Communion vs Holy Communion

[DPMartin]

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

Ok then what’s worthy and what’s unworthy? Such a thing is relative to the writer, correct? The winner of the contest is worthy to hoist the trophy, and still that is in the eyes of the awarder. So in the eyes of the Lord God, what is worthy seeing all men are born into sin?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal eats. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.
Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said:
"Does this shock you?"

He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father. Here, Jesus is telling them that unless we are drawn to him by the Father, we cannot possibly understand him. This is why his followers abandoned him and returned to their former way of life in verse 66. This verse says, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus' disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn't handle what Jesus was telling them.

It is also important to note what happened after this. Did Jesus plead with them or explain that he was speaking “metaphorically” or “symbolically”? NO. He turned to the Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?" Here it is completely evident - except to those who refuse to see - that Jesus meant what he said.

No, what is interesting is you omit what the Lord Jesus says He means and insert your own interpretation to fit or justify your adopted theology of what the Bread and Blood really means, of which again Jesus explains to his seemingly confused disciples.

Joh 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.

Here’s the whole of what is quoted by that others may see how its been turned and twisted how is it said by Peter, wrested.


Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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.

Hence there is no need for any other interpretation, no theology supersedes the words of Christ which explains plainly whereof He speaks.

_________________________________________________________________________________

and again, since this mentioned, it is true that the blood is the life of the body, then what is the life of the spirit?

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This was a rebuke towards those using the Lord's Supper as a time to consume when they should eat and drink at home; it is not about anything else you are inferring here other than communion to be done in remembrance of Him.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal eats. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.
Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said:
"Does this shock you?"

He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father. Here, Jesus is telling them that unless we are drawn to him by the Father, we cannot possibly understand him. This is why his followers abandoned him and returned to their former way of life in verse 66. This verse says, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus' disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn't handle what Jesus was telling them.

It is also important to note what happened after this. Did Jesus plead with them or explain that he was speaking “metaphorically” or “symbolically”? NO. He turned to the Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?" Here it is completely evident - except to those who refuse to see - that Jesus meant what he said.

Jesus had told them how to receive the bread of life and that was by coming to and believing in Him, but they didn't get that message as they were still stuck in that mentality of receiving bread of life like their forefathers did in the desert in receiving manna from heaven amd so Jesus told them why they did not get that bread of life and it was because they did not believe in Him.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

So while Catholics quote His sayings to the Pharisees, they continue to ignore His words also about how to receive the bread of life since Jesus was not talking about communion at all in John 6th chapter, but about how one is saved by Him which is by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

They still did not get it as they are still seeking to eat this bread of life like their forefathers did with manna in the desert.

John 6:7 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

As they still could not hear Him how to receive that bread of life by believing in Him, then Jesus spoke to the blindness of the Jews because of their unwillingness to believe in Him to receive this bread of life and thus eternal life..

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Still He repeated NEXT that He was not talking about actually eating this bread as their forefathers did, but by believing in Him is how one is eating that bread of life..

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

But somehow the Catholics refuse to read what Jesus was trying to tell the Jews and wanted it to be about communion; not about how one is saved.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ok then what’s worthy and what’s unworthy? Such a thing is relative to the writer, correct? The winner of the contest is worthy to hoist the trophy, and still that is in the eyes of the awarder. So in the eyes of the Lord God, what is worthy seeing all men are born into sin?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
No, what is interesting is you omit what the Lord Jesus says He means and insert your own interpretation to fit or justify your adopted theology of what the Bread and Blood really means, of which again Jesus explains to his seemingly confused disciples.
Joh 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.

Here’s the whole of what is quoted by that others may see how its been turned and twisted how is it said by Peter, wrested.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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.

Hence there is no need for any other interpretation, no theology supersedes the words of Christ which explains plainly whereof He speaks.
_________________________________________________________________________________
and again, since this mentioned, it is true that the blood is the life of the body, then what is the life of the spirit?

This is a perversion of what He said.
Let's review:
You cite what Jesus said in John 6:63 as "proof" that Jesus was speaking symbolically and not literally when he said:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
Is that so? Jesus's flesh profits you nothing - even thought it is through His sacrificed flesh that we are redeemed??

Also - since when does "spirit" indicate that something is symbolic or metaphorical?
To fully understand this verse, we must go back to verses 29 and 44-45:

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” (v. 29).
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.” (v. 44-45).

We must also read the verses immediately following verse 63 (64-65):
“But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

"Spirit and Life" does NOT mean "symbols and metaphors" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

This was a rebuke towards those using the Lord's Supper as a time to consume when they should eat and drink at home; it is not about anything else you are inferring here other than communion to be done in remembrance of Him.

