Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[Alithis]

not me.. I do follow the food laws... I think God knows what He is doing in declaring that which is food and that which we should not eat.

though i notice a misconception in what it means to eat the blood thereof .

it is my understanding that we are not to eat of" the flow of blood "..the life flow ..for the life is in the blood .
this is why the blood is drained from the body of the animal before the animal is consumed .

It is not speaking about the blood on the meat .. but the flow of blood or flow of life .
we know this because when the blood flows out ..so does the life and the creature dies .after this life has Gone ..it is fine to consume the meat .

we are commanded under the wisest advice from the beleivers in Jerusalem and the apostles ( most of whom were jews ) ,inspired by the holy Spirit , to
-abstain from blood
and from things strangled
and from food offered to idols
and from sexual immorality .
other then this no other rules are laid upon us in regard to the strict observance of the law .
and neither is any one who chooses to observe such things forbidden to do so .

when we partake of the breaking of bread one with another we use the event (wherever and when ever we gather in the name of the lord ) to remember how the lord's body was broken for us .
we are the priesthood and christ the high priest . so we need no priest to administer it unto us .it is one body in christ and we remember his body broken for us . and so when we take the wine ,remembering that he died for us and his life was poured out for us -and when we drink the cup we are saying we are also willing to drink of the cup he drank of and thus wiling also to lay down our own lives for the Gospel and to save the lost as he did for us .. if we drink it with a heart that is not willing to drink of the same cup he drank of ..then we do drink unworthily .... now there is a difficult thought to bare

 

[Josiah]

not me.. I do follow the food laws... I think God knows what He is doing in declaring that which is food and that which we should not eat.

IF you obey all the OT laws..... if you believe they ALL still apply..... then you have a point. I wonder if you do (for example, killing homosexuals, stoning to death adulterers, killing any who does any work on Saturday, killing children who disobey their parents, etc.) BUT if you claim you obey all that, I'll accept your apologetic. But I don't think there are many Christians over the past 2000 years that agree with you on that. IMO, neither Jesus nor the Apostles do either - but that's another subject for another day and thread. I accept that if you accept and obey all the OT laws -not just moral but ALL types, then you'd not accept the words of Jesus and Paul in the Eucharistic texts and must find SOME way to change what they stated so that they are not doing what you think is sin. I 'get' your position.... I just don't accept it.



To the issue of the thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pKrwnn_2s






- Josiah

 

[Stravinsk]

IF you obey all the OT laws..... if you believe they ALL still apply..... then you have a point. I wonder if you do (for example, killing homosexuals, stoning to death adulterers, killing any who does any work on Saturday, killing children who disobey their parents, etc.) BUT if you claim you obey all that, I'll accept your apologetic. But I don't think there are many Christians over the past 2000 years that agree with you on that. IMO, neither Jesus nor the Apostles do either - but that's another subject for another day and thread. I accept that if you accept and obey all the OT laws -not just moral but ALL types, then you'd not accept the words of Jesus and Paul in the Eucharistic texts and must find SOME way to change what they stated so that they are not doing what you think is sin. I 'get' your position.... I just don't accept it.




- Josiah

Wow. Nice standard. "You have no position unless you dogmatically agree with my personal take on theology"

When you going to eat some raw chicken for us Josiah? (Warning mate - no matter how many times you declare it "clean" or say a prayer over it in Jesus name - you'll be vomiting up the chicken and you'll be very sick. Sorry - that's the reality)

How about some shellfish NOT raised in super clean conditions under the law and in waters where they thrive devouring toxins?

How about some raw PIG - again NOT RAISED according to western standards, which are SUPER STRICT TO ENSURE THAT THE SWINE DOES NOT CONSUME WHAT IT IS DESIGNED TO - FECES, OTHER DEAD ANIMALS, AND ANYTHING ELSE CONSIDERED NATURE'S GARBAGE?

How's that for a standard? You speak out of your ignorance. Ever heard of shellfish poisoning? It's not a "thing of the past" - it's still a reality today. Ever read about the woman who got a parasite in her BRAIN from eating pork products? Did she not have enough faith in Jesus or something?

