Why would a Christian deny the body and blood?

[Markie Boy]

Certain things - like if you come to communion but have an unsettled dispute with a brother or sister - God wants you to make that right before you come. There are many things that would prevent someone from partaking - but how often are those things taught or discussed - in my experience in the RCC almost never.

I can't imagine them giving a message that if spouses or family members are feuding they need to make peace first before coming for the Eucharist - the lines would be half as long. But today in the RCC almost everyone goes for communion every week. Wow - it must be a perfectly holy place!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Jesus was obviously speaking symbolically

[Citation needed]

 

[Markie Boy]

With all due respect, I think this is the biggest copout. A doctrine is either true or it isn't true. The personal behavior of those who profess belief in it shouldn't be a factor in accepting or rejecting a given doctrine as true.

This part of your post really comes off like an excuse.

Sorry if it does - it's not meant that way. It's just a personal struggle. When you are told there is so much grace available there, yet see the results, doesn't it make you wonder?

And then see those that don't partake, but live so kindly?

Help me make sense of this.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

[Citation needed]

DO the math. Jesus wasn't holding a piece of MEAT, and a glass of BLOOD. it was "wine", and "Bread".
SImple as that. OBVIOUSLY He was speaking figuratively. No "citation required"

 

[HTacianas]

"Salvation lies between the confessional and the altar"...?

Really now, do you guys even know what you are truly meaning or are talking about half of the time...?

I mean no insult, but you guys really need to "examine yourselves" to see if your religious terms, thoughts and ideas, or "theology of your denomination" is really even "Bible" sometimes really...?

Seem more interested in your religion or religious denomination and their concepts and ideas, some of which are only man's ideas, etc, than you are "actual Bible" much of the time...

As far as confession goes, God fully knows all of my sin/sins, and that is good enough for me, and I know He still loves me anyway and forgives me anyway... I confess them all the time, etc, pray ask for help with them, etc...

God Bless!

If we accept that God knows all of our sins all the time, which He does, why would the evangelist mention confession if it wasn't important?

 

[Neogaia777]

This may help you. This is from the Catholic pov btw.

What is the difference between mortal and venial sin? - Catholic Straight Answers

I looked at it, but I dont believe in classifying some sins over others as being OK or not OK, etc, done most of them to separate or judge people as either good or bad to either include them, or otherwise exclude them, etc, I do not think mere man has the ability nor the capacity nor the authority to do that, not to mention how flat out wrong it is also, sin is sin and that's what the Bible says and that settles it for me...

How you guys think you can judge such thing, or people, is "beyond me", we're all sinners and all equal sinners and have all equally fallen from grace and that is what "the Bible says about it", etc, settles it for me, etc, all each individually in equal need of daily mercy, love and forgiveness from God continually in this world, etc...

And that settles it for me, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the rest disagree with you.

You assume that your modern tradition is true. But you condemn the original Christian Church.

You have an uphill battle with this.

I have NO BATTLE with this at all. I don't CARE what you (or your churches) think. I'm just telling you as it is.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sorry if it does - it's not meant that way. It's just a personal struggle. When you are told there is so much grace available there, yet see the results, doesn't it make you wonder?

No. Because (A) it's none of my business and (B) while I love the Catholic Church, I must confess that I'm not too impressed with American Catholicism in most cases. One reason I joined the Church through an FSSP parish is because I wanted to be involved with devout worship by devout Catholics.

My personal experience is that in any Christian setting in America (Catholic or otherwise), it's 1-in-10 that's truly devout. Only 10% are truly onboard with the fundamentals of their faith. The rest are all involved for any of a million possible reasons. If that's enough to discourage somebody then Idk what to tell you.

 

[thecolorsblend]

DO the math. Jesus wasn't holding a piece of MEAT, and a glass of BLOOD. it was "wine", and "Bread".
SImple as that. OBVIOUSLY He was speaking figuratively. No "citation required"

That's not a citation and that's not evidence.

Try again.

 

[miamited]

Hi HT,

For me, I don't find any teaching in the Scriptures that would allude to a believer having to hold to some belief that when partaking of the communion which the Lord instituted, that he is literally eating flesh and drinking blood.

I think we need go no further than the first sharing of communion. Jesus was there in his complete body. He tore off a piece of bread from a loaf and handed it to the disciples and said to them to take and eat for this was his body broken for them. His body wasn't yet broken. So, he had to be using the bread to point to a future reality when his body would be broken. He was instituting a practice in which he expected his followers to take this time of communion, no matter when a particular fellowship may do it, to remember that his body had been broken for them.

That's about as simple as I can put it. You understand the practice of communion to be different, and as far as I'm concerned, that's ok. But I've yet to be impressed by anyone's argument that the Scriptures teach that we need to hold to this recognition of the wine and bread somehow morphing into actual flesh and blood just because it is being used in a sacred sacrament of the Lord.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why would a professing Christian deny the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist when the bible and the history of Christianity proves it to be true?

Do you believe Jesus will be separating livestock on the day of judgement?

 

[Neogaia777]

How do your judgements and terms not prevent you from showing Grace or Mercy or Love to someone...?

"He who deals out judgment without mercy will receive his or her judgment from God without mercy", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Basil the Great]

Why would a professing Christian deny the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist when the bible and the history of Christianity proves it to be true?

You ask a very important and profound question. There is no doubt that the vast majority in the Early Church did believe in the literal body and blood of Jesus. However, we cannot be certain exactly when this view became dominant. I say that because the Didache, often called the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, seems to be silent on the subject. This should at least give us some question as to when the literalist view became widely accepted.

