John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
What Is The Purpose Of Taking Communion ?
- Thread starter Hollyrock
- Start date
-
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!
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
According to 1John 3:9, people born of God are incapable of sin. However, the
Bible's Jesus wasn't born only of God, but also of man.
It is believed by many that the seed promised Eve at Gen 3:15 is Christ; and
where did Eve come from? Well; she wasn't manufactured from dust as was Adam;
but with already-existing human tissue amputated from Adam's body. So then;
since Eve was as much Adam as Adam, then her promised seed is Adam too.
Hence: Christ inherited the forbidden-fruit sin right along with the rest of Adam's
progeny.
There's no need to apologize. I've come to expect mIstakes like yours from
randk and file armchair theologians.
Cliff
/
According to 1John 3:9, people born of God are incapable of sin. However, the
Bible's Jesus wasn't born only of God, but also of man.
It is believed by many that the seed promised Eve at Gen 3:15 is Christ; and
where did Eve come from? Well; she wasn't manufactured from dust as was Adam;
but with already-existing human tissue amputated from Adam's body. So then;
since Eve was as much Adam as Adam, then her promised seed is Adam too.
Hence: Christ inherited the forbidden-fruit sin right along with the rest of Adam's
progeny.
There's no need to apologize. I've come to expect mIstakes like yours from
randk and file armchair theologians.
Cliff
/
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.
Jesus said: " Take,eat all of you ,this is my body [ while holding a piece of unleavened bread ] .... '' The Greek meaning of the word eat is gnawed,chewed..You can not chew on something symbolic.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
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
/
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
/
God also included the ever-virgin Mary,the "sinless" mother of our Lord . We see in the Book of Ezekiel a glimpse of a mystical foreshadowing of Mary's perpetual virginity. The symbolism is found in the "East Gate" - No one is permitted to pass through it [ the gate is perpetually sealed ] only the "Prince of Israel [ Jesus ] is allowed.
-- But you DO chew/gnaw on the simple bread he said to use to remember the event.
We're still discussing your misguided opinion on Communion. Why drag in your misguided opinion on Mary on top of it?
Now you're beginning to understand, exactly, you can not chew on something that is symbolic.Jesus said: " ....unless you eat the flesh ....."[ John 6: 54 ] the word 'eat' in Greek interprets to chew.
Why did I mention Mary? Because Mary was a very important part of the mix in having a sinless Jesus.
How can you have a pure sinless infant Jesus from a sinful womb. Nothing pure can come out of a soiled vessel.
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).
Why did I mention Mary? Because Mary was a very important part of the mix in having a sinless Jesus.
How can you have a pure sinless infant Jesus from a sinful womb. Nothing pure can come out of a soiled vessel.
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).
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
I'm aware of at least three passages in the New Testament that solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his
own (2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). But I know of not even one passage
solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity affirming the same for his mom.
Wouldn't that very same logic apply to the womb of Mary's mother?
In other words: if a sinful womb could produce a sinless baby girl,
then why couldn't a sinful womb produce a sinless baby boy?
Buen Camino
/
I'm aware of at least three passages in the New Testament that solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his
own (2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). But I know of not even one passage
solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity affirming the same for his mom.
Wouldn't that very same logic apply to the womb of Mary's mother?
In other words: if a sinful womb could produce a sinless baby girl,
then why couldn't a sinful womb produce a sinless baby boy?
Buen Camino
/
.
I'm aware of at least three passages in the New Testament that solidly, clearly,
and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his own
(2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). But I know of not even one passage solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity affirming the same for his mom.
Wouldn't that very same logic apply to the womb of Mary's mother?
In other words: if a sinful womb could produce a sinless baby girl,
then why couldn't a sinful womb produce a sinless baby boy?
Buen Camino
To answer your first part- The NT is about Jesus not Mary and also this verse explains it - [ John 20: 30 ]
second part - The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which you and Protestantism maintains was the case).
Let us go from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, [ Mary's mom ] who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).
I won't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant,[ Mary the second Eve, Eve, born sinless said no'' to God, Mary said "yes' to God ] the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.
I'm aware of at least three passages in the New Testament that solidly, clearly,
and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his own
(2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). But I know of not even one passage solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity affirming the same for his mom.
Wouldn't that very same logic apply to the womb of Mary's mother?
In other words: if a sinful womb could produce a sinless baby girl,
then why couldn't a sinful womb produce a sinless baby boy?
Buen Camino
To answer your first part- The NT is about Jesus not Mary and also this verse explains it - [ John 20: 30 ]
second part - The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which you and Protestantism maintains was the case).
