Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Chicory
Your interpretation was not that of the early Christians, who had been taught by Christ, and who taught the next “generation” of followers. See the Didache, Chapter 10 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm).

Rather, my "interpretation" is indeed that of the early Christians who had been taught by Christ, since rather than being from the uninspired writings of post apostolic men, it is from what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). And which flowed from OT Scripture which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.

Contrary to the Catholic contrivance of the Lord’ supper (like as other distinctive Catholic teaching) nowhere therein is the Lord’ supper said or shown to be,

Instead, in the only clear description of the Lord's supper in all of Acts and in all of the epistles to churches, the Lord supper is described as a remembrance of proclamation, in which His Lord’s death is effectually remembered by manifesting the union with God and other believers which the Lord's death wrought, which is proclaimed by taking part in actual communal meal with others who were bought with His sinless shed blood.

Which is showing union with the object of their feast and others who are bought by Him like as taking part in religious pagan feasts meant having “fellowship with devils."

See 1 Cor. 10,11 in which the body of Christ as the church is called “one bread,” since they eat the Lord’s supper together, like as Israelites showed oneness with God and each other by taking part in their feasts, and pagans had fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Which meant that while eating the Lord's supper signified fellowship with the Lord and each other, to take part in religious pagan feasts would mean having “fellowship with devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:15–22)

And "not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29) contextually refers to doing just the oppose of the above, that of selfishly eating the Lord’s supper independent of others, even ignoring their valid needs and thus "shame them that have not," which meant that they were actually not coming together to observe the Lord's supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

For by ignoring others while supposedly remembering the Lord’s death by which they became part of the body of Christ, was to effectually not recognize the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:17–34) Thus many were chastened, some even by death, and thus the solution was not take of a lesson on transubstantiation, but of self examination, and not coming to the "feast of charity" (Jude 1:12) hungry. (1 Corinthians 11:30-32)

50 posted on 03/28/2023 5:37:40 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him who saves, be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

You have obviously spent an incredible amount of time and thought against Catholicism. There is no way I can counter what you say because I do not spend time figuring out arguments against other denominations: I have enough to learn about my own faith, which I left Protestantism for.


51 posted on 03/28/2023 6:01:06 PM PDT by Chicory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson