To z:
z quote: "Rant and rave all you want about failed logic, it is in fact yours that is faulty. Long winded, waffling statements you make are a pretense of intellectualism, supposed logic and argument. Sorry they fail plus I cannot be bothered with the repetition of your tired rhetoric."
Truthtesty: The Blood of Christ is a synecdoche, which includes the literal Shed Blood. Which is perfectly and logically consistent with Matthew 26. It is your failed logic which excludes the literal Shed blood of Christ, in your mentonym, for no logical biblical reason, which is inconsistent with Matthew 26.
Show me where my logic is faulty, not by your simply wishing it so. It is YOU who run from questions, not the other way around.
You "cannot be bothered with the repetition of your tired rhetoric."? Hah! Well the only reason I repeat my logical arguments which obviously defeat your facade, is because you continually bypass answering my questions. Because you can't handle the truth, outside the tired old arguments of Behm, Thieme, etc....
You can't confess the truth. You don't apologize, but expect others to treat you in your insolence with "common courtesy". Which? You have not earned. You only continually reference what old theologians say without being able to sift information for gems of truth. You retreat. You have not answered my questions.
Hah! Is it "magical" that Jesus fed the multitudes? Yes it was actually. It is your arrogance that blinds you to the truth.
Hah! Again you FAIL to answer my challenge - simply the challenge of the truth really. Then you falsely cry "foul" by the repetition of the argument, which you never answer the argument. Thus you try to give yourself an "out", without actually answering the question. You have to categorize me as a transubstitutionist, because you have no other way to argue against a (newly revealed truth to you) about the literal Shed Blood. Hah! You are behind the times. Hah! Do you think a transubstitutionist would say the Blood of Christ is a synecdoche? No. But you bypass that fact as you bypass so many of the facts that I have shown before. And? Again? You bypass answering my challenge to you. You and your dead-ender kind are in thier last throws of failed dead orthodoxy.
z quote "Sorry you are not able to handle a present active indicative of a verb designed to prove the point? The verb confirms Jesus’ words “This IS my body, this IS my blood”. You keep going back to metaphors/figures magical incantations that change elements into flesh and blood."Unquote
Truthtesty: Hah! I can handle your pathetic empty failed attempt to impress, you used to present an image of truth, but it is false. lol. I agree Jesus is figuratively referencing his real literal Shed blood on the cross. And? If the prophet of G-d Jesus? Said something it it unwise to second guess, what Jesus the magical "feeder of the multitudes" said.
I agree you are intentionally trying to confuse the figurative/literal usage. But again what about the blood, the bread and the death in 1 Corinthians which you conveniantly bypass because it would show your falsehood? As I said before "USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS![/b] Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm??"
You are unable to comprehend new facts. And? You can't argue the facts, because you are stuck in the old transubstitutionist argument. You fail to answer my questions. A transubstitutionist would not say the Blood of Christ is a synecdoche.
You are here to dictate an old failed argument of "blood equals death only in the Blood of Christ, Which? You will not dictate here. I have proven that your dead-ender ideology is false. It is the incorrect figurative/literal usage of blood in the Blood of Christ. You simply repeated your tired old defeated empty arguments against the transubstitutionists, but those do not apply here.
You disagree? Of course you are contrary, but you have no leg of truth to stand on. You have lost the "argument", whether you actually "surrender" or not.
You disagree? Of course you are contrary. So? Answer the challenge of the literal Shed Blood go ahead and "argue" the parallel text in Matthew in my previous post or will you just BYPASS the real issue again? And again? So you don't have to face your(Thieme's, McArthur's, Behm's falsehood and the reality that you should surrender to the truth.:
Quote
TruthtestyTo the Forum:
Quote
zeebrook
Well Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions.
Truthtesty: No it is you z, who should take your own advice. It is you like Thieme who would take Nazi Behm's "low information" speculation to wild extremes. Again, as I have said before you need to debate what the text says and not your substitutions.
Quote
zeebrook
Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my. blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates). The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.