Let us go from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, [ Mary's mom ] who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).
I won't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant,[ Mary the second Eve, Eve, born sinless said no'' to God, Mary said "yes' to God ] the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
†. John 20:30 . . And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book
How does that verse solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that
Jesus' mom committed no sins of her own?
And how long did Eve remain free of any stain of sin or corruption?
†. Gen 3:6a . . She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat
It was bad enough that Eve disobeyed God; but no, she just had to drag her
husband into the abyss with her.
†. Gen 3:6b . . And gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
As a result of Eve's indiscretion, it came about that all of Adam's progeny
were made sinners; which included Eve too because she wasn't manufactured
from the dust as her husband had been; but was made with already-existing
human tissue amputated from Adam's body. In effect then, Eve was his first child.
Note : I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944; and
subsequently enrolled in catechism and went on to complete First Holy
Communion and Confirmation. I was loyal to Rome and its heresies till I was
24 years old; at which time I began reading the Bible for myself; only to
discover on my own that many of the doctrines I had been taught were nothing
in the world but fiction. Not only was I disgusted, but also very disappointed.
Buen Camino
/
†. John 20:30 . . And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book
How does that verse solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that
Jesus' mom committed no sins of her own?
And how long did Eve remain free of any stain of sin or corruption?
†. Gen 3:6a . . She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat
It was bad enough that Eve disobeyed God; but no, she just had to drag her
husband into the abyss with her.
†. Gen 3:6b . . And gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
As a result of Eve's indiscretion, it came about that all of Adam's progeny
were made sinners; which included Eve too because she wasn't manufactured
from the dust as her husband had been; but was made with already-existing
human tissue amputated from Adam's body. In effect then, Eve was his first child.
Note : I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944; and
subsequently enrolled in catechism and went on to complete First Holy
Communion and Confirmation. I was loyal to Rome and its heresies till I was
24 years old; at which time I began reading the Bible for myself; only to
discover on my own that many of the doctrines I had been taught were nothing
in the world but fiction. Not only was I disgusted, but also very disappointed.
Buen Camino
/
Webers_Home,To answer your first part- The NT is about Jesus not Mary and also this verse explains it - [ John 20: 30 ]
second part - The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which you and Protestantism maintains was the case).
Let us go from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, [ Mary's mom ] who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).
I won't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant,[ Mary the second Eve, Eve, born sinless said no'' to God, Mary said "yes' to God ] the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.
second part - The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which you and Protestantism maintains was the case).
Let us go from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, [ Mary's mom ] who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).
I won't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant,[ Mary the second Eve, Eve, born sinless said no'' to God, Mary said "yes' to God ] the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
Note how the wording of the three New Testament passages below solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his
own to answer for.
†. 2 Cor 5:21 . . God made him who had no sin to be sin for us
†. Heb 4:15 . . For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize
with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way,
just as we are-- yet was without sin.
†. 1Pet 2:22 . . He committed no sin
I have yet to find on my own, or to be shown, even one passage from the
New Testament like those three solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity,
affirming that the Lord's mom committed no sins of her own. Therefore any,
and all, doctrines attesting otherwise, have found themselves permanent
placement on my list of unscriptural fantasies; and gives me good reason to
believe that their doctrine of transubstantiation is little more than a masterpiece
of cannibalistic fiction.
Buen Camino
/
Note how the wording of the three New Testament passages below solidly,
clearly, and without ambiguity, affirm that Christ committed no sins of his
own to answer for.
†. 2 Cor 5:21 . . God made him who had no sin to be sin for us
†. Heb 4:15 . . For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize
with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way,
just as we are-- yet was without sin.
†. 1Pet 2:22 . . He committed no sin
I have yet to find on my own, or to be shown, even one passage from the
New Testament like those three solidly, clearly, and without ambiguity,
affirming that the Lord's mom committed no sins of her own. Therefore any,
and all, doctrines attesting otherwise, have found themselves permanent
placement on my list of unscriptural fantasies; and gives me good reason to
believe that their doctrine of transubstantiation is little more than a masterpiece
of cannibalistic fiction.
Buen Camino
/
Well said. I, however, do read that these were people who would be coming down to Jerusalem for the Passover Feast, one of 3 mandatory to the Jews. Certainly He said this to Jews, and most certainly He said He did not come for any other people, but only for the lost...when speaking to the Syrophenician woman who was a believer, but not Hebrew. It is remarkable, that our Lord and savior 'answered her not a word'. That's not a good response from the Lord. But when He did respond, it wasn't much better for her, not till she took advantage of the small allowance which permitted her to receive His miracle for her child.
