Intinction

[AustinC]

Don't be ridiculous. Even if it is (which it isn't) this is all sanctioned by Jesus Christ, God Incarnate on this earth. "This is my body" and "this is my blood" he said as recorded in the Holy Writ - case closed!

Now go back to your faux communion with your grape juice and crackers and leave us in peace to practice the Christian faith as we have come to know it.

Is this supposed to be news to me?

I'm sorry this is a hard teaching that is difficult for you to accept. I will follow Christ's Words and teachings, and St. Paul's, and the whole of Christian tradition over your personal interpretation.

Unfortunately for you, you must therefore take every word that Jesus ever spoke as completely literal. When Jesus says, I am the vine, Jesus literally is the vine. When he says, I am the shepherd, he literally is a shepherd. When he says we are the sheep, we literally are sheep. We can go on...

Yet, the disciples never took Jesus literally at the last supper. They would have been utterly repulsed by eating flesh and drinking blood. It was forbidden by law. Therefore we know Jesus was not being literal, but being figurative. This also fits perfectly with the Passover symbolism Jesus was presenting.

But, the RCC, ever wanting to tie a noose around it's citizens, created a wonderfully legalistic teaching that would scare all peasants into submission by tying their salvation to communion, which could then be given or withheld by the priests and keep the peasants in line. If they revolted, they also would go to hell because communion would be withheld.
What a brilliant scheme of power hungry men.

 

[RCommando]

Yet, the disciples never took Jesus literally at the last supper. They would have been utterly repulsed by eating flesh and drinking blood. It was forbidden by law. Therefore we know Jesus was not being literal, but being figurative. This also fits perfectly with the Passover symbolism Jesus was presenting.

wow, that's wild. I guess the apostles also would have been repulsed if Christ had asked them to eat foods that were previously considered unclean... oh, wait.

 

[AustinC]

wow, that's wild. I guess the apostles also would have been repulsed if Christ had asked them to eat foods that were previously considered unclean... oh, wait.

Indeed, you make my point for me. Peter was repulsed at eating unclean foods and it's recorded for us in the book of Acts. Yet, not one disciple was repulsed by what Jesus declared. This is because, Jesus wasn't literally having them eat his flesh or drink his blood. The disciples knew this, but the RCC still teaches it as literal despite the fact that it wasn't literal.
Thank you for confirming this point.

 

[RCommando]

Indeed, you make my point for me. Peter was repulsed at eating unclean foods and it's recorded for us in the book of Acts. Yet, not one disciple was repulsed by what Jesus declared. This is because, Jesus wasn't literally having them eat his flesh or drink his blood. The disciples knew this, but the RCC still teaches it as literal despite the fact that it wasn't literal.
Thank you for confirming this point.

Please read the last half of John 6 and tell me that His followers weren't shocked and repulsed. It says right there that they left Him because they could not accept the teaching. Christ doesn't say "oh, wait guys... I didn't mean it like that". He doubles down and reiterates that they MUST eat His Flesh to have eternal life. Does He do this when He says "I am the Door"? No. Does He do this when He says, "I am the Vine"? No. Some of His followers say "He wants us to eat His Flesh!" and then they leave Him when He says, "Yes". I don't know how it could be any clearer. But I suppose it would be hard to accept when it doesn't fit your personal interpretation. Try to open yourself to what ALL Christians believed, taught, and died for over the first 1500 years of Christianity.

The apostle Paul knew this, which is why 1 Corinthians 11:27 exists.

 

[AustinC]

Please read the last half of John 6 and tell me that His followers weren't shocked and repulsed. It says right there that they left Him because they could not accept the teaching. Christ doesn't say "oh, wait guys... I didn't mean it like that". He doubles down and reiterates that they MUST eat His Flesh to have eternal life. Does He do this when He says "I am the Door"? No. Does He do this when He says, "I am the Vine"? No. Some of His followers say "He wants us to eat His Flesh!" and then they leave Him when He says, "Yes". I don't know how it could be any clearer. But I suppose it would be hard to accept when it doesn't fit your personal interpretation. Try to open yourself to what ALL Christians believed, taught, and died for over the first 1500 years of Christianity.

The apostle Paul knew this, which is why 1 Corinthians 11:27 exists.

The Jews, just like you, were unable to recognize that Jesus was not being literal. They also struggled with his claim to be God.

Let us look at John 6:41-59

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

You ignore all that Jesus says regarding being the bread that is greater than manna and that the only ones who will believe are those whom the Father gives to him so that they believe.
Nowhere does Jesus say that eating his literal flesh and drinking his literal blood will result in a person's salvation.
Instead, Jesus is telling us that we must die with him and be raised with him so that it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives within me.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Your church, like the Jews Jesus was speaking to, misunderstands Jesus.

 

[robycop3]

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are basically part of the same event. The sequence of events does not matter in the least with my contention.

It has MUCH to do with it if you believe "intinction" is legitimate.

 

[robycop3]

If one believes the bread & drink at Communion are actually Jesus' flesh & blood, mthen that one is sacrificing Him anew. Jesus Himself said, "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me."

 

[Yeshua1]

The Jews, just like you, were unable to recognize that Jesus was not being literal. They also struggled with his claim to be God.