Truthtesty: First, the synecdoche "Blood of Christ" does include the Shed literal Blood of Jesus, His broken Body, His physical and Spiritual death. Second, if Jesus, the theophany of G-d in the flesh
prayed and blessed the bread and gave thanks for the wine, then it is most unwise to second guess G-d and say:
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. But? there's more.
Why do you think it wasn't his actual body/blood? Because it was not occuring at the moment. If you are going to go to insane literal extremes and say that because the wine does not equal exactly the literal Shed blood of Jesus, and the Shed blood of Jesus was not being Shed at the moment at the moment. And? the Bread was not the literal broken body, and the body of jesus was not being broken at the moment, then guess what z? THEN USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS! Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm?? If you are going to apply your failed logic to the obvious interpretation, then make sure you follow through and apply your failed logic to your own interpretation. You have distorted that obvious figurative to literal interpretation.
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
z quote if he were honest and applied his failed logic to himself: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood AND NOT HIS ACTUAL DEATH ON THE CROSS, but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e." BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WERE OCCURING AT THE MOMENT, AND F-I-G-U-R-E-S ARE USED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL."unquote
Quote
zeebrook
You say “Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words). This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.
Truthtesty: You are here to protect Nazi Behm and Thieme, and other fringe theologians. This is ridiculous and insane. I dont' WANT anything. IT IS THE OBVIOUS LOGICAL INTERPRETATION. The figurative to literal meaning is obvious. I don't think you realize how to "argue" apart from looking at what a theologican "you like", says.
Quote
zeebrook
So Matthew 26:26-28 has Jesus using physical items to symbolise His pending death, that He would die upon a cross to give His life for all mankind. Jesus is saying "This is my body/blood" is clearly showing His death as required for the remission of sins. "This My blood represents my death which is required for the remission of sins"..
Truthtesty: No as I said before
Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.
Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.
Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.
The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".
Truthtesty
There is no conflict with the aspect of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus and the physical aspect and spiritual aspect of the Death of Jesus.
Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed
took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he
took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.You see? Blood does not equal death in this case. Blood equals literal Shed blood of Jesus. Both bread eaten and wine drank represent rememberance of the Death of Christ, but? neither the Shed literal Blood nor "life given up in Death" are contradictory, contrare, they compliement each other.
26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come"
For your false figurative to literal meanings to be true, it would have said:
26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's BLOOD till he come.BUT? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. Do you see the difference? Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.
Your figurative to literal meaning, as well as Thieme's and Nazi Behm's "that blood equals death only", in the "Blood of Jesus" is false. The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.
Also, above you copied from somewhere "The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi." to sound as if you really know something, (you run to your greek lexicon touting"present active indicative" when your are in greatest doubt as if like Thieme(who said "present active indicative" thousands of times) you can just snowball people about the truth. It is so obvious and pathetic) but? try to argue the parallel text that I have just shown you:
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.I doubt you will because there is nothing to copy.
Truthtesty
Here's another one z. Would you argue Jesus did not feed the multitudes? Hah! Jesus turned water in wine (a fine wine indeed), and 5 loaves and 2 fish were multiplied by the power of Jesus, to feed the multitudes. But? Suddenly according to your dead ender dead orthodoxy Jesus' prayers are powerless to "turn" wine and bread? Hah! Another proof of your failed ideology. It is you who is foolish to second guess G-d and say that Jesus is a liar and powerless. You do not know that a "spiritual/physical dna" property or something wasn't added. That is your academic arrogance which has no foundation.
The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.
Don't cowardly bypass this time z, answer my question.
Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.Again you cowardly bypass the truth.
This forum is about the truth and looking at both sides of the "debate". This forum has not seen everything Dewar and Gayford said. But? You would like Thieme falsely declare your self a "winner" by bypassing my facts, questions and the other side of the debate. No you won't. Not here.
I think you do not understand the gravity of this. I have proven this anew right here. You and your kind are defeated and the truth will come out, as much as you hate the truth coming out.
Hah! Cheerio old boy.
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2009 12:44PM by Truthtesty.