What Is The Purpose Of Taking Communion ?

[Foreigner]

Who said I disagreeing with you? You are not my enemy, Foreigner. I am agreeing with Paul that receiving the Eucharist / communion in an unworthy manner is sinful. Furthermore, I think it is hyperbole to claim that Jesus is being murdered over and over again - it is a baseless charge against all Christians.

-- So, you disagree with Neophyte when he says:
"Paul confirms what Jesus taught in John's Gospel, chapter 6. If we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of the unthinkable crime of profaning Christ's body and blood (literally, murdering Christ)."

 

[aspen]

-- So, you disagree with Neophyte when he says:
"Paul confirms what Jesus taught in John's Gospel, chapter 6. If we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of the unthinkable crime of profaning Christ's body and blood (literally, murdering Christ)."

I do. I hope you were asking me because you wanted my opinion, not to build a case against Neophyte. His name alone tells us we should be treating him like a new Christian - I am sure we can all remember our own zealous early years in the faith.

 

[Foreigner]

I do. I hope you were asking me because you wanted my opinion, not to build a case against Neophyte. His name alone tells us we should be treating him like a new Christian - I am sure we can all remember our own zealous early years in the faith.

-- My zealotry for God in my "early years" bordered on obnoxious. But it was always about inclusion (Everyone needs to get saved and right now!) and NEVER about a denomination or one denominations beliefs/claims.

And it was never about criticizing the Catholic church to others, even though I left the Catholic church.

My pastor said it best from the pulpit one day: "Some in this church today will probably go to hell. There are members of the Catholic church two blocks away that WILL be going to heaven. Occupying a pew does not guarantee you will occupy a place in heaven."

Neophyte is Catholic and likely not a new convert to Catholicism. Yet he speaks of it being the one true church and that those who aren't members being lost.
He is part of the tone being set that finds people being more overtly critical of the Catholic church.

You and I have been here for some time. There was a very long period of time when the Catholic church was not mentioned here as being anything outside the regular body of Christ.

 

[aspen]

-- My zealotry for God in my "early years" bordered on obnoxious. But it was always about inclusion (Everyone needs to get saved and right now!) and NEVER about a denomination or one denominations beliefs/claims.

And it was never about criticizing the Catholic church to others, even though I left the Catholic church.

My pastor said it best from the pulpit one day: "Some in this church today will probably go to hell. There are members of the Catholic church two blocks away that WILL be going to heaven. Occupying a pew does not guarantee you will occupy a place in heaven."

Neophyte is Catholic and likely not a new convert to Catholicism. Yet he speaks of it being the one true church and that those who aren't members being lost.
He is part of the tone being set that finds people being more overtly critical of the Catholic church.

You and I have been here for some time. There was a very long period of time when the Catholic church was not mentioned here as being anything outside the regular body of Christ.

I know. You are right and I have publicly confronted Neophyte about his tone, like many other people have. I guess I am just getting tired of the conversation.....I share your opinion about the futility of placing our loyalty in specific churches or denominations. Christ is who unites us, not church.

I am pretty sure I remember him telling me that he is new to the Catholic church, however.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
When the passengers and cargo of the ark came ashore; God instituted a
covenant with them all that to my knowledge has never been either annulled,
repealed, amended; nor rendered obsolete by another covenant.

Noah's covenant isn't a Jewish covenant-- it's a universal covenant, affecting
both man and beast, instituted many centuries before there even was such a
thing as a Jew.

†. Gen 9:9-10 . . And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your
seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the
cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to
every beast of the earth.

Well; all of us today, both Jew and Gentile, are Noah's progeny-- we can all be
traced back to one of Noah's three sons so the covenant is our covenant as well
as Noah's.

Besides establishing the death penalty for murder, the covenant also forbids
consuming living flesh.

†. Gen 9:3-5 . . Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to
you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.

My point is: Jesus rose from the dead immortal.

