Communion

Ah now I remember my argument. If you were to get Jesus's body and blood really, it would mean he would have to die all over again. No it was complete and finished. It is impossible for him to bleed again as he is in heaven and the offering complete and final. Mass is like trying to offer Jesus again. And other thing is that Jesus always talked about drink or eating of him as in spiritual nourishment not physical. Jesus came to save our souls.
Image
Metal15 wrote:
The Foolish One wrote: Christ may be in the form of bread and wine, but it is Christ.

Aaaand you're eating him.


I thought you guys might be amused to see a quote from the ToO chat regarding Metal's statement.

***Cashier_Doll eats Santa.
Pretzel: "Santa, bye-bye."
Christian: Aaaaand, you're eating Him.
Christian: ^Love that line.
Dan_in_Trank_Tank: o_0
Cashier_Doll: xD
Cashier_Doll: Wow...
***Cashier_Doll chokes on her chocolate santa.
Cashier_Doll: Ohmyword....xD

(I'm Cashier_Doll, BTW)

And yes..after that, I couldn't stop laughing for at least 5 minutes.

~We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress~
Aaaand yes, we are eating him. Alive at that. But that doesn't mean we're... Say, Metal, that's a delicious outfit. In fact, you look just scrumptious today. Would you care to come to dinner?
Ahem. Moving on, those verses forbid eating flesh. They do not forbid eating bread which has the essence of flesh.
It's all very well to say Jesus used metaphors for himself. You will note that they are just that: metaphors. Is referring to one's self using a metaphor for one's self? Jesus simply came out and said "... this is my body." Where is the metaphor?
Besides, most (not a few) of Jesus' disciples left when he proclaimed that teaching. So then of course, Jesus said, "Wait, people. Metaphor, metaphor! I didn't literally mean this stuff is my body." Oh wait. He didn't say that. Instead, he turned to his apostles and said, "Will you also leave me?" How. Incredibly. Powerful. Jesus' apostles are hand picked by him. They've been with him through thick and thin, following an unknown carpenter. And yet, here Jesus is, asking them "Will you also leave me?" In other words: "This is key, guys. I know this is a tough teaching, but accept it or we go our separate ways."
Frankly, I fail to see a connection between Jesus' words being spirit and life and the Eucharist being phony.
Jesus and Paul called the Eucharist "fruit of the vine" and Paul referred to it as "bread" because that's what it is. If you bite into a consecrated host, I guarantee you will not bite down on an artery. From all physical perception of our senses, it's bread. As I said before, its essence is Jesus' body, its substance is bread.
Yes, the bread of the last supper was Jesus' sacrificial body. So? Unless God's miracles are limited by time and space, we'll move on.
Your last point is perhaps your best. Don't get me wrong, it has more holes than swish cheese, but it's your best. That's such a lovely compliment, why aren't you thanking me?
Your premise is basically that because Jesus was fully human and fully divine, and the very definition of being human is to be limited to time and space, Jesus' sacrificial body couldn't be in numerous places.
However, in the Bible, we see substances being multiplied. For a famous example, take the loaves. So the principal of bilocation is Biblical. So the principal exists. Catholicism supposes that this same principal could be applied to human bodies as well as inanimate objects.
Secondly, after the resurrection, we see Jesus performing an act similar to bilocation. He is present with his apostles, then vanishes. He even departs from them later on by rising into the air. Clearly, Jesus' body is no longer subject to physics. By extension then, he could be in two places at once.
And if you don't believe that Jesus' body could be all over the place throughout time, aren't you putting a limit on God's/Jesus' power? Couldn't Jesus' single incarnation be in various places at various times eaten over and over if Jesus wanted it to be? Isn't that to limit the power of God Himself?
Finally, even Saints can bilocate. Padre Pio, for example. Their one, single body, is in more than one place. Is Jesus less holy than they? If you ever meet Jesus, I don't suggest saying that to him. He might go Temple.
So, obviously, in Biblical context, and since the Saints can do essentially the same thing, we can conclude the Eucharist in no way blasphemes the one, single, true incarnation which is in every single Catholic mass. (No quotation marks around the word mass are grammatically necessary.)