Will you eat vulture, Josiah? Will you eat it raw after it just picked apart a disease infested rat on the road?

My guess is - NO. So until you start displaying the faith you SAY you have, and do all of the above (remember now, everything is clean for you to eat, and it's all "sanctified" by "the word of God and prayer") - then sorry, mate, you also have no reasonable nor believable position on the topic of food safety or the continuing relevance of the food laws as they relate to human health.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=216]Stravinsk[/MENTION], is the bread just bread used as a symbol of Christ's body and the wine just wine used as a symbol of the Lord's blood or is the bread really the body of Christ and the wine really his blood? That's what the theme of the thread asks.

 

[Josiah]

Wow. Nice standard. "You have no position unless you dogmatically agree with my personal take on theology"

Please give the reference to the above quote. Use the quote feature to do so.


I SIMPLY agreed that IF the poster indeed holds and obeys to ALL Old Testament laws, then I agree - they have a point in insisting Jesus and Paul likely did not mean what they said. I DO wonder if they actually do - but that's another discussion for another day and thread. IF they indeed obey ALL Old Testament laws THEN I can "see" their point.

When you going to eat some raw chicken for us Josiah? (Warning mate - no matter how many times you declare it "clean" or say a prayer over it in Jesus name - you'll be vomiting up the chicken and you'll be very sick. Sorry - that's the reality)

1. I know of no OT Law against eating chicken.

2. I never stated that it is MY position that we must accept and obey ALL Old Testament laws; perhaps you have me confused with a different poster.

3. It is NOT my position that Jesus and Paul are advocating sinning if they indeed meant for us to accept what they said; again, you perhaps have me confused with a different poster.

Ever heard of shellfish poisoning? It's not a "thing of the past" - it's still a reality today. Ever read about the woman who got a parasite in her BRAIN from eating pork products? Did she not have enough faith in Jesus or something?

You seem to have me confused with someone else.

You seem determined to hijack the thread. IF you want to discuss if ALL Old Testament laws must be embraced and enforced TODAY, start a thread on that. THIS one is about what is present in the Eucharist. And again, I AGREED (note: agreed) with the poster that IF they hold to that - that ALL laws found in the OT still apply and are still to be obeyed and enforced, then I stated that I DO 'see' their point and the reason why they hold that Jesus and Paul would be advocating sin if they meant what they said. I SEE their point. I just disagree with it.

My guess is - NO. So until you start displaying the faith you SAY you have, and do all of the above (remember now, everything is clean for you to eat, and it's all "sanctified" by "the word of God and prayer") - then sorry, mate, you also have no reasonable nor believable position on the topic of food safety or the continuing relevance of the food laws as they relate to human health.

1. Obviously, I can't discussed what I never said. Yet you QUOTE me specifically stating what we all KNOW I never said. Hum.


2. I won't participate in your effort and desire to hijack the thread.


3. Just because something is not specifically forbidden in the OT does not mean ergo it's a good thing to do. Your premise is silly. And it IS your premise - I never remotely said any such thing - as we all know.


4. This thread is not about food safety. It is not about safe or unsafe anything. The post I responded to said NOTHING about food safety. But friend, if you want to start a thread about eating vultures, then please do so: please don't hijack this one.


5. If you think that receiving Communion is a food safety issue, that's a different issue than the one here.




Back to the issue of this thread.....





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], if an individual really did believe that all of the law still applies and sought to obey it all that would do nothing whatever to justify their argument. It would still be an error. It would still be false teaching.

 

[Stravinsk]

Please give the reference to the above quote.


I SIMPLY agreed that IF the poster indeed holds and obeys to ALL Old Testament laws, then I agree - they have a point in insisting Jesus and Paul likely did not mean what they said. I DO wonder if they actually do - but that's another discussion for another day and thread. IF they indeed obey ALL Old Testament laws then I can "see" their point.

The point the poster made was in direct response to your accusation (and assumption) that they don't keep the food laws, and further, they are hypocrites for bringing the law against blood eating up because of this - and when they asserted that they do in fact keep those laws - you asserted that they basically have no position (with regard to those laws) unless they keep all the law and punishments according to law that you seem to think apply in an "All or Nothing" scenario which completely disregards some of Yeshua's words on the differing matters at hand.

