I Thes 5:22

[OldSchool2]

18 minutes ago, B3L13v3R said:

 

 

So there was no bread or wine in the entire town of Capernaum?

[OldSchool2]

4 minutes ago, Davida said:

Typical deflection tactic.

That was an example of what you do to avoid mature dialogue. 

You ignored my request...

It was not a request, and it was later clarified. So stop complaining and go read it.

[B3L13v3R]

31 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Because Roman Catholics are "unbelievers"?

Yes, that is what I see when coming along side of the Word of God outside of any liturgy that is brought forth in the Roman Catholic and Episcopalians with their Transubstantiation. The Lutherans as well with their Consubstantiation liturgy/religion.

Jesus Christ is not "IN" the Eucharist, nor will He ever leave His prominent position at the right hand of the Father, to jump into the "host" for anyone to eat at Mass.
He will not leave his position at the right hand of Father until the Father tells Him it is time for His second coming:

Mat 24:36  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Transubstantiation with Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Consubstantiation with Lutherans qualify as "another gospel."
I love and reach out to you folks regularly expounding on God's truths, and I thank God a few are listening. 

2Co 11:3-4  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  (4)  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Gal 1:8-10  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  (9)  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  (10)  For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

"Ex" Roman Catholic, B3L13v3R

[simplejeff]

43 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

I'm still waiting for your response to one simple question: are Roman Catholics are "unbelievers"?

Yes, according to rcc doctrines, practices and all the rcc idolatries and abominations.

No, according to internet rules,  if they "claim" to be saved. 

Yahweh is not prejudiced:  the same is true of many other "churches" also. (not just rcc)

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

"... Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (John 6:54-5).

New American Standard Bible
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

King James Bible
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink.

International Standard Version
because my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.

NET Bible
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

New Heart English Bible
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For my body truly is food, and my blood truly is drink.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

New American Standard 1977
“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

King James 2000 Bible
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

American King James Version
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

American Standard Version
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Darby Bible Translation
for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.

English Revised Version
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Webster's Bible Translation
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Weymouth New Testament
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

World English Bible
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Young's Literal Translation
for my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink;

Just simply quoting a verse and ignoring the literary context is futile.  Applying pagan,  errant RCC false doctrines on top that only makes it worse.

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

I like you oldschool , but I am done with my efforts here....

What exactly were you trying to accomplish here?

[OldSchool2]

17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Just simply quoting a verse and ignoring the literary context is futile....

We both know the context is John 6, but all these translations agree on John 6:54-5.

 

 

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Yes, according to rcc doctrines, practices and all the rcc idolatries and abominations.

No, according to internet rules,  if they "claim" to be saved....

Really? What Worthy TOS "internet rule" is that?

And what exactly are you calling an RCC "abomination"?

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

...

Transubstantiation with Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Consubstantiation with Lutherans qualify as "another gospel."
I love and reach out to you folks regularly expounding on God's truths, and I thank God a few are listening...

"Ex" Roman Catholic, B3L13v3R

To be an "Ex," you had to be one, but were you ever really RC?

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

We both know the context is John 6, but all these translations agree on John 6:54-5.

 

 

The issue is not the translation.  The issue is the line of thought in the passage.   Jesus was replacing the Jewish notion of the law as the tree of eternal life and living water as a source of eternal life, with his own body and blood.   He is still using the same metaphorical language.

His point is that the law, despite what the Jews thought, was not the way to eternal life.   His body and blood were an allusion to his crucifixion and death.   There is nothing in the Bible teaches that we are to eat the actual physical body and blood of Jesus.   His body was broken and died on the cross to deliver us from the curse of the law.  His blood was shed for the remission of sins.   We partake  of his body and blood when we put our faith in Him.  We appropriate saving power of the work that was done on the cross by Jesus when he shed His blood and died.

The RCC took that blessed truth and mangled the Scriptures into a demonic, pagan. abominable doctrine pertaining to the Eucharist/Mass/Transubstantiation.  Anathema upon it all.