Quick question for my Protestant friends: How do your theological framework handle 2 Kings 13:21 (Elisha's bones resurrecting a man) or Acts 19 (Paul's handkerchiefs healing the sick)? Or (Acts 5:15): People lay the sick in the street just so Peter's shadow might fall on them for healing.

If our view of God is that He only acts spiritually/mentally and that physical matter is "just matter," those verses are like strange magic tricks or one time weird supernatural events.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, those passages make sense to us. The Incarnation proved that physical matter can be indwelt and transformed by God's grace. Salvation isn't just God stamping a "not guilty" label on your legal file. Its what we call Theosis: God truly infusing human nature with His divine life (2 Peter 1:4). We are called to become "partakers of the divine nature".

Salvation is not merely forensic justification which is a legal transaction where God declares us righteous while leaving our actual nature unchanged. It is the actual, transformative union of human nature with God's uncreated energy. Because Christ took on human flesh, physical matter can now be a vehicle of divine grace. The Eucharist, baptism, holy oil, and the bodies of the saints aren't obstacles to a "purely spiritual" faith, they are the ultimate proof that in Jesus Christ, heaven and earth have met, and physical reality has been made holy.

If you study Church history, you will see that every major schism and heresy ultimately boils down to a breakdown in Christology. If Christ is fully God and fully Man, the Uncreated uniting Himself inextricably with created human flesh, then physical reality was permanently elevated, sanctified, and made capable of bearing divine grace. When a theology rejects the idea that physical matter (like bread, wine, water, oil, or human bodies) can carry divine life, it is, whether intentionally or not, a retreat from the fullness of the Incarnation.

Why did Christ's physical body resurrect? Because of His perfect righteousness in His full humanity.
Sin is what introduced decay and death to the physical body. Because Christ lived in complete, sinless righteousness as a man, death couldn't hold His flesh. His righteousness wasn't just a legal status, it physically conquered corruption in matter itself.

Its a mistake to assume the early Church just made up a bunch of supernatural nonsense. This is literally how the men who learned directly from the Apostles understood all of this.

BUDOS said:

---

Me either. I don't think Christians are to focus on creating more division between themselves. Despite there being one book, somehow we have managed to create hundreds of denominations. Too much nitpicking.

---

I see it as more complex.

First, being candid, I have to agree that one problem with the Protestant groups, is how some of them have clearly abandoned the Holy Spirit and even turned to evil in some cases, specifically the churches which chase money and the churches which chase the social movement of the day. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups are generally unified and do not fall apart and away in that regard.

However, even today there are Roman Catholics and Orthodox members who deny the evils done by some of their leaders in the past, as well as the sin of condoning evil done by some members by simply saying 'well, that's not the official doctrine' about widespread practices which are wrong. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are not, by their practices, perfectly right with God any more than other denominations.

This will offend some who take great pride in their religious tribe, while amusing some who are atheist or antagonistic to faith, as if confirming that people of faith are all hypocrites. That claim would be incorrect. The issue for people of faith is as always, that we have incomplete wisdom and understanding, and must depend on Scripture and the Holy Spirit for guidance. A bit of humility would help all of us when addressing fellow believers.

Which brings me to the matter of choosing a church home. I expect many of us have traveled to other countries and observed how people live and behave, including worship practices. It's easy for some people to reject other Christians on the idea that those people 'don't really follow Christ because [ ]'.

I don't believe our Lord thinks that way about us. I believe Christ's blood is precious, and so the Gospel is plain and simple. Believe, confess, repent, accept Christ and follow Him.

The rest are just details.


That brings me to the matter of finding a church home. I believe in Bible-believing churches to avoid apostacy and following a false Christ, as well as seeking the presence of the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit speaks in many churches, and believers in Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Orthodox, Episcopalian and other churches will hear the Spirit and grow in faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Me either. I don't think Christians are to focus on creating more division between themselves. Despite there being one book, somehow we have managed to create hundreds of denominations. Too much nitpicking.

