Communion vs Holy Communion

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
oh yea what's with all the cap's and such? really? is a sane calm conversation beyond the scope of your capabilities?
ok, 6 or 7 now, i guess...
GD0jV69.gif
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Translation:
"Please stop exposing me. I like quiet, complacent Catholics."
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
oh yea what's with all the cap's and such? really? is a sane calm conversation beyond the scope of your capabilities?
When people ridicule your posting style - it's usually because they have run out of useful things to say . . .
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
When people ridicule your posting style - it's usually because they have run out of useful things to say . . .
that can be true, yes--but after you have heard it from 10 different people, you might pause and reflect. Ok well not you, of course, but someone else might.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
that can be true, yes--but after you have heard it from 10 different people, you might pause and reflect. Ok well not you, of course, but someone else might.
No - it means that 10 anti-Catholics have nothing intelligent to respond with.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I haven't read any posts from Catholics whining about my posting style . . .
yes, i was just recently commenting--to you, after quoting you to tag you--about how you cannot or at least do not read posts anyway, so gee what a surprise. I read a Catholic quoting you directly this morning about this very subject, like 3 hours ago.

You might try to quiet your mind until you have read to the bottom of someone's post, and understand that any desire to start counter-arguing after reading like one sentence is essentially going off half-cocked.

fwiw it is quite funny to completely read some of your counter-posters, and then your reply (to the very beginning, only) wherein you...make it obvious that you have not read the rest? Can't think of a better way to describe it.

i started making it a point to reply to the bottom of a post and work up, if that helps.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
yes, i was just recently commenting--to you, after quoting you to tag you--about how you cannot or at least do not read posts anyway, so gee what a surprise. I read a Catholic quoting you directly this morning about this very subject, like 3 hours ago.

You might try to quiet your mind until you have read to the bottom of someone's post, and understand that any desire to start counter-arguing after reading like one sentence is essentially going off half-cocked.

fwiw it is quite funny to completely read some of your counter-posters, and then your reply (to the very beginning, only) wherein you...make it obvious that you have not read the rest? Can't think of a better way to describe it.

i started making it a point to reply to the bottom of a post and work up, if that helps.
WRONG.
A fellow Catholic disagreed with the way I was responding - not with the way I formatted the text in my posts.

Try being honest - for ONCE.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's what "communion" means - full participation.

When Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him, then how one holds communion can be nothing more than that.

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.

1 Timothy 3:2 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?)

Did you read verse 5 above for why a bishop 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.

In 1 Timothy 3:2-5, Paul did make a case for a bishop to be married. As for 1 Corinthians 7th chapter, I believe he was referring to ministry outreach which was what Paul was presently doing at the time. Paul was not a "bishop", but an apostle.

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.

The terms were to do communion in remembrance of Him; not in receiving Him again and again and again, but to remind ourselves what He has done in that He has bought us and dwells in us.

Hebrews 10th chapter pointed out the difference in the old system of receiving sacrifice for sins per the blood of goats and bull which bears the need for repeating, but not so for the blood of Christ which was once and for all. For the Eucharist in the Mass to serve in the capacity per the Catholic Catechism to make present that one time sacrifice for sins is the same thing as receiving that sacrifice for sins AGAIN as if that one time was not enough which was by believing in Him ( John 6:32-36 ) thus putting the blood of the New Covenant on par with the blood of goats and bulls that it bears need repeating to receive Him again for the remission of sins.

That, brother, is asking for a comeuppance from the Father, when believers had knowledge that there was no more sacrifice for sins and yet continue on as if they still need to keep receiving that one time sacrifice for sins "again".

So somewhere along the way, believers have forgotten their resting place in Christ Jesus when communion became more than just doing it in remembrance of Him.

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 . . .

You are to prove all things by Him & His words as kept in the KJV and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch runs contrary to scripture which is why it is not considered scripture.

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 . . .