[quoteSpecial grace?? O_o What special grace? ][/quote]
The grace that has inspired, motivated and transformed St. Francis, St. Therese, Tolkien, Mother Theresa... shall I go on, or do you need me to continue naming virtually every historically significant Christian in history?
Wuuuut??? When did that happen? O_O

Tobit, Chapter 5. Really, Metal, we Catholics are the ones who are supposed to forget what's in the Bible.
@ Blitz
All I can say to you is basically what I said to Metal above. (I'll highlight it) miracles, by definition, are something that is impossible physically speaking. So through supernatural miracles, Jesus can be in more than one place and consumed repeatedly.
@ Blondie
that is very amusing. Eating Santa. Lovely. I bet Santa would be good with barbeque sauce. However, though Christian may, "love that line" that line frankly is rather meaningless. It's merely a weirded out reaction, and the Bible is mostly weirdness from beginning to end. There is very little in it that we would consider usual or normal.
Aaaand yes, we are eating him. Alive at that. But that doesn't mean we're... Say, Metal, that's a delicious outfit. In fact, you look just scrumptious today. Would you care to come to dinner?
Ahem. Moving on, those verses forbid eating flesh. They do not forbid eating bread which has the essence of flesh.


Christ never said that the piece of bread he had in his hand had the essence of his flesh in it.

It's all very well to say Jesus used metaphors for himself. You will note that they are just that: metaphors. Is referring to one's self using a metaphor for one's self? Jesus simply came out and said "... this is my body." Where is the metaphor?


When I play board games with family or friends, I take a figurine that will represent me and tell everyone "This is me" and place it on the board. Now...Is that me? No. Metaphor.

Besides, most (not a few) of Jesus' disciples left when he proclaimed that teaching. So then of course, Jesus said, "Wait, people. Metaphor, metaphor! I didn't literally mean this stuff is my body." Oh wait. He didn't say that. Instead, he turned to his apostles and said, "Will you also leave me?" How. Incredibly. Powerful. Jesus' apostles are hand picked by him. They've been with him through thick and thin, following an unknown carpenter. And yet, here Jesus is, asking them "Will you also leave me?" In other words: "This is key, guys. I know this is a tough teaching, but accept it or we go our separate ways."


It took a while for me to figure out whether you were joking in this paragraph or not. XD
Jesus wasn't like: "Yeah, this is tough teaching, guys, you'll have to eat me a lot, but will you follow me anyway?" No... The disciples would behold Christ's death(but then his resurrection), and be persecuted like crazy until they all died. THAT was what was tough about following Christ. Not...Eating him.

Jesus and Paul called the Eucharist "fruit of the vine" and Paul referred to it as "bread" because that's what it is. If you bite into a consecrated host, I guarantee you will not bite down on an artery. From all physical perception of our senses, it's bread. As I said before, its essence is Jesus' body, its substance is bread.


There's nothing to back this "essence" up.

Yes, the bread of the last supper was Jesus' sacrificial body. So? Unless God's miracles are limited by time and space, we'll move on.


God's miracles are not, however Jesus's body is. Human bodies are limited by time and space(which happens to be the way GOD created them...).

Your premise is basically that because Jesus was fully human and fully divine, and the very definition of being human is to be limited to time and space, Jesus' sacrificial body couldn't be in numerous places.
However, in the Bible, we see substances being multiplied. For a famous example, take the loaves. So the principal of bilocation is Biblical. So the principal exists. Catholicism supposes that this same principal could be applied to human bodies as well as inanimate objects.


I'm sorry, but it took a while to think of a serious straight-faced reply to this. That indeed was a miracle, but no where in the bible is there ever indicated/implied that Jesus multiplied human bodies ever. Or multiplied himself even, to feed a bunch of hungry Catholics. o_O

Secondly, after the resurrection, we see Jesus performing an act similar to bilocation. He is present with his apostles, then vanishes. He even departs from them later on by rising into the air. Clearly, Jesus' body is no longer subject to physics. By extension then, he could be in two places at once.


That's not similar to bilocation at all. Multiplying and vanishing? Just sounds like miraculous stuff. And again, there's no where in the bible where it was implied that Jesus was ever in two places at once.

And if you don't believe that Jesus' body could be all over the place throughout time, aren't you putting a limit on God's/Jesus' power? Couldn't Jesus' single incarnation be in various places at various times eaten over and over if Jesus wanted it to be? Isn't that to limit the power of God Himself?