†. Rom 6:9 . . Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again;
death no longer is master over Him.

Therefore people who believe in transubstantiation have been consuming living
flesh because it is impossible to kill flesh that's immortal.

Noah's covenant also forbids consuming blood; which the Jerusalem council
affirmed in the New Testament.

†. Acts 15:19-21 . . It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it
difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

When the ordinances of Noah's covenant, and those of Moses' covenant are
taken into consideration and correlated with the Jerusalem council; it's easily
discerned that the Lord's terminology can only be interpreted as highly symbolic
rather than literal.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

But what it comes down to is this:
1. The Catholic church teaches that if you do not partake in their version of Communion, you are not saved.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that?

Where does the Catholic Church teach that receiving the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?

Think about it. Where does the Catholic Church teach (for example) that children are damned until they are old enough to (and do) receive the Eucharist?

2. Millions of Christians the world over do not partake in the Catholic's definition of Communion.

That is true. But the Catholic Church does not say they are damned.

3. Since those Christians - if they truly gave their hearts to Jesus - are indeed saved…….

Not proven

…..the Catholic "inspired requirement" for salvation is null and void.

Your false version of the ‘Catholic "inspired requirement" for salvation’ may be null and void.

4. Catholics refuse to accept this irrefutable fact.

There aren’t any facts there to accept.

-- Oh, I learned exactly what the Catholic church teaches about Communion.

Have you?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Let's say for the purpose of argument that transubstantiation is true. How
often would somebody have to consume the Lord's flesh and blood? The
answer is just once; and here's why.

According to John 6:53-54 the kind of life that would be obtained by
consuming the Lord's flesh and blood is eternal life; which is impervious
to death; so then, once somebody gets it, there's no need for them to keep
coming back to get it again, and again, and again because eternal life
doesn't degenerate, or spoil, or evaporate, or break down, or corrode, or
lose its vitality, or wear out, or run down, or get old and/or die from disease,
accident, crime, or malnutrition: nor does eternal life have either a shelf life,
or an expiration date. Ten million years from today, eternal life won't be any
less fresh than it is right now.

In addition; note the grammatical tense of the Lord's "have" verb in John
6:54.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

It's present tense rather than future, indicating that people who consume
the elements are supposed to be granted eternal life the very moment they
do so-- no delay, and no waiting period: which means that when people
consume the elements on a Sunday morning, they should be in possession
of eternal life before they even get back to their cars in the parking lot.

Now; according to Rom 6:23, the wages of sin is death; but since eternal life
is impervious to death, then eternal life's beneficiaries needn't fear losing it
in between confessions.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Buen Camino
/

 

[justaname]

Yes I have and do partake in the Eucharist. I personally believe in consubstantiation. I do it because Jesus asks us to do this in remembrance of Him.

For some reason many have used their definition of the sacrament to be a dividing issue amongst Christians, whereas I do not see that as Jesus' intent when he made the request. Never did He define what was to become of the practice nor the details of what was to happen at the practice.

To put into perspective what was going on, they were eating on passover. One could gather that at every act of eating and or drinking we are to remember Him, whereas I would find no fault in them. We do know they ate an entire meal before He presented the cup. 1 Cor 11:25

I have honestly been impacted by the Eucharist in a substantial, life changing way. It is a holy and significant sacrament. We as Christians should never take lightly nor forsake the power of the Eucharist.

 

[Axehead]

.


I think the author of Hebrews assumed we'd all understand his statement to
mean Jesus was without his own sin. In other words: the forbidden fruit sin
was Adam's-- not ours and certainly not the Lord's.

A fair question somebody might ask-- and usually does ask --is how can a
mortal man descended from Adam live a 110% sinless life and never
commit even one sin of their own in either thought, word, or deed? Well; the
answer is very simple; and actually pretty easy to understand too.

Jesus was born not only of man, but also of God. That gave him a really big
advantage right out of the box.

†. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Since God is the one who manufactured human nature, then He is easily
able to overpower it; which He did in Jesus; and here's how.

†. John 3:34 . . God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit

In other words: Jesus wasn't just filled with God's Spirit, he was maxed out
with God's Spirit-- all of God's Spirit: not just a percentage of God's Spirit.

†. Col 1:18-19 . . God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ

Not even the Devil himself would be able to commit a sin while maxed out
with all the fullness of God.

I've had atheists complain that Jesus had an unfair advantage over the rest
of us; but they usually calm down when I tell them that Christ was destined
to be the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world-- not just some
of the world, but the whole world from Adam to the final child born on earth.
It wouldn't have been prudent of God to leave it up to a man born of Adam
to make it to the cross on his own. Sooner or later, left to himself, Jesus
would have tripped up and committed a sin somewhere along the line and
thus blown the plan of salvation to smithereens. No, too much was riding on
Jesus. No way could he be left to himself on such an important mission. God
micro-managed Christ every step of the way from birth to death. He was truly a
possessed man in every sense of the word-- in a good way of course.

Buen Camino
/

Jesus had to deny the flesh that He was living in. He hungered, He grew tired, He suffered temptations. God could not micro-manage anything if Jesus did not cooperate. He chose to obey His Father. He chose to listen to Him and He chose to do what His Father commanded.

He even asked if "this cup can pass", but as soon as He asked that I am sure His Father told Him that there is "no other way", and Jesus said, "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thy will be done".

People think that it was a BREEZE for Jesus, but there were certain parameters that He had to operate by. He could not alter God's will and call 12 legions of Angels to deliver Him. He suffered, yet He obeyed.

He did not just tell us to ABIDE IN HIM, He demonstrated to us how to ABIDE and HOW to OBEY. Via Suffering, picking up our cross, denying self and following Him.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Axehead

 

[Mungo]

.
Besides establishing the death penalty for murder, the covenant also forbids
consuming living flesh.

†. Gen 9:3-5 . . Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to
you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.

My point is: Jesus rose from the dead immortal.

Your argument is flawed in several ways:

1. Genesis 9:3-4 is clearly referring to animals that God has given to Noah to eat, not humans which is dealt with in Gen 9:5. God is dealing with something very different to giving himself in the Eucharist which is not food for the body but food for the soul

2. Gen 9: 4 itself defines what it means by living flesh and it does not mean immortal flesh. It means (animal) flesh with the blood still in it.
“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

You are therefore trying to equate two different definitions of “living flesh”. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

3. I dispute that these instructions that are given to Noah are part of the covenant with Noah. At this point God has not mentioned covenant. God is giving instructions about the conduct of Noah and his sons which concludes at verse 7. He then introduces the covenant as a new topic in verse 8 onwards. Moreover the covenant is not just made with Noah and his sons but with every living creature. It is a one sided covenant with God promising not to destroy the earth with a flood ever again.

4. It is also clear from Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians concerning meat sacrificed to idols (1Cor 8) that all dietary restrictions have been dispensed with.

†. Acts 15:19-21 . . It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it
difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

The council of Jerusalem was not making a universal list of prohibitions, it was dealing with a particular problem that had arisen with Jews and Gentiles who were living together (in Antioch) converting to Christianity. It was asking the gentiles to hold back on some things that were causing difficulty for the Jews.

It’s the same principle that Paul was giving in 1 Cor 8 – hold back and be sensitive to others scruples.


What has been lost in this is that with the Eucharist we are not dealing with flesh and blood in the carnal sense.

St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest of theologians. His Summa Theologica is still a classic.

He says about this:
It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

He also says at another point:
From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."

.
Let's say for the purpose of argument that transubstantiation is true. How
often would somebody have to consume the Lord's flesh and blood? The
answer is just once; and here's why.