1. I know of no OT Law against eating chicken.

There is none. But there is against eating it RAW, mate! It still contains BLOOD!!! Try it mate - doesn't matter how many prayers you offer - you'll still be very very sick.

2. I never stated that it is MY position that we must accept and obey ALL Old Testament laws; perhaps you have me confused with a different poster.

Yes you did, in a round about way. You said that the person stating the position of not eating blood has no position unless they agree to and practice the whole of OT law, including stoning of Adulterers, killing children who disobey their parents, etc. So yes, you did.

You seem to have me confused with someone else.

You seem determined to hijack the thread. IF you want to discuss if ALL Old Testament laws must be embraced and enforced TODAY, start a thread on that. THIS one is about what is present in the Eucharist. And again, I AGREED (note: agreed) with the poster that IF they hold to that - that ALL laws found in the OT still apply and are still to be obeyed and enforced, then I stated that I DO 'see' their point and the reason why they hold that Jesus and Paul would be advocating sin if they meant what they said. I SEE their point. I just disagree with it.

But you seem to have me confused with a different poster.

I don't have you confused with another poster. I am not the one that is "determined" to "hijack this thread". The point of the law is relevant - as it relates to "eating blood" (because that has to do with the topic) - and eating blood is forbidden in OT law. Now one can say it's "changed" - but that STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU WILL GET SICK EATING RAW PORK OR RAW CHICKEN THAT HAS BLOOD IN IT. IT ALSO DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT ONE IS AT RISK EATING THE BLOOD OF ANY ANIMAL, DUH - THIS IS WHY WE COOK OUR MEAT! IT'S NOT JUST A TRADITION - IT'S A TRADITION WITH DIRECT HEALTH IMPLICATIONS.

1. Obviously, I can't discussed what I never said (which is why you don't quote me).

2. I won't participate in your effort and desire to hijack the thread.

3. Just because something is not specifically forbidden in the OT does not mean ergo it's a good thing to do. Your premise is silly. And it IS your premise - I never remotely said any such thing - as you know since you could not quote me.

4. This thread is not about food safety. It is not about safe or unsafe anything. The post I responded to said NOTHING about food safety. But friend, if you want to start a thread about eating vultures, then please do so: don't hijack this one.



Back to the issue of this thread.....

1. I quoted you.
2. Your assertion only - I am responding to your attack
3. My premise is not silly. Eat some raw chicken or Pork, Christian. Aren't they "sanctified by the word of God and prayer"? Oh wait..they're not??? Aren't all foods clean?? No...they have to be cooked or dried? Ok then, you admit that blood eating can be hazardous to one's health...but not when it comes to making an argument from the law...lol.
4. No hijack. Calling you and others who think like you out. You'll declare "Jesus declared all foods clean" and "everything is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" when it suits you - but you'll actually refuse to practice those principles when someone challenges them by offering you some raw chicken, pork, vulture etc - and make excuses for the theology when someone prays over some shellfish that got them mighty sick because maybe they didn't have the correct faith or something.





.[/QUOTE]

 

[Josiah]

"You have no position unless you dogmatically agree with my personal take on theology"

You attributed that quotation to me. Please give the reference to the above quote. Use the quote feature to do so.

The point the poster made was in direct response to your accusation (and assumption) that they don't keep the food laws, and further, they are hypocrites for bringing the law against blood eating up because of this - and when they asserted that they do in fact keep those laws - you asserted that they basically have no position (with regard to those laws) unless they keep all the law and punishments according to law that you seem to think apply in an "All or Nothing" scenario which completely disregards some of Yeshua's words on the differing matters at hand.

Wrong.

I stated that IF they indeed embrace and obey ALL the OT laws, THEN I accept their premise (Accept) - it would seem to mean that Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin if they meant what they said. Yes, I DO question IF they actually DO embrace and accept all OT laws (and noted that's a different topic for a different day and thread - DIFFERENT!), but I ACCEPTED that IF that is the case, I "see" their point. "SEE."

There is none

.

It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety....

