Eat my flesh, drink my blood, discerning the body and blood of Christ.

[RedFan]

1 Corinthians 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

It's strange that you would quote a verse that most Catholics would gladly wave from their masthead. What point are you trying to make with it?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Well @Jude Thaddeus, you asked a very simple question of Steward: back up what you believe using Scripture. I for one was looking forward to a legitimate answer so that maybe I could learn something I didn't know. Looks like you and me are not going to get one

Steward: Your 'answer' leaves me more questions. How does one eat from the tree of life?

You can order one on ebay for as little as $3.99, but I wouldn't recommend eating it.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

It's strange that you would quote a verse that most Catholics would gladly wave from their masthead. What point are you trying to make with it?

The point is they cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents. This is because they do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are not worthy to partake of the Holy Bread (shew bread) that is only lawful for the Lords anointed priesthood to eat.

Therefore they are damned.

 

[RedFan]

The point is they cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents.

And perhaps they might say that YOU cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents. Or, they might prefer to substitute "is" for "represents." I'll let the speak for themselves.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Well, I'm not Catholic -- but neither am I blind to how the early Church understood the Eucharistic meal as the actual body and blood of Christ. So if I am deluding myself, I'm in good company.

Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. . .”); Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66 (“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 18 § 5 (“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 2 § 3 (“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”).

Such was the currency of the doctrine two centuries before Chalcedon, a millennium before Aquinas. I am not prepared to be dismissive of this history.

But Redfan, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are not in the Bible!!!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The point is they cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents. This is because they do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are not worthy to partake of the Holy Bread (shew bread) that is only lawful for the Lords anointed priesthood to eat.

Therefore they are damned.

I have the gift of tongues, but I would never think for a moment I am any holier than anybody else who doesn't.
Ralph Martin's prophecy before the pope in 1975 was well received; and it gets more relevant as time goes on.
"rightly divide" and use your "discernment" and knock off the Ku Klux Klan theology.

Reflections on Ralph Martin’s 1975 Prophecy - Renewal Ministries

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

the Ku Klux Klan theology.

Reflections on Ralph Martin’s 1975 Prophecy - Renewal Ministries

I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of the Harlot church and the LGBTQ priesthood.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Well, I'm not Catholic -- but neither am I blind to how the early Church understood the Eucharistic meal as the actual body and blood of Christ. So if I am deluding myself, I'm in good company.

Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. . .”); Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66 (“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 18 § 5 (“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 2 § 3 (“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”).

Such was the currency of the doctrine two centuries before Chalcedon, a millennium before Aquinas. I am not prepared to be dismissive of this history.

Curious how would you say one becomes drunken by taking before another his own supper in pertaining to the Lords Table?
1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one takes before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

 

[RedFan]

Curious how would you say one becomes drunken by taking before another his own supper in pertaining to the Lords Table?
1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one takes before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Gordon Fee aptly noted that the Corinth Paul knew “was at once the New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas of the ancient world.” The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 2014). There were rich and poor, slave and free, class factions, social rankings, and a bunch of bad habits everywhere that permeated the culture. Pauline Christianity was a call to eschew such divisions. Table manners that didn't reflect this call at the Lord's Supper, he condemned. That's what is going on in these verses. Reverence was the proper attitude, not coming to the Table drunk, or with your belly already full, or with seating arrangements sought by rank of class, or by grabbing at the first bread to pass on a plate, but in the spirit of brotherhood with everyone partaking equally. (Not unlike Israeli seders of the time, I suppose.)

Chrysostom's take is worth a read.

 

[RedFan]

But Redfan, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are not in the Bible!!!

Well shame on ME!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Curious how would you say one becomes drunken by taking before another his own supper in pertaining to the Lords Table?
1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one takes before other his He own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Many years ago, i had the privilege of shaking the hand of David Wilkerson, author of The Cross and the Switchblade. I read the book twice in high school. (i was a confused Catholic at the time.) I asked him what would be the best way to restore the unity the Body of Christ had lost. His exact words were:
"You can't drink and worship at the same time."
I was puzzled by this statement; i had no clue what he was talking about. David Wilkerson was crowded around by faithful followers; i didn't get a chance for clarification.

