|
|
#21 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Wow, moches. Wow.
You are clearly getting your information on Catholicism from a Jack Chick tract or something. Seriously, you don't understand how WAY off-base you are. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 3,996
|
Quote:
Oops. Just checked a Catholic thing and I might be like 99% off. Sorry. But what the heck is a Jack Chick tract?!?!?! We've covered like everything. So I might as well delete. (DELETE) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() Religion causes so much death and fighting. Just be a good person and respect other people for what they follow and forget bout it and be yourself
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
is against custom titles
|
'Fraid not, bud. No practice of ours is counter to Scripture, and no part of scripture is counter to any practice.
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
How about Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation. This is not contradicted by Jesus’ words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord’s Evening Meal; such an arrangement was not instituted until a year later. The ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ mentioned in this account are done in a figurative sense by exercising faith in Jesus Christ, as is indicated by verses 35 and 40. Furthermore, eating actual human flesh and blood would be cannibalism. Therefore, Jews who were not exercising faith and who did not properly understand Jesus’ statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were shocked. This indicated the Jewish view on eating human flesh and blood, as inculcated by the Law.—John 6:60. Additionally, drinking blood was a violation of God’s law to Noah, prior to the Law covenant. (Ge 9:4; Le 17:10) The Lord Jesus Christ would never instruct others to violate God’s law. (Compare Mt 5:19.) Furthermore, Jesus commanded: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me,” not in sacrifice of me.—1Co 11:23-25. The bread and the wine are, therefore, emblems, representing Christ’s flesh and blood in a symbolic way, just as were his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus had said to those offended by his words: “For a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (Joh 6:51) This was given at his death as a sacrifice. His body was buried and was disposed of by his Father before it could see corruption. (Ac 2:31) No one ever ate any of his flesh or blood, literally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by devonin; 07-18-2007 at 12:22 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Player
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
He needn't be talking about the Lords evening meal when he says that. Bear in mind that this discussion is directly on the heels of miracles anyway. You seem to be approaching this from a "He didn't cut flesh off his body, or bleed into a cup, therefore, not body and blood" standpoint, when the Miracle of Transubstantiation is just that, Miraculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Additionally, cannibalism and the drinking of Blood would directly violate God's Law. Not something Jesus would instruct anyone to do. *Edit* For the scriptures that state this very clear fact, refer to my earlier post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
According to a couple sources that I've found, the usual interpretation of the covenant in Ge 9, is that you are not to eat animals that are still alive. This website looks at the covenant fairly closely, and is referenced with sources including a former Jesuit who is director of the Humanities Center at the Claremont Graduate School, near Los Angeles, and such historical accounts as Rabbinic sources like the commentary on the Talmud by Rabbi Raschi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Banned
|
Practically religion gives people a reason to hope, however, it can also be used as a reason to lord over others. The previous Pope (John Paul II) stressed love and compassion towards other human beings. Benedict XVI is one of those hardcore fire and brimstone guys who make bold statements in a time where, you know, you can't really make bold statements without something negative happening. He's trying to establish religious intolerance by his statements in a time where we need religious tolerance, because the last thing we need in this world is a war over who has the better imaginary friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
When one of the basic tenets of your faith is that the only true path to salvation is through your faith, the idea of religious relativism is incredibly objectionable, in that you're being asked to smile merrily along while you damn people through inaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
The idea related here is pretty simple if you ask me. *edit* Not to mention, there is a plethora of other scriptures within the old testament that state to abstain from blood without mentioning the life of the animal as in Ge.9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:33&version=49 Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 02:52 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
If, given the common intepretation of theologions that GE 9 refers to eating animals while still alive
Quote:
As the text of the passage is actually written, Acts 15 says "Tell them to avoid blood" which could mean many things. Avoid drinking blood? Avoid contact of the blood of other things on you? Try not to cut yourself shaving? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
You will notice that Acts 15 also says to abstain from strangled animals, the reason for this being, a strangled animal has not been bled and the blood soaks into the meat. Therefore, a dead animal (thats strangled) with blood in the meat is unacceptable. Since it is almost the exact same wording between the two testaments I would venture to say that Acts clarifies this idea, Of not "Eating Blood". (That no food is Acceptable with Blood, Dead or Alive) Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 04:31 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
FFR Player
|
Tying this all back into transubstantiation, clearly, interpreting John 6:51-57 as one literally eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus, is Biblically unfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
I think we are all missing the point of the story:
Kill your God, eat his flesh, and drink his blood. It's delicious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
FFR Player
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|