According to John 6:53-54 the kind of life that would be obtained by
consuming the Lord's flesh and blood is eternal life; which is impervious
to death; so then, once somebody gets it, there's no need for them to keep
coming back to get it again, and again, and again because eternal life
doesn't degenerate, or spoil, or evaporate, or break down, or corrode, or
lose its vitality, or wear out, or run down, or get old and/or die from disease,
accident, crime, or malnutrition: nor does eternal life have either a shelf life,
or an expiration date. Ten million years from today, eternal life won't be any
less fresh than it is right now.

In addition; note the grammatical tense of the Lord's "have" verb in John
6:54.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

It's present tense rather than future, indicating that people who consume
the elements are supposed to be granted eternal life the very moment they
do so-- no delay, and no waiting period: which means that when people
consume the elements on a Sunday morning, they should be in possession
of eternal life before they even get back to their cars in the parking lot.

Now; according to Rom 6:23, the wages of sin is death; but since eternal life
is impervious to death, then eternal life's beneficiaries needn't fear losing it
in between confessions.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Buen Camino
/

Eternal life is not immortality.

Our souls are already immortal.

Our bodies will not be immortal until we get new bodies at the Resurrection.

Eternal Life is about intimate union with God.

“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (Jn 6:56)

Our relationship with God needs constant attention and building up.

“Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither” (Jn 15:4-6)

We can not only not remain in Christ, but our being “in Christ” can become weakened. We need food for the soul to strengthen us to grow and remain more and more in Christ, and him in us.

St. Thomas Aquinas again:
There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist."

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Eternal life is not immortality.

The two are often confused. Immortality refers to the nature of an
indestructible body; while eternal life refers to the nature of an indestructible
soul.

Our souls are already immortal.

Far from being immortal, the natural-born human soul is quite susceptible to
termination.

†. Mtt 10:28 . . Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Eternal Life is about intimate union with God. “Now this is eternal life, that
they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent,
Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

That's similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach door to door;
and it's close but no cigar.

The real meaning of John 17:3 is that Christ gives his own eternal life in
order to make it possible for them to relate to God and/or His son on their
own level. In other words; it's difficult for God and/or His son to relate to
human life because human life's intuition is simply too limited. Without both
parties having eternal life, both parties would be frustrated trying to
communicate with each on a meaningful level even though they may be the
best of friends.

For example: my Guinea pig and I were really good buddies before she died;
but Fuzzy had a pig's mind and I have a man's mind. So we couldn't relate
all that well. We related as pets and their owners relate; but never as
humans relate to humans because our minds were neither on the same
level nor on the same wave length: she being animal life and me being
human life. Well; God and His son are eternal life; which relates to human life
even less than a man and an animal. So in my natural state; they can
relate to me only on the level by which pets and their owners relate; which
is pretty limited.

all dietary restrictions have been dispensed with.

According to Heb 9:16-17, a testament is in force only upon the death of the
testator. So; since the Lord's hand-picked men were all Jews whose religion
was the first testament's regulations; then they were still under its jurisdiction
the night of the Lord's last supper when he made the pronouncements located
at Mtt 26:26-28.

According to the first testament's regulations, it's illegal for Jews to consume blood.

†. Lev 7:26-27 . . You shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or
of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eats any manner
of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

The words "no manner of blood" and the words "any manner of blood" of
course include human blood otherwise language and grammar would serve
no practical purpose in the Bible.

So then, had the Lord actually fed his men transubstantiation prior to his
death, he would have been guilty of leading them to violate their own God
given religion's law; and thus relegated himself to the status of least in the
kingdom of God. (Mtt 5:19)

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

.
The two are often confused. Immortality refers to the nature of an
indestructible body; while eternal life refers to the nature of an indestructible
soul.

The two are often confused – as you are doing now.

Strictly, eternal means something has always existed and will always exist.
Only God is eternal.

The soul is not therefore eternal. It is immortal. Many scriptures testify to this:

Far from being immortal, the natural-born human soul is quite susceptible to
termination.

