L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
And the Body there together communing together. Communion is not some egalitarian ritual.Because you’re communing with Christ![]()
And the Body there together communing together. Communion is not some egalitarian ritual.Because you’re communing with Christ![]()
That is the point. He did not pull one of His fingers off and hand it to them. IT WAS BREAD. HE SAID IT WAS FOR REMEMBRANCE.
You, not those who will have Communion with any and all believers, are causing division within the body of Christ.And the Body there together communing together. Communion is not some egalitarian ritual.
Would you marry someone who dont believe what you believe about marriage?
So why would you commune with someone who dont believe what you believe about communion. Being i believe its a blood covenant, i certainly to want to share that with someone who dont believe that.
You are if those who have departed from what has been taught of old and are causing the division.You, not those who will have Communion with any and all believers, are causing division within the body of Christ.
Dont take the analogy too far. (But of coarse you will so...there is that)So when you take communion, you see yourself as essentially getting married to all those present?
So in this analogy you see that a table is more than furnature, but is also who ever sits at it, particularly who sets at the head.Yes,
1 Cup
1 Loaf
1 Table
1 Corinthians 10:21 KJV
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
Dont take the analogy too far. (But of coarse you will so...there is that)
The point is you are in covenant with those with whom you commune, and it is a blood covenant.
Me too.I think we're done here. I have a feeling the next words out of your mouth are going to be how much you hate stupidity and goodbye. So I won't ask any more stupid questions.
Why would you say that.I think we're done here. I have a feeling the next words out of your mouth are going to be how much you hate stupidity and goodbye. So I won't ask any more stupid questions.
What I meant is that it would be false to dismiss the spiritual aspect of the symbols. As to your question it is purely hypothetical, so let's not even go there.You say false and then you say it's symbolic. Question: if for some reason the world ran out of grape juice, would you use a substitute or just forever forego communion?
I don't dismiss the spiritual benefits. Further posts speak to it. I realize that it's difficult to read all the posts without responding as one follows along. I believe there can be great benefit to those who practice communion regularly and reverently.What I meant is that it would be false to dismiss the spiritual aspect of the symbols. As to your question it is purely hypothetical, so let's not even go there.
Then that one should not receive communion at all rather than compromising his or her beliefs. It still isn't syncretism though.It does if one who rejects that and only accepts unleaven bread pretends its ok and has communion with them.
.
According to Jesus-- as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to
Christianity --when people correctly eat his flesh, and correctly drink his
blood; they obtain eternal life on the spot: no delay, and no waiting period
because the verb "has" in the verse below is present tense rather than
future.
● John 6:54 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life
One of the advantages of eternal life is resilience: it never wears out, never
wears down, never gets old, and never dies, i.e. eternal life is immune to
death.
That being the case, then it's necessary for Christ's diners to eat his flesh
and drink his blood only one time and one time only-- never again because
eternal life doesn't need to be replenished.
Speaking with the woman at the well, Jesus said:
"People soon become thirsty again after drinking this water. But the water I
give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within
them, giving them eternal life." (John 4:13-14)
_
Exactly, so its ok to be divided on this subject due to convictions.Then that one should not receive communion at all rather than compromising his or her beliefs. It still isn't syncretism though.
You consider it a sin for someone to pay reverence to Jesus Christ. That doesn’t make sense.When I started this topic I didnt think it would be so contested. For me communion is a personal time between me and the Lord and I do consider using leven bread a sin even tho it is symbolic. Because of the Passover unleavened bread would have been used but also signifies his sinless body. So I do this in rememnbrance of Him
You consider it a sin for someone to pay reverence to Jesus Christ. That doesn’t make sense.