The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

YAQUBOS:

So those Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 and those Muslims who believed in the Lord, ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood when they believed, before being baptized!

Psalm45:9:

Scripture does not say that the gentiles received the Eucharist before they were baptized.

Scripture says that they received the Holy Spirit. So they became ALIVE.
Jesus Christ says very clearly that they can’t have Life UNLESS they eat His flesh and drink His blood.
And you say that they didn’t receive the Eucharist.
So they ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood BEFORE Eucharist, even BEFORE being baptized.
Psalm45:9:

No one can desire to be baptized without receiving grace from the Holy Spirit, but there are different degrees of grace, the grace the Cornelius received was not nor equal to the sanctifying grace received in Baptism. What happened in Acts 10:44 was God was showing St. Peter the answer to the controversy of the early church, a gentile does not need to become Jewish in order to become Christian. Before hand there was the council of Jerusalem that stated gentiles do not need to be circumcised and St. Peter had a revelation showing that Kosher Laws are no longer necessary. This was God showing that indeed a Gentile does not need to be circumcised to become Christian, but baptism is all that is required. This is further shown by the immediate baptism of Cornelius and his household.

God is not showing all that ( if indeed He is showing all that ) just to show it!
Those who were baptized received the Holy Spirit and became alive BEFORE being baptized. Being ALIVE, no one could oppose their Baptism.
Psalm45:9:

St. Paul teaches that baptism is the new circumcision: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)

So? Does this mean that Baptism is the eating of the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?
Psalm45:9:

St. Peter teaches baptismal regeneration: “

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:21-22)
Read this again, by concentrating on what I’ve put in blue.
An advice: read the whole Epistle of Peter, and see the context.

But as we are not studying here if the Baptism is the Regeneration or not, so no need to talk more about this here.
I just want to know if you think Baptism gives you LIFE, i.e. I want to know if you believe the Baptism is the eating and drinking.
Psalm45:9:

Even Martin Luther believed in this.

Really? And who is Martin Luther? Another inspired author of the Scripture?

READ WHAT GOD IS SAYING.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Church_Militant]

Ok… Good citizen…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
As a symbol their abuse does not fall on my body, therefore they are not guilty of my body & blood.
I didn’t give the example of the flag as an example of guilt against your body and blood, but against you as a citizen of the country!
This example was to show you that when we don’t respect the symbol we are guilty against what it synbolizes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
P.S. Insult is far and away different than bodily attack or abuse.
The Scripture doesn’t say that there is a bodily attack or abuse to Jesus Christ, but a guilt against His body and blood.

First, not respecting a symbol is anything but guilt against the body & blood of the object or person symbolised…that would then make it murder to burn a person in effigy or a country’s flag. That’s just plain silly. It may be insulting, but it certainly doesn’ t transmit through the symbol to its object.

Second, the greek word used in scripture means to gnaw or chew, because Jesus meant to actually eat rather than the prevelant concept of the day which meant that someone was persecuting the person in question. The non-Catholic position that communion is only symbolic just does not hold scriptural water. There are a lot of symbols in Christianity, The cross for instance; if one follows out your logic then to not treat a cross with respect would then make one in danger of the judgements listed by St.Paul in 1st Cor. 11:27-30, and that certainly isn’t even implied by St.Paul. If Jesus wasn’t speaking literally in John 6 then why did he not correct everyone and explain it (see Mark 4:34) to the apostles instead of asking them if they wanted to leave too? It was make or break, take it or leave it, from the context: Jesus meant that He would make himself miraculously physically present in the breaking of the bread and sharing of the cup and that we would be able to partake of Him that way.This is also evidenced from the passages of the last supper, both in the Gospels and in St.Paul’s writings. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians supports this idea and so does the writings of the early followers of Christ that have come down to us. I realize that you put no stock in history yet you read historic non-Catholic writings that are no older than the reformation and agree with their teachings while ignoring the writings of the first century church and all the Christians between them and Martin Luther. That doesn’t make much sense to me, even though I was guilty of it too for over 30 years.