---

I see it as more complex.

First, being candid, I have to agree that one problem with the Protestant groups, is how some of them have clearly abandoned the Holy Spirit and even turned to evil in some cases, specifically the churches which chase money and the churches which chase the social movement of the day. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups are generally unified and do not fall apart and away in that regard.

However, even today there are Roman Catholics and Orthodox members who deny the evils done by some of their leaders in the past, as well as the sin of condoning evil done by some members by simply saying 'well, that's not the official doctrine' about widespread practices which are wrong. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are not, by their practices, perfectly right with God any more than other denominations.

This will offend some who take great pride in their religious tribe, while amusing some who are atheist or antagonistic to faith, as if confirming that people of faith are all hypocrites. That claim would be incorrect. The issue for people of faith is as always, that we have incomplete wisdom and understanding, and must depend on Scripture and the Holy Spirit for guidance. A bit of humility would help all of us when addressing fellow believers.

Which brings me to the matter of choosing a church home. I expect many of us have traveled to other countries and observed how people live and behave, including worship practices. It's easy for some people to reject other Christians on the idea that those people 'don't really follow Christ because [ ]'.

I don't believe our Lord thinks that way about us. I believe Christ's blood is precious, and so the Gospel is plain and simple. Believe, confess, repent, accept Christ and follow Him.

The rest are just details.


That brings me to the matter of finding a church home. I believe in Bible-believing churches to avoid apostacy and following a false Christ, as well as seeking the presence of the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit speaks in many churches, and believers in Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Orthodox, Episcopalian and other churches will hear the Spirit and grow in faith.

---

the body of Christ is not a church denomination, it is those that keep His commandments and submit to Him. Wheat and tares..

He provides for you daily so you take up your cross daily and your flesh dies daily.

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Me either. I don't think Christians are to focus on creating more division between themselves. Despite there being one book, somehow we have managed to create hundreds of denominations. Too much nitpicking.

---

... I think the Holy Spirit speaks in many churches, and believers in Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Orthodox, Episcopalian and other churches will hear the Spirit and grow in faith.

---

Should any of these stay in a church that distorts/changes the Gospel and credits/glorifies Mary for their salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

It being real body and blood matters because you're a physical human being, not an abstract ghost. Reading Scripture feeds your mind, prayer connects your spirit, but the Eucharist is where Christ physically unites His glorified, resurrected humanity with your actual biology. I made a post about this just before this, go read it. Christianity is built on the Incarnation: God entering real physical matter to redeem it. A purely symbolic communion reduces salvation to an intellectual or emotional exercise inside your own head. But through the real Body and Blood, Christ doesn't just remind you of His grace, He physically enters your body and soul to transform you from the inside out.

If the bread and wine were merely symbolic juice and crackers, disrespecting them could not make someone spiritually guilty of Christ's murder, nor could it cause physical sickness or death. Paul treats the Eucharist as a dangerous divine reality...just like touching the Ark of the Covenant, because the actual Holy Presence of God is there. 1 Corinthians 11:2730, Paul gives a terrifying warning about taking the Eucharist unworthily: "Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord... For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and many sleep [have died]."


You can go straight to St. Ignatius who learned DIRECTLY from St. Paul if you want a personal witness to explicitly define it:
"They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6.27.1

"Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of His blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop..." - Letter to the Philadelphians, 4.1

Guaranteed St. Paul taught him this. Antioch was St. Paul's "home base" for his famous missionary journeys (Acts 13:13, Acts 14:26). Paul lived, preached, and pastored in Antioch for years alongside Barnabas and Peter.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul writes: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [koinonia / real participation] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Paul doesn't say the bread represents the body; he says partaking in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

Question: Why does the bread and wine HAVE to be "just a symbol" or a mere remembrance of Jesus, anyway? What does reducing it to an intellectual exercise achieve for the believer, exactly?

