Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Dylar]

Interesting conversation when trying to tell my JW friend about the Eucharist:
Me:"Jesus says that the berad is his body"
Friend:"Show me in the bible where he says that."
*Pulls up the NASB, and the KJV, while he pulls up the JW's NWT*
Friend:"Let's see...it's in Matthew 26...*reading* Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples saying 'Take and eat for this means my body.' See?"
Me*reading from KJV and then from the NASB*:"Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying 'Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.'"
Friend: "So, you're saying that Jesus condones cannabilism, which the Bible condemns?"
Me:"No, because he didn't tell us that it was okay to eat a random person on the side of the street."
Friend:"Sounds like it to me, which is why you and your 'Church' is wrong."
*sigh* It's Infidels like him that make me wish we had the 10th Crusade already...

He IS quite right you know...

No.

[Pasong Tirad]

Interesting conversation when trying to tell my JW friend about the Eucharist:
Me:"Jesus says that the berad is his body"
Friend:"Show me in the bible where he says that."
*Pulls up the NASB, and the KJV, while he pulls up the JW's NWT*
Friend:"Let's see...it's in Matthew 26...*reading* Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples saying 'Take and eat for this means my body.' See?"
Me*reading from KJV and then from the NASB*:"Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying 'Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.'"
Friend: "So, you're saying that Jesus condones cannabilism, which the Bible condemns?"
Me:"No, because he didn't tell us that it was okay to eat a random person on the side of the street."
Friend:"Sounds like it to me, which is why you and your 'Church' is wrong."
*sigh* It's Infidels like him that make me wish we had the 10th Crusade already...

He IS quite right you know...

Right how?

[Dylar]

He IS quite right you know...

Right how?

That our partaking of the Eucharist is cannabilism. But cannabilism requires the subject to be dead, or dying, while the Eucharist is fully alive with the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

[Hakons]

Interesting conversation when trying to tell my JW friend about the Eucharist:
Me:"Jesus says that the berad is his body"
Friend:"Show me in the bible where he says that."
*Pulls up the NASB, and the KJV, while he pulls up the JW's NWT*
Friend:"Let's see...it's in Matthew 26...*reading* Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples saying 'Take and eat for this means my body.' See?"
Me*reading from KJV and then from the NASB*:"Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying 'Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.'"
Friend: "So, you're saying that Jesus condones cannabilism, which the Bible condemns?"
Me:"No, because he didn't tell us that it was okay to eat a random person on the side of the street."
Friend:"Sounds like it to me, which is why you and your 'Church' is wrong."
*sigh* It's Infidels like him that make me wish we had the 10th Crusade already...

He IS quite right you know...

I'm sure JWs stumbled on the truth that had evaded all of Christendom, from all the theologians to the billions of laymen, for the last two thousands years.

[Sanctissima]

Interesting conversation when trying to tell my JW friend about the Eucharist:
Me:"Jesus says that the berad is his body"
Friend:"Show me in the bible where he says that."
*Pulls up the NASB, and the KJV, while he pulls up the JW's NWT*
Friend:"Let's see...it's in Matthew 26...*reading* Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples saying 'Take and eat for this means my body.' See?"
Me*reading from KJV and then from the NASB*:"Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying 'Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.'"
Friend: "So, you're saying that Jesus condones cannabilism, which the Bible condemns?"
Me:"No, because he didn't tell us that it was okay to eat a random person on the side of the street."
Friend:"Sounds like it to me, which is why you and your 'Church' is wrong."
*sigh* It's Infidels like him that make me wish we had the 10th Crusade already...

To be fair, the belief that transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharist is... very odd, and is way more literal an interpretation of what Jesus said than was probably intended.

Nevermind how it has no scientific basis whatsoever. I mean, who aside from theologians actually believe that the bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood, respectively?

[Hakons]

Interesting conversation when trying to tell my JW friend about the Eucharist:
Me:"Jesus says that the berad is his body"
Friend:"Show me in the bible where he says that."
*Pulls up the NASB, and the KJV, while he pulls up the JW's NWT*
Friend:"Let's see...it's in Matthew 26...*reading* Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples saying 'Take and eat for this means my body.' See?"
Me*reading from KJV and then from the NASB*:"Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying 'Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.'"
Friend: "So, you're saying that Jesus condones cannabilism, which the Bible condemns?"
Me:"No, because he didn't tell us that it was okay to eat a random person on the side of the street."
Friend:"Sounds like it to me, which is why you and your 'Church' is wrong."
*sigh* It's Infidels like him that make me wish we had the 10th Crusade already...

To be fair, the belief that transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharist is... very odd, and is way more literal an interpretation of what Jesus said than was probably intended.

Nevermind how it has no scientific basis whatsoever. I mean, who aside from theologians actually believe that the bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood, respectively?

Christians that take their faith and what their theologians say seriously?

[Sanctissima]

To be fair, the belief that transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharist is... very odd, and is way more literal an interpretation of what Jesus said than was probably intended.

Nevermind how it has no scientific basis whatsoever. I mean, who aside from theologians actually believe that the bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood, respectively?

