Why would a Christian deny the body and blood?

[Chesterton]

Seems very clear to me that Jesus is telling them to partake (believe) in him for eternal life.

partake ≠ believe

 

[renniks]

partake ≠ believe

What does that mean?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Well it’s in Scripture.

But of course you don't bother to give the supposed "scripture" that supports the existence of two genres of SIN.

 

[Chesterton]

What does that mean?

You used parentheses to randomly substitute one word for another in your interpretation of Jesus' words. As if I said, "Tomorrow I'm going fishing (bowling)".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You can read what he said for yourself. I can't say it any more plainly and simply than he did.

But you obviously CAN Parrot the "Interpretation of your Visible church system" of what He meant.

 

[renniks]

You used parentheses to randomly substitute one word for another in your interpretation of Jesus' words. As if I said, "Tomorrow I'm going fishing (bowling)".

It's obvious in the passage that he is using the bread metaphor for people following and believing on him.

5 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

 

[mikeforjesus]

Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you

When you eat communion it is not to stop sinning but to have your sin taken away in this life therefore you abide in Him by feeding on His sacrifice to be a person not currently in guilt of sin but all those who leave sin by the Spirit can be saved later

However we don’t know if Jesus meant to eat Him in an ordinance or to eat Him by faith. The ordinance is to give the chance to people to remember His death and come to Him in faith and to publicly show appreciation for His sacrifice

the ordinance may contain His presence and His body and blood to encourage one as He said when 2 or 3 gather in My name I am there in the midst but that does not mean it is essential

Maybe the apostles church believed in the real presence and baptism but the church fathers afterwards were the first to teach differently to the early church in taking the sacraments away from the whole body and making them essential when they were really only desirable to do so as to be saved upon death but not essential for righteous living

But the apostles still might have told the early church fathers to do so as to preserve the correct form or so people would also come together as a body and not just individually and because they would accept others in the future who believe differently that you must do so and to test people if they trust Christ only to accept those who don’t think you must do so because the apostles already taught publicly such as in gospel that God says he who is not against us is on our side and Paul already condemned division and St. John taught all who believe in Jesus abide in Him because many would not have proof the apostles taught even the apostolic fathers that you must do so. Anyway if the apostolic fathers were right but I don’t believe the sacraments were ever essential they were only right for their time when gifts of the Spirit were active only in the church so it had to be done. God doesn’t want this to be the age of signs. I don’t think He would hold it against people now unless He directly showed a person He must do so and that those who didn’t get revealed they have to would be pardoned and they would be helped to accept it by God revealing He doesn’t judge those who He didn’t show they must

 

[Michie]

But of course you don't bother to give the supposed "scripture" that supports the existence of two genres of SIN.

Bob, I have been busy today. There is no reason to be so snarky. I’m not your enemy.

Catholic moral theology has distinguished between a mortal and venial sin. In the First letter of John it says, “...All wrong-doing is sin, but not all sin is deadly 1 John 5:17.

The notion of deadly or mortal sin is found in other parts of Scripture as well.

For more info you can read this:
What is the difference between mortal and venial sin? - Catholic Straight Answers

I’m on a phone and it is hard for me to write long posts.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob, I have been busy today. There is no reason to be so snarky. I’m not your enemy.

Catholic moral theology has distinguished between a mortal and venial sin. In the First letter of John it says, “...All wrong-doing is sin, but not all sin is deadly 1 John 5:17.

James 1:15 disagrees. I'm not interested in Catholic "Workarounds".

 

[Michie]

James 1:15 disagrees. I'm not interested in Catholic "Workarounds".

Well I’m not surprised. But you really do need to learn what you are arguing against when it comes to Catholic theology. And stop listening to to the anti-Catholic grapevine. No communication otherwise until you do. And I’m a long time Protestant that converted to the Catholic Faith. Bearing false witness is not a good thing. But by the looks of it, you are extremely set in your ways. So God bless you. Not going to feed into your hostility.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Well I’m not surprised. But you really do need to learn what you are arguing against when it comes to Catholic theology. And stop listening to to the anti-Catholic grapevine. No communication otherwise until you do. And I’m a long time Protestant that converted to the Catholic Faith. Bearing false witness is not a good thing. But by the looks of it, you are extremely set in your ways. So God bless you. Not going to feed into your hostility.

GOOD!! A wise decision on your part. I know all I need to know about "Catholic Theology" and it's problems.

 

[Chesterton]

But you obviously CAN Parrot the "Interpretation of your Visible church system" of what He meant.

Okay. That's probably the response I'd make if I had no direct argument.

 

[Chesterton]

It's obvious in the passage that he is using the bread metaphor for people following and believing on him.

5 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Putting two words in boldface doesn't make your strange idea "obvious".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Okay. That's probably the response I'd make if I had no direct argument.