Jesus had told them how to receive the bread of life and that was by coming to and believing in Him, but they didn't get that message as they were still stuck in that mentality of receiving bread of life like their forefathers did in the desert in receiving manna from heaven amd so Jesus told them why they did not get that bread of life and it was because they did not believe in Him.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

So while Catholics quote His sayings to the Pharisees, they continue to ignore His words also about how to receive the bread of life since Jesus was not talking about communion at all in John 6th chapter, but about how one is saved by Him which is by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

They still did not get it as they are still seeking to eat this bread of life like their forefathers did with manna in the desert.

John 6:7 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

As they still could not hear Him how to receive that bread of life by believing in Him, then Jesus spoke to the blindness of the Jews because of their unwillingness to believe in Him to receive this bread of life and thus eternal life..

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Still He repeated NEXT that He was not talking about actually eating this bread as their forefathers did, but by believing in Him is how one is eating that bread of life..

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

But somehow the Catholics refuse to read what Jesus was trying to tell the Jews and wanted it to be about communion; not about how one is saved.

WRONG.
In the previous chapter, Paul explained what he was talking about:
1 Cor. 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Paul is saying EXACTLY what the Early Church Fathers taught about the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup wine and water and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Answer me this:
Why did most of Jesus's followers leave when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood??
Why didn't He explain to them that He was speaking symbolically like He usually did when people didn't understand Him??
Why did He simply say, "Does this shock you?"
Why did He turn to the Apostles and say, "Do you also want to leave?" instead of explaining the "symbolism" to them??

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

WRONG.
In the previous chapter, Paul explained what he was talking about:
1 Cor. 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Paul is saying EXACTLY what the Early Church Fathers taught about the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup wine and water and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Answer me this:
Why did most of Jesus's followers leave when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood??
Why didn't He explain to them that He was speaking symbolically like He usually did when people didn't understand Him??
Why did He simply say, "Does this shock you?"
Why did He turn to the Apostles and say, "Do you also want to leave?" instead of explaining the "symbolism" to them??

The KJV has "participation" as communion.

Now I ask you; when you are treating the bread and the wine as the real thing, with Christ's Presence in them, how is that NOT treating them as idols? Can you defend the RCC practice as not idolatry at all? No. You can't. Treating an inanimate object as having a presence of deity and as a real thing is idolatry.

Paul spoke against this line of thinking in treating the bread & the wine as Christ's one time sacrifice for sins to be made present again to receive again as if having received Him the first time was not good enough in Hebrews 10th chapter.

That is treating His blood of the Covenant to be on par with the blood of goats and bulls as if His one time sacrifice for sins has to be repeatedly received again.

If you want to keep on parroting the Catholic version of His words to the unbelieving Jews as those early church fathers of the Catholic church have done, while ignoring His words in context of John 6th chapter and Paul's warning in Hebrews 10 chapter and other warning in 1 Corinthians 10th chapter of treating communion like an idol, then I cannot help you.

You have to decide whom you want to be your shepherd; the RCC or the Lord Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd personally, because you cannot follow Him when they say otherwise by looking to the RCC for life and not Him for life.

Did you see Ignatius of Antioch began bullying his authority over all churches in a local area to heed one bishop when there are supposed to be bishops in ever assembly?

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

From the link quoted with " .... "

Ignatius is the earliest known Christian writer to emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (elders) and deacons. Earlier writings only mention either bishops or presbyters.
"

For instance, his writings on bishops, presbyters and deacons:

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1"

Not cool to do.

1 Timothy 3:This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I would say that he was snared by the devil for doing that, because the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is having a heirarchy over local churches or a string of churches when the word of God, Jesus, is to be the head of every assembly as He is the head of every believer and no other outside that assembly.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesian 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Do read that as actually opposing Ignatius.

Have you also noted that bishops are to be married? How many Catholic unmarried priests are disqualified from being a bishop? And yet it is required for them to perform the Mass. No way you can rectify that in the Bible as the epistle to the churches speaks against it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The KJV has "participation" as communion.

That's what "communion" means - full participation.

Now I ask you; when you are treating the bread and the wine as the real thing, with Christ's Presence in them, how is that NOT treating them as idols? Can you defend the RCC practice as not idolatry at all? No. You can't. Treating an inanimate object as having a presence of deity and as a real thing is idolatry.

Paul spoke against this line of thinking in treating the bread & the wine a
Now I ask you; when you are treating the bread and the wine as the real thing, with Christ's Presence in them, how is that NOT treating them as idols? Can you defend the RCC practice as not idolatry at all? No. You can't. Treating an inanimate object as having a presence of deity and as a real thing is idolatry.

Paul spoke against this line of thinking in treating the bread & the wine as Christ's one time sacrifice for sins to be made present again to receive again as if having received Him the first time was not good enough in Hebrews 10th chapter.

That is treating His blood of the Covenant to be on par with the blood of goats and bulls as if His one time sacrifice for sins has to be repeatedly received again.

