Jesus commanded the apostles to sin, even if we follow your logic trail.

Also, what you prove through your logic is that Thask, hcap, and all your critics are correct and you are wrong. The Bible verses can be interpreted in many ways and your doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is based in nominalism, is not true as we can't obtain absolute correct universal interpretations, since we can by faith have differing interpretations. Therefore, we need outside sources, such as Sacred or Holy tradition.


Another problem with your logic is arguing against your own theology. Jesus taught that he did not say his own words, but only the words he hears from the Father. Thus, it is actually the Eternal Father telling Jesus that the Eternal Father wants the apostles to sin.

However, according to your theology the greatest attribute of God is His sovereignty. According to the theology of the cross, God's will controls. God can will any act to be good for man, even committing adultery. For this reason Luther said if God told me to eat mud, he would eat mud because it is good for me. Thus, if God told man (apostles) to drink blood, then it is good for them and not a sin. However yours and Oakley's argument vitiate your theology about God's sovereignty and God's will.

I congratulate you on such a good effort in proving Sola Scriptura is not sufficient to understand our faith, that we need Sacred or Holy tradition too, and showing your disdain for your alleged theology.

I know you won't comprehend what I typed, but I am confident everyone else will.

[Show Me the Wire]

And boxcar don't tell me I am lying about what you said. I am describing the logical results of your logic. Ideas have consequences.

You could be the poster boy for Ockham's belief that man can't know spiritual truths by using reason.

[boxcar]

From Show Me's "divinely inspired" website:

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.

Catholics use this passage to try prove that Jesus was literally telling his listeners that they must literally eat His physical body. But what the Romanists conveniently overlook is that if this is the case, then Jesus was inviting the crowd to roast him alive over the fire and eat his physical body right on the spot. The rationale for this interpretation I explained previously in my post 1490.

One of the big problems are the verb tenses. Jesus did not invite the crowd to some future feast of his body and blood. The call was in the present tense. So, in order for a Romanist to be consistent, he would have to say that Jesus was literally inviting the crowd to kill him, roast him over the open fire and eat his physical body right on the spot! Right then and there! After all, the Last Supper was still a long ways down the road. Again, the verb tenses are in the present tense. It's no wonder the crowd balked at his teaching. After all, Jesus' words were spiritual in nature (Jn 6:63) and the unregenerate have no taste (bad pun intended) for truth -- for God's Word.

And Jesus let those with their spurious faith grumble and leave him -- he left them in the same condition in which he found them because the Father had not given most of them to Him. And this narrative proves what I have long said -- that God leaves most people in this world in the the condition of their sinfulness. And everyone is content to remain there.

Another problem was that Jesus was drawing the parallel between the literal, physical bread from heaven in the wilderness to spiritual bread which is Jesus himself, being the Bread of Life. Jesus makes this very clear in Jn 6:63 wherein he very clearly says that the flesh (including his own physical body) profits NOTHING.

So, Jesus with this parallel in John 6 was not comparing physical bread in the wilderness to his physical body -- but contrasting the physical in the wilderness to the spiritual reality in the hearers' presence. Jesus was saying that he was spiritual food not physical. He wasn't inviting the crowd to cannibalize him, as Romanists would have us believe. To "consume" Jesus in the spiritual sense is to believe, hang on to and live by his every word. Man does not live by [physical] bread alone, but by every WORD that proceeds from God's mouth. This is how believers are supposed to "consume" Christ.

And the proof of this maxim is this:Those who ate the physical manna in the wilderness died! Most of them never made it to the Land of Canaan. By contrast Jesus taught that those who "eat his body" shall never die -- spiritually.

Again, even here...if the Romanist is going to be a consistent literalist then he would have to interpret Jesus' words about never dying literally -- that is to say, people will never physically die if they literally eat Jesus physical body.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

And boxcar don't tell me I am lying about what you said. I am describing the logical results of your logic. Ideas have consequences.

You could be the poster boy for Ockham's belief that man can't know spiritual truths by using reason.

You should be the last one to talk about "logic". Anyone who believes that eternity has a timeline should keep their mouth shut about logic.

Man cannot know spiritual truth unless God reveals it to him. Remember Peter's confession of faith to Jesus -- and even more importantly, Jesus' reply to Peter? Peter did not "reason" his way to Christ.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar said:

Also, constructed a straw-man by arguing against a point, not made:

The only pointless thing is your logic. Follow along. You say it is symbolic, ignoring the declaration of fact by Jesus. Even if I agree with your logic Jesus caused the apostles to sin. Well if it is symbolic per your interpretation, then Jesus made the apostles sin symbolically. We know real sin can be symbolic in our hearts we can murder, without actually taking someone's life, and commit adultery though thought. So any way you examine the issue Jesus commanded the apostles to sin, even if we follow your logic trail.

There is no such thing as symbolic sin. A man literally hates someone and by that hate he is a murderer. An adulterer literally lusts in his heart after a beautiful woman and in so doing he committed adultery with her in his heart due to his literal thoughts.

The evil thoughts and desires and intentions from people's hearts are symbols. They are real evil thoughts, according to Jesus. And these thoughts, intents and desires are what defile a man, according to Jesus. The things that are literally in his heart. Nothing symbolic here.

There is no such thing as symbolic sin! Since you struck out right here, the rest of your post is just as much nonsense as your opening paragraph and not worthy to be addressed.

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh, yes there is you commit the sin in your heart intellectually, just as the apostles would by obeying Jesus to drink his blood. They had evil thoughts of drinking blood, just like the adulter through his thoughts.

You are entitled to your personal opinion, not your facts. You are not the arbitrator of what sin is or isn't.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You should be the last one to talk about "logic". Anyone who believes that eternity has a timeline should keep their mouth shut about logic.

another straw-man.

[Show Me the Wire]

In fact according to your logic, boxcar, the apostles had this evil thought when they failed to abandon Jesus, like the others did, after Jesus told them they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The culmination of their law breaking thought was symbolized through their action of drinking from the cup.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

From Show Me's "divinely inspired" website:



Catholics use this passage to try prove that Jesus was literally telling his listeners that they must literally eat His physical body. But what the Romanists conveniently overlook is that if this is the case, then Jesus was inviting the crowd to roast him alive over the fire and eat his physical body right on the spot. The rationale for this interpretation I explained previously in my post 1490.

One of the big problems are the verb tenses. Jesus did not invite the crowd to some future feast of his body and blood. The call was in the present tense. So, in order for a Romanist to be consistent, he would have to say that Jesus was literally inviting the crowd to kill him, roast him over the open fire and eat his physical body right on the spot! Right then and there! After all, the Last Supper was still a long ways down the road. Again, the verb tenses are in the present tense. It's no wonder the crowd balked at his teaching. After all, Jesus' words were spiritual in nature (Jn 6:63) and the unregenerate have no taste (bad pun intended) for truth -- for God's Word.

And Jesus let those with their spurious faith grumble and leave him -- he left them in the same condition in which he found them because the Father had not given most of them to Him. And this narrative proves what I have long said -- that God leaves most people in this world in the the condition of their sinfulness. And everyone is content to remain there.

Another problem was that Jesus was drawing the parallel between the literal, physical bread from heaven in the wilderness to spiritual bread which is Jesus himself, being the Bread of Life. Jesus makes this very clear in Jn 6:63 wherein he very clearly says that the flesh (including his own physical body) profits NOTHING.

So, Jesus with this parallel in John 6 was not comparing physical bread in the wilderness to his physical body -- but contrasting the physical in the wilderness to the spiritual reality in the hearers' presence. Jesus was saying that he was spiritual food not physical. He wasn't inviting the crowd to cannibalize him, as Romanists would have us believe. To "consume" Jesus in the spiritual sense is to believe, hang on to and live by his every word. Man does not live by [physical] bread alone, but by every WORD that proceeds from God's mouth. This is how believers are supposed to "consume" Christ.