Or if one has been through it so many times that it's no longer worth even fooling with. I already pretty much know the Catholic responses to any argument raised against their System (generally "BECAUSE WE SAY SO").

 

[Chesterton]

Or if one has been through it so many times that it's no longer worth even fooling with. I already pretty much know the Catholic responses to any argument raised against their System (generally "BECAUSE WE SAY SO").

My argument in this thread has been "because Jesus said so".

 

[mikeforjesus]

I don’t know if I support the concept of bread and wine only becoming the body and blood during communion. They are indeed to treat the bread as if they would treat His body and the wine respectfully as though they would treat His blood. It could be actually His body and blood in communion but not only then or it may not be actually eating His flesh physically and drinking His blood but partaking of the life coming from the sacrifice the fruit of the vine but maybe you do need to eat His body and blood to do that in the ordinance to be saved on death but it may even be given to all individually but coming together is a time for reflection

The reason people got sick and some were chastened almost to the point of death is because they were disrespecting the purpose of the ordinance which is to make people examine themselves and repent. It is not that you can escape punishment by not having communion even if you do not live repentant life both those who have communion and don’t have communion could be punished but communion is desirable for all to examine yourself but if you are making a mockery of examining yourself and not caring about others by stopping people from having communion by drinking their wine by adding sin you would also definitely be punished. It is desirable that people always examine themselves whether having communion or not so as to avoid punishment even those who don’t have communion may be punished but they will definitely be punished if they stumble the body and ruin the ordinance which is supposed to help everyone examine themselves. But both those who had communion without examining their sins and those who avoided communion while not examining their sins could be punished but those who ruin the ordinance by stopping others from having communion and examining themselves would definitely be punished


I believe the apostles may have taught the early fathers the concept of Eucharist only in church because God desired to test people if they have faith in Him. Just as He taught people on earth they need to eat His body and drink His blood who walked away but then He said He meant His words only spiritually. That the flesh profits nothing meaning you don’t actually need to eat Him and drink Him physically even if it is concealed but unless you take in how My flesh needed to suffer for you which is eating His flesh and take in how My blood was shed for you you are drinking His blood. Maybe flesh profits nothing doesn’t mean it is not His body and blood but that is how some see it maybe He just meant it is not merely physical food to live forever on earth but spiritual food to live in heaven but we don’t know what He meant and that He would not allow all to eat Him personally even His physical flesh given by faith especially that some deserve Him now since we can not know for sure where the true church is and if we did it is too late for He didn’t show all before


In the early church of the apostles there was different means the people received the Holy Spirit but it could have been only because the church was one then and they had signs then and the Holy Spirit then had special obvious gifts such as tongues and prophecy so they knew they could only get it from the apostles


In the early church there was a need for the apostles to have authority to make sure there is no divisions in the early church so it is a pattern for future generations. Right now you can’t make sure there is no divisions because it is not the time of the gifts of the Spirit. Probably the apostles made sure everyone in the early church knew if they were Jews they needed to be baptised to receive the Holy Spirit and if they were Samaritan’s they needed the apostles from Jerusalem to come to give them the Holy Spirit so as Samaritan’s don’t think they can be a separate church to the Jews but to be united. These insistence of baptism and different ways of receiving the Holy Spirit was only a way for the early church to show the unity they desire and it could be insisted on because there was signs in the early church. But it may have only been in the beginning so that after the gentiles received the Holy Spirit by faith everyone could also receive the Holy Spirit by faith but God may have required people to be baptised because God showed everyone the true church they can be saved without doubt by the signs that came from the apostles. So that no one was without evidence of where the true church lied.


Maybe the apostles treated the communion as actual body and blood that you have to have to be saved upon death so as to support people coming together but it was not necessary for righteous living but it was a chance for more people to examine themselves and live righteous. But you can’t be saved ever without the body of Christ because you need help from others so it is desirable to do or in some way examine yourself by confessing to the whole body so it is desirable to do

If He made special case for the gentiles it could be so now

Ephesians 1:13

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise

 

[Bob Carabbio]

My argument in this thread has been "because Jesus said so".

SO have you also been obedient to Luke 22:36?? That's Jesus told his disciples to do -

 

[Chesterton]

SO have you also been obedient to Luke 22:36?? That's Jesus told his disciples to do -

Doesn't apply to me. I don't use a wallet, and I've never carried a purse or owned a cloak.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Doesn't apply to me.

Standard "Work Around" Disclaimer. I guess Jesus telling you to "ARM YOURSELF" isn't important to you at all.

 

[Chesterton]

Standard "Work Around" Disclaimer. I guess Jesus telling you to "ARM YOURSELF" isn't important to you at all.

Either stay on topic or stick to the banjo.