If you want to keep on parroting the Catholic version of His words to the unbelieving Jews as those early church fathers of the Catholic church have done, while ignoring His words in context of John 6th chapter and Paul's warning in Hebrews 10 chapter and other warning in 1 Corinthians 10th chapter of treating communion like an idol, then I cannot help you.

You have to decide whom you want to be your shepherd; the RCC or the Lord Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd personally, because you cannot follow Him when they say otherwise by looking to the RCC for life and not Him for life.

Did you see Ignatius of Antioch began bullying his authority over all churches in a local area to heed one bishop when there are supposed to be bishops in ever assembly?

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

From the link quoted with " .... "

Ignatius is the earliest known Christian writer to emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (elders) and deacons. Earlier writings only mention either bishops or presbyters.
"
For instance, his writings on bishops, presbyters and deacons:

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1"

Not cool to do.

1 Timothy 3:This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I would say that he was snared by the devil for doing that, because the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is having a heirarchy over local churches or a string of churches when the word of God, Jesus, is to be the head of every assembly as He is the head of every believer and no other outside that assembly.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesian 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Do read that as actually opposing Ignatius.

Have you also noted that bishops are to be married? How many Catholic unmarried priests are disqualified from being a bishop? And yet it is required for them to perform the Mass. No way you can rectify that in the Bible as the epistle to the churches speaks against it.

Well, this is quite a load of rubbish - so much so that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Let's start with your last inane comments about Bishops being married.

NOWHERE does the Bible make the claim that Bishops MUST be married.
If you did your homework regarding 1st century Christianity - you would know that polygamy was rampant. Many men had more than one wife - and Paul was making the statement that only men who had ONE wife would be Bishops. He didn't say that bachelors couldn't be Bishops. In fact, in 1 Cor. 7, he RECOMMENDED celibacy as a means of a more excellent way to serve the Lord.

As for the Eucharist - Jesus Himself said in no uncertain terms that it was HIS Body and HIS Blood.
He never even hinted that it was something "symbolic". As I already showed you - Paul makes the SAME claim in 1 Cor. 11.

As for Ignatius of Antioch - he was the student of the Apostle John - who was STILL alive when Ignatius was writing his letters. If there was something that John disapproved of - we would have heard from the Early Church. Instead, we hear just the OPPOSITE - that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Any attempt to discredit Ignatius is an attempt to discredit the Apostles themselves.
Little hint: Don't get your theology from wikipedia . . .

Finally - the Catholic Church doesn't "ignore" John 6.
It challenges unbelieving people like YOU to READ what it says:

John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRUE DRINK. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Doesn't get ANY clearer than that . . .

 

[Mungo]

Now I ask you; when you are treating the bread and the wine as the real thing, with Christ's Presence in them

What do you mean by that? Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

 

[bbyrd009]

The KJV has "participation" as communion.

wow, didn't know that, ty. A much better perspective imo, than the religious travesty that "communion" is turned into.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, this is quite a load of rubbish - so much so that it is difficult to know where to begin.

well, since your mouth is an open grave anyway, you could maybe shut up for a a change and try to actually learn something maybe.

 

[Mungo]

well, since your mouth is an open grave anyway, you could maybe shut up for a a change and try to actually learn something maybe.

But not from you since you don't seem to have sensible comment in your head.

 

[bbyrd009]

But not from you since you don't seem to have sensible comment in your head.

i would agree with the second part there, but you have discounted everything i have ever posted, which is surely not true either; aside from the fact that "not from you" has already been established, as BreadofDeath has already demonstrated that he cannot hear me--which is hardly a crime, of course, just pointing out that i offered no other learning in the post anyway.

 

[Mungo]

What do you mean by that? Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

No reply!

Perhaps JesusIsFaithful doesn't know what he meant by that either.

 

[Marymog]

Feel free to explain how the sacraments are not idols when they believe Christ's Presence is in them.

And for this "more powerful than God" phrase...

Catholic priests has to be celibate to perform the Mass; it is a necessary requirement to be able to perform the Mass; otherwise they can only serve communion. Being celibate gives them this power to have Christ "voluntary" come down and present Himself again in that one time sacrifice for sins to be "received" again. If that does not give this appearance at all, then why married priests can only perform communion?

And for the Protestants to mimic such wordings and beliefs that Christ's Presence is in the sacraments, how can it NOT be an idol for what Paul was speaking against for doing in communion?

Hi JIF,

I think it is best we part ways on this discussion for these reasons:

You want me to explain something I never said?

I am not a Catholic expert but I KNOW that priest don't have to be celibate. That is a flat out lie and we can't have a discussion based on a lie. Please educate yourself about that subject.

If a Protestant agrees with the Catholic Church they are just mimicking them? They have no brain of their own to figure it out? So you can only be RIGHT if you disagree with the Catholic Church?