Jesus said that to the Pharisees whom were STILL refusing to believe Jesus in how to actually receive the bread of life which was by believing in Him, and so sarcasm was coming their way.

John 6:32 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.

Jesus was talking about salvation; not communion. If you say that He was, then according to John 6:35, He says you only need to take communion once for you will never hunger nor thirst for it again, and so communion was not what He was talking about in that chapter at all.
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How shamefully embarrassing to be duped into thinking Jesus was suggesting cannibalism. Did you ever stop to think that if they argued with one another about this, then some of them obviously understood He was not talking about eating flesh and drinking blood. Those who actually thought he was speaking of literal flesh & blood were horrified at that, and stopped following Him.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How shamefully embarrassing to be duped into thinking Jesus was suggesting cannibalism. Did you ever stop to think that if they argued with one another about this, then some of them obviously understood He was not talking about eating flesh and drinking blood. Those who actually thought he was speaking of literal flesh & blood were horrified at that, and stopped following Him.
Hi Willie,

Cannibalism is the eating of actual flesh. The Eucharist is not the actual flesh of Jesus and He never said it was his "actual" flesh. Therefore you are right: It is shamefully embarrassing to be duped into thinking Jesus was suggesting cannibalism.

Mary
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 Timothy 3:2 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?)

Did you read verse 5 above for why a bishop must be married?

No - because it DOESN'T say that.
Apparently - YOU don't understand the time in which these letters were written - and to WHOM they were being written TO.

Paul was writing to Gentile Christians - MANY of whom were involved in polygamous marriages. His admonishment that a Bishop should be the husband of "one wife" doesn't meant that they HAD to be married. He didn't want a Bishop to be a polygamist.
In 1 Timothy 3:2-5, Paul did make a case for a bishop to be married. As for 1 Corinthians 7th chapter, I believe he was referring to ministry outreach which was what Paul was presently doing at the time. Paul was not a "bishop", but an apostle.
WRONG.
Again, Paul is talking about the scourge of polygamy. In this verse, he again says that a Bishop must be the husband of only ONE wife.
The terms were to do communion in remembrance of Him; not in receiving Him again and again and again, but to remind ourselves what He has done in that He has bought us and dwells in us.

Hebrews 10th chapter pointed out the difference in the old system of receiving sacrifice for sins per the blood of goats and bull which bears the need for repeating, but not so for the blood of Christ which was once and for all. For the Eucharist in the Mass to serve in the capacity per the Catholic Catechism to make present that one time sacrifice for sins is the same thing as receiving that sacrifice for sins AGAIN as if that one time was not enough which was by believing in Him ( John 6:32-36 ) thus putting the blood of the New Covenant on par with the blood of goats and bulls that it bears need repeating to receive Him again for the remission of sins.

That, brother, is asking for a comeuppance from the Father, when believers had knowledge that there was no more sacrifice for sins and yet continue on as if they still need to keep receiving that one time sacrifice for sins "again".

So somewhere along the way, believers have forgotten their resting place in Christ Jesus when communion became more than just doing it in remembrance of Him.

And what YOU fail to realize is that Christ's sacrifice is an ETERNAL one (Rev. 13:8).
Heb. 7:25 says in NO uncertain terms that Jesus livers FOREVER to make intercession for us.

The Mass is not a RE-Sacrifice of Christ. It is a RE-presentation of His ONCE and for ALL Sacrifice.
You are to prove all things by Him & His words as kept in the KJV and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch runs contrary to scripture which is why it is not considered scripture.
First of all - the KJV is NOT the only reliable translation of Scripture - so get over it..

Secondly - I only showed the writings of Ignatius to show the continuity of the beliefs and teachings of the Early Church.

Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, wrote these things while John was presumably STILL ALIVE.
Jesus said that to the Pharisees whom were STILL refusing to believe Jesus in how to actually receive the bread of life which was by believing in Him, and so sarcasm was coming their way.

John 6:32 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.