No. I don't think you fully understand what God's sacrifice was. God sent his only Son Jesus to become a man. Men are frail weak beings. Jesus got tired, Jesus got hungry, Jesus got thirsty, Jesus got sore, he hurt, he bled, and he wept. He was fully man. But fully God. God has complete sovereignty, no doubt about that. But Jesus created man. And then he humbled himself by becoming a man. The metaphorical lamb.

Finally, even Saints can bilocate. Padre Pio, for example. Their one, single body, is in more than one place. Is Jesus less holy than they? If you ever meet Jesus, I don't suggest saying that to him. He might go Temple.


What is this...? What evidence can you give me of this guy(Who I've never heard of until now) being in more than one place at once? O_o

So, obviously, in Biblical context, and since the Saints can do essentially the same thing, we can conclude the Eucharist in no way blasphemes the one, single, true incarnation which is in every single Catholic mass.


That was NOT within biblical context, since it wasn't biblical.

The grace that has inspired, motivated and transformed St. Francis, St. Therese, Tolkien, Mother Theresa...


...Doesn't ring a bell.

Tobit, Chapter 5. Really, Metal, we Catholics are the ones who are supposed to forget what's in the Bible.


There's no "Tobit" in the bible, so you're still the ones...XD

that is very amusing. Eating Santa. Lovely. I bet Santa would be good with barbeque sauce. However, though Christian may, "love that line" that line frankly is rather meaningless. It's merely a weirded out reaction,


Now now, PF, be a good sport, that WAS kinda humorous...XD :D
Metal15 wrote:Christ never said that the piece of bread he had in his hand had the essence of his flesh in it.

True, and that is also true of the trinity, Mary's assumption, the evilness of abortion...
Metal15 wrote:When I play board games with family or friends, I take a figurine that will represent me and tell everyone "This is me" and place it on the board. Now...Is that me? No. Metaphor.

And when did Jesus ever use that form of metaphorical speaking? Not when he referred to himself, for example, as vine. The vine was to illustrate Ia point. The did not use the bread and wine to illustrate anything
Metal15 wrote:Christ never said that the piece of bread he had in his hand had the essence of his flesh in it.

And we are back at, does everything we need to believe have to be explicitly in the Bible? If so, then the trinity is false, perhaps abortion is permissible
Metal15 wrote:No... The disciples would behold Christ's death(but then his resurrection), and be persecuted like crazy until they all died. THAT was what was tough about following Christ. Not...Eating him.

Again, you try to have your cake and eat it. (There's quite a theme of eating disorders going. It's enough to eat at you.) You switch back and forth between two incompatible premises. One, the Protestant premise, "everything needs to be explicitly in the Bible." Two, the more Catholic one, "things do not necessarily need to be explicitly outlined in the Bible. Jesus did not say in that verse that he would be crucified. And yet, you claim that is what he was speaking of. So here, you are saying that we can draw a conclusion that is in no way explicitly said in it.
Further, you do not answer to the fact that many of Jesus' disciples left because of this "metaphor." Must've been a pretty heavy metaphor. Yet Jesus simply let them go, he never told them it was a metaphor. If it was a metaphor, why did they leave?
Metal15 wrote:That's not similar to bilocation at all. Multiplying and vanishing? Just sounds like miraculous stuff. And again, there's no where in the bible where it was implied that Jesus was ever in two places at once.

Bilocation is not explicitly there, no. (And now you have gone back to the Protestant way of thinking.) What was established there is that there were miracles involving Jesus' body. That his body was no longer subject to physics. Do you agree?
Then why do you not agree Jesus' body could bilocate?
What is the logical difference?
Metal15 wrote:There's nothing to back this "essence" up.

And there is also nothing to back up that there is not an essence either. If everything has to be Biblical, then how can you say that? See, if you assume literally everything has to be in the Bible, it just doesn't work.
Metal15 wrote:God's miracles are not, however Jesus's body is. Human bodies are limited by time and space(which happens to be the way GOD created them...).

And now you are back to the Catholic way of thinking. It is no where explicitly in the Bible that Jesus was limited by time and space. (If he was limited by space, incidentally, how did he vanish? That's a contradiction in terms.) You look at the Bible and draw the conclusion that Jesus is limited to time and space.
Metal15 wrote:What is this...? What evidence can you give me of this guy(Who I've never heard of until now) being in more than one place at once? O_o

What evidence? They're saints, for crying out loud. The documentation is perfectly authentic. Frankly, I get the impression you don't read much about many saints.
True, and that is also true of the trinity, Mary's assumption, the evilness of abortion...


