Why would a Christian deny the body and blood?

[Markie Boy]

It's not something to be taken lightly or dismissed too easily. But I much prefer the Eastern ways of describing things more mystically. The Scholastic ways of defining everything down to micro details sometimes pushes me further away.

Most protestants only have exposure to Roman Catholicism, and when you as them about Orthodoxy the don't hardly know what it is. Why do people deny it? I have looked at some Catholic teachings that are defined down to the micro level and just said to myself - nobody has God that figured out. So in trying to define too much it can do as much harm as help.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

So why do you take John 6 literally but not Matthew 25?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Act 19:2 - he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

What do you think THAT has to do with anything we're discussing?? (transubstantiation).

 

[Albion]

In the sense that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

Well, that doesn't actually address the issue, does it?

 

[HTacianas]

Well, that doesn't actually address the issue, does it?

Sure it does. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning. But then someone stood up one day and, without any reason whatever, said it no it isn't.

The question is, why would someone do that?

 

[Albion]

Sure it does. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning.

The teaching of Christianity since the beginning has been Real Presence, not Transubstantiation. And as has already been discussed many times here, each of the major branches of Christendom--Roman C, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and (perhaps) Reformed--have different versions of the Apostolic belief called Real Presence.

Since you ask about the timing of a change, that happened at the end of the Ninth Century when the idea of the bread and wine miraculously changing, going out of existence as bread and wine except for what all our senses tell us, was advanced as a possibility.

 

[Chesterton]

If they DID know, and understand, why were they so utterly offended by the very thought of it??

Obviously because they understood it was meant literally.

 

[Chesterton]

Communion doesn't save anyone. He was talking about following him by faith.

You're disagreeing with Jesus.

 

[renniks]

You're disagreeing with Jesus.

Nope, because Jesus wasn't talking about communion, didn't talk about it until right before the crucifixion.

 

[Chesterton]

Nope, because Jesus wasn't talking about communion, didn't talk about it until right before the crucifixion.

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

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Obviously because they understood it was meant literally.

SO if the Disciples/Apostles were Horrified by a "literal interpretation", why aren't the Catholics, given the Biblical restrictions on such things??

After all, when the question of binding Gentiles to the Jewish LAW came up, even the "Sabbath" wasn't mentioned, but abstaining from BLOOD was. (Acts 15:29)

 

[renniks]

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

I have read it many times. John 6 .
He's explaining that they must believe in him for salvation.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

When one is in mortal sin.

ANOTHER CATHOLIC FANTASY!!!! All Sin, not eliminated by FAITH in Jesus' SIN Offering is MORTAL.
ANd of course that has absolutely NOTHING to do with taking communion.

 

[Michie]

ANOTHER CATHOLIC FANTASY!!!! All Sin, not eliminated by FAITH in Jesus' SIN Offering is MORTAL.
ANd of course that has absolutely NOTHING to do with taking communion.

Oh Bob. Please do educate yourself when it comes to Catholic theology and belief. I tend to ignore uneducated anti-Catholic ramblings

 

[NBB]

It's something SPIRITUAL, its not actual blood, if it were that a simple dna test would show that it is blood right? that teaching is actually stupid sorry, or i misunderstood that they actually think the wine becomes blood.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Oh Bob. Please do educate yourself when it comes to Catholic theology and belief. I tend to ignore uneducated anti-Catholic ramblings

SO - Ignore it if you please, but KNOW that ALL SIN that's not eradicated by FAITH in the Sin Offering of Jesus on the Cross leads to DEATH, and the "Mortal/Venial" distinction invented by Catholics is totally false.

 

[Michie]

SO - Ignore it if you please, but KNOW that ALL SIN that's not eradicated by FAITH in the Sin Offering of Jesus on the Cross leads to DEATH, and the "Mortal/Venial" distinction invented by Catholics is totally false.

Well it’s in Scripture.

 

[Chesterton]

SO if the Disciples/Apostles were Horrified by a "literal interpretation", why aren't the Catholics, given the Biblical restrictions on such things??

After all, when the question of binding Gentiles to the Jewish LAW came up, even the "Sabbath" wasn't mentioned, but abstaining from BLOOD was. (Acts 15:29)

They text doesn't say they were horrified, just that they had difficulty accepting a difficult teaching. And there is no biblical restriction on "such things" because there is no other such thing.

 

[Chesterton]

I have read it many times. John 6 .
He's explaining that they must believe in him for salvation.

You must be reading the Thomas Jefferson bible. Real bibles say "you must eat my flesh".

 

[renniks]

You must be reading the Thomas Jefferson bible. Real bibles say "you must eat my flesh".

Did they?
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life.

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