†. Mtt 10:28 . . Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The Greek word for destroy is not that which is used earlier for kill. It means rather “ruin”. It is the same verb used in Mt 9:17 referring to the wineskins that are ruined.
"People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”

It is the alternative to eternal life as described by Jesus in Mt 25:46 when he says “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

Souls are not annihilated but go to everlasting punishment which is ruin.

That's similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach door to door;
and it's close but no cigar.

Am I supposed to be glad or sad about that?

It’s just a smear tactic

The real meaning of John 17:3 is that Christ gives his own eternal life in

order to make it possible for them to relate to God and/or His son on their

own level. In other words; it's difficult for God and/or His son to relate to

human life because human life's intuition is simply too limited. Without both

parties having eternal life, both parties would be frustrated trying to

communicate with each on a meaningful level even though they may be the

best of friends.



For example: my Guinea pig and I were really good buddies before she died;

but Fuzzy had a pig's mind and I have a man's mind. So we couldn't relate

all that well. We related as pets and their owners relate; but never as

humans relate to humans because our minds were neither on the same

level nor on the same wave length: she being animal life and me being

human life. Well; God and His son are eternal life; which relates to human life

even less than a man and an animal. So in my natural state; they can

relate to me only on the level by which pets and their owners relate; which

is pretty limited.

The real meaning of John 17:3is what Jesus said it was, not your invention.

“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
Moreover your example is irrelevant. We are not talking about finitely limited men and finitely limited guinea pigs but an infinite God.

It fails in two ways:

1. God made us and God can relate to us. “All things are possible for God.”. (Mk 10:27)

God had no problem relating to Adam in the garden.

2. Moreover God has become man in Jesus, and has a human nature.

According to Heb 9:16-17, a testament is in force only upon the death of the

testator. So; since the Lord's hand-picked men were all Jews whose religion

was the first testament's regulations; then they were still under its jurisdiction

the night of the Lord's last supper when he made the pronouncements located

at Mtt 26:26-28.



According to the first testament's regulations, it's illegal for Jews to consume blood.



†. Lev 7:26-27 . . You shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or

of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eats any manner

of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.



The words "no manner of blood" and the words "any manner of blood" of

course include human blood otherwise language and grammar would serve

no practical purpose in the Bible.



So then, had the Lord actually fed his men transubstantiation prior to his

death, he would have been guilty of leading them to violate their own God

given religion's law; and thus relegated himself to the status of least in the

kingdom of God. (Mtt 5:19)



Buen Camino

/

You think God is not master of his own regulations? As Jesus said of the Sabbath

“the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28)

Moreover you are missing out the most important point that Jesus’ body and blood are not present in the normal physical way of visible accidents but only as the substance of flesh and the substance of blood.

As I quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas
From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."

 

[neophyte]

.


The two are often confused. Immortality refers to the nature of an
indestructible body; while eternal life refers to the nature of an indestructible
soul.




Far from being immortal, the natural-born human soul is quite susceptible to
termination.

†. Mtt 10:28 . . Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.




That's similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach door to door;
and it's close but no cigar.

The real meaning of John 17:3 is that Christ gives his own eternal life in
order to make it possible for them to relate to God and/or His son on their
own level. In other words; it's difficult for God and/or His son to relate to
human life because human life's intuition is simply too limited. Without both
parties having eternal life, both parties would be frustrated trying to
communicate with each on a meaningful level even though they may be the
best of friends.

For example: my Guinea pig and I were really good buddies before she died;
but Fuzzy had a pig's mind and I have a man's mind. So we couldn't relate
all that well. We related as pets and their owners relate; but never as
humans relate to humans because our minds were neither on the same
level nor on the same wave length: she being animal life and me being
human life. Well; God and His son are eternal life; which relates to human life
even less than a man and an animal. So in my natural state; they can
relate to me only on the level by which pets and their owners relate; which
is pretty limited.