Please don't answer. Your statements are to unusual to have a logical conversation.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, since your mouth is an open grave anyway, you could maybe shut up for a a change and try to actually learn something maybe.

Funny how angry people get when I expose their falsehoods . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Funny how angry people get when I expose their falsehoods . . .

yes, Cartman, i am aware that your ego will insist that you spin this so as to come out smelling ok--however, you might note that you were not engaging me at the time, and thus you have not exposed any of my falsehoods. So now what. What ignorant, self-serving drek do you have to say now.

 

[ezekiel]

imho it is the extra special ingredient that makes mouldy old dough holy - twinc

What Christ is telling us is that we should follow his words and do them and pray. This is Holy things. Eating and drinking are so that you will remember but if you walk in that Spirit why would you need to remember because you walk this way. That is the bread of life and the wine rather body gave and blood. You need not to eat as the flesh eats or drink but following Him is a must. Do both if you wish. You must now eat of the tree of life and live.

 

[DPMartin]

This is a perversion of what He said.
Let's review:
You cite what Jesus said in John 6:63 as "proof" that Jesus was speaking symbolically and not literally when he said:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
Is that so? Jesus's flesh profits you nothing - even thought it is through His sacrificed flesh that we are redeemed??

Also - since when does "spirit" indicate that something is symbolic or metaphorical?
To fully understand this verse, we must go back to verses 29 and 44-45:

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” (v. 29).
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.” (v. 44-45).

We must also read the verses immediately following verse 63 (64-65):
“But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

"Spirit and Life" does NOT mean "symbols and metaphors" . . .

nope its not symbolically or metaphorically, but what is obvious is that you don't understand is, the body, as in flesh, is our presence in the world and the blood is the life of that same. the Spirit is the Presence of God, and I have asked you twice what is the life of the Spirit. hence Jesus says not you, not me, not Catholicism, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" not body and blood, if He was talking body and blood He would have said so, wouldn't He? Jesus the Son of God who proceeded from the Father, His Presence in Heaven is what? considering that flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

the thing that is interesting here is you see it as those He left to see it, (the non-believers saw it as flesh and blood because that's all they know) not as those He explained it to.


oh yea what's with all the cap's and such? really? is a sane calm conversation beyond the scope of your capabilities?

 

[BreadOfLife]

yes, Cartman, i am aware that your ego will insist that you spin this so as to come out smelling ok--however, you might note that you were not engaging me at the time, and thus you have not exposed any of my falsehoods. So now what. What ignorant, self-serving drek do you have to say now.

I've exposed PLENTY of your falsehood on MANY threads.
Your problem - like ALL anti-Catholics - is that you don't do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

nope its not symbolically or metaphorically, but what is obvious is that you don't understand is, the body, as in flesh, is our presence in the world and the blood is the life of that same. the Spirit is the Presence of God, and I have asked you twice what is the life of the Spirit. hence Jesus says not you, not me, not Catholicism, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" not body and blood, if He was talking body and blood He would have said so, wouldn't He? Jesus the Son of God who proceeded from the Father, His Presence in Heaven is what? considering that flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

the thing that is interesting here is you see it as those He left to see it, (the non-believers saw it as flesh and blood because that's all they know) not as those He explained it to.

oh yea what's with all the cap's and such? really? is a sane calm conversation beyond the scope of your capabilities?

The problem here is that you've ALL ignored the text of John 6. You haven't responded to ANY of the textual and linguistic evidence I presented regarding the Bread of Life Discourse. AGAIN, I will post what you all ignored:

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is NOT the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to rip apart or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?"
He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.

It is also important to note what happened after this. Did Jesus plead with them or explain that he was speaking “metaphorically” or “symbolically”? NO. He turned to the Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?"
Here it is completely evident - except to those who refuse to see - that Jesus meant what he said.

You've ignored these points because you can't respond to them while wearing a Protestant glasses . . .
.

 

[bbyrd009]

I've exposed PLENTY of your falsehood on MANY threads.
Your problem - like ALL anti-Catholics - is that you don't do your homework . . .

yes yes, you are a legend in your own mind, you have already made that clear. So let's just keep it vague then, fine with me.

You've exposed plenty of falsehood alright, just prolly not the falsehoods that you imagine exposing--as about 5 or 6 others have testified now, i noticed you just got another witness to this like this morning or whenever.

If you would do us the favor of seeking help for whatever trauma you experienced as a kid or whatever, and recognize that i am damaged too, i'm not any better or worse than you are, just different, and the only shame is possibly remaining in denial, then we might at some point have a conversation, which requires listening as well as talking--and will also enable you to read down this far, which i am confident you will never even read this part in your current state, so maybe it is for someone else, or for you to find in the coming years perhaps. i wish you the best.