Jesus was talking about salvation; not communion. If you say that He was, then according to John 6:35, He says you only need to take communion once for you will never hunger nor thirst for it again, and so communion was not what He was talking about in that chapter at all.
HUH??
Jesus wasn't speaking to the Pharisees in John 6. He was talking to his FOLLOWERS.

Your second comment in RED is equally wrong.
Jesus was talking about the fact that they had to EAT His Flesh and DRINK His Blood. John doesn't use the normal word for human eating here (Phagon) - but the word for the way an animal rips apart his food (Trogon). Just as the Jews had to devour their Paschal lamb - we Christians must consume OUR Paschal Lamb - just as He commanded.

At the Last Supper, Jesus prescribed to the Apostles HOW to achieve this.
The ardent belief in the Eucharist garnered the Early Christians the taunt of "Cannibals" by the Romans.

Finally - Jesus was talking about communion AND salvation.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How shamefully embarrassing to be duped into thinking Jesus was suggesting cannibalism. Did you ever stop to think that if they argued with one another about this, then some of them obviously understood He was not talking about eating flesh and drinking blood. Those who actually thought he was speaking of literal flesh & blood were horrified at that, and stopped following Him.
They just couldn't handle what He was telling them, so the left Him (John 6:66).
They were the first Protestants . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are to prove all things by Him & His words as kept in the KJV and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch runs contrary to scripture which is why it is not considered scripture.
Hi,

Do your writings run contrary to scripture?

Curious Mary
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No - because it DOESN'T say that.
Apparently - YOU don't understand the time in which these letters were written - and to WHOM they were being written TO.

Paul was writing to Gentile Christians - MANY of whom were involved in polygamous marriages. His admonishment that a Bishop should be the husband of "one wife" doesn't meant that they HAD to be married. He didn't want a Bishop to be a polygamist.


Paul gave the reason why a bishop should be married and it wasn't to avoid polygamists taking the bishop's position.

1 Timothy 3:4 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?)

.
Again, Paul is talking about the scourge of polygamy. In this verse, he again says that a Bishop must be the husband of only ONE wife.

Denying what 1 timothy 3:4-5 says and mean is not going to be pleasing to God for you, brother.

And what YOU fail to realize is that Christ's sacrifice is an ETERNAL one (Rev. 13:8).
Heb. 7:25 says in NO uncertain terms that Jesus livers FOREVER to make intercession for us.

The Mass is not a RE-Sacrifice of Christ. It is a RE-presentation of His ONCE and for ALL Sacrifice.

I did not say it was a RE Sacrifice. I said the Mass is presenting the one time sacrifice for sins to be received again and that is the same thing as putting the blood of the Son on par with the blood of goats and bulls that His blood has to be received again as if His blood was not good enough the first time.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They just couldn't handle what He was telling them, so the left Him (John 6:66).
They were the first Protestants . . .

Do tell when the first christians became known as "Catholics" and explain why the church insists that members be known as Catholics? Then maybe you can see why Protestants came about, because believers should not be representing a church and the sacraments as if the RCC is the Good News when they are supposed to be witnesses of the Son in testifying of Him, the Good News to man, so that when people believe in Him, they are saved.

If you cannot see how a church became egocentric and corrupt to enslave the members to man made traditions within, thus voiding the joy of their salvation by doing the sacraments, which was never taught as such by Peter nor His disciples, I cannot help you.

Hopefully, the brethren will pray for you.
 

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Willie,

Cannibalism is the eating of actual flesh. The Eucharist is not the actual flesh of Jesus and He never said it was his "actual" flesh. Therefore you are right: It is shamefully embarrassing to be duped into thinking Jesus was suggesting cannibalism.

Mary

You said: "The Eucharist is not the actual flesh of Jesus and He never said it was his "actual" flesh."

Actual: existing now; current.
Cannibalism: the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species.
Transubstantiation: In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651)

I think the Catholic Church teaches that it is 'actual flesh' .