According to Heb 9:16-17, a testament is in force only upon the death of the
testator. So; since the Lord's hand-picked men were all Jews whose religion
was the first testament's regulations; then they were still under its jurisdiction
the night of the Lord's last supper when he made the pronouncements located
at Mtt 26:26-28.

According to the first testament's regulations, it's illegal for Jews to consume blood.

†. Lev 7:26-27 . . You shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or
of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eats any manner
of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

The words "no manner of blood" and the words "any manner of blood" of
course include human blood otherwise language and grammar would serve
no practical purpose in the Bible.

So then, had the Lord actually fed his men transubstantiation prior to his
death, he would have been guilty of leading them to violate their own God
given religion's law; and thus relegated himself to the status of least in the
kingdom of God. (Mtt 5:19)

Buen Camino
/

Now, it is you who writes as a JW.Any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7: 19 ], his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean [ Lv. 11:1-8 ]. If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.
Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" Col. 2: 17, 16 ].
The mention of not eating blood in [ Acts 15:20, 29 ]was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others [ Rom. 14: 1-14, 1 Cor. 8: 1-13 ].
If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked [ Mark 7: 5 ] why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" [ Mark 7:18-19 ]. In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).
Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" [Lv. 17: 14, Dt.? 12:13] The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" [ Col.3: 4 ].
Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).

 

[aspen]

blood was forbidden to consume in the old testament because it was considered a life force - like a spirit. Drinking an animal's blood would be to unite with the animal and therefore forbidden The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ - we are called to unite with Him. Christ completely sacrificed Himself for us.

 

[justaname]

This is given by Ryrie:

There are several purposes served in observing the Lord’s Supper:
1. It is a remembrance of the life and death of our Lord. The bread symbolizes His perfect life, which qualified Him to be an acceptable sacrifice for sin, and the body in which He actually bore our sin on the cross (1 Pe 2:24). The wine represents His blood shed for the remission of our sins. We can never anticipate seeing that body again or another shedding of His blood, so this has to be a remembrance.
2. The supper is an announcing of these basic facts of the gospel (1 Co 11:26).
3. The supper serves to quicken our anticipation of His second coming, for we are reminded that we observe it only until He comes again (1 Co 11:26).
4. The supper should remind us of our oneness with each other in the body of Christ and of the fellowship which we share as fellow members of that body (1 Co 10:17).

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Strictly, eternal means something has always existed and will always exist.
Only God is eternal.

Well; since God is eternal, then it only stands to reason that His life would be
eternal too. But I have not been talking so much about the longevity of
eternal life as I have about the nature of eternal life; viz: its properties.

You probably understand the properties of human nature okay because
you've been human all your life. But since you have never been God, it is
therefore impossible for you to understand the properties of divine nature.
What I'm saying is: eternal life doesn't make people God nor does it make
them divine; but what it does do is enable them to be a chip off the old
block; so to speak.

†. 2Pet 1:4 . . He has given us his very great and precious promises, so that
through them you may participate in the divine nature.

The soul is not therefore eternal. It is immortal.

Far from being immortal, the natural-born human soul is quite susceptible to
termination.

†. Mtt 10:28 . . Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Some people feel that "destroy" doesn't mean to kill. But according to Isa
66:23-24, the destroyed bodies will be corpses. So if the destroyed bodies of
Mtt 10:28 are terminated, then the destroyed souls are terminated too.

However, there are scriptures here and there attesting to the fact that
people exist on the other side as spirits; and spirits are impervious to the
afterlife's flames. I know that's true because the Devil is a spirit and he will
go into the lake of fire not to die; but to suffer.

Note : although the koiné Greek word apollumi doesn't always clearly indicate the
termination of life; in many instances it does; for example:

Mtt 2:13
Mtt 12:14
Mtt 26:52
Mtt 27:20
Mrk 9:22
Lk 6:9
Lk 11:51
Lk 15:17
Lk 17:27
John 10:28
John 18:14
1Cor 10:9-10
2Pet 3:6
Jude 1:5

Buen Camino
/

 

[Templar81]

I just noticed this thread. so please excuse me jumping in at this stage.

