12-28-2006, 10:42 PM
Peace.....
It amazes me how some people set standards then don't adhire to them.
FHC, you stated:
Quote:Please let's not allow this discussion to turn into a debate. Muslims... we, Christians will deal with your queries. There's no point in asking us questions & then providing convenient answers for yourselves. Christians... keep in mind that we are proclaiming the Word of God & we must do so in the loving manner Jesus taught us... without personal attacks. This is not a battle! We can all learn a lot from one another
Yet in your quest to be correct you've called me ignorant, questioned my religious belief and stated I don't interpret scripture as well as Satan does. (At least, I believe that was the point you were trying to get across) Interesting. I also notice that when people cannot deal with what you say, they make up some absurd reasoning for not addressing it, For instance in order for them to consider what you say, you must prove your ability to interpret scripture to their approval. And if what you say does not meet their approval, they don't respond to the points you've made.
Seems to me to be a contradiction between your words and your actions. Anyway, let's continue.
Through all the information passed back and forth, I found this one thing to be telling....
In the King James Translation we read:
(Matthew 26:26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
(Matthew 26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(Matthew 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Christ said the bread was his body, the wine his blood. Now then, what SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE do either you FHC or CC have to make the following claim:
Quote:After consecration, the substance of bread becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ & the wine becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ. The Priest MUST consecrate both on the altar, however, the congregation only needs to receive one (either one) because Christ is present whole & entire under each species.
This to me seems a contradiction in what Christ said, and what the Roman dogma teaches. Albert Barnes writes on the subject of Matthew 26:26 -
<b>"This is my body"</b> - This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally “broken” as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, “Lo, my body!” or, “Behold my body! - that which “represents” my broken body to you.” This “could not” be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them “living.” And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his “living body” there changed at once to a “dead body,” and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the “living” body of Jesus was before them.
Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the “bread” and “wine” were literally changed into the “body and blood” of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover (Exodus 12:11) “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the Lord’s Passover.” That is, the lamb and the feast “represent” the Lord’s “passing over” the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal “passing over” their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, “This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to “remembrance,” in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. (See Matthew 13:37) “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man” - that is, represents the Son of man. (See also John 15:1, 15:5)
The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: “As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins.”
Shamms