Pax vobiscum and a blessed, safe, and happy Christmas to you

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
4 marks:

It is likely that the early Eucharist took place in the wider context of an agape meal (so much for the fast for 1 hour before receiving rule). It is also likely that the earliest Christians did not recognize that Jesus was both God and man, or that the Holy Spirit was God. Such awareness came about through the context of revelation in the deposit of faith entrusted to us as Church.

If they didn’t believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, and if they didn’t believe in the Spirit as Lord, then they were not Christians!

The Church didn’t DECIDE or suddenly DISCOVER that Jesus Christ is both Man and God! The Church just declared the Truth that God REVEALED in His Word!
Psalm45:9:

More important than looking back to determine what may have been believed in such and so an era of Church history is to consider what we believe in 2004 and where we may be headed in the future. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and other visionaries, modern day prophets if you will, have offered us a glimpse of the great “City of God” that is to be realized.

Who is Jesus Christ for you?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

Ok… Good citizen…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
As a symbol their abuse does not fall on my body, therefore they are not guilty of my body & blood.
I didn’t give the example of the flag as an example of guilt against your body and blood, but against you as a citizen of the country!
This example was to show you that when we don’t respect the symbol we are guilty against what it synbolizes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
P.S. Insult is far and away different than bodily attack or abuse.
The Scripture doesn’t say that there is a bodily attack or abuse to Jesus Christ, but a guilt against His body and blood.

First, not respecting a symbol is anything but guilt against the body & blood of the object or person symbolised…that would then make it murder to burn a person in effigy or a country’s flag. That’s just plain silly. It may be insulting, but it certainly doesn’ t transmit through the symbol to its object.

Second, the greek word used in scripture means to gnaw or chew, because Jesus meant to actually eat rather than the prevelant concept of the day which meant that someone was persecuting the person in question. The non-Catholic position that communion is only symbolic just does not hold scriptural water. There are a lot of symbols in Christianity, The cross for instance; if one follows out your logic then to not treat a cross with respect would then make one in danger of the judgements listed by St.Paul in 1st Cor. 11:27-30, and that certainly isn’t even implied by St.Paul. If Jesus wasn’t speaking literally in John 6 then why did he not correct everyone and explain it (see Mark 4:34) to the apostles instead of asking them if they wanted to leave too? It was make or break, take it or leave it, from the context: Jesus meant that He would make himself miraculously physically present in the breaking of the bread and sharing of the cup and that we would be able to partake of Him that way.This is also evidenced from the passages of the last supper, both in the Gospels and in St.Paul’s writings. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians supports this idea and so does the writings of the early followers of Christ that have come down to us. I realize that you put no stock in history yet you read historic non-Catholic writings that are no older than the reformation and agree with their teachings while ignoring the writings of the first century church and all the Christians between them and Martin Luther. That doesn’t make much sense to me, even though I was guilty of it too for over 30 years.

Pax vobiscum and a blessed, safe, and happy Christmas to you

How many times do you read the word “symbol” in the ORIGINAL language of the Scripture?

This is just a question to show you that I don’t believe in the Eucharist as a symbol, IN THE SENSE THAT THIS WORD “SYMBOL” is used today among Romans.

And I want to tell you something very important:

Until the day that you be in peace with the idea that there ARE in fact Christians who believe the Scripture and who are NOT Protestant, you will not be able to understand me and talk to me!

Now, you are just talking to what you think I am…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

YAQUBOS:

Did you know that NO SIN can be washed away without the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

Yes, because without Jesus’ sacrifice, baptismal regeneration would not be possible.

YAQUBOS:

So if you don’t eat and drink that Sacrifice, you can’t have LIFE.

I agree with you so far, without recieving the Eucharist, you are vulerable to sin, and will die.
YAQUOBS:

If Baptism is giving you that LIFE, so BAPTISM, not Eucharist, is the eating and drinking!

Baptism saves, just like what St. Peter said in his epistle, but when you eat and drink (recieve the Eucharist) life is flowing within you, without the Eucharist, life is not sustained, and the person does not have life within them.