Let us look at John 6:41-59



You ignore all that Jesus says regarding being the bread that is greater than manna and that the only ones who will believe are those whom the Father gives to him so that they believe.
Nowhere does Jesus say that eating his literal flesh and drinking his literal blood will result in a person's salvation.
Instead, Jesus is telling us that we must die with him and be raised with him so that it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives within me.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Your church, like the Jews Jesus was speaking to, misunderstands Jesus.

Jesus himself is that bread from heaven, not the wafer and wine!

 

[Adonia]

Try to open yourself to what ALL Christians believed, taught, and died for over the first 1500 years of Christianity.

They can't do it. All of what they believe is based on their own flawed scriptural interpretation. They reject the orthodox teachings of the Christian Church as a whole in favor of their hero's like Zwingli, Calvin, and the like. Thousands of sects and thousands of different interpretations and counting, and they want us to believe them. Yeah, right.

 

[AustinC]

They can't do it. All of what they believe is based on their own flawed scriptural interpretation. They reject the orthodox teachings of the Christian Church as a whole in favor of their hero's like Zwingli, Calvin, and the like. Thousands of sects and thousands of different interpretations and counting, and they want us to believe them. Yeah, right.

Adonia, within the RCC you have radically different ideas being presented to the masses. While the Vatican has its own official opinions, each individual institute picks and chooses what it wills. There are radical feminist groups (for example, the Sisters of St Joseph who are protesting for social justice and feminist ideology. Theologically, they twist Catholic theology to fit their own ideology. Conversely, the present pope has his Marxist, Liberation theology, which he is pushing. From there we can find priests and individuals who are mixing indigenous animist spiritism into Catholic theology.
So to claim that everyone is on the same page is to state an outright falsehood.

What this means is that church tradition is a terrible base-line upon which to establish a faith. Tradition is corruptible and indeed the RCC tradition has serious corruptions. How do we know this? We find the true baseline in the Bible. When the Bible shows the RCC tradition to be utterly wrong, the follower of Christ Jesus must abandon that wrong tradition. This is appropriate. It is not surprising that there are some people who refuse to test the spirits (traditions) of men to see if the tradition is false. People who will not question, will ignorantly follow the false path established by their church leadership. To those determined to live in ignorance, I leave you to your own path.

 

[RCommando]

Adonia, within the RCC you have radically different ideas being presented to the masses. While the Vatican has its own official opinions, each individual institute picks and chooses what it wills. There are radical feminist groups (for example, the Sisters of St Joseph who are protesting for social justice and feminist ideology. Theologically, they twist Catholic theology to fit their own ideology. Conversely, the present pope has his Marxist, Liberation theology, which he is pushing. From there we can find priests and individuals who are mixing indigenous animist spiritism into Catholic theology.
So to claim that everyone is on the same page is to state an outright falsehood.

What this means is that church tradition is a terrible base-line upon which to establish a faith. Tradition is corruptible and indeed the RCC tradition has serious corruptions. How do we know this? We find the true baseline in the Bible. When the Bible shows the RCC tradition to be utterly wrong, the follower of Christ Jesus must abandon that wrong tradition. This is appropriate. It is not surprising that there are some people who refuse to test the spirits (traditions) of men to see if the tradition is false. People who will not question, will ignorantly follow the false path established by their church leadership. To those determined to live in ignorance, I leave you to your own path.

When any Protestant says they have a baseline or final authority in the Bible, what they mean is they have a final authority in THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures are merely a vehicle for the Protestant to elevate their own opinions and desires. That is exactly why Tradition is important... it guides understanding of scripture and protects the Church from being open to every interpretation under the sun... which is what Protestantism is. It replaces the Authority Christ gave the Apostles with an "everyone is their own authority" type. The Bible can mean anything to anyone under those guidelines. Which is why there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[AustinC]

When any Protestant says they have a baseline or final authority in the Bible, what they mean is they have a final authority in THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures are merely a vehicle for the Protestant to elevate their own opinions and desires. That is exactly why Tradition is important... it guides understanding of scripture and protects the Church from being open to every interpretation under the sun... which is what Protestantism is. It replaces the Authority Christ gave the Apostles with an "everyone is their own authority" type. The Bible can mean anything to anyone under those guidelines. Which is why there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

The difference is I am open to others sharing their observation of scripture and seeking to know God fully.
Meanwhile, you play the "I trust the Pharisees" card and think it has merit.
The great thing the Reformation did was it forced Rome to actually have to rethink its lies. Of course, the leaders just doubled down on their legalism and then attempted to kill off all who questioned them.

 

[RCommando]

The difference is I am open to others sharing their observation of scripture and seeking to know God fully.
Meanwhile, you play the "I trust the Pharisees" card and think it has merit.
The great thing the Reformation did was it forced Rome to actually have to rethink its lies. Of course, the leaders just doubled down on their legalism and then attempted to kill off all who questioned them.

If you want to call defending the one, true Faith handed down from the Apostles "legalism" then have at it. As far as the killings, maybe pick up a book instead of taking everything you hear from Pastor Jim-Bob as gospel truth?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As the Op is now banned for Anti-Baptist Propaganda, this thread is closed.