Yes you did

Then quote me. ACTUALLY (use the quote feature - it's what it's for). Please do NOT totally make up stuff, then CLAIM I stated that by putting that in quotation marks attributed to me.

You said that the person stating the position of not eating blood has no position unless they agree to and practice the whole of OT law, including stoning of Adulterers, killing children who disobey their parents, etc. So yes, you did.

Then QUOTE me. Use the quote feature (it's what it's for). I stated that IF they indeed embrace and obey all the OT laws, THEN I 'see' their point: it would seem that Jesus and Paul would be advocating sin if we actually accept what they said. I stated that I "see" their point. I guess you didn't read that part.

Now, I DO question if the condition is met - but obviously, that's another subject for another day and thread. Assuming they DO, I "see" their point. I just disagree with it.

I don't have you confused with another poster.

Either you didn't read what I posted or you have me confused with someone else.

And this thread is not about food safely or birds.

1. I quoted you

Wrong. You put statements specifically into QUOTATION MARKS that I never said. It's deceptive, it's rude, it's a diversion.

You'll declare "Jesus declared all foods clean" and "everything is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" when it suits you

Provide the link for those specific quotes from me.



Then TRY to remember the issue of the thread before us (HINT: it's not food safely or birds).



Back to the issue of this thread.....




.

 

[Stravinsk]

Please give the reference to the above quote. Use the quote feature to do so.






Wrong.

I stated that IF they indeed embrace and obey ALL the OT laws, THEN I accept their premise (Accept) - it would seem to mean that Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin if they meant what they said. Yes, I DO question IF they actually DO embrace and accept all OT laws (and noted that's a different topic for a different day and thread - DIFFERENT!), but I ACCEPTED that IF that is the case, I "see" their point. I don't agree it.





.

It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety....







Then quote me. ACTUALLY (use the quote feature - it's what it's for). Please do NOT totally make up stuff, then CLAIM I stated that by putting that in quotation marks attributed to me.






Then QUOTE me. Use the quote feature (it's what it's for). I stated that IF they indeed embrace and obey all the OT laws, THEN I 'see' their point: it would seem that Jesus and Paul would be advocating sin if we actually accept what they said. I stated that I "see" their point. I guess you didn't read that part.

Now, I DO question if the condition is met - but obviously, that's another subject for another day and thread. Assuming they DO, I "see" their point. I just disagree with it.











Either you didn't read what I posted or you have me confused with someone else.

And this thread is not about food safely or birds.






Wrong. You put statements specifically into QUOTATION MARKS that I never said. It's deceptive, it's rude, it's a diversion.






Provide the link for those specific quotes from me.



Then TRY to remember the issue of the thread before us (HINT: it's not food safely or birds).



Back to the issue of this thread.....




.

I'm not going to respond to the above post. Not because I cannot - but because the above poster will resort to misquoting and partial quoting (also called setting up straw men) to make arguments against positions not made. Intellectually, this is dishonest, and I simply have no time for it.

 

[Josiah]

Intellectually, this is dishonest, and I simply have no time for it.

Ah. I asked you to supply the references for the numerous times you SPECIFICALLY QUOTE ME, attributing specific words to me in quotation marks. THIS is your response.....


Back to the issue of this thread.



.

 

[Stravinsk]

Ah. I asked you to supply the references for the numerous times you SPECIFICALLY QUOTE ME, attributing specific words to me in quotation marks. THIS is your response.....


Back to the issue of this thread.

Contrary to what you assert, Josiah, anyone with a brain can look at the context and make their own determination if they are so inclined. I especially like the strawman you made with this quote:

Josiah: "It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety...."

Selectively quoted (your quote of my text) to EXCLUDE my point about blood and health and sickness.

Seriously man, do you think people are that dumb to not notice what you are doing?



.[/QUOTE]

 

[Josiah]

Contrary to what you assert, Josiah, anyone with a brain can look at the context and make their own determination if they are so inclined. I especially like the strawman you made with this quote:

Josiah: "It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety...."

1. You gave specific QUOTES - a number of them - specifically attributing the words particularly to ME. I simply asked you to supply the reference for the plethora of specific quotes you gave attributed particularly to ME - but we all know how you replied.