YAQUBOS:

Are you ok?

I’m fine, thank you. Are you OK?

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

How many times do you read the word “symbol” in the ORIGINAL language of the Scripture?

This is just a question to show you that I don’t believe in the Eucharist as a symbol, IN THE SENSE THAT THIS WORD “SYMBOL” is used today among Romans.

And I want to tell you something very important:

Until the day that you be in peace with the idea that there ARE in fact Christians who believe the Scripture and who are NOT Protestant, you will not be able to understand me and talk to me!

Now, you are just talking to what you think I am…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Look Bub!
1st…whatsis “Romans” stuff? I really get tired of that cute little jab at Catholicism from guys like you. Try some respect. I refer to all non-catholics on here as just that, “non-Catholics”. The fact that most of the stuff you post is in line with Protestant statements may be coincidental, but it doesn’t change the answers that you’ll get from any knowlegeable Catholic.
2nd…clarify your post then.
You are one of THE most frustrating people to attempt to talk to because you cop this superior attitude with us. Like you are the bearer of some great divine revelation or something. You are non-Catholic and you choose to call yourself “non-denominational” which is fine. I know what that means…I WAS one too. SO WHAT! In my own case it was just a reaction to my inabilty to accept the doctrines of the churches that I found out there. In retrospect I believe that it represents my own Holy Spirit guided recognition that they did not contain the fullness of truth.

You ask a lot of questions and post a lot of statements without any clear statements of what you really believe. That does not lead to dialogue, it leads to just the sort of misunderstanding that we supposedly have here. If you’re a seeker of truth, fine! Me too, but don’t blast me with that flamethrower of yours.

I am well aware that there are Christians that believe the scriptures that are not protestant…Catholics are one of them.
My post was in all charity and you seem all hostile…why? I haven’t insulted you or flamed you, so what’s the problem? Yes, I disagree with some of the stuff you say and I think YOU are not at peace with the fact that Catholics are not the bad guys, nor are we in doctrinal error just because you personally (The only authority that you seem to believe can gain a correct interp of the Bible) don’t understand or agree with us. I can’t fix that…all I can do is talk to you the best I can and remember you in my prayers. (which I do faithfully.)

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

It seems that you think that only ARABS are Muslims… Whatever, that’s not what we will treat here…

I know that not all Arabs are Muslims, that’s why I asked if you were referring to Christian Arabs. I thought you were talking about the Middle East, since that is your location, not the global followers of Islam.

YAQUBOS:

Those Muslims about whom I was talking are Christians from a Muslim background. I said clearly that they BELIEVED in the Lord.

OK, good.

YAQUBOS:

Some of them are not baptized yet. Do you think that they have LIFE?

No I do not, because since they have not been baptized, they are still Muslims, not Christians. A denial to be baptized is a denial of the Gospel. They are putting their salvation on thin ice.

YAQUBOS:

And how did they have this LIFE? Without eating and drinking?

When they are baptized, they will have life, for God’s grace will enter them.

YAQUBOS:

As we can’t have LIFE UNLESS we eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, so Baptism is the eating and drinking of the Sacrifice…

Baptism saves, just like what St. Peter said in his epistle, but when you eat and drink (receive the Eucharist) life is flowing within you, without the Eucharist, life is not sustained. When a person eats, they have life flowing within them. If they do not eat, they will die, for life is not entering them.

YAQUBOS:

Are you ok?

I’m fine, thank you. Are you OK?

YAQUBOS:

I am talking about pagans who heard the Gospel AND believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they alive?

If they believed, then they would be obedient to the Gospel and would be baptized. When they are baptized, they are no longer pagans, they are Christians. Given how you call them pagans, then they must not be Christians, they deny the Gospel, and therefore have put their salvation on thin ice.

 

[Kurt_G]

Well, guys, I can talk with ol’ Berean back and forth, and I think we supplement each other with some common ideas, hopes, theories…

But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out the rest of this thread!