Christians that take their faith and what their theologians say seriously?

There is such a thing as not blindly accepting everything at face value.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Christians that take their faith and what their theologians say seriously?

There is such a thing as not blindly accepting everything at face value.

I think you're projecting your lack of capacity for faith onto Christiandom at large. We have faith that it changes, and no it's something that can't technically be proven or disproven via empirical sciences.

That said we do have several miracles that bolster our faith.

https://churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extr ... -pictures/

Not a critical source but lays out all of them.

[Nordengrund]

Christians that take their faith and what their theologians say seriously?

There is such a thing as not blindly accepting everything at face value.

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus was using metaphors.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is such a thing as not blindly accepting everything at face value.

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus was using metaphors.

Then why was it such a shocking thing to those around him, to consume his body and blood?

[Nordengrund]

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus was using metaphors.

Then why was it such a shocking thing to those around him, to consume his body and blood?

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

[Gim]

Then why was it such a shocking thing to those around him, to consume his body and blood?

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

Yes, it's a metaphor.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Then why was it such a shocking thing to those around him, to consume his body and blood?

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

That isn't a refutation....

[Gim]

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

That isn't a refutation....

You think the bread is literally skin + fat on Jesus' body and wine the blood?

[Dylar]

That isn't a refutation....

You think the bread is literally skin + fat on Jesus' body and wine the blood?

We believe that the Eucharist is the complete Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

[Gim]

You think the bread is literally skin + fat on Jesus' body and wine the blood?

We believe that the Eucharist is the complete Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Hmm, I see. Fair enough.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

We believe that the Eucharist is the complete Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Hmm, I see. Fair enough.

Specifically, though not officially, we believe the flesh present in the Eucharist is the SacredHeart of Christ. Catholics are pretty metal.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

eu sou brasileiro e tenho espanhol basico, serve?

Você disse que a América foi colonizada por o declínio de Constantinopla.

Hence the confusion. My Portuguese is not the best, not that my Spanish is any better.

I meant that after the end of the crusades, the intense numbers of soldiers and merchants from various countries who came out of their fiefs made trade and the resurgence of trade fairs across Europe. Also the old silk route returned to its activity and countries like portugal initiated the first maritime conquests that in the future turned colonialism. So yes, in an indirect way the crusades were responsible for several discoveries across the globe.

[New Serrland]

That isn't a refutation....

You think the bread is literally skin + fat on Jesus' body and wine the blood?

The belief that bread and wine are flesh and blood in a very real sense is not only a Latin thing - the Byzantine and some (not sure if all?) Oriental Churches believe similarly. As far as I'm aware the most relevant clear endorsement of Metousiosis in the Greek Churches was when the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem endorsed Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kiev, in his confession discussion Metousiosis (similar to the Latin transubstantiation) over the confession of Cyril Lucaris, Ecumenical Patriarch (later confirmed at the Synod of Jerusalem).

As a side note, it would be interesting to see if the trajectory of the Eastern Churches would have changed significantly had Lucaris not been murdered and had continued to espouse his quasi-calvinist beliefs for another decade or two.

[Salus Maior]

Christians that take their faith and what their theologians say seriously?

Hey Hakons, I've got some questions for you about Methodism if you can answer them.

What do Methodists believe that makes them different from Anglicans, which they split off from?

And how do you feel about the general direction that the Methodist Church is going in nowadays?

[Diopolis]

Then why was it such a shocking thing to those around him, to consume his body and blood?

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

As my parish priest always says "Jesus clarifies things when He's being misunderstood. He gets that the apostles were stupid. How then does He not, if it was just symbolic, explain to His disciples that when they're clearly taking it literally?"(paraphrased a bit, of course).

[Luminesa]

I think they were having a hard time accepting it because they were taking it literally. After all, the Jewish religion and Acts forbid the consumption of blood, so they may have been shocked that He was suggesting that they go against what they were raised against. Just because they took it lterally doesn't mean that is what Jesus was meaning.

In John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty," which I think implies a much more metaphorical meaning.

Also, how could He say that the bread is literally is body when He was physically present before His audience?

That isn't a refutation....

No, rather he's explaining a potential reason for why people had such a hard time understanding/accepting such a truth. Which is a fair thing to consider. Christ was revolutionary because His teachings were truly radical, in the eyes of much of His audience.

[Gim]

That isn't a refutation....

No, rather he's explaining a potential reason for why people had such a hard time understanding/accepting such a truth. Which is a fair thing to consider. Christ was revolutionary because His teachings were truly radical, in the eyes of much of His audience.

True, not everything is a refutation, for Christ's sake.

[The Princes of the Universe]

There is such a thing as not blindly accepting everything at face value.

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus was using metaphors.

John 6. That was no metaphor. Considering how many people stared at Him like He was nuts and then left without Him so much as lifting a finger to stop them, there's no way He was anything but 100% serious.

[Gim]

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus was using metaphors.

John 6. That was no metaphor. Considering how many people stared at Him like He was nuts and then left without Him so much as lifting a finger to stop them, there's no way He was anything but 100% serious.

That's because peoples' views on God and the actual identity of God differed.