The Pope

Originally posted by Nellinator
Dude, that's sad. Seriously, you haven't addressed why communion cannot be taken literally.

By the logic you are using, the Trinity belongs in the same group as Transubstantation and the Pope...

It cannot be taken literally because it is not literal (this is common sense). Go back and read my previous post, I stated that neither the concept nor word "Transubstantiation is in the Bible. In the case of the Trinity or the Rapture for instance although one or more of the words may not be found, the concepts are found throughout Scripture. But in the case of communion being the literal body of Jesus Christ, the very fact that it is not literal human flesh and literal human blood shows that Jesus used the bread and fruit of the vine to simply represent His body and Blood. Case in point: the church is symbolically referred to as the body of Christ. Question: does that mean that we are the literal, flesh and bone body of Jesus Christ which is seated at the right hand of God?

No, it doesn't Nellinator. It is understood and meant representatively and figuratively. Jesus is no longer physically here to lay hands on the sick (but He can through me). Jesus is no longer physically here to show compassion on a sinner (but He can through you). Jesus is no longer here to cast demons out of someone (but He can through another believer). That is why the Word of God states that we are ambassadors for Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us : we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

Did you catch that Nellinator? We are called the ambassadors for Christ. This verse states that Jesus (i.e. God) in a manner of speaking pleads to the world through us. That is why we are figuratively called the body of Christ. Jesus is not physically here to preach the gospel to sinners, He has delegated that assignment to His figurative body (i.e. the church). We are the representatives of Christ here in the earth because Jesus is no longer physically here. In the same way that we are figuratively called the body of Christ, the bread and the fruit of the vine in communion symbolically refer to the body and Blood of Jesus. But it is purely symbolic and representative.

Do does that make sense Nellinator?

"2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us : we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. "

NO ONE IS MY AMBASSADOR FOR CRAP! I AM MY OWN AMBASSADOR, SENATOR, PRESIDENT, AND MAN. DADDY!! DO SUMTHING! SMITE JIA!!!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It cannot be taken literally because it is not literal (this is common sense). Go back and read my previous post, I stated that neither the [B]concept nor word "Transubstantiation is in the Bible. In the case of the Trinity or the Rapture for instance although one or more of the words may not be found, the concepts are found throughout Scripture. But in the case of communion being the literal body of Jesus Christ, the very fact that it is not literal human flesh and literal human blood shows that Jesus used the bread and fruit of the vine to simply represent His body and Blood. Case in point: the church is symbolically referred to as the body of Christ. Question: does that mean that we are the literal, flesh and bone body of Jesus Christ which is seated at the right hand of God?

No, it doesn't Nellinator. It is understood and meant representatively and figuratively. Jesus is no longer physically here to lay hands on the sick (but He can through me). Jesus is no longer physically here to show compassion on a sinner (but He can through you). Jesus is no longer here to cast demons out of someone (but He can through another believer). That is why the Word of God states that we are ambassadors for Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us : we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

Did you catch that Nellinator? We are called the ambassadors for Christ. This verse states that Jesus (i.e. God) in a manner of speaking pleads to the world through us. That is why we are figuratively called the body of Christ. Jesus is not physically here to preach the gospel to sinners, He has delegated that assignment to His figurative body (i.e. the church). We are the representatives of Christ here in the earth because Jesus is no longer physically here. In the same way that we are figuratively called the body of Christ, the bread and the fruit of the vine in communion symbolically refer to the body and Blood of Jesus. But it is purely symbolic and representative.

Do does that make sense Nellinator? [/B]

Originally posted by Nellinator
You missed my point. I'm saying that ignoring her is wrong. That has nothing to do with anything you just said.

I haven't missed your point because your point dealt with Transubstantiation and communion not why I have chosen to refrain from replying to Naz's posts.

Ignoring someone to avoid conflict is not wrong. In fact I can support my decision to refrain from replying to any of her posts. Every person knows at what point they are led by the Holy Spirit to depart from a foolish person when he/she does not perceive in him/her the lips of knowledge. I am at that point with her. Nothing personal, I just will not respond to any more of her posts.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man [or woman], When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

Matthew 7:6
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do people believe that the Pope is infallible?

😕

JIA, you hardly even tried. Her response deserves another. She is not being foolish. She's what? 17 or 18? and you are calling her a fool and consider her condemned already? She's most likely just beginning to search into the things of God and faith and you just someone like that out? That despicable.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My question was essentially rhetorical. There is not (or should I say [b]ain't for more emphasis?) any such animal as "Transubstantiation," this is just more false, Catholic doctrine (biblically unscriptural doctrine is a common theme in the Roman Catholic Church). Furthermore, neither the concept nor word "Transubstantion" can be found in the Bible. [/B]

The term Holy Trinity does not appear in The Bible either.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Explain how I make myself out to be a jackass everytime I post (anyone can name-call [B]but can you support what you say?). [/B]

Despite your efforts at prosetylism, you have not succeeded in bringing a single person to Christ. To the contrary, the only thing you have succeeded at is marginalizing everyone including other Christians. That makes you a jackass.