Almost makes one want to say “That’s it! I’m outta here!”.

When I’d leave, though, is just when everybody would clear things up, so I’ll stay a while!

God Bless Us All!

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

Scripture says that they received the Holy Spirit.

What does The Acts of the Apostles say?

“While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.” (Acts 10:44-46)

YAQUBOS:

So they became ALIVE

.

I don’t see where it said they gained eternal life, if St. Peter thought they had eternal life, then he would not have baptized them.

YAQUBOS:

Jesus Christ says very clearly that they can’t have Life UNLESS

they eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Good, because without food, people will die. Without the Eucharist, people are vulnerable to spiritual death.

YAQUBOS:

And you say that they didn’t receive the Eucharist

.

Of course not, they weren’t baptized yet and they did not have life. What they had was the Holy Spirit tugging at their Togas telling them to repent and be baptized. They were given a chance to accept or reject this, they accepted and the Holy Spirit was infused in them at their baptism.

YAQUBOS:

So they ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood

BEFORE Eucharist, even BEFORE being baptized.

No, because they were not baptized yet. How can life continue to flow in them, if there is not life there to begin with.

YAQUBOS:

God is not showing all that ( if indeed He is showing all that ) just to show it!
Those who were baptized received the Holy Spirit and became alive BEFORE being baptized. Being ALIVE, no one could oppose their Baptism.

I have a question, if baptism doesn’t do anything and if they had life already, then why did St. Peter insist on their immediate baptism? Sorry, I have shown otherwise. People did oppose their baptism, which is why there was the council of Jerusalem.

YAQUBOS:

So? Does this mean that Baptism is the eating of the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?

What does scripture say?

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4)

This is what Baptism is, it is participating in his death and resurrection.

But we can only be baptized once, so in order to continue participating in his death and resurrection , we must receive the Eucharist.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Continuing solely by his grace!

YAQUBOS:

Read this again, by concentrating on what I’ve put in blue.
An advice: read the whole Epistle of Peter, and see the context.

Now you read this again:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:21-22)

St. Peter said that baptism is not just the removal of dirt from the body, this is what water does externally to the body; it cleans the skin. He seems to imply there is something internal happening here. Why is baptism an appeal to God for a clear conscience? Because baptism, “now saves you.” It’s all there, I do not think I am taking it out of context.

YAQUBOS:

I just want to know if you think Baptism gives you LIFE,

I believe that “baptism, now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21)

YAQUBOS:

i.e. I want to know if you believe the Baptism is the eating and drinking.

I believe that, “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4)

YAQUBOS:

Really? And who is Martin Luther? Another inspired author of the Scripture?

LOL! He is the author of the un-biblical heresy of Sola Scriptura. If he could not interpret the scriptures correctly, then how could he say that the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura?

YAQUBOS:

READ WHAT GOD

IS SAYING.

“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein **the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of **God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

I am!

 

[Psalm45_9]

Psalm45:9:

No I do not, because since they have not been baptized, they are still Muslims, not Christians. A denial to be baptized is a denial of the Gospel. They are putting their salvation on thin ice.

Psalm45:9:

If they believed, then they would be obedient to the Gospel and would be baptized. When they are baptized, they are no longer pagans, they are Christians. Given how you call them pagans, then they must not be Christians, they deny the Gospel, and therefore have put their salvation on thin ice.

Now that I think about it, yes the people you describe could have life only if they had the intent of being baptized very soon, but died before they could, that is the baptism of desire. Now if the people who you describe are openly rejecting the necessity of baptism and die in this state of disobedience to the Gospel, then they have put their salvation on thin ice.

 

[steve_b]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

I thought the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ…

It is

YAQUBOS:

I thought Jesus was serious when He said that we can’t have Life unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood…

True

YAQUBOS:

But it seems, as I read in this quote, “The Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life”…

wrong

YAQUBOS:

This is the teaching of the Roman heresy…

There is no Roman heresy.

YAQUBOS:

As for the Apostles of Christ, they teach clearly that we cannot be saved unless we eat the flesh of our Lord and drink His Blood.