I think eating Christ's sacrificial body is a bigger deal than worrying about the trinity or Mary's thing. Abortion's easy to figure out, 'cause it's murdering babies.

And when did Jesus ever use that form of metaphorical speaking? Not when he referred to himself, for example, as vine. The vine was to illustrate Ia point. The did not use the bread and wine to illustrate anything


At the last supper...The bread and wine was used as a metaphor just like the vine. He's not literally a vine, and we aren't literally branches. Right? Right?

And we are back at, does everything we need to believe have to be explicitly in the Bible? If so, then the trinity is false, perhaps abortion is permissible


I never said everything we believe has to be explicitly in the Bible. The trinity actually makes sense, meanwhile eating Christ's sacrificial body doesn't. And abortion, again, is murdering babies, so that's easy.

Again, you try to have your cake and eat it. (There's quite a theme of eating disorders going. It's enough to eat at you.) You switch back and forth between two incompatible premises. One, the Protestant premise, "everything needs to be explicitly in the Bible." Two, the more Catholic one, "things do not necessarily need to be explicitly outlined in the Bible. Jesus did not say in that verse that he would be crucified. And yet, you claim that is what he was speaking of. So here, you are saying that we can draw a conclusion that is in no way explicitly said in it.
Further, you do not answer to the fact that many of Jesus' disciples left because of this "metaphor." Must've been a pretty heavy metaphor. Yet Jesus simply let them go, he never told them it was a metaphor. If it was a metaphor, why did they leave?


I never said everything needs to be explicitly in the Bible, and I never said things do NOT need to be explicitly in the bible, you're putting words in my mouth(Or rather, "Text in my fingers"? XD). The disciples knew beforehand that he would be crucified, and that they would be persecuted, that had already been established. And this "flesh" that Jesus speaks of is(I believe) is referencing that "The word became flesh" verse. If they don't accept his teaching(his flesh) then things aren't gonna work for them.
If I was told that I would be persecuted for doing something then I would have doubts. Apparently those disciples weren't willing to follow him because of that.

Then why do you not agree Jesus' body could bilocate?


Why should we assume that Jesus would be in multiple places at once? Why don't we just assume that Jesus had a big ol' fleet of X-wing fighters flying around the earth? Why don't we just assume that Jesus was secretly a ninja? Why don't we just assume that Jesus's 4th best friend was a Sasquatch? Why don't we just assume that Jesus liked making papyrus airplanes? If Jesus ever had a random bilocation spree, all kinds of questions should be raised, like: "What would Jesus say to Jesus if they both met each other?" "If two Jesuss got into an argument, which one would be right?" XD <--Not meant to be taken fully seriously.

What is the logical difference?


Between vanishing and bilocation? I'll tell ya. Vanishing would mean disappearing completely, and in mathematical terms, "become zero". Bilocation is being in at least 2 different places simultaneously.

And there is also nothing to back up that there is not an essence either.


Again, why don't we just assume Jesus was also secretly a ninja? That makes just as much sense as lots of Jesuss running around. And neither are biblical.

If everything has to be Biblical, then how can you say that?


Say what? "There's nothing to back this "essence" up"? I don't understand the question.

See, if you assume literally everything has to be in the Bible, it just doesn't work.


I believe everything we need to know is in the Bible. I believe that it's awesome just the way it is, and that it's God's word. And it works just beautifully. :)

It is no where explicitly in the Bible that Jesus was limited by time and space. (If he was limited by space, incidentally, how did he vanish? That's a contradiction in terms.)


I do think his vanishing was something miraculous and not manly(pardon the term) but I don't assume that he would randomly be in two places at once when I don't believe the communion thing was meant to be taken literally in the first place.

You look at the Bible and draw the conclusion that Jesus is limited to time and space.


Jesus grew older like a human(Over "time"). Jesus got hungry like a human. Jesus got tired like a human. Jesus got hurt like a human. Jesus bled like a human. Jesus died like a human. It's heavily implied that he was limited.

What evidence? They're saints, for crying out loud.


Lol, saints get special powers then? I don't buy most of that stuff, it sounds fishy.

Frankly, I get the impression you don't read much about many saints.