Being that even after resurrection, His instructions to the 12 was to remain in the land and preach to the Jews. This puts the context back into these verses being instructions for Jews at the time of the yearly passover, not for the masses of non Jews who would later be called, see Eph1:4., and the 'one hope of your calling' in Eph 4:4.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
That point is useful for refuting the so-called doctrine of transubstantiation.
The Lord's hand-picked men were all Jews whose religion was Moses'
covenanted law; which they were still under on the night of the Lord's last
supper because a testament is in force only upon the death of the testator.
†. Heb 9:16-17 . . For where there is a Testament, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. For a Testament is in force after
men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
According to Moses' covenanted law, it is illegal for Jews to eat blood.
†. Lev 7:26-27 . . Moreover 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 encouraged his men to eat human blood prior
to his death, he would have been guilty of encouraging them to break 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
/
That point is useful for refuting the so-called doctrine of transubstantiation.
The Lord's hand-picked men were all Jews whose religion was Moses'
covenanted law; which they were still under on the night of the Lord's last
supper because a testament is in force only upon the death of the testator.
†. Heb 9:16-17 . . For where there is a Testament, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. For a Testament is in force after
men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
According to Moses' covenanted law, it is illegal for Jews to eat blood.
†. Lev 7:26-27 . . Moreover 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 encouraged his men to eat human blood prior
to his death, he would have been guilty of encouraging them to break 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
/
-- Actually, I am beginning to understand that you may have issues running deeper than first thought.
"Cannot chew on something symbolic?" My friend, the bread you eat at Mass is the symbol of Christ's sacrifice for us. Have eaten it many times.
You want to use the word "chew" from the Greek? No problem. I have chewed and swallowed the bread many times.
That's all it is - bread.
-- Mary was loved and used of God, but she was not perfect. She was human. She did sin.
That is why the Word never says she was sinless. Period.
Still, you seem to be saying that God doesn't have the ability to pour clean water out of a dirty cup.
I think He would take issue with that.
-- Exactly. God loved Mary and she loved Him, but history is replete with those who deeply and completely loved God and He loved them, yet - since they were human - still sinned.
David is a classic example. Jesus was the ONLY ONE who walked the earth in human form that did not sin. The...only...one.
-- lol So.....just to be sure here.....Christ is not being sacrificed again.....unless you "partake of the Eucharist unworthily".....then you've just murdered him.
So, if you are keeping track as far as History goes, He has just been murdered AGAIN.
Millions of Catholics living worldwide are 'living in sin' yet they still take Communion.
THAT MEANS that Christ is being murdered AT LEAST several MILLION times every week.
Even Nancy Pelosi, who supports all forms of abortion, including late-term and partial birth abortions, still gets Communion given to her every Sunday.
The priest KNOWS her stance on it, yet he still gives it to her.
Using your reasoning, that means he is knowingly and willfully an "accessory to murder," right? ;)
And since we're on the topic of "unthinkable crime"......And I bet this priest had just taken 'the Eucharist' that morning.
If a person does something like this, they have likely done it before and are already probably heavily involved in Internet pornography.
That would mean - if priests really did change the bread and the wine to the ACTUAL body of Christ - He would not have been able to do so because of his sin.
Question then is, many people didn't actually receive what they thought they did and for how long did that go on?
http://www.ktla.com/...0,6388557.story
Priest in Underwear Seen Chasing 12-Year-Old Boy After Assault
WOODBURN, Ore. -- A 46-year old priest is facing sexual abuse charges after being accused of fondling a 12-year-old boy during a sleepover.
Police say the boy was invited to spend the night at the home of Father Angel Armando Perez.
The boy told police Perez gave him a beer and they watched a movie.
He said the priest set up an air mattress on the living room floor for him to sleep on, according to the Oregonian.
He said he fell asleep on the mattress, the affidavit said.
Around midnight, the boy was awakened by flashes.
When he opened his eyes, he claimed his underwear was pulled down to his knees and that Perez was fondling him with one hand and holding a cellphone in the other, Northwest Cable News reported.
The boy ran from the house looking for help, police say.
According to the Oregonian, he found neighbor James Curths.
Curths, who was hosting a barbecue when the boy showed up outside his house, said he looked distraught. "He just seemed really terrified, and he was almost in tears," Curths said.
When the pastor caught up to the boy outside Curths' house, wearing what Curths and his sister-in-law said looked like a burgundy Speedo swimsuit, the boy hid behind Curths.
"He was scared to death," Curths said. "It was like someone running from a ghost."