True.

The apostle Paul also taught that mortal sin would keep one from heaven, [Gal 5:19…] and many other passages which describe certain (mortal)deadly sins as well. That’s what classifies a deadly sin from one that is not. [1 Jn 5:16…] If a sin keeps you out of heaven, it is deadly. If one repents of these sins, and didn’t die with these sins on their soul, they of course could be saved…

Did you happen to notice Paul mentions factions and dissentions in [Gal 5]? They are deadly sins, because as you can see, they keep one from inheriting heaven. He’s talking about all those who have divided from the one and only Church, Jesus builds on Peter… [Mt 16:17…]

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

So eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood is not Baptism nor Eucharist. Thinking otherwise would make all the pagans who became alive by faith AN EXCEPTION to the truth that Jesus Christ declared in John 6:53… And if we go to the first century, this exception would be the MAJORITY!

The majority who is being alive would be an exception…

So you just wanna toss out the context of the other passages that deal w/the topic huh? You just sort of dismantled the whole context of the scripture in order to tell me that Baptism and the Eucharist do not exist. Ignoring the passages that give baptism a place of neccesity in salvation and the emphatic way in which Jesus makes the Eucharist a make or break issue to His disciples & even His chosen twelve. It’s clear that he was saying to them all: “Believe this; just as I’ve given it to you or take offense and cease following me.” Which is exactly what happened. The fact that He reiterates it 3 times is scripturally significant because that was only done when the speaker wanted to stress its importance. Why do you doubt? This is the Jesus who can do anything. (With God all things are possible?) If He says so. who are we to doubt. If He tells me that He is making bread and wine into His body and blood for us in the Eucharist then (Praise Be To God) I believe Him, and rejoice with humble thanksgiving whenever I can approach that priest to receive Him again into my very being, because for a while I am like the Ark of the Covenant and I say with St Thomas, “My Lord and my God!” I discern the body and blood of the Lord my friend and I wouldn’t trade that beautiful few minutes of intense intimacy with Him for anything.

I would suggest that Jesus was saying that unless you had faith enough to recognize Him in the Eucharist that you wouldn’t have saving faith at all. I don’t think that your majority existed at all…In fact, I say you’re ignoring the evidence of the early church because it doesn’t fit with what you believe. Especially when the NT plainly says that they met on the first day of the week to celebrate the breaking of bread. (The Eucharist) This is not some non canonical early church father, but St.Luke in Acts of the Apostles & St. Paul in his epistles.

May Our Lord send His Holy Spirit to open your heart to the truth.
Whether you understand it or not…believe it or not Yaqubos, I love you and pray for your peace and happiness.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

I agree with you so far, without recieving the Eucharist, you are vulerable to sin, and will die.

You say that without the Eucharist, you will die.
But do you think you don’t even have Life without the Eucharist.
As the Lord says:

“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 yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )
Psalm45:9:

Baptism saves, just like what St. Peter said in his epistle, but when you eat and drink (recieve the Eucharist) life is flowing within you, without the Eucharist, life is not sustained, and the person does not have life within them.

You say: “without the Eucharist…the person does not have life within them”.
Well, can I understand from this that Baptism gives them Life out of them?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

MERRY CHRISTMAS. The King of Peace is born in Bethlehem of Judea!

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

Look Bub!
1st…whatsis “Romans” stuff? I really get tired of that cute little jab at Catholicism from guys like you. Try some respect. I refer to all non-catholics on here as just that, “non-Catholics”. The fact that most of the stuff you post is in line with Protestant statements may be coincidental, but it doesn’t change the answers that you’ll get from any knowlegeable Catholic.
2nd…clarify your post then.
You are one of THE most frustrating people to attempt to talk to because you cop this superior attitude with us. Like you are the bearer of some great divine revelation or something. You are non-Catholic and you choose to call yourself “non-denominational” which is fine. I know what that means…I WAS one too. SO WHAT! In my own case it was just a reaction to my inabilty to accept the doctrines of the churches that I found out there. In retrospect I believe that it represents my own Holy Spirit guided recognition that they did not contain the fullness of truth.