What is lost to the believer who rejects the ancient Catholic and Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", the one held universally by the early Church and taught by the Apostles, or the believer who treats it as just an optional cracker and grape juice?

What, exactly, is gained by stripping away the physical, objective reality of Christ's Body and Blood, leaving the believer with nothing more than what they already do through their own internal thoughts, personal feelings, reading the Bible, and praying?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

Not sure what you are going for, there.

---

I knew you wouldn't. Just something to ponder.

In the overall context of your statement I find much agreement. Complexity does exist, and for those who strive to learn more and more about the Word and seek the various levels of its meaning and knowledge, it is best not to have a closed mind.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

Not sure what you are going for, there.

---

I knew you wouldn't. Just something to ponder.

---

Please look at BUDOS' post below yours. It is worth your attention.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

---

I need you to get out of your western mindset.

You're hunting for a single clause like a contract lawyer. Scripture doesn't work that way, and if it did, you'd be in trouble too: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" sits right next to "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13), "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), and "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:26). If you isolate any ONE of those as the nominalist litmus test, you contradict all the others.

Salvation isn't a contract clause, it's theosis: real, ongoing union with the life of Christ, worked out through the whole life of the Church: faith, baptism, repentance, the Eucharist, obedience, love. John 6 isn't a bar exam question, it's Christ telling you what communion actually is, a real participation in His life, not a symbol.

You're going to ask "how much is enough, then?" and that question itself is the problem. You want a quantifiable threshold because you want certainty you can audit yourself. Scripture doesn't give you that audit. It gives you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12) and "he who endures to the end." Paul himself says "I discipline my body… lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). If Paul doesn't get a checklist with a finish line, neither do you.

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

That would require taking one difficult passage very literally and ignoring the contest of that passage. It also means taking His words completely out of the context of everything else Jesus said throughout his ministry. No doubt some will do that but it requires some mental gymnastics contrary to Christ's message of salvation. It looks more like a power play by an organization that has historically craved power.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

---

Exactly.

"And he said: 'Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.' Matthew 18:3

"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God John 1:12

"Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. James 4:10

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 1 Peter 5:6

"Humility is the fear of the Lord; its wages are riches and honor and life. Proverbs 22:4

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

---

I need you to get out of your western mindset.

You're hunting for a single clause like a contract lawyer. Scripture doesn't work that way, and if it did, you'd be in trouble too: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" sits right next to "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13), "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), and "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:26). If you isolate any ONE of those as the nominalist litmus test, you contradict all the others.

Salvation isn't a contract clause, it's theosis: real, ongoing union with the life of Christ, worked out through the whole life of the Church: faith, baptism, repentance, the Eucharist, obedience, love. John 6 isn't a bar exam question, it's Christ telling you what communion actually is, a real participation in His life, not a symbol.

You're going to ask "how much is enough, then?" and that question itself is the problem. You want a quantifiable threshold because you want certainty you can audit yourself. Scripture doesn't give you that audit. It gives you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12) and "he who endures to the end." Paul himself says "I discipline my body… lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). If Paul doesn't get a checklist with a finish line, neither do you.

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

---

^^^ See, folks how these guys CAN'T be clear and refuse to answer the question? This is all obfuscation to get out of conundrum... and they know it.

I'll give you another chance... BE CLEAR - you specifically cited Jesus words in John 6:53 to answer my question about why the communion bread and wine HAVE TO be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus, and what it is exactly that Christians who don't believe that are missing. Now tell us what those words of Jesus mean as to the answer to that question. BE CLEAR.

historian said:

---

That would require taking one difficult passage very literally and ignoring the contest of that passage. It also means taking His words completely out of the context of everything else Jesus said throughout his ministry. No doubt some will do that but it requires some mental gymnastics contrary to Christ's message of salvation. It looks more like a power play by an organization that has historically craved power.

---

Notice how they can't just simply answer the question, but have to hide behind a wall of obfuscation. This clearly means they are not of the truth.

Almost anything is possible; perhaps you may not always understand what is being said from someone else Ly?

