I was starting to conver to Independent Fundementalist Baptistism but then

Yes, because it's a symbol of the Lord's body given up for us in order to defeat sin and death. Of course if you dishonor or blaspheme a covenantal practice that significant then you are spitting on all that it stands for. This applies to any symbol in any religion. Not only that, but anything that is deemed worthy of respect. Think of national flags. People burn them and tear them up and patriots accuse them of spitting on the graves of fallen soldiers. It's the same logic in the situation of the Lord's Supper, only the Lord's Supper is much more significant than a national flag.

Don't try to reason with the statue-worshippers. They don't listen to reason.

This is the absolute state of papists. They can't even understand what a symbol is or how important symbology is. Luther was right about your kind. And now look at your own Pope - a viper leading a brood of vipers.
Not my pastor, not my problem. This board is an embarrassment to Christendom. Where's the brotherhood? Where's the outreach efforts? But all I see here is constant bickering, bullying, and monomania about a random no-name pastor nobody really cares about because people here need some sort of wedge to use against Baptists. You all need to read the Epistles again, very carefully.

From the Gospel on to this passage it all emphasized how literal the body and blood part must be taken.
Not only do we have proof from the early Church Fathers that it was also taken literal from the beginning but even secular Roman sources state that christians did some kind of 'cannibalistic ritual' because of the Eucharist.

Even he believed in the real presence but describes it differently.

The heresy of a symbolic eucharist is a very recent heresy only supported by anabaptists, Zwingli and the offshoots of these.
No other people have ever believed this except for maybe some heretical pseudo-gnostic fringe groups in the early years.

Not only once but now twice, not counting repetition, does scripture refer to the Lord's supper as body and blood without qualifiers. Signs like circumcision get labeled as such in the Bible, the body and blood of the Lord don't. Why do baptists insist on misinterpreting these fact in literal protest of historical practice, especially if they can't find any historical documentation of those who back up their interpretation?
Jesus is life. If you eat his flesh and drink his blood like Jesus commands, you have the light of his eternal life in you. The same could never be said of a symbol, and never was until modern times.

...

Are you serious? The people trying to discredit Christians. Of course they'd say Christians were cannibals to try to turn people against them.
So I am to believe that they took the Eucharist literally, but considered Genesis to be metaphor? What's the basis for that?

But Sola Scriptura only applies to the passages I like.

What did he mean by this?

For the former, all of the reasons stated, and for the latter they were divided except for pointing out obvious problems such as days existing before the solar cycle. Now can put the goalposts back where they were?

How is this a problem, though? Time flows whether or not there is a sun. And God can give light in the sun's stead. Even in the days of Moses, the solar cycle was understood. The order was deliberate.

Moses understood days because days are marked by the sun. In general, they Church Fathers were simply averse to spreading interpretations of scripture that contradicted basic scientific observations because God's creation should not contradict God's creation. Now, the goalposts, if you will.

Uh-huh. So if we took a X-ray of a guy's stomach after he took the Eucharist, we would find flesh in place of bread? So what else does science tell us… such as perhaps, whether or not the dead rises from the grave?
No, the two are linked concepts. I want to know the basis for saying that something is a metaphor in the Bible or that something was meant literally in the Bible. To understand that the defense of one concept is flawed is to understand that the defense of the other is also flawed.

Attached: orthodox thinking.png (105x105, 8.25K)

But the verse was talking about a temple. Why is it taking more than 3 days for them to build the Third Temple? Or was it, I dare say… symbolic?

Then why would they call them cannibals when they could be calling them dozens of things that might seem more plausible because cannibals would actually leave a trail of dead behind?

Read it for yourself then.

...

You tell me. Why would they be tarring Christians with that particular brush if there was no body trail? Could it have been a combination of misunderstanding the symbology and a desire to exaggerate the details to incite violence against Christians?

So where's that temple? What does science tell us about dead things coming back to life? What are you trying to say: that this was symbolic language referring to the Resurrection?

Christ is risen
Who?
That was literally your implication

Attached: 9b20680a3785d28207ef8fc76805ba674b9eb56020ff89323cafa4b5901832e8.jpg (720x478, 33.97K)

Okay, so then we agree that this part of the Bible was speaking symbolically. So then, that brings us back to the transubstantiation. If Jesus said that the bread was His body and the wine His blood, then by transubstantiantive logic, does this mean that Jesus's body literally became a temple building when He died?

Are you pretending or what?

You… don't actually know anything about Eucharistic theology do you?

newadvent.org/summa/4073.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4074.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4079.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm

newadvent.org/summa/4083.htm

The basis's have already been given. The Eucharist has been said by Jesus to be Jesus's body, so it is explicitly true. Plus there have been literal accounts of Eucharistic miracles, such as that at Lanciano where the host was found inexplicably fused with cardiac tissue and has not rotted for over a millenium (Here's a download link for a published scientific study thereof, I would post myself if Zig Forums wanted me too.
mediafire.com/file/2j2j8qalrmcrlb4/Lanciano Article 16-45-35.pdf My apologies if you can't read Italian, there are a litany of articles summarizing the findings online). Genesis, on the other hand, is self-defeating as a literal interpretation given that days do not exist without the sun, and a literal interpretation has all but been obliterated by modern science.