I don't. XD And there's a reason for that. Frankly, they sound like superheroes, and I hear enough about those in Marvel comics.
Firstly, I'm not getting into this mess for real, I just wanted to comment. Secondly, I don't believe that literal communion is false teaching or wrong doing. There supposedly may not be enough evidence to call it right, but there's not enough evidence to call it wrong and protestants right on the matter either. Thirdly, if God works through saints, why doubt what they can do? It's obviously not them themselves, but WHO is working through them. And God doesn't work through our space and time. He works through His own space and time. Puh. He IS His own space and time. Hence the reason He is always with all of us. Maybe not in a physical form, but even when He was in physical form, he was still God as well. So why doubt if he could do it?

That is all. *Goes back to lurking*
Arkán & Sammy, besters forever.
Image
I don't doubt that he could do it, I just don't believe he did/does.

Thirdly, if God works through saints, why doubt what they can do? It's obviously not them themselves, but WHO is working through them.


If it is God. God isn't the only power in this world. (If those things even happened, who knows...)

Edit: I agree, though, I don't think it's wrong to think what you think, PF, I just think...You're mistaken. XD But I in no way think it's something that'll send you to hell or anything. Just to clarify.
But Sammy, don't you believe that all Christians are saints? What makes some people a special class of Christian?
Christian A. wrote:But Sammy, don't you believe that all Christians are saints? What makes some people a special class of Christian?


My pastor preached about this one day, and I thought about bringing it up but I couldn't think of the right words...
Samantha14 wrote:And God doesn't work through our space and time. He works through His own space and time. Puh. He IS His own space and time.

That. See that? That's why I love her.

One quick note to Christian: ARE YOU NUTS!?! Oh wait, it's you, Christian... Yeah, you are nuts.
Ahem. It really is true that not everyone is a saint according to the Catholic meaning of the word, which is someone who has been officially recognized as a saint for performing miracles. Not everyone performs miracles. Which is fine. It doesn't make them a lesser Christian, necessarily. It merely means they obviously do not receive recognition for the special act of performing miracles as they are not known to have done any. (The miracles have to be after death.)
And if you happen to have your own little definition, that's cute. But the Catholic Church canonizes saints, not you.
Words mean specific things. You cannot change their meaning because you dislike it. And THAT is what a saint means, buster. And as a Catholic I happen to appreciate and love them for being tortured, martyred, stoned, writing incredibly beautiful theology, suffering illnesses and through painful stigmatas, being burned at the stake... For God. I think that's all quite commendable. And no, not all Christians have done that. Not everyone is Saint. I am not. You are not. We and the masses do not deserve the honor of sainthood. Got it?
I apologize for going off on you. You hit a nerve, though I realize it was unintentional. Please realize I consider you kind and intelligent as person, I merely consider that statement, though you meant well, utterly revolting.
Metal15
First off, you have made an especially dreadful mistake. There most definitely is a book of Tobit. And the earth is round.
Image
Yeh doid.

Just to satisfy your addled mind, I checked the KJV and NAB both, and there is a book of Tobit in them. So the only possible way you could have a Bible that doesn't have Tobit is if you have one of those sucky versions with books hacked off to accommodate Protestant ideas. In any case, I strongly suggest you simply check your Old Testament index.

As to the Trinity not being "as big of deal' you just happen to be speaking of the nature of God. And as to abortion, we've been taught that abortion is wrong. We've been giving books and pamphlets on the subject and we have, I presume, pro life friends and parents. Personally, I think I know about abortion because of them. I think it's a gift from God we should not blow off by saying it's, "easy" as if we came by knowledge ourselves with no aid.

Now then, about this Jesus business.

Firstly, even though you have no supplied an alternative illustration of the metaphor ( remember however Jesus generally said something like, "it is written" when referencing scripture, which he does not here) you have not even attempted to account for a point I've made twice: Jesus disciples, (the Bible doesn't say followers or many of the other synonyms used throughout it says disciples, those devoted to Jesus) left when he taught this. So Jesus said, "My brethren, this bread is a metaphor for my word" and then everyone said, "That's it, the guy's a loon" and packed up? You are very welcome to explain to me very thoroughly my very good friend how that makes any sense.

Further, your premise that Jesus references Scripture does exclude the other possible meaning of it being Jesus' body. It could well be both. Is one, however, more logical than the other? Well, that’s what we’re having the discussion to find out.

Now before we move on, let's define a word, or rather, define what a word is not: miracle. We have used a miracle, in this discussion, in the sense of something supernatural. Many people think of flowers, breathing, etc as miracles. But they are part of our normal world, whereas Jesus' miracles were far more unusual. So, everything is not a miracle in that sense of the word. Do you agree? Then let's move on.