You ask a lot of questions and post a lot of statements without any clear statements of what you really believe. That does not lead to dialogue, it leads to just the sort of misunderstanding that we supposedly have here. If you’re a seeker of truth, fine! Me too, but don’t blast me with that flamethrower of yours.

I am well aware that there are Christians that believe the scriptures that are not protestant…Catholics are one of them.
My post was in all charity and you seem all hostile…why? I haven’t insulted you or flamed you, so what’s the problem? Yes, I disagree with some of the stuff you say and I think YOU are not at peace with the fact that Catholics are not the bad guys, nor are we in doctrinal error just because you personally (The only authority that you seem to believe can gain a correct interp of the Bible) don’t understand or agree with us. I can’t fix that…all I can do is talk to you the best I can and remember you in my prayers. (which I do faithfully.)

There are many Catholics who are not Romans, but real Christians.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

“behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” ( Luke 2:10-11 )

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobis Cvm!

I know that not all Arabs are Muslims, that’s why I asked if you were referring to Christian Arabs. I thought you were talking about the Middle East, since that is your location, not the global followers of Islam.

OK, good.

No I do not, because since they have not been baptized, they are still Muslims, not Christians. A denial to be baptized is a denial of the Gospel. They are putting their salvation on thin ice.

When they are baptized, they will have life, for God’s grace will enter them.

Baptism saves, just like what St. Peter said in his epistle, but when you eat and drink (receive the Eucharist) life is flowing within you, without the Eucharist, life is not sustained. When a person eats, they have life flowing within them. If they do not eat, they will die, for life is not entering them.

I’m fine, thank you. Are you OK?

If they believed, then they would be obedient to the Gospel and would be baptized. When they are baptized, they are no longer pagans, they are Christians. Given how you call them pagans, then they must not be Christians, they deny the Gospel, and therefore have put their salvation on thin ice.

Oh, I would prefer to talk about all this with someone who knows what he believes…

Psalm45:9, do you think that in Baptism you receive the Baptism of water and the Baptism of the Spirit?
Do you think that the apostles were baptized before the Pentecostal Baptism of the Spirit?

Sorry, we are just out of the topic. The fact that you are talking about Baptism as giving Life instead of talking about the Eucharist shows that the Eucharist is not the eating and drinking.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

“After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” ( Matthew 2:11 )

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobis Cvm!

What does The Acts of the Apostles say?

“While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.” (Acts 10:44-46)

I don’t see where it said they gained eternal life, if St. Peter thought they had eternal life, then he would not have baptized them.

Now that you are baptized, you have Life, right? Then the Eucharist is not giving you Life. It’s just maintaining it, right?

Read Acts 10:44-48 and answer the questions:

“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.” : If the Spirit is poured on someone, can he still be called dead?
God says:
“I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life” ( Ezekiel 37:14 )

The Spirit of God gives LIFE, my friend. And those Gentiles received the Spirit.

“For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.” : Don’t you think this was a sign that they were really baptized by the Spirit?

"Then Peter answered,
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” : When did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and how?
In the SAME manner, these Gentiles received the Spirit, ALTHOUGH they were not yet baptized.

What happened then? Then: “And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Were they baptized BEFORE receiving the Spirit of God, or AFTER being baptized by the Spirit?
Psalm45:9:

Of course not, they weren’t baptized yet and they did not have life. What they had was the Holy Spirit tugging at their Togas telling them to repent and be baptized. They were given a chance to accept or reject this, they accepted and the Holy Spirit was infused in them at their baptism.

So you are not reading well Acts 10:44-48. God’s Word says that they received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized.

YAQUBOS:

So they ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood

BEFORE Eucharist, even BEFORE being baptized.
Psalm45:9:

No, because they were not baptized yet. How can life continue to flow in them, if there is not life there to begin with.