Attached: Flesh Relic from Lanciano Miracle.jpg (379x400, 79.7K)

If the early christians were like andersonists the Romans would never have any suspicion of them being cannibals.
If someone asks you what you eat at your Lord's Supper, will you answer "The Blood and Body of Jesus Christ" or "The last supper that Jesus had as a symbol of his covenant with us in remembrance of Him"?
Then, which one do you think would give them a suspicion of cannibalism going on?

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I'm perfectly fine with Anderson, stop giving in to these cucks

But it is true, in a symbolic sense. When we eat the bread, we are to remember that Jesus came in the flesh and suffered in the flesh for us. And when we drink the wine, we remember that Jesus bled for our sins.
This is poorly substantiated, and there are dissenting opinions on the nature of the globules.
No, it's quite clearly not self-defeating. We know that day can exist independently of a sun, and we know that light - better understood as the electromagnetic spectrum - can exist independently of the sun. We also know that time exists independently of the sun. There is no reason to assume that there was no day before the sun existed. Modern science has not obliterated a literal understanding of Genesis.

For crying out loud, you're horribly ignorant of what goes on in Protestant churches! Those who reject the transubstantiation do not say "symbol of Christ's body", they usually say "this is the body of Christ". The obvious difference is that protestants have the ability to comprehend this in a symbolic sense. I've been to Baptist churches, Pentecostal churches, Methodist churches, and Lutheran churches, and they do it like that. A hostile Roman writer would see what happens in Protestant churches and misunderstand it as cannibalism, and those are the churches that reject transubstantiation.

Strange, the protestants of my father's side of the family don't do this.
Even so, when a Roman soldier would interrogate you and ask you if you're eating flesh or bread, what would you answer?
Would you keep on saying that it really is the Body of Christ or that's all symbolic?

Lutherans and Methodists believe in the real presence, just not transubstantiation.

And would immediately get refuted by being told it's all symbolic if the early christians were andersonists or the like.

In comparison to any apostolic denomination, denying the real presence would be a grave sin and equal to denying Christ Himself.

Unless the dissenting opinions say they aren't globules then they don't don't really address the whole 1300 year old flesh fused with bread refusing to decompose bit. You should cite them though, preferably from a scientific journal.
Modern science does not believe that the entirety of the animal kingdom popped into existence on one day. Unless God's creation is to contradict God's creation, a purely literal reading of the creation story must be discarded.

Not really, the ancients took symbology much more seriously than we do. For them, even hearing that it was symbolic would still have reinforced in their minds that Christians were cannibals. After all, as a law-abiding Roman centurion with high standards of behavior, I couldn't imagine even playing at eating human flesh. And these Christian folks, they're doing it as part of some religious ritual? There's something very strange about them.
But nobody does that. Christ is still present during the Eucharist.

As far as I've seen, it looks like Linoli's paper isn't taken very seriously by the scientific community.
I'm going to need further substantiation than one paper published in 1971, and I want it from an independent source.

Modern science also doesn't believe resurrection from the dead is possible. It also doesn't believe that death entered the world on account of man. It also doesn't believe the Exodus of Jews from Egypt ever happened. It also, until relatively recently, rejected the existence of the Hittites.

Also, that's a misrepresention of the alternative viewpoint.

Then why have you been arguing for it as a symbol?
If you yourself are taking shots at the scientific community then you should probably know why, and why he is the only one who has looked into the subject, publishing his work in an independent journal mind you. That doesn't change the basic facts of the specimen and the confirmation of them through scientific study. If you claim that there are dissenting opinions on the globules and Linoli's analysis then you should present them. Otherwise, the man's research stands.
Historical analysis, especially if it discounts the historical records of an entire nation, is one thing. Basic observations about biological patterns are another entirely. Unless you want to contend with evolutionary science itself then your criticisms of it cannot hold water.

So you don't have further substantiation aside from one Catholic ex-professor's paper published in an obscure journal more than 50 years ago. Was his paper even peer reviewed? I'm reading that it wasn't. In the spirit of inquiry, do you have more? As for the dissenting opinions, you can find them on the first page of Google results of searching by Linoli's first and last names.
Is horribly flawed and rests on very bad axioms, but which is still maintained due to its importance to the secular narrative/dogma.

If you're going to make unsubstantiated, one sentence assertions about near-universally recognized scientific fact on one hand and reject a scientist who has actually done work to verify the miraculous on the other then this entire conversation is built on a double standard. One isn't conclusive, as strong as it is, but the other is more or less a concluded debate.

You're going to some great lengths to deny the basic word of God. Yet so far nothing cited from the Bible pertains to any of your claims.

user I…
answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/

Attached: elected-chuckle-lol-kek.png (688x418, 584.56K)

This is such bullshit if I ever heard any.
If you compared CURRENT YEAR with 0AD then yeah, but symbology was as important in the 17th century as with the Romans.
Once again, if it was purely symbolic it would've easily been explained to any Roman and no further accusation would've been made.
I don't know if you ever read the bible but that would've given you a slight hint on how grave a case it would be if a Roman citizen was accused and/or tried for no good reason like "a purely symbolic meal of bread and wine".

Then what the fugg are you on about saying it's symbolic?
Are you LARPing or something?

Literally an advertisement for people to spend money at their hokey theme park.

Begame Western Rite Ordodox