BUDOS said:

---

Almost anything is possible; perhaps you may not always understand what is being said from someone else Ly?

---

Then by all means, go ahead and explain what his clear answer to the question was, if you think he clearly answered it. He quoted Jesus' words in John 6:53 as the answer to what it is that a believer is missing if he only partakes in communion as a symbolic remembrance instead of as the "Real Presence". So.. .. what exactly is it, according to Jesus' words there?

He has the choice of explaining how he interprets the scriptures. I am not him. In my experience, the Living Word is exactly that. For example, there are passages which I have perceived to mean one thing, yet years later the same passage has revealed something a bit different, especially if I feel like the Spirit has led me to it.
So, for me, based on such experiences, plus conversations with other believers, I am a bit more open to giving others a bit more space, as it concerns those who interpret the Word a bit differently, as I am not the judge. Having said that, one would hope that there is room for some debate, in the context presented by Paul, as failure to conduct ourselves in such a manner fails short and carries potential consequences. Wouldn't you agree?

BUDOS said:

---

He has the choice of explaining how he interprets the scriptures. I am not him. In my experience, the Living Word is exactly that. For example, there are passages which I have perceived to mean one thing, yet years later the same passage has revealed something a bit different, especially if I feel like the Spirit has led me to it.
So, for me, based on such experiences, plus conversations with other believers, I am a bit more open to giving others a bit more space, as it concerns those who interpret the Word a bit differently, as I am not the judge. Having said that, one would hope that there is room for some debate, in the context presented by Paul, as failure to conduct ourselves in such a manner fails short and carries potential consequences. Wouldn't you agree?

---

This comment is just so meaningless and it offers nothing of substance to what's being discussed. I don't even know what it is you're doing. You first interjected with your comment that possibly I was just misunderstanding what Doc was saying. So I'm asking him, you, or anyone else - what, exactly, is being said? So WHY are you making this about people having their own interpretations and being "open" to them? What in the world does that have to do with anything? I'm asking WHAT IS their interpretation.

I'm asking for CLARITY and I'm not getting any, including from you as well, which has pretty much been the case with you in all our interactions. Why is this so difficult? Is clarity really too much to ask for? Usually, a lack of clear thinking is a sign that someone or something isn't of the truth.

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

BTD, your response is interesting. As I recall, a couple of weeks ago I asked you for clarity of a statement you made and refused. Am I correct or did I misinterpret your statement based on my belief system and the biases and core beliefs that have been formed during my life compared to yours?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Question: Why does the bread and wine HAVE to be "just a symbol" or a mere remembrance of Jesus, anyway? What does reducing it to an intellectual exercise achieve for the believer, exactly?

What is lost to the believer who rejects the ancient Catholic and Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", the one held universally by the early Church and taught by the Apostles, or the believer who treats it as just an optional cracker and grape juice?

What, exactly, is gained by stripping away the physical, objective reality of Christ's Body and Blood, leaving the believer with nothing more than what they already do through their own internal thoughts, personal feelings, reading the Bible, and praying?

---

Supposed liberation from the heirs of apostolic authority on whom the sacrament depends. All of the theological issues are downstream of that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

---

I need you to get out of your western mindset.

You're hunting for a single clause like a contract lawyer. Scripture doesn't work that way, and if it did, you'd be in trouble too: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" sits right next to "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13), "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), and "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:26). If you isolate any ONE of those as the nominalist litmus test, you contradict all the others.

Salvation isn't a contract clause, it's theosis: real, ongoing union with the life of Christ, worked out through the whole life of the Church: faith, baptism, repentance, the Eucharist, obedience, love. John 6 isn't a bar exam question, it's Christ telling you what communion actually is, a real participation in His life, not a symbol.

You're going to ask "how much is enough, then?" and that question itself is the problem. You want a quantifiable threshold because you want certainty you can audit yourself. Scripture doesn't give you that audit. It gives you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12) and "he who endures to the end." Paul himself says "I discipline my body… lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). If Paul doesn't get a checklist with a finish line, neither do you.

