Why would a Christian deny the body and blood?

[Neogaia777]

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?

Confession to God, does not have to a priest or a man, etc...

God Bless!

 

[HTacianas]

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

No. I believe Jesus will separate those who lived lives of good works from those who didn't.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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

Try again.

PSST!! I already said that no citation is required. The language in the scriptures provides the "evidence" and tells the story nicely. Take it or leave it.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

It would be DIFFICULT to "realize" that what's absolutely TRUE, isn't - don'cha know.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

I'm just going by what Jesus said...

And "personally taught that "doctrine" first-hand directly from the apostles"...?

I think you might need to seriously re-think that and somehow prove it, you do know the RCC wasn't even started till around 300 AD right...?

There is no proof whatsoever that people held that belief of the "transubstantiation" before that either, and they more than likely did not even think about nor come up with it until after the RCC was started, etc...

They more than likely knew (before that) that Jesus was not talking about "canibalism", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Chesterton]

PSST!! I already said that no citation is required. The language in the scriptures provides the "evidence" and tells the story nicely. Take it or leave it.

If it was symbolic, why did disciples walk away from this "hard teaching"? It wouldn't be hard if it was symbolic.

 

[HTacianas]

It would be DIFFICULT to "realize" that what's absolutely TRUE, isn't - don'cha know.

We all have revelations.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If it was symbolic, why did disciples walk away from this "hard teaching"? It wouldn't be hard if it was symbolic.

And none of them attacked Him with a knife to cut pieces off Him either, did they???
CLEARLY SYMBOLIC!!!

 

[Chesterton]

And none of them attacked Him with a knife to cut pieces off Him either, did they???
CLEARLY SYMBOLIC!!!

lol, wut?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

Even though that's also obviously what happened. There's any number of clearly PAGAN inclusions in Catholic theology (moreso in ROMAN Catholic theology).

 

[Neogaia777]

If it was symbolic, why did disciples walk away from this "hard teaching"? It wouldn't be hard if it was symbolic.

He said that cause he wanted to send the crowds away first off, and He was laying the groundwork for what He would explain to them what He really meant later on

Now let me ask you a question, why is there absolutely no mention of the bread and wine literally becoming His literal flesh and blood anywhere else in scripture, by anyone, after that, etc, especially if they supposedly "taught it" like one poster said...?

Literal cannibalism was and abomination to God BTW, and Jesus also explained that He was the Word, and His body or flesh was the taking in or eating of the Word, and the Blood His or the Spirit, that His Word or Words, along with the Spirit were life that we were to show we were doing or taking in by partaking of with the bread and wine...

Literal people can never understand or discern things "spiritually" or get the spiritual meaning of it ever, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Even though that's also obviously what happened. There's any number of clearly PAGAN inclusions in Catholic theology (moreso in ROMAN Catholic theology).

They actually thought they were "Christianizing them" by doing that, cause isn't all mixing together of both pagan and Christian ideas and coming up with a whole new idea of or from them based on that, or those, etc, always making them "even more Christian", etc...

And there was a whole lot of other very not pure motivations for them doing that as well, as well, etc... Politics, power, control over regions, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[renniks]

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?

Can you explain what you mean a little better? Are you talking about literal transubstantiation?

 

[HTacianas]

Can you explain what you mean a little better? Are you talking about literal transubstantiation?

Christianity has always held that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ during the transformation.

It has always been and there is no reason to believe it has ever ceased.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. I believe Jesus will separate those who lived lives of good works from those who didn't.

But He said He would separate the sheep from the goats. Are you saying He was speaking metaphorically?

 

[Albion]

So when Paul warned those who would profane the Eucharist that they were condemning themselves he was exaggerating?

Most likely, his meaning was that it is wrong to commune in a flippant way, or mechanically, not taking the sacrament seriously, etc.

If it's instead a matter of us being unworthy in an absolute sense...well, none of us really can say that we are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ, no matter how that wording is interpreted.

 

[HTacianas]

But He said He would separate the sheep from the goats. Are you saying He was speaking metaphorically?

I'm saying he was speaking of those who performed righteous works and those who did not.

 

[Albion]

Christianity has always held that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ during the transformation.

It has always been and there is no reason to believe it has ever ceased.

Note: that's true, but in what sense it is the body and blood of Christ? That the bread and wine cease to exist and are replaced by a physical part of Christ's body is one idea...but that concept didn't come along until well into the Middle Ages.

 

[renniks]

If it was symbolic, why did disciples walk away from this "hard teaching"? It wouldn't be hard if it was symbolic.

Because Jesus wasn't talking about communion in that passage. No one would have even thought about that, because it was obviously before the cross.

 

[renniks]

Christianity has always held that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ during the transformation.

It has always been and there is no reason to believe it has ever ceased.

The Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words. The question would be whether they meant it literally in a physical sense or only in a spiritual sense.