Posted on 07/23/2016 9:19:23 AM PDT by Salvation
Well and truly stated ... and you have focused upon yet another reason why the Catholic claim is in error. What would be ‘guilty of the blood and flesh of the crucified Lord’ as a negative, if eating His real flesh and blood was what was being taught? How is it a negative to be guilty of that act if the act is what is being asserted? ... THE BIBLE is clear that cannibalizing and eating the blood of the creature is forbidden, and has been so since long before the law was given through Moses! So to be guilty of the cannibalizing and taking of blood is obviously not what GOD is calling us to do! For if we eat the bread and drink the wine unworthily, we are then guilty of cannibalizing and eating blood! Sadly, Catholic trained minds are unable to see that glaring contradiction facing them in Paul’s teaching. They want the secret pride of fidelity to the institution’s sacramental system. THAT is anathema to the Gospel of God’s Grace in Christ Jesus.
Well it was not my intention to get into “cannibalism and Catholicism” question. I think if we take the Lords supper unworthily, whether it be in a ‘ho hum manner” or with unconfessed sin in our lives, Paul is saying “in a sense” then we are guilty of simple cannibalism(which is the sin you are speaking of, especially taking of the blood), being “guilty of the body and blood of Christ”, but if we partake of it in a reverent manner, mindful of his sacrifice for us then we receive the blessing of the act from the Lord. Now I am not saying we are “resaved” everytime we take the bread and cup(which is my quibble with some Catholics)!
Which contextually is about not recognizing others as members of the body of Christ which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, by eating independently, and even to the full, to the shame of them that had not. Thus the Spirit of Christ via Paul stated that they were actually not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, by which he states they were to show/proclaim His death, effectually remembering it.
And thus the stated solution was to not come hungry and thus eat independently out of lust for food, but to wait for each other so as to share food together, showing the love that Christ did in dying for the church. And the church as the body of Christ is what continues into the next chapter, and which is what Paul emphasizes much, after having persecuted Christ before by attacking the church. Nowhere does Paul or any of the letters addressed to the churches speak of the Catholic Eucharist, that of a bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ by the hands of a priest, and offers as a sacrifice for sins, and to be consumed in order to obtain essential spiritual life.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
What goes into mouth goes out thru the digestive organs as Christ says....the real transaction that takes place is spiritual!
I am glad you recognize that.
In context sure it mentions the partaking of food (and some who get drunk) with no appreciation of Christ, but we are speaking of a carnality of mind which isn’t discerning of the blood and body of Christ when the bread and cup is taken which is more fully explained in verses 26-30. Verses 20 certainly in context mentions the specific issue of carnality that was causing issues but he goes on to explain of the needed general pattern of self examination and humility to prepare one self for the solemnity of the Lord’s supper. Gluttony, drunkenness, and a general pattern of selfishness were the culprits in this case....that is speaking from context. Yet a full examination of one’s self may lead to other issues which might cause us to take pause before partaking of the cup if one is not of the right mind and heart to fully appreciate the body and blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Such as pride, lust greed envy, unforgiveness, ect...all those other sins not acknowledged,not confessed with no heart towards repenting also would cause us to be unworthy of the Lord’s supper at that time.
Not if you take it purely literal, for "he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you," (Lk. 22:19) does not say it still looked like and tastes like bread, nor does "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," say that the contents looked like and tastes like wine. And what He does say is that what He have them was His body and shed blood, and which body and blood certainly was not some metaphysical entity that would not look, taste and scientifically test as real flesh and blood.
Such a crucified Christ is more Gnostic than Christian, and denies that Christ manifestly came in the flesh. Thus if "This is my body which is given for you," "my blood, which is shed for you" is to be taken purely literal, then it would have to be the very tangible, manifestly incarnated Christ "which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)
But instead, Catholicism construes the "my body which is given for you," my blood, which is shed for you" into some mysterious metaphysical form that is nowhere seen in Scripture but instead takes Greek philosophy to explain.
Even the Lord's resurrected body manifestly was flesh, as Thomas found, which was before false teaching made Christ into an entity that would not look, taste and scientifically test as real flesh and blood, and which entity is to be physically literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. And which is utterly foreign in the totality of Scripture interpretive of the gospels.
Galatians 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: But Whom did Saul/Paul confer with? The Glorified Jesus, Who is no longer inhabiting a corruption body. Yet Catholic Mass claims to feed corruption, to transfer spiritual Life! It is the most obvious lie yet so deeply believed by those proud of how well they are striving to obtain salvation.
Ping-a-ling
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.