Catholics, and the Eucharist.

If Jesus meant for us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, why didn't He cut Himself and bleed into the cup and pass it to disciples at the last passover? How ridiculous.

 

I think we can compare this passage with John 4

did he actually give her water? Note also as Jesus explains the passage in John 6 as he explains it to his disciples

Its a spiritual truth. Not a physical one. Therefore the indwelling of God in man cannot be dependent upon a physical act but a spiritual one. Thus eating and assimulating truth into oneself. Not Hillel a contemporary of Jesus indicated that

it seems to be clear it is in this sense possibly that Jesus is speaking.

Not really since Jesus had to explain it to his disciples

It can be. Such as chewing of the cud or ruminating over something.

Paul fights against Judaic following of Torah in this book. Its a book of Grace.

no disagreement.

Yes which is why I question canon law.

It seems this way to me.

since he summerized them into two precepts and why not my approach to torah is simpler than what has been accepted thus "my burden is light"

 

Which is why I question the Eucharista and certain allusions to Leviticus "thanks offering". Is it really then Eucharist?

 

The point is that you were quite harsh with Joshua for his deception.

"Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board."

"Whether that was your own personal opinion or not, it asked if you were Catholic and you proudly....denied it. Why is that?"

At the same time you are part of a different deception - and your church's motivation for dropping the name Baptist could also be called into question.

Not making any judgements - just an observation.

 

Perhaps one way of avoiding the problem of Catholics not identifying themselves as such when attempting to join the board would be for the board to be up front and direct and say "Catholics not allowed - Anyone found to be a Catholic will be banned."

Why play the game of pretending that a Catholic would be allowed to join anyway?

What purpose does it serve?

 

It sure is. You have never heard anyone say "chew on it and get back to me" or "chew it over and let me know"?

chew (ch)
v. chewed, chew·ing, chews
v.tr.
1. To bite and grind with the teeth; masticate.
2. To meditate on; ponder: chew a problem over.
v.intr.
1. To make a crushing and grinding motion with the teeth.
2. To cogitate; meditate: chewed on the difficulties ahead.
3. Informal To use chewing tobacco.
n.
1. The act of chewing.
2. Something held in the mouth and chewed, especially a plug of tobacco. See Regional Note at chaw.
Phrasal Verb:
chew out Slang
To reprimand; scold.
Idioms:
chew the cud Slang
To ponder over; meditate.
chew the fat/rag Slang
To talk together in a friendly, leisurely way; chat at length.

 

I didn't say symbolic. But spiritual is on a higher level an "unseen level" which is operative beyond the physical. Note Hebrews 11:1

Therefore we operate on that level we don't express it physically except when we want to explain it.

Yes because it was a common phrase in his day. We say cool today but we don't mean we are cold we mean something is approvable. To eat torah was to study it.

as in chewing of the cud.

the thing with metaphore is it uses common word use to explain something an analogy.

Ie of the cud.

 

I don't see even the slightest similarity in the two situations. In one a person is avoiding answering a direct question accurately. In another they are choosing a name of a new church that will best allow them to witness to the neighborhood it serves. The only way you could have a point was if Ann said that they were denying being a baptist church if asked, which she clearly said would never happen.

Why don't you quit trying to embarrass her on this thread. If you want to "debate" a name on a church, post on the appropriate thread.

 

Here is the parallel...

Joshua wanted to get onto the board to say what he wants to say - but thought that he had a better chance of getting onto the board by identifying himself as something other than what is most descriptive - he said "Christian" instead of "Catholic".

Your church wanted to get people in the door to hear what your church has to say - but thought that they have a better chance of getting people in the door by identifying themselves as something other than what is most descriptive - they avoided saying "Baptist".

 

Joshua was not asked if he was Catholic when applying.

He said Chrisitian which Catholics believe to be true so he was not lying.

When asked by people on the board if he is Catholic he said "yes".

It is a perfect parallel to Ann's church name - they avoided the name of Baptist on purpose because it has a bad reputation where they opened the church.

 

There is no parallel. Joshua blatantly violated a rule to come to this board...that's a sin, is it not? There is no rule in what an autonomous church can and should name their church to reach the lost. You need to stop.

 

He most certainly was asked his denomination when applying, and catholic was even an example given in case he needed further understanding on what denomination means. He played the semantics game in the deception. We can only conclude he is here to proselytize us with his RCC beliefs.

Christian is not a denomination, so that is lying.

"Coming out" after the fact does not negate the facts of what he did to even post anything in the first place.

 

WOW, you are paranoid! You accuse Joshua of proselytizing, which of course would result in him being banned. Big difference between defending your faith and proselytizing. You seem awful nervous about having a Catholic on this board. People like you make so many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. Wouldn't you want to hear what a Catholic thinks about that?

BTW, Catholics do not believe that our Church is a 'denomination' so to say it is one would be lying. You should be a little more careful with such accusations. Not very Christ like.

 

> As most of you people know, us Catholics believe in the actual real presence of Christ, in the Eucharist.

Should be "we Catholics." The test is to eliminate proper noun. One would not say, " . . . us believe . . . ."

Bapists trivialize the Eucharist into a wake for Jesus and don't even use real booze. What kind of wake is that?

The discussion is pointless on both sides unless argued in terms of Greek philosophy and what the words might have meant to the original readers.

 

I'm not paranoid...and yes, he is proselytizing. Catholics are not allowed to join this board, those are the rules. If I wanted to read RCC theology I would go to one of your other boards...and your false accusation that I "misrepresent" the RCC faith is quite unfounded and false.

And, no, I do not want to hear what a Catholic "thinks about that". I've been there an done that as my wife's entire family is RCC and I have a good handle on what that "denomination" (regardless of what you want to believe, that is what it is) teaches.