And you insist that they didn’t have Life BEFORE being baptized, as if you can’t read Acts 10:44-48…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” ( Luke 2:14 )

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Now that I think about it, yes the people you describe could have life only if they had the intent of being baptized very soon, but died before they could, that is the baptism of desire. Now if the people who you describe are openly rejecting the necessity of baptism and die in this state of disobedience to the Gospel, then they have put their salvation on thin ice.

If we were in a topic about Baptism, I would ask you what does the Scripture say about the “baptism of desire”?.. But that’s not our topic here.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

“Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.” ( Luke 2:15 )

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

to tell me that Baptism and the Eucharist do not exist.

Who said that Baptism and Eucharist are nothing? :nope:
Church Militant:
and the emphatic way in which Jesus makes the Eucharist a make or break issue to His disciples & even His chosen twelve. It’s clear that he was saying to them all: “Believe this; just as I’ve given it to you or take offense and cease following me.” Which is exactly what happened.

And that’s what happening today, in fact. All those who understand* what the Lord said in a material way are not following Him. They can’t understand that the Lord was talking to them about eating His flesh and drinking His blood by FAITH.

• I am talking about spiritual understanding. For there are many Romans who are real Christians, and understand all this very well.

Church Militant:
The fact that He reiterates it 3 times is scripturally significant because that was only done when the speaker wanted to stress its importance.

And in fact, it’s important.
Church Militant:
Why do you doubt? This is the Jesus who can do anything. (With God all things are possible?) If He says so. who are we to doubt.

Of course He can do anything WITHOUT CONTRADICTING HIMSELF. So He can save us by faith, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” ( 1 Corinthians 1:21 )
Church Militant:
If He tells me that He is making bread and wine into His body and blood for us in the Eucharist then (Praise Be To God) I believe Him, and rejoice with humble thanksgiving whenever I can approach that priest to receive Him again into my very being,

He never said that He is making bread and wine into His real body and blood. For if He said that, He would be contradicting Himself. For in John 6:53 He said that no one can have Life UNLESS he eats His flesh and drinks His blood, and now He is giving us the Eucharist that NO ONE can receive if he doesn’t ALREADY have LIFE by eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
So, as I said before by His Grace, God can do anything WITHOUT CONTRADICTING HIMSELF.
Example: God cannot create another God like Him… And this is not weakness, but strength.
Do you think it’s strength to be consistent with yourself?
Church Militant:
I would suggest that Jesus was saying that unless you had faith enough to recognize Him in the Eucharist that you wouldn’t have saving faith at all.

Yes, indeed, we must recognize the Son of Man in the Eucharist.
Church Militant:
I don’t think that your majority existed at all…

Oh, yes they existed. Because those Gentiles in the first centuries didn’t become alive without eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood.
Church Militant:
In fact, I say you’re ignoring the evidence of the early church because it doesn’t fit with what you believe. Especially when the NT plainly says that they met on the first day of the week to celebrate the breaking of bread. (The Eucharist) This is not some non canonical early church father, but St.Luke in Acts of the Apostles & St. Paul in his epistles.

Do you think I don’t believe in the breaking of bread?
Church Militant:
May Our Lord send His Holy Spirit to open your heart to the truth.
Whether you understand it or not…believe it or not Yaqubos, I love you and pray for your peace and happiness.
Pax vobiscum,

I am smiling, because that’s what my Muslim friend tells me all the time. Some people think they have to teach others understanding, while all what we need is to BELIEVE God.
Church Militant, do you really think that the Lord didn’t send His Holy Spirit to me? :nope:

Ok. “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.” ( Matthew 6:5 )

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

Merry Christmas!

YAQUBOS:

You say that without the Eucharist, you will die.
But do you think you don’t even have Life without the Eucharist.
As the Lord says:

“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 yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

I agree with that, because with out the Eucharist we will die an not have life. The Eucharist is what gives you spiritual life, just like how food gives you physical life.

YAQUBOS:

You say: “without the Eucharist…the person does not have life within them”.
Well, can I understand from this that Baptism gives them Life out of them

?

All life comes from God, who infuses his grace in us via the sacraments.