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

---

I don't think this is an East vs. West issue. It's basically what I've been trying to say all along.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

---

I need you to get out of your western mindset.

You're hunting for a single clause like a contract lawyer. Scripture doesn't work that way, and if it did, you'd be in trouble too: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" sits right next to "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13), "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), and "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:26). If you isolate any ONE of those as the nominalist litmus test, you contradict all the others.

Salvation isn't a contract clause, it's theosis: real, ongoing union with the life of Christ, worked out through the whole life of the Church: faith, baptism, repentance, the Eucharist, obedience, love. John 6 isn't a bar exam question, it's Christ telling you what communion actually is, a real participation in His life, not a symbol.

You're going to ask "how much is enough, then?" and that question itself is the problem. You want a quantifiable threshold because you want certainty you can audit yourself. Scripture doesn't give you that audit. It gives you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12) and "he who endures to the end." Paul himself says "I discipline my body… lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). If Paul doesn't get a checklist with a finish line, neither do you.

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

---

^^^ See, folks how these guys CAN'T be clear and refuse to answer the question? This is all obfuscation to get out of conundrum... and they know it.

I'll give you another chance... BE CLEAR - you specifically cited Jesus words in John 6:53 to answer my question about why the communion bread and wine HAVE TO be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus, and what it is exactly that Christians who don't believe that are missing. Now tell us what those words of Jesus mean as to the answer to that question. BE CLEAR.

---

This has been clearly explained. Having life within you doesn't mean obtaining a quest item called "salvation" that you can store in your permanent inventory. It means being daily sustained and sanctified by the grace of God, to the ultimate end of being saved.

BUDOS said:

---

BTD, your response is interesting. As I recall, a couple of weeks ago I asked you for clarity of a statement you made and refused. Am I correct or did I misinterpret your statement based on my belief system and the biases and core beliefs that have been formed during my life compared to yours?

---

Do you honestly think people forgot that it was YOU who was the one who avoided clarity by asking your question in order to dodge my question, which you never bothered to answer? This has been your tactic. I ignored your request, because you just wanted to play your usual game. Whether it's from all your dodging or pathetic attempts at Google-diagnosing people with psychological faults, all in order to avoid having the light shined on your own flawed views - you've been one of the Protestant figures here who's been a major impediment to clarity, along with OldBear.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

1 cor 10

Jews and pagans agreed that the way you shared in the sacrifice was by eating it.

Never been to one of the vast numbers of protestant denominations and eaten anything. They are very much missing out and it's unbiblical.

Catholics have been doing it for 2000 yesrs

---

my old church did communion every sunday at 8:30 service and once a month at 10:30 service

Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

---

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I obviously view the Eucharist differently, we believe it truly becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. But as someone who gets frustrated when Communion is downplayed as just a human memory exercise, I have respect for this liturgy. Invoking the Holy Spirit (the Epiclesis) to make the meal effective creates a real emphasis on divine action rather than just human recollection.

---

The one who "downplayed" it as "just a memory exercise" was Jesus himself - "Do this in remembrance of me."

Question: why does the bread and wine HAVE to be the "real body and blood" of Jesus, anyway? What does that achieve for the believer, exactly? What is lost to the believer who does not believe in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the "Real Presence", or the believer who never partakes in it? What, exactly, is gained from it that they don't/can't already have through their simple faith in Jesus, their being indwelled by the Spirit, and their life of fellowship with Jesus in prayer, thanksgiving, reading the Bible, service to others, etc?

Tell us exactly.

---

Christ provides that answer:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
in the bread is an actual, mystical participation (koinonia) in the literal Body of Christ.

---

So then.. BE CLEAR - your answer is that the bread and wine of communion has to be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus because based on what Jesus said here, eating his "real" flesh and blood, NOT symbolically, is required for salvation?