I will only raise two key points. First, Jesus often spoke in language that was not to be taken literally. Obviously he did not want us to actually cut off our hand, pluck out our eye, etc. Hence, Jesus may well have intended for his followers to only look upon the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood. We simply cannot be certain, though it must be conceded that the Early Church did accept the literal view, at a fairly early stage.

Second, and I believe far more important, is that it would have been anathema back then for any observant Jew to consume blood. The Old Testament strictly forbids the drinking or eating of animal blood. Hence, one can only assume that the drinking of human blood would also be forbidden. Yes, perhaps some or even most of the early Jewish Christians made an exception, if and when they came to the belief that Jesus was God. Nevertheless, I do find it very hard to imagine that Jesus, effectively a Jewish rabbi, would have wanted his disciples and other followers to drink human blood.

However, if one places a large importance upon Holy Tradition and Apostolic Succession, then I can see why the RCC, the EOC and the OOC all accept a belief in the literal body and blood of Christ.

 

[thecolorsblend]

"This is my body."
- Ah, it's symbolic then.
"No, this is my body."
- So it's a metaphor?
"Again, this is my body!"
- It's just plain bread, got it!

Protestants...

 

[HTacianas]

I have NO BATTLE with this at all. I don't CARE what you (or your churches) think. I'm just telling you as it is.

And I'm just telling you the way the bible and all of Christian history teaches us.

And honestly, I've seen your posts on other boards. If you realised that your recent protestant traditions weren't true you could become a powerful evangelist.

 

[HTacianas]

How do your judgements and terms not prevent you from showing Grace or Mercy or Love to someone...?

"He who deals out judgment without mercy will receive his or her judgment from God without mercy", etc...

God Bless!

I am a layman. Nothing more.

 

[Neogaia777]

Hi HT,

For me, I don't find any teaching in the Scriptures that would allude to a believer having to hold to some belief that when partaking of the communion which the Lord instituted, that he is literally eating flesh and drinking blood.

I think we need go no further than the first sharing of communion. Jesus was there in his complete body. He tore off a piece of bread from a loaf and handed it to the disciples and said to them to take and eat for this was his body broken for them. His body wasn't yet broken. So, he had to be using the bread to point to a future reality when his body would be broken. He was instituting a practice in which he expected his followers to take this time of communion, no matter when a particular fellowship may do it, to remember that his body had been broken for them.

That's about as simple as I can put it. You understand the practice of communion to be different, and as far as I'm concerned, that's ok. But I've yet to be impressed by anyone's argument that the Scriptures teach that we need to hold to this recognition of the wine and bread somehow morphing into actual flesh and blood just because it is being used in a sacred sacrament of the Lord.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

He said to "do this in rememberance of me" or to remember Him and all He has done for you, not that it somehow became His literal body or literal flesh or literal blood, He was not promoting canibalism, He said to do it to remember Him and all He has done/did for you personally, and make it personal, but not His literal flesh and blood, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

He said to "do this in rememberance of me" or to remember Him and all He has done for you, not that it somehow became His literal body or literal flesh or literal blood, He was not promoting canibalism, He said to do it to remember Him and all He has done/did for you personally, and make it personal, but not His literal flesh and blood, etc...

God Bless!

How warped some religions can be or become, valuing their traditions of men over true Bible truth, and unwilling to change them, but still cling to them even when faced with Bible truth, proving which and what they value more, etc...

God Bless!

 

[HTacianas]

You ask a very important and profound question. There is no doubt that the vast majority in the Early Church did believe in the literal body and blood of Jesus. However, we cannot be certain exactly when this view became dominant. I say that because the Didache, often called the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, seems to be silent on the subject. This should at least give us some question as to when the literalist view became widely accepted.

I will only raise two key points. First, Jesus often spoke in language that was not to be taken literally. Obviously he did not want us to actually cut off our hand, pluck out our eye, etc. Hence, Jesus may well have intended for his followers to only look upon the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood. We simply cannot be certain, though it must be conceded that the Early Church did accept the literal view, at a fairly early stage.

Second, and I believe far more important, is that it would have been anathema back then for any observant Jew to consume blood. The Old Testament strictly forbids the drinking or eating of animal blood. Hence, one can only assume that the drinking of human blood would also be forbidden. Yes, perhaps some or even most of the early Jewish Christians made an exception, if and when they came to the belief that Jesus was God. Nevertheless, I do find it very hard to imagine that Jesus, effectively a Jewish rabbi, would have wanted his disciples and other followers to drink human blood.

However, if one places a large importance upon Holy Tradition and Apostolic Succession, then I can see why the RCC, the EOC and the OOC all accept a belief in the literal body and blood of Christ.

As the Jewish aversion to blood goes, see John chapter 6.

 

[thecolorsblend]

He said to "do this in rememberance of me" or to remember Him and all He has done for you, not that it somehow became His literal body or literal flesh or literal blood, He was not promoting canibalism, He said to do it to remember Him and all He has done/did for you personally, and make it personal, but not His literal flesh and blood, etc...

God Bless!

Your interpretation of His words is novel, ahistorical and utterly unrecognizable to people who were personally taught by the apostles. The Real Presence is very old doctrine. The only way to believe that it is wrong is to believe that the Church fell into error virtually on day one and things have only gotten worse since then.

The claim is, frankly, so ludicrous that it's a bit stunning that people (implicitly or explicitly) believe that.