2. It seems you didn't read the post you replied to. You keep trying to TWIST it into something I never said while evading what I did say. I never so much as mentioned any species of bird or sea life... and never mentioned food safety, NOR did the post I was replying to. Don't IMPOSE your hijacking on me and rudely rebuke me for things you QUOTE me as saying but you KNOW I never did.


3. Again, this thread is not about birds or food safety. And the post I responded to said NOTHING about either. NOTHING. NOT A WORD. Yes, I know you seem to want to talk about certain birds and seafood and food safety, and again (yet again)... that's fine, it's just not what my post was about, it's not what the post I was responding to was about... understand? And it's not what this thread is about.... if you want to discuss THOSE things, I recommend that you start a thread about THOSE things. Make sense? I'm NOT repeating your sidebar about two kinds birds and two kinds of seafood and your issue with food safely because I'm not interested in perpetuating the hijack, it has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING I posted or ANYTHING in the post I was responding to. Please leave me out of your attempted hijack. And if you are going to specifically QUOTE me, please have the courtesy to supply the link to the quote. Don't invent some strawmen - insist I specifically stated it - then harass me about it, accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, etc. Make sense?



Back to the issue of this thread...

Let's look at the verbatim words of Scripture:



Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom."


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" on these in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, denied or "explained away" - and with no pagan philosophies or rejected prescience theories imposed or dogmatiozed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything or theorize about anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist. Orthodox hold to a variation of this.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by: CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality. It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name the RCC gave for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor. It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists.



One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.

I hope that helps.





.

 

[psalms 91]

Contrary to what you assert, Josiah, anyone with a brain can look at the context and make their own determination if they are so inclined. I especially like the strawman you made with this quote:

Josiah: "It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety...."

Selectively quoted (your quote of my text) to EXCLUDE my point about blood and health and sickness.

Seriously man, do you think people are that dumb to not notice what you are doing?



.

[/QUOTE]Yopu mena because of the repetitive posts or trying to control content?

 

[Josiah]

So Bill..... since it seems you didn't read our exchange at all.... what about you? Quote the verbatim words of the texts. Tell us what the words state.


Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom."


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."


What do these words state? NOT what do they NOT state, but what do they state?




Thanks.


- Josiah





.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe that I answered and said I nbelieve they are symbolic, nuff said

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe that I answered and said I believe they are symbolic, nuff said

But is it really "enough said". This thread is close to two hundred posts long at the time I wrote this and it seems that "enough" has not been said. If you declare that you believe that the words of Christ are to be interpreted as symbolic when he said "this is my body" then explain why they need to be interpreted as symbolic rather than meaning what they say or else accept that some of the people participating in this thread will take the declaration in your post as amounting to nothing more than an unsupported belief of a doctrine that is not biblical.

 

[psalms 91]

But is it really "enough said". This thread is close to two hundred posts long at the time I wrote this and it seems that "enough" has not been said. If you declare that you believe that the words of Christ are to be interpreted as symbolic when he said "this is my body" then explain why they need to be interpreted as symbolic rather than meaning what they say or else accept that some of the people participating in this thread will take the declaration in your post as amounting to nothing more than an unsupported belief of a doctrine that is not biblical.

I will in turn ask you then how it is that when it says a man must be born again that you interpret that symbolicly, should it not mean what it says according to how you define things?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I will in turn ask you then how it is that when it says a man must be born again that you interpret that symbolically, should it not mean what it says according to how you define things?

I do not interpret the words "you must be born from above" symbolically nor the words "In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit". They are truths that relate to baptism.

 

[Lamb]

I will in turn ask you then how it is that when it says a man must be born again that you interpret that symbolicly, should it not mean what it says according to how you define things?

The original language is "born from above" and as MoreCoffee points out, that's what happens in our baptisms.

 

[psalms 91]

I do not interpret the words "you must be born from above" symbolically nor the words "In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit". They are truths that relate to baptism.

I aggree wqith you so lets get that straight on what you said but again does this mena you were literally born again or was it figuratively? If figuratively how can that fit with how you interpreted the other