Meaning, that even though a person believes in the Gospel, puts all their faith in Jesus for their eternal life, and lives a life of prayer, fasting, obedience, studying Scripture, thanksgiving, serving others in love, etc but they believe communion to be symbolic, or they never partake in communion..... it means they are not saved?

Be CLEAR. Don't hedge, twist yourself, or double talk around this like the Roman Catholics do.

---

I need you to get out of your western mindset.

You're hunting for a single clause like a contract lawyer. Scripture doesn't work that way, and if it did, you'd be in trouble too: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" sits right next to "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13), "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), and "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:26). If you isolate any ONE of those as the nominalist litmus test, you contradict all the others.

Salvation isn't a contract clause, it's theosis: real, ongoing union with the life of Christ, worked out through the whole life of the Church: faith, baptism, repentance, the Eucharist, obedience, love. John 6 isn't a bar exam question, it's Christ telling you what communion actually is, a real participation in His life, not a symbol.

You're going to ask "how much is enough, then?" and that question itself is the problem. You want a quantifiable threshold because you want certainty you can audit yourself. Scripture doesn't give you that audit. It gives you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12) and "he who endures to the end." Paul himself says "I discipline my body… lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). If Paul doesn't get a checklist with a finish line, neither do you.

Christ judges the heart, not a tally.

Nobody stands before a spreadsheet at the judgment. He's not going to check off "prayer: sufficient, fasting: sufficient." You have a misconception about why we do these things. We don't do these things as a list of demands dude. We do it to get closer to Christ.

Christ knows whether your life was a real, ongoing turning toward Him or not. That means no, you don't get to bank a single decision point and coast, you're called to watchfulness (nepsis) for as long as you live, because apostasy and falling away are real possibilities the NT warns about constantly (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Christ never described the path that way. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily" (Luke 9:23) daily, not once. Paul calls it a race you run, a fight you fight, to the very end (2 Tim 4:7).

Theosis isn't easier than your system, it's harder, because it doesn't let you stop. Its watchfulness for a lifetime, real repentance, real ascetical struggle, real participation in the sacraments Christ actually gave the Church. What's actually being avoided for millions of people when you insist salvation is one clause you can check off is the hard, lifelong work of actually becoming like Christ.

---

^^^ See, folks how these guys CAN'T be clear and refuse to answer the question? This is all obfuscation to get out of conundrum... and they know it.

I'll give you another chance... BE CLEAR - you specifically cited Jesus words in John 6:53 to answer my question about why the communion bread and wine HAVE TO be the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus, and what it is exactly that Christians who don't believe that are missing. Now tell us what those words of Jesus mean as to the answer to that question. BE CLEAR.

---

This has been clearly explained. Having life within you doesn't mean obtaining a quest item called "salvation" that you can store in your permanent inventory. It means being daily sustained and sanctified by the grace of God, to the ultimate end of being saved.

---

Is that the official, infallible interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

---

Hey I'm not on here all the time, you need to stop making demands like you have some kind of authority around here.

I gave you 6 paragraphs of reasoning that you ignored, but we can go straight to Paul:

Hebrews 13:9-15. Paul contrasts the animals sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle with what we have, which is an altar that those who serve the tent have no right to eat from. He calls it an altar, with a sacrifice, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices of the animals.

Then he says "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God." Do you know what that word is there, sacrifice of praise? Eucharistia. The whole passage is about the superiority of our Eucharistic offering and meal that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle, the animals.

Your reformed position forces you to take the equivalent to Old Testament symbolism, but that's exactly what Paul is contrasting it against. He's not saying the way to eat non carnally is without your mouth, because he says we eat at an altar. You don't have an altar in your theology. So what are you actually eating or even doing?