Curths said the boy told him that the man had "touched his privates."
As Curths was preparing to drive the boy home, he says a man came running up wearing only his underwear.
The boy identified the man as Perez.
Perez, pastor of St. Luke Catholic Church in Woodburn, ischarged with sexual abuse, abuse of a child in the display of sexually explicit conduct, furnishing alcohol to a minor and DUI.
.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Um....
Protestants are also teach that taking communion in an unworthy manner is sinful - and since there are thousands of incidents of sexual and other forms of abuse by Protestant ministers, as well - does that mean that Protestants are murdering Christ over and over again too?
This is all hyperbole and it is damaging to the faith of Christians. Over the past few months, I have seen several regular posters here become more outspoken against the Catholic Church - rather than trying to foster understanding, people on both sides have become more angry and polarized - it is getting a bit disheartening, to be honest. Perhaps we should leave the mudslinging to the politicians?
-- Aspen, are you really obvlious to the fact that you are making my point FOR me? LOL
Christ ISN'T being "murdered again" when someones who take Communion has sin in their life. Ever. Neophyte's claim is silly.
And you seem to forget the fact that NONE of the Protestent and Evangelical churches that give bread and juice in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, make the silly claim that it is Christ's actual body and blood and CERTAINLY are not making the claim that Christ is "murdered" if someone takes it in an "unworthy manner."
I know it is late, but please try to focus, hmmmm?
-- True. But you miss the fact that it has coincided with people like Neophyte others making outragious claims about the Catholic church, some extremely radical things it believes, and the fate of those who do not belong to it. It's called a "self-inflicted wound."
-- This after (yet another) blanket criticism of all Republicans in the Voter ID thread and your "we all know" claim?
Priceless....
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Foreigner said,
-- Aspen, are you really obvlious to the fact that you are making my point FOR me? LOL
Christ ISN'T being "murdered again" when someones who take Communion has sin in their life. Ever. Neophyte's claim is silly.
And you seem to forget the fact that NONE of the Protestent and Evangelical churches that give bread and juice in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, make the silly claim that it is Christ's actual body and blood and CERTAINLY are not making the claim that Christ is "murdered" if someone takes it in an "unworthy manner."
I know it is late, but please try to focus, hmmmm?
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. I know you want the world to be fair and demand me and others to be consistent with any criticism that are posted - even though you fail to follow your own demands in your own posts - and that is why I stated that people on both sides have taken this too far.
-- True. But you miss the fact that it has coincided with people like Neophyte others making outragious claims about the Catholic church, some extremely radical things it believes, and the fate of those who do not belong to it. It's called a "self-inflicted wound."
On the contrary, I included people on both sides.
-- This after (yet another) blanket criticism of all Republicans in the Voter ID thread and your "we all know" claim?
Priceless....
Since when does politics have anything to do with communion / Eucharist? Nor does it have anything to do with the current rift on this board between Catholic and Protestant Christians. Not to mention, my opinion about politics (both sides) is that it is a dirty, dishonest power grab between politicians - why is that shocking to you or come across as partisan? If you would go back and read my post thoroughly you would see that I criticized the ACLU as well as the Republican party - not sure how you missed that.
-- Aspen, are you really obvlious to the fact that you are making my point FOR me? LOL
Christ ISN'T being "murdered again" when someones who take Communion has sin in their life. Ever. Neophyte's claim is silly.
And you seem to forget the fact that NONE of the Protestent and Evangelical churches that give bread and juice in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, make the silly claim that it is Christ's actual body and blood and CERTAINLY are not making the claim that Christ is "murdered" if someone takes it in an "unworthy manner."
I know it is late, but please try to focus, hmmmm?
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. I know you want the world to be fair and demand me and others to be consistent with any criticism that are posted - even though you fail to follow your own demands in your own posts - and that is why I stated that people on both sides have taken this too far.
-- True. But you miss the fact that it has coincided with people like Neophyte others making outragious claims about the Catholic church, some extremely radical things it believes, and the fate of those who do not belong to it. It's called a "self-inflicted wound."
On the contrary, I included people on both sides.
-- This after (yet another) blanket criticism of all Republicans in the Voter ID thread and your "we all know" claim?
Priceless....
Since when does politics have anything to do with communion / Eucharist? Nor does it have anything to do with the current rift on this board between Catholic and Protestant Christians. Not to mention, my opinion about politics (both sides) is that it is a dirty, dishonest power grab between politicians - why is that shocking to you or come across as partisan? If you would go back and read my post thoroughly you would see that I criticized the ACLU as well as the Republican party - not sure how you missed that.
