My burden to prove an ancient document is something spoken by Jesus?<quoted text>
"Basically", I believe it's your burden to establish that Christ in fact promised or offered "to know yourself is to know the kingdom of God" as a prime directive or command. I would ask you to establish this premise first prior to demanding my response to your questions about it.
No, my burden is to show the facts that the RCC is not the sole organization for someone to be saved. That bologna is propogated in a false preaching by the RCC.
But will you do the same that you ask of me, with any of the NT texts - prove that they were also viable commands of Jesus? Probably not, huh? But you'll go on believing them as they are, and totally disregard those other texts that MEN HAVE DECIDED FOR YOU TO NOT BELIEVE.
imo - Your statement above is very typical of someone who hasn't researched their religion prior to joining (or never ventured outside of it all their life).
Do you always believe everything you read?<quoted text>
As to what I would find "reasonable" in context of my discourse with Marge, I'm sure that Marge finds it within reason that Christ can save her from her and the rest of mankind from sin, could change water into wine, could raise Lazarus from the dead, Himself be resurrected from the dead, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc.
Oh wait - your rebuttal will be "faith", huh?
Where as it should be - Self.
Only in your mind is where this resides.<quoted text>
Given all this, she now proclaims (sans rationale) that it's "unreasonable" for Christians to believe that He can be fully present in the Eucharist, despite His repeated promise that He would be and His repeated instructions for us to partake in Him in that manner for our salvation.
Nothing more or nothing less.
Yes Dan, this is Self.