[QUOTE=9052963]Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]The term Holy Trinity does not appear in The Bible either.

Elohim, means three persons in 1.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The term Holy Trinity does not appear in The Bible either.

Despite your efforts at prosetylism, you have not succeeded in bringing a single person to Christ. To the contrary, the only thing you have succeeded at is marginalizing everyone including other Christians. That makes you a jackass.

First, the term Holy Trinity is a Catholic term (that is why it cannot be found in the Bible). Second, in one of my previous posts I mention that the concept of the triune God is scattered throughout the Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament. However, the word Transubstantiation is defined as follows:

Main Entry: tran•sub•stan•ti•a•tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌstan(t)-shç-ˈâ-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of transubstantiating or being transubstantiated
2 : the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine

Now, having said all of that I can say this (again): neither the concept of Transubstantiation nor the term is found in the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say, imply, suggest, nor intimate that the bread and fruit of the vine (not wine) actually, miraculously become the body and Blood of Christ while keeping the appearance of bread and wine. This is ignorant, heretical, and downright unscriptural. Yet, this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (without being able to support it by the only authoritative Source in the universe with regard to the things of Jesus Christ i.e. the Bible).

As far as your description of what makes me a jackass who is the one who stands to lose something on the Day of Judgment (like your soul)? What do I have to lose by telling you about Jesus (nothing)? I do not have any regrets about anything that I have said to you on this forum. Will you be calling me a jackass when you stand before the Lord? Who will be the true foolish one when he stands before the Lord? The Lord will condemn many people who have heard the gospel but rejected it to the Lake of Fire. Stop and think about that for a moment (who do you think will be the true foolish one then?). I haven’t lost a thing by telling you about Jesus. You call me a jackass for telling you about Jesus because you have rejected Him? (That makes no sense.) But the Bible tells me to rejoice. Besides I am in good company because according to the Bible, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. In other words, recognizing the Lordship of Jesus Christ in my life is evidence of wisdom; therefore, the opposite is true (rejecting the Lordship of Jesus Christ is your life is evidence of foolishness). So I ask you again, what support do you have that I am a jackass? What you have furnished does not make me a jackass. I believe that what I have presented to you in this post is what I believe constitutes being a jackass (meaning a fool): rejecting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Originally posted by Nellinator
JIA, you hardly even tried. Her response deserves another. She is not being foolish. She's what? 17 or 18? and you are calling her a fool and consider her condemned already? She's most likely just beginning to search into the things of God and faith and you just someone like that out? That despicable.

Hardly tried what?

No it doesn't, if you feel that strongly about responding to her posts then you are free to do so. Like I said go ahead and have at it if that is how you feel, but I will not be put on a guilt trip. Besides, the original topic had nothing to do with salvation. The subject was simply about her belief that I contradict Scripture (which I do not). I set out to show her that I do not contradict Scripture.

Lastly, what does her age have to do with anything? I never said that she was condemned, I simply said that I will not reply to any of her posts (you are reading way more into this than you should). She has plenty of opportunity to come Christ if she chooses to.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And so is the Pope.

Chapter and verse please.

I stil cant get over that the news casters call it the "pope mobile" we are living in a righteous age where there is such a thing as the "pope mobile"

It's been called the Popemobile for years hasn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popemobile

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

I haven't missed your point because your point dealt with Transubstantiation and communion not why I have chosen to refrain from replying to Naz's posts.

Ignoring someone to avoid conflict is not wrong. In fact I can support my decision to refrain from replying to any of her posts. Every person knows at what point they are led by the Holy Spirit to depart from a foolish person when he/she does not perceive in him/her the lips of knowledge. I am at that point with her. Nothing personal, I just will not respond to any more of her posts.

[B]Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man [or woman], When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

Matthew 7:6
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. [/B]

And that's the same reason I'm refraining from posting in this thread any more.

My last remarks:
The Pope is infallible.
The Eucharist is Jesus' literal body.
Catholics are the right ones.

Good day, all.

Jesusisalive= Fail

Law of Cause and Effect... 😆

Originally posted by the Darkone
[QUOTE=9052963]Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]The term Holy Trinity does not appear in The Bible either.

Elohim, means three persons in 1.

Most religions have damaged this world and made it a real hell for everyone else.

ELOHIM MEAN THREE PERSON IN ONE????????????

where the HECK did u get that????????

elohim/aloih means GOD. thas IT. LATER with the popularoty of the trinity, the term was given new meaning to refer to three in one. its an EFFECT of people believing in the trinity, not a CAUSE. in that it can not be used as evidence to suggest that in the testament, the word is referring to a triune god. the word trinity does not exist in the bible. it was seen by the scholars of highest christian emminence as a forgery and take on but due to the opposition of TWO chrurches and their denomination and threats, it was put back in the king james/new international version. similarly, rapture doesnt exist. death by crucification exists ambiguously. neither does any testimony by jesus's OWN MOUTH{red letter bible} exists where he claimed that god was HIS father, or that HE was god or any mention of worshipping HIMSELF.

the popemobile......besides the name..some faith the pope has in God if he has bullet proof glass 🙄