Alright. You have two recurring premises so far. We shall first consider the idea you put forth that Jesus could not be more than one place because that would defy the natural limitations of his humanity.

And so, you set up a natural law, that Jesus is fully human, fully finite, and therefor according to natural law, cannot be in more than one place.

And there you have an excellent proof of Jesus being able to bilocate. Any concept of miracles presupposes a world of inherent natural laws. You have pointed out a natural law about Jesus, his finite confinement to a single area. Well then, the miracle in that case, that is, the supernatural event that would contradict that particular law, would be for Jesus to bilocate.

You say Jesus vanishing and rising into the air are miracles. Clearly, so is bilocation.
Miracles do not contradict who Jesus is, because the miracles are exceptions to scientific laws, which merely tell us how things usually are. I ask again. If Jesus did not have the very nature you speak of, the full nature of man, how could he perform miracles at all? How could he rise again? How could he float into the air? How could he heal the sick? Without Christ's nature firmly in place, bilocation would be meaningless.

So you see, Jesus' miracle of bilocation does not contradict His humanity. It affirms it.

Onto your point of Jesus reducing himself to zero is the most compelling point made in this discussion on either side, from my perspective. This shall be a most delightful challenge, and thank you for that, and for keeping up with me through this conversation.

As you said, speaking in purely mathematical terms... Aren't many equations be reversible?

Further, Jesus is God. God's nature is loving, thus giving, thus multiplying. So, if anything, isn't bilocation more in tune with Jesus' nature than diminishing to zero, rather than less?
The Foolish One wrote: It merely means they obviously do not receive recognition for the special act of performing miracles as they are not known to have done any. (The miracles have to be after death.)

What is that supposed to mean? The miracles aren't preformed by the "saints" till after they're dead?

And as a Catholic I happen to appreciate and love them for being tortured, martyred, stoned, writing incredibly beautiful theology, suffering illnesses and through painful stigmatas, being burned at the stake... For God. I think that's all quite commendable. And no, not all Christians have done that. Not everyone is Saint. I am not. You are not. We and the masses do not deserve the honor of sainthood.


Um, just want to point out the fact that there are hundreds of Christians being persecuted for their faith today. In many violent ways. You going to make them all saints?

Just to satisfy your addled mind, I checked the KJV and NAB both, and there is a book of Tobit in them. So the only possible way you could have a Bible that doesn't have Tobit is if you have one of those sucky versions with books hacked off to accommodate Protestant ideas. In any case, I strongly suggest you simply check your Old Testament index.


I have a KJV and there is no book of Tobit included in it. Are you referring to a book that is called something different in the KJV?
2 Corinthians 12:10

Your money your singleness marriage talent and time
They were loaned to you to show the world that Christ is Divine ~Lecrae

Image
Yes, saints do perform miracles after they are dead. The Catholic definition of a miracle, that is, for practical purposes of determining whether it is a miracle or not, is simply "is there absolutely no scientific explanations for this whatsoever?" Often times, people will pray to a "dead" holy person and a miracle will occur. Then it is ascertained by the Vatican team of scientists and yada yada. (The team is very critical, almost no miracles make it through compared to the vast amount that is ascertained, and the team even includes atheists. So the few that are approved are absolutely genuine.)
Yes, there are hundreds persecuted, saints tend to be the ones who are persecuted the most. Sometimes not. That is not the point, as I said, the actual criteria to be a saint is to do miracles after you die.
I don't believe Tobit has different name in the King James, no. However, there are different editions of the King James... Oh, and in King James it is sandwiched with the other deuterocanonical books between the New and Old Testament. However, I believe some Protestant editions of the King James may leave it out?
Anyhow, in 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." (Not arrogant at all. If you think you're a great theologian, why not just go ahead and toss out certain Biblical books? Not that Martin Luther wasn't a genius, he was, but apparently he also had a big head.)
Anyhoo, there you go. I had completely forgotten Protestant Bibles don't have Tobit, often among many other books. (Seven, total.) Sad. So, you guys base your faith entirely on the Bible and some of you don't even have the whole Bible? Wow. "Connie, your logic is... your own." ;)
PS, Kaida, is that you, or another Odyssian tiger?
Well, if we keep on this fascinating little tangent, Kaida, you'll have to start another topic for it to keep things from getting confusing, please. :)
At first I was thinking this was gonna be a long post, but I found a way to not quote every word you stated, which is nice. :D And since it appears that you've changed your tactics to mocking, this'll probably be my last post addressed to you in this thread.


