Play nice.Your statement shows you don’t what a circular argument is.
The one I have open on my desk is the NKJV.
Sure I do.
I’ve never said that. That’s your interpretation of what I said. It’s a good thing you rely on the church to interpret for you. You’re not very good at it.
Regarding the things you make up? I’d say “odd” is the better word.
Why should I be happy?
I asked first.
He told me.
Please provide the post number in which I say I reject John 6.
Then it’s Scripture. Have you notified the Pope?
Please furnish that Catechism reference.
Here it comes.Play nice.
OK.
Truly.Why should I be happy?
You reject Christ’s words, which institute the Eucharist and New Covenant. His words also leave absolutely no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If you reject Transubstantion, you reject Christ’s teaching in John 6.Please provide the post number in which I say I reject John 6.
Or ignore my request and run away from it and not answer it which is an admission that I’ve never rejected John 6.
The choice is yours.
IOW, you cannot prove your assertion that I reject John 6, but instead, attempt to distract people away from that fact by equting my rejection of your interpretation as a rejection of John 6.
No interpretation is required, just comprehension of the literal meaning.IOW, you cannot prove your assertion that I reject John 6, but instead, attempt to distract people away from that fact by equting my rejection of your interpretation as a rejection of John 6.
How very dishonest.
Did you learn that technique in theology class, or is that something you’ve determined to do on your own?
IOW, you cannot prove your assertion that I reject John 6, but instead, attempt to distract people away from that fact by equting my rejection of your interpretation as a rejection of John 6
Faithdancer said:
You’re avoiding my question. I suppose I might too, were I you.
However, his concept of sacramental union still held that the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ, so that anyone eating and drinking these “elements”—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.
The Pope already knows.
Childish.
Much to my own surprise, they are not quite the same thing.
).While all of these are, of course, just distortions of the Church teachings on the Eucharist, they still acknowledge the basic fact that the Blessed Sacrament is the true Body and Blood of the Lord.
Much to my own surprise, they are not quite the same thing.
The doctrine of *consubstantiation *does not teach that the substance of the bread and wine disappear or are replaced, but rather that they exist alongside the substance of the Lord.
Luther’s “sacramental union” is, in a way, very similar, however there are slight differences. For instance, it does not assert a “local” (three dimensional, circumscribed) presence of the body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine respectively, which is rejected as “gross, carnal, and Capernaitic” in the Formula of Concord (
The Lutheran scholar Gene Veith wrote in his blog:
While all of these are, of course, just distortions of the Church teachings on the Eucharist, they still acknowledge the basic fact that the Blessed Sacrament is the true Body and Blood of the Lord.
However, once you start distorting Sacred Tradition, there is no stopping, and it was a matter of time for some protestant communities to actually develop the teaching that the Eucharist is nothing but bread and wine (which, of course, is the truth in the absence of valid consecration :sad_yes
Wow, thanks! Just when I thought I knew everything (not really, of course, I have a lot to learn!)