Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

Protestants are never much into history. Why bother with the past when there’s this imminent rapture to think about. ?

Ha! Please re-read this particular discussion. You’ve just stepped on your foot.

As I’ve said, O’Brien’s out-of-context, context is not the context of John 6; the context of John 6 is John 6.

 

[sandusky]

Gabriel of 12:

I started to derive at this conclusion when sandusky appeared to ignore what I placed in front of him as fact from scripture, that his definition of “Eat the flesh and drink the body” figuratively Never means to come and “believe” according to sandusky’s false scripture interpretation of John 6:53 and following. I repeated twice that his interpretation figuratively speaking “eat the flesh, drink the blood” does not fit the speech Jesus spoke from John 6:53 and provided scriputural proof. I get a sense how Jesus felt, when he spoke to the disbelieving Pharisees, and Sadducees, who clinged to the flesh of the law.

I gave him the Hebrew scriptures for the interpretation of figurative speech of “eat the flesh and drink the blood” but he refuses to accept truth before his eyes that discredits sandusky’s false interpretation of “eat the flesh and drink the blood” to mean come and believe, when figuratively speaking means to persecute and assault someone as you gracefully informed him also.

Jesus defines His words in the passage; what all of you are doing is going outside of the context for definitions; you do that because Jesus’ definitions don’t line-up with your understanding, thus O’Brien’s silliness.
Gabriel of 12:

You know according to the Mosaic law and Church law, you and I gave witness to sandusky and he still refused truth; what now? do we treat him as a tax collector?

You don’t understand—anything, IMO.

 

[rinnie]

A true Eucharist would only take place once a year and would be a feast done at the same time as passover, but most importantly it would be a celebrated feast. That change by constantine when he merged “the way” and “mithraism”. Mithraism used the believe of a thimble full of wine and chips of bread which were the flesh and blood of their god. Also the baptism is an outward sign of an inward commitment, baptism is choice the believer does to show his inward commitment to Christ.

Not according to the Church that Christ first started the Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

You don’t understand—anything, IMO.

Jesus defines His words in the passage; what you are doing is going outside of the context for definitions; you do that because Jesus’ definitions don’t line-up with your reformed understanding.

 

[sandusky]

Jesus defines His words in the passage; what you are doing is going outside of the context for definitions; you do that because Jesus’ definitions don’t line-up with your reformed understanding.

I line up with Jesus defintions and His understanding; you don’t.

 

[Mickey]

I line up with Jesus defintions and His understanding; you don’t.

Oooh! Nice come back!

Sadly, Sacred Scripture, 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, and the visible Church that Christ founded-- do not coincide with the twisted interpretations to which you adhere.

 

[sandusky]

Oooh! Nice come back!

Sadly, Sacred Scripture, 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, and the visible Church that Christ founded-- do not coincide with the twisted interpretations to which you adhere.

It’s right in the Scripture, Mickey. Neither Jesus, nor the apostles articulate a presence or a change in the elements of the supper anywhere in their words.

 

[Mickey]

It’s right in the Scripture, Mickey.

Amen, sandusky.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

“They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.”*
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 AD) (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

 

[Contarini]

A true Eucharist would only take place once a year and would be a feast done at the same time as passover, but most importantly it would be a celebrated feast. That change by constantine when he merged “the way” and “mithraism”.

There is plenty of evidence that Christians before Constantine celebrated the Eucharist weekly. You are just making this up (or your source is).

Also the baptism is an outward sign of an inward commitment,

Where do you find this purely symbolic view taught in early Christian writings before Constantine?

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Amen, sandusky.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

“They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.”*
**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 AD) (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)**Jesus flesh now resides in heaven, Mickey (Heb 10:11ff).

Perhaps Ignatius didn’t understand that.

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus flesh now resides in heaven, Mickey (Heb 10:11ff).

Perhaps Ignatius didn’t understand that.

So it is impossible?

 

[sandusky]

So it is impossible?

Define “it.”

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps Ignatius didn’t understand that.

It is you who are having trouble with comprehension, sandusky. St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle St John. I think he understood quite clearly.

But I will continue to pray that your eyes and ears are opened.

 

[ralphinal]

Define “it.”

For Jesus to exist body, blood, soul and divinity on earth in some form as well as in heaven.

 

[sandusky]

It is you who are having trouble with comprehension, sandusky. St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle St John. I think he understood quite clearly.

But I will continue to pray that your eyes and ears are opened.

Why then doesn’t he specifically refer to John’s instruction concerning his position?

ISTM, Ignatius is giving his “private interpretation,” rather than an explanation of the apostle’s teaching. In fact, none of the early guys articulated any apostolic teaching concerning the last supper, but make individual attempts at definitions of something simply stated in the Gospel—do this in remembrance of me, as often as you do this.

 

[sandusky]

For Jesus to exist body, blood, soul and divinity on earth in some form as well as in heaven.

Jesus body has physicality; its physical location is said to be in the heavens (Eph 2:5,6). However, He will come to earth a second time, on a yet future day fixed by the Father.

 

[Mickey]

Ignatius is giving his "private interpretation

LOL.

It is interesting to see the extent of denial to which you will stretch in order to hold on to your reformed theology. Do you really believe that the holy martyr St Ignatius, being the disciple of St John the Apostle, decided to give a private opinion (and according you, the wrong opinion) regarding the Holy Eucharist?

Your posts are becoming incredulous!

 

[rinnie]

When Jesus said this is my body which has been given up for you, and this is my blood that has been shed. You either believe Jesus or you don’t. When I go to church and receive the Eucharist I believe what Jesus said.

 

[Mickey]

When Jesus said this is my body which has been given up for you, and this is my blood that has been shed. You either believe Jesus or you don’t. When I go to church and receive the Eucharist I believe what Jesus said.

Yes. Sadly, many continue to walk away.

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus body has physicality; its physical location is said to be in the heavens (Eph 2:5,6). However, He will come to earth a second time, on a yet future day fixed by the Father.

So, you are saying that Jesus is limited to the rules of Creation?

Or, are you saying that all things are not possible with God?

Or, are you simply making a guess based on your theology?