Years later, I learned that non-alcoholic wine used for Protestant communion services was invented by the Welches Grape Juice Company in the 18th century; the first time in history that "wine" could be preserved without the fermentation process. Now it is a multi-million $ corporation. I'm certain they build hospitals and orphanages in the third world, but i don't know. Maybe you could find out for me, and rightly divide your expertise on the best wine used at the Wedding of Canaan.
Imagine that, Jesus said you can have a second glass!!!
Of grape juice???

Sorry if i made you think.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

But Redfan, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are not in the Bible!!!

Well shame on ME!

 

[Marymog]

The point is they cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents. This is because they do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are not worthy to partake of the Holy Bread (shew bread) that is only lawful for the Lords anointed priesthood to eat.

Therefore they are damned.

Wow....you are a prophet now? YOU know who is damned? YOU have the God given ability of discernment.....Fascinating....

@RedFan makes a good point. YOU and your ilk substitute This bread/wine IS my body/blood into This bread/wine is a symbol of my body/blood. You and your ilk substitute you must eat my body into you must eat my words by reading Scripture. Those of us that believe Him are damned but those of you that change his words are saved?

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Wow....you are a prophet now? YOU know who is damned? YOU have the God given ability of discernment.....Fascinating....

@RedFan makes a good point. YOU and your ilk substitute This bread/wine IS my body/blood into This bread/wine is a symbol of my body/blood. You and your ilk substitute you must eat my body into you must eat my words by reading Scripture. Those of us that believe Him are damned but those of you that change his words are saved?

Matthew 13:10-15
King James Version
​

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[Marymog]

The point is they cannot discern what the blood and body of Christ represents. This is because they do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are not worthy to partake of the Holy Bread (shew bread) that is only lawful for the Lords anointed priesthood to eat.

Therefore they are damned.

Lol..hold on HOLD ON!!

Paul asked, of which you refuse to answer, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For those of us that say YES Paul, the cup IS a communion of the blood of Christ and the bread IS a communion of the body of Christ we can confidently say that we are NOT eating/drinking unworthily therefore we are not eating/drinking damnation upon ourselves.

You and your ilk tell Paul NO, the cup/bread is NOT a participation in the body/blood of Christ. But your theory is that those of us who agree with Paul are damned and your ilk that disagree with Paul are not damned?

Oh goodness.....I don't know if I can take this anymore.

 

[Marymog]

Matthew 13:10-15​

King James Version​

​

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

This passage means nothing in regard to the subject at hand. It's just your twisting of Scripture to make you feel good and pretend like YOU understand Scripture and no one else does. You are trying to tell me if I would just convert to your teachings, I would be able to perceive and be healed.......You crack me up

I am curious though: Are you self-taught when it comes to interpreting Scripture? Or do you belong to a Protestant denomination that has doctrines/teachings you adhere to?

HOPEFULLY you will answer that simple question!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of the Harlot church and the LGBTQ priesthood.

I can't find my glasses. I read "Stewardofthinenemy"
Tell us more about the Seventh Day Adventists, or Jackkk Chickkk.

 

[RedFan]

Matthew 13:10-15​

King James Version​

​

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Yes, the gospels record a number of parables. Jesus used them from time to time. But surely you don't think that EVERY WORD HE EVER SPOKE was parabolic, do you? If not, you'd better give us a reason why John 6:55 was a parable. Clearly you think it had to be. Tell us why. I am happy to discuss with you if you explain your reasoning. (You don't mind discussing Scripture on this site, do you?)

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Yes, the gospels record a number of parables. Jesus used them from time to time. But surely you don't think that EVERY WORD HE EVER SPOKE was parabolic, do you? If not, you'd better give us a reason why John 6:55 was a parable. Clearly you think it had to be. Tell us why. I am happy to discuss with you if you explain your reasoning. (You don't mind discussing Scripture on this site, do you?)

Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

This passage means nothing in regard to the subject at hand.

John 8:43
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.