I take communion as often aspossible, usually every week sometimes twice a week. At our church we are directed by the church wardens to form an orderly line in which we approach the altar while the choir sings and then we kneel at the altar rail to recieve the Eucharist in both kinds in our hands or on the tongue if prefered (some people also intinct the waifer)

I believe it to be the real, physical body of Christ, not because of any theology that I've learn't but from scripture. At the Last Supper Jesus told us that the bread and wine were his ody and blood and he had already told his disciples that he is the bread of life and that we need to eat the bread of life and to drink the blood of the son of Man.

I do respect everyone's opinion here on this but to me it is a no brainer because scripture is so clearly pointing to the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Why do i take communion?
Becuase Christ commanded his followers to do it. However, with 1 Corinthians 11 in mind I am very careful about how I do it. Paul told us to examine ourselves first, which is what I do because when we approach the Lord's table; we are inviting ourselves to be judged and if we are not found contrite for all our sins, then we will not recieve the body and blood of Christ but doom. It is for this reason that I don't believe Commuion is for children unless they have been thoroughly catechised.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

it is a no brainer because scripture is so clearly pointing to the
physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If it were really a no-brainer and/or clearly pointing to the physical presence
of Christ as you say; then there would be no disagreement as to the true
meaning of the Lord's words.

But he stated at John 6:63 that his words about consuming flesh and blood are
spirit words rather than human words; which is a red flag to me that the meanings
of his choice of words are not always literal.

Paul said the same thing about his own choice of words at 1Cor 2:13. Spirit
words and human words sound the same, and look the same; but should
never be assumed saying what the human mind thinks they're saying.

For one thing: consuming blood is especially offensive to Jews because their
God-given religion's law forbids it.

†. Lev 7:26-27 . . You shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or
of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eats any manner
of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

The words "no manner of blood" and the words "any manner of blood" of
course include human blood otherwise language and grammar would serve
no practical purpose in the Bible.

Lev 7:26-27 is especially applicable to the apostles because according to
Heb 9:16-17, a testament is in force only upon the death of the testator; which
means the Lord's men were still under the jurisdiction of the first testament the
night of the last supper when Jesus made the pronouncements located
at Mtt 26:26-28.

Ergo: had the Lord actually fed his men transubstantiation prior to his death, then
he would have been guilty of leading them to overstep their own God-given religion's
boundaries; and thus relegated himself to the status of least in the kingdom of God
as per Mtt 5:19

I don't believe Commuion is for children unless they have been thoroughly catechised.

I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944 and subsequently
was enrolled in catechism until I completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.
But listening to me today you'd never know it because now I thoroughly renounce
Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation as little more than a masterpiece of cannibalistic
fiction.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Axehead]

The most troubling thing about this is the "priest-class" of men that was developed to perform this miracle and the fact that they all say some "magical" words and turn physical bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ regardless of what kind of life they are living at the time. This is probably happening every minute of every day if you take into consideration all the masses taking place each day in every timezone.

If they can perform this miracle, then why can't they do lesser miracles like healing all the sick in their congregation and living a personal holy life?

These are legitimate questions which "thinking" individuals ought to be able to ask.

Axehead

 

[aspen]

The most troubling thing about this is the "priest-class" of men that was developed to perform this miracle and the fact that they all say some "magical" words and turn physical bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ regardless of what kind of life they are living at the time. This is probably happening every minute of every day if you take into consideration all the masses taking place each day in every timezone.

If they can perform this miracle, then why can't they do lesser miracles like healing all the sick in their congregation and living a personal holy life?

These are legitimate questions which "thinking" individuals ought to be able to ask.

Axehead

No magic words are required, just prayer

God transforms the Eucharist, not the priest.