If it were symbolic, Hebrews wouldn't need to build the whole case on continuity with tabernacle categories. It would just tell you to stop sacrificing and start believing. Instead it tells you the sacrifice continues, just transformed.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10, "the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Participation (koinonia) is stronger than remembrance. You don't participate in a symbol. So concretely, what's missed is this: real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed, not a mental exercise about a past event. The whole logic of the Incarnation is that God saves us through matter, not around it. Water really regenerates in baptism, oil really heals in anointing, and bread and wine really become his body and blood, because God doesn't leave matter behind when he saves us, he sanctifies it and works through it

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

---

Hey I'm not on here all the time, you need to stop making demands like you have some kind of authority around here.

I gave you 6 paragraphs of reasoning that you ignored, but we can go straight to Paul:

Hebrews 13:9-15. Paul contrasts the animals sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle with what we have, which is an altar that those who serve the tent have no right to eat from. He calls it an altar, with a sacrifice, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices of the animals.

Then he says "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God." Do you know what that word is there, sacrifice of praise? Eucharistia. The whole passage is about the superiority of our Eucharistic offering and meal that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle, the animals.

Your reformed position forces you to take the equivalent to Old Testament symbolism, but that's exactly what Paul is contrasting it against. He's not saying the way to eat non carnally is without your mouth, because he says we eat at an altar. You don't have an altar in your theology. So what are you actually eating or even doing?

If it were symbolic, Hebrews wouldn't need to build the whole case on continuity with tabernacle categories. It would just tell you to stop sacrificing and start believing. Instead it tells you the sacrifice continues, just transformed.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10, "the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Participation (koinonia) is stronger than remembrance. You don't participate in a symbol. So concretely, what's missed is this: real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed, not a mental exercise about a past event. The whole logic of the Incarnation is that God saves us through matter, not around it. Water really regenerates in baptism, oil really heals in anointing, and bread and wine really become his body and blood, because God doesn't leave matter behind when he saves us, he sanctifies it and works through it

---

You're STILL not answering the question. You've gotten lost and are now arguing something different.

I'll try again: what exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? You quoted Jesus in John 6:53 as your "answer" - so then explain: what is this verse saying about what that believer misses out on? Tell us exactly. Be clear.

historian said:

---

That would require taking one difficult passage very literally and ignoring the contest of that passage. It also means taking His words completely out of the context of everything else Jesus said throughout his ministry. No doubt some will do that but it requires some mental gymnastics contrary to Christ's message of salvation. It looks more like a power play by an organization that has historically craved power.

---

That is the risk in not believing the words and context. Why did those people walk away from a symbol? (John 6:66). What fools they were! It was just a symbol ajd they turned their back

Comsider this, the typology is this is the new manna, would you have chosen not to eat the manna for 40 years?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

---

Hey I'm not on here all the time, you need to stop making demands like you have some kind of authority around here.

I gave you 6 paragraphs of reasoning that you ignored, but we can go straight to Paul:

Hebrews 13:9-15. Paul contrasts the animals sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle with what we have, which is an altar that those who serve the tent have no right to eat from. He calls it an altar, with a sacrifice, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices of the animals.

Then he says "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God." Do you know what that word is there, sacrifice of praise? Eucharistia. The whole passage is about the superiority of our Eucharistic offering and meal that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle, the animals.

Your reformed position forces you to take the equivalent to Old Testament symbolism, but that's exactly what Paul is contrasting it against. He's not saying the way to eat non carnally is without your mouth, because he says we eat at an altar. You don't have an altar in your theology. So what are you actually eating or even doing?

If it were symbolic, Hebrews wouldn't need to build the whole case on continuity with tabernacle categories. It would just tell you to stop sacrificing and start believing. Instead it tells you the sacrifice continues, just transformed.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10, "the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Participation (koinonia) is stronger than remembrance. You don't participate in a symbol. So concretely, what's missed is this: real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed, not a mental exercise about a past event. The whole logic of the Incarnation is that God saves us through matter, not around it. Water really regenerates in baptism, oil really heals in anointing, and bread and wine really become his body and blood, because God doesn't leave matter behind when he saves us, he sanctifies it and works through it

---

You're STILL not answering the question. You've gotten lost and are now arguing something different.

