ok. so various sects of Christianity having varying beliefs about communion. Some think it's totally real. Some think it's totally symbolic. Some are sort of in between. Everyone basically thinks everyone else is wrong.
What I'm trying to figure out is why, if it's totally symbolic, would it be a sin against the body and blood of Jesus. To me that only makes sense if it is the actual body and blood of Jesus. Right? How does that not make sense? I mean if it's just a symbol, then why would it be a sin specifically against His body and blood? I mean if you take Eucharist in an unworthy manner, and that is the body and blood of Jesus, then you are obviously sinning against His body and blood. That's so simple and easy to understand. It's very compelling to me.
Now here's another thing that's bugging me about the Eucharist. If it's just a symbol, then why do satanists take such pains to get a consecrated host for their black masses?
If it was the literal blood and body it would give anyone who ate what Jesus promised
he said they would
1. never hunger or thirst
2. Never die
3. Live forever
4. HAS eternal life
5. Will be risen on the last day
6. Will live as long as he lives
7. Will never be lost
Yet people can eat the Eucharist and
1. Still hunger and thirst (they have to continue eating it. It does not endure forever
2. can still die (spiritually)
3. Is not promised they will live forever
4. Does not have eternal life
5. Not asuured they will be risen, and not delivered on the last day
6. no promise they will live as long as he lives
7. can still end up lost
If the Eucharist was the flesh and blood of John 6. Then it would give all as Jesus promised the fact it does nto assure any of what Jesus promised and is not the food which endures to eternal life. then it can’t be the same