And the proof of this maxim is this:Those who ate the physical manna in the wilderness died! Most of them never made it to the Land of Canaan. By contrast Jesus taught that those who "eat his body" shall never die -- spiritually.

Again, even here...if the Romanist is going to be a consistent literalist then he would have to interpret Jesus' words about never dying literally -- that is to say, people will never physically die if they literally eat Jesus physical body.

not just Catholics.

Your interpretations are based on your opinions. Once again you prove Sola Scriptura is deficient for universal understanding of Scripture and demonstrating the need for Sacred or Holy tradition.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You should be the last one to talk about "logic". Anyone who believes that eternity has a timeline should keep their mouth shut about logic.
:

This observation about timelines in eternity, from a person, whose theology believes in an event in eternity past.


You really can not see the forest from the trees.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

not just Catholics.

Your interpretations are based on your opinions. Once again you prove Sola Scriptura is deficient for universal understanding of Scripture and demonstrating the need for Sacred or Holy tradition.

And you prove your disdain for God and his Word. You are in essence calling God a liar. To you, God isn't wise enough or powerful enough to grant knowledge, understanding or wisdom to his people. God is just a impotent wimp in your religious world. No wonder at all that you called the gospel message "meaningless" even though God's people are born again by it.

Your authority for spiritual truth is anything but scripture. Look at the very opening paragraph from that "infallible, inspired" writer on that website link you provided:

Catholic teaching on Eucharist is certainly one of the toughest for non-Catholics to understand. Not surprisingly it is also one of the mostly attacked and caricatured. The following clauses of the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarize the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist (underlined emphasis is added):

At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharist sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal [Passover] banquet “in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1323 (emphasis mine).

This heretic knows the bible doesn't teach anything about a Eucharist or any sacrifice at the Last Supper. No mention of sacrifice at all to the disciples. So what is this guy' s final authority? See the bold part above.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

This observation about timelines in eternity, from a person, whose theology believes in an event in eternity past.


You really can not see the forest from the trees.

"Eternity past" is simply a metaphor for time-bound creatures to use, since no one can truly grasp eternity. Besides, I have often used "eternity" without any qualifier.

If you had removed the plank from your own eyes, you might have noticed that in any number of my posts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

In fact according to your logic, boxcar, the apostles had this evil thought when they failed to abandon Jesus, like the others did, after Jesus told them they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The culmination of their law breaking thought was symbolized through their action of drinking from the cup.

No one is perfect. Are you without sin? Also, the disciples often didn't understand Jesus' teachings? But this is why Jesus promised to send them the Helper to lead them into all truth -- The RCC -- oops, I mean the Holy Spirit.

And besides, they didn't abandon Jesus, did they?

There is no such thing as symbolic sin. Quote me chapter and verse.

Besides, if you really believe that then you cannot also believe that Jesus is sinless. After all, He caused them to stumble, according to your theory. So you're right back to square one.

Have read Hebrews 9 yet to figure out when the sacrifice actually took place?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Eternity past" is simply a metaphor for time-bound creatures to use, since no one can truly grasp eternity. Besides, I have often used "eternity" without any qualifier.

If you had removed the plank from your own eyes, you might have noticed that in any number of my posts.

A metaphor is a comparison. As Greyfox said telling someone they make a good door if they ate blocking your view. What is the comparison to for eternity past? Nothing it aint a metaphor.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A metaphor is a comparison. As Greyfox said telling someone they make a good door if they ate blocking your view. What is the comparison to for eternity past? Nothing it aint a metaphor.

There is also a broader definition: figurative language.

And in a sense it is a comparison because the human mind cannot grasp eternity. So, when someone says "eternity past" he's saying a very imaginably long ago". He's comparing eternity to a very long span of time.

Have a nice night.

At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1333

This again, from this guys' final authoritative source for truth, since scripture doesn't teach this. (If scripture did, he wouldn't be quoting a catechism.)

From the Book of ShowMe in the Heretic's Bible:

Man does not live by bread alone but by every word from extra-biblical sources. (SMTW 6:66)