Just to satisfy your addled mind,


My mind is not addled. *Watches your cool-points drift away..* O_O

Yeh doid.


That was a decent movie, but MAN, that girl was crazy annoying.

I checked the KJV and NAB both, and there is a book of Tobit in them. So the only possible way you could have a Bible that doesn't have Tobit is if you have one of those sucky versions with books hacked off to accommodate Protestant ideas.


That's really offensive. Normally, due to my personality, I would retaliate and spit out insults of my own over this, but seeing as that you simply believe what you believe(Even though I believe it's QUITE wrong), I should be the mature one and refrain. Like IrishTiger I checked my bibles and found an NAB one WITHOUT this mysterious "Tobit". So, I did some research on Tobit and...Wasn't impressed. According to this Tobit dude "Almsgiving will give you life..". -_- Not really. No wonder it's not in my bible. So, you'd suggest that I grab some "Catholic edition" of a KJV or NAB bible? Eh...Pass. I'm not Catholic.

As to the Trinity not being "as big of deal' you just happen to be speaking of the nature of God.


*Sigh* If someone doesn't believe in the Trinity that's not hard to believe(Since the concept isn't spelled out), but to me, someone who believes that eating Jesus is ok seems more of a bigger deal.

And as to abortion, we've been taught that abortion is wrong. We've been giving books and pamphlets on the subject and we have, I presume, pro life friends and parents. Personally, I think I know about abortion because of them. I think it's a gift from God we should not blow off by saying it's, "easy" as if we came by knowledge ourselves with no aid.


I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. Based on everything we know, the trinity and the "eating Christ" thing are not entirely spelled out, but murder is pretty obviously wrong.

Firstly, even though you have no supplied an alternative illustration of the metaphor ( remember however Jesus generally said something like, "it is written" when referencing scripture, which he does not here) you have not even attempted to account for a point I've made twice: Jesus disciples, (the Bible doesn't say followers or many of the other synonyms used throughout it says disciples, those devoted to Jesus) left when he taught this. So Jesus said, "My brethren, this bread is a metaphor for my word" and then everyone said, "That's it, the guy's a loon" and packed up? You are very welcome to explain to me very thoroughly my very good friend how that makes any sense.


I already addressed this in my previous post. Pay attention next time.



Okay...About the bilocation thing again...

I will say this, and hopefully you'll understand this fully without translating this into the greek and checking it's meaning then...

I believe Jesus could make himself into 2 Jesuss if he really really really wanted to. I guess. But I don't believe he did/does, because there's no indication that he did, so there's no reason for me to believe that.

Onto your point of Jesus reducing himself to zero is the most compelling point made in this discussion on either side, from my perspective. This shall be a most delightful challenge, and thank you for that, and for keeping up with me through this conversation.


*Sigh* x 2. Another thing you've taken out of context. What I was simply stating was the literal difference between "Vanishing" and "bilocation".

Further, Jesus is God. God's nature is loving, thus giving, thus multiplying. So, if anything, isn't bilocation more in tune with Jesus' nature?


No. Jesus is God. God's nature is loving, thus giving, thus...Multiplying? How'd you get there? No, bilocation is about as "In-tune" with Jesus's nature as kung-fu is.



Thanx for the intellectual discussion, but(Like I stated before) this is probably the last post that will be addressed to you in this thread, PF, because I think we've both said to each other all that needs to be said. :) Anymore will just have us spinning around in a circle of repeating and hostility.
I'm afraid I don't have time to do a full-blown reply to all your points tonight. Just real quick though, I'd appreciate it if we could keep debating, and I'm sorry for saying something so, well, flagrantly offensive. That's really not very characteristic of me. Rude, yes. Somewhat obnoxious, yes. Sarcastically cruelly weirdly haughtily jerkish, yes. But flagrantly offensive.
I was rather "mocking" as you say on that point because, well, only now do I fully realize that we have two different Bibles. I mean, I read once in while that some Protestant editions don't have all the books, but I never really thought that was all that common.
Think about it. The Bible is our guide, our heart, one of our greatest keys to God. And for both of us, it's one of our greatest authorities even if it's not my only spiritual authority. And then, for the first time in my life, someone tells me they have a Bible with some of the books missing. To me, this was like telling me your head is missing its nose.
So I reacted kinda like you'd grown a purple third eye. (Not, you understand, I think you have a purple third eye... do you?)
It's so foriegn to me to have only part of the Bible. The Bible is such a big part of my life, and such a big part of you Protestant's as well if not bigger.
I was shocked.
Think. We Catholics put the original Bible together centuries and centuries ago. Then Martin Luther came along, took the already assembled and approved documents painstakingly gathered from among many bogus ones, and simply decided some were dispensable. But I certainly didn't think it was all that common for Protestants to actually do without them.
Picture this: suppose we Catholics decided we could do just as well without Genesis. Wouldn't you be a little shocked?
In any case, I apologize for calling your Bible sucky. I was wrong to. As I said, I wasn't even certain at the time it was your Bible. I just knew that any Bible that didn't have all the original books was, from my point of view, incomplete.
As I said, it's a new thing to actually meet someone who uses a Bible like that, I thought it was one in thousand. Or maybe I was just in denial about the whole thing till now. But in any case, please forgive me, okay?
Dude... you are magnifying this issue way more than you need to. I find it very hard to believe that you've NEVER heard of anyone who uses a Bible without the "deuterocanonical" books that Protestants do not accept. Welcome to the Bible of everyone on this board except the Catholics and the one Eastern Orthodox (if he's even joined yet). You know that the issue is way more complicated than just, "We put together a Bible, you guys took it apart, you guys are wrong." I could just as easily twist history and say the same about you: "We put together a Bible, you guys added stuff to it, we stuck to the original thing, you guys are wrong."

You're going to get different stories depending on whether your sources are Catholic or Protestant. Naturally, I'm going to see the Protestant sources are more reliable. And you're obviously going to trust the Catholics. So we don't even need to debate this unless we're willing to go into the depths of the origin and preservation of the canon. It can't be solved, by any standard, if we continue in little jabs like this. If you'd like to start a new topic defending your Bible, go right ahead. But no more insults please.
Erm.... Well, that wasn't the point, but no you couldn't claim that because we didn't add anything to the Bible. We made the original. Not you.
And, honestly, if I was aware it's normal for Protestants to have Bibles like that, than I'm a liar. Why would I lie about that? Do you think even the basics of your faith are common knowledge to the rest of the world?
I have my world. You have yours.
I am learning more about your world through a few Protestant friends (real life ones) and you great guys. But perhaps that was so basic no one's ever bothered to inform me? Or maybe a lot of Protestants really do use the actual Bible?
I suppose that was a "little jab." In a sense. (I apologize again.) I suppose even that apology may have had a certain measure of ill intent. You can be insulted if you choose.
But the main intent of that post was to sincerely apologize, but also try to illustrate my perspective. The only time I've ever- I repeat, only time- come across the fact that there even is a shorter Protestant Bible at all is in The Catholic Survival Guide (yes, that' s a real book) and so it certainly wasn't a "real" a taken-for-granted fact of my life. I have Protestant friends, as I said, and I repeat, they never brought the matter up, despite the fact we have had some religious conversations. So, I've gone around thinking that even if we disagree a ton on what the Bible means we at least and I've never ever ever ever had what the Bible even is challenged before. I didn't know what to think or say. I still don't. I am disillusioned and bewildered. Is that unreasonable?
In any case, the point of my previous post, even if it was poorly worded, was obviously just that I'm truly sorry to Metal and I hope we can continue debating.
Okay, I'm sorry. I sincerely apologize. I seriously did think that was such a commonly-known fact that you had to be speaking facetiously. Forgive me.
So PF, the Roman Catholics have actually taken away from the "original" Bible as decided upon by the Council of Hippo. They recognized 78 books, Roman Catholics only recognize 73 books. And no, all Protestants use the Bible with 66 books.

Christian, yes I joined when I heard I was being talked about on another forum :P I would be curious to hear from Protestant sources when the Protestant canon was decided upon. I know some may claim that it was the original Hebrew canon but that's not historically accurate since the Hebrew canon of today wasn't decided upon until nearly 500 years after the death of Christ.

On the actual topic, for most of Christian history it has not been unusual to believe that the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ, this was believed until the Reformation. Even Luther believed it.
CCTZ
about | feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

New Private Message

You have a new pm in your inbox.

Go to your inbox

cron