I'll try again: what exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? You quoted Jesus in John 6:53 as your "answer" - so then explain: what is this verse saying about what that believer misses out on? Tell us exactly. Be clear.

---

Its clear you're not reading my responses or you're just moving the goalposts.
Go back and read the bolded.

What's missed is real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed. You don't have that because you deny its physical.

You are forced to claim that there's no life tied to bread and wine up against "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you".

Why do you even take communion at your church? It doesn't do anything for you that you haven't already obtained by your own logic. I mean you're saved my guy...you don't even need to go Church or worry about apostasy. You don't even need to pay attention to the sin in your life, cause you already did everything you need to do and your own willpower is overridden by God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

---

Hey I'm not on here all the time, you need to stop making demands like you have some kind of authority around here.

I gave you 6 paragraphs of reasoning that you ignored, but we can go straight to Paul:

Hebrews 13:9-15. Paul contrasts the animals sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle with what we have, which is an altar that those who serve the tent have no right to eat from. He calls it an altar, with a sacrifice, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices of the animals.

Then he says "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God." Do you know what that word is there, sacrifice of praise? Eucharistia. The whole passage is about the superiority of our Eucharistic offering and meal that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle, the animals.

Your reformed position forces you to take the equivalent to Old Testament symbolism, but that's exactly what Paul is contrasting it against. He's not saying the way to eat non carnally is without your mouth, because he says we eat at an altar. You don't have an altar in your theology. So what are you actually eating or even doing?

If it were symbolic, Hebrews wouldn't need to build the whole case on continuity with tabernacle categories. It would just tell you to stop sacrificing and start believing. Instead it tells you the sacrifice continues, just transformed.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10, "the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Participation (koinonia) is stronger than remembrance. You don't participate in a symbol. So concretely, what's missed is this: real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed, not a mental exercise about a past event. The whole logic of the Incarnation is that God saves us through matter, not around it. Water really regenerates in baptism, oil really heals in anointing, and bread and wine really become his body and blood, because God doesn't leave matter behind when he saves us, he sanctifies it and works through it

---

You're STILL not answering the question. You've gotten lost and are now arguing something different.

I'll try again: what exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? You quoted Jesus in John 6:53 as your "answer" - so then explain: what is this verse saying about what that believer misses out on? Tell us exactly. Be clear.

---

What's missed is real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed. You don't have that because you deny its physical.

---

But... what does that mean? What does it entail, in REAL terms? What is a believer who is not in an "ongoing union with Christ's actual life through physical means" actually missing or in danger of?

You're only replacing unclear language with more unclear language.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here we go again, folks. They can't answer my question or argue with substance, so they try to redirect the conversation with a preachy attitude about my conversation method or other "character faults" they perceive. It never fails.

If Doc won't answer me, then can any other Orthodox/Roman Catholic actually address what I'm asking? What exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? Be clear.

---

Hey I'm not on here all the time, you need to stop making demands like you have some kind of authority around here.

I gave you 6 paragraphs of reasoning that you ignored, but we can go straight to Paul:

Hebrews 13:9-15. Paul contrasts the animals sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle with what we have, which is an altar that those who serve the tent have no right to eat from. He calls it an altar, with a sacrifice, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices of the animals.

Then he says "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God." Do you know what that word is there, sacrifice of praise? Eucharistia. The whole passage is about the superiority of our Eucharistic offering and meal that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle, the animals.

Your reformed position forces you to take the equivalent to Old Testament symbolism, but that's exactly what Paul is contrasting it against. He's not saying the way to eat non carnally is without your mouth, because he says we eat at an altar. You don't have an altar in your theology. So what are you actually eating or even doing?

If it were symbolic, Hebrews wouldn't need to build the whole case on continuity with tabernacle categories. It would just tell you to stop sacrificing and start believing. Instead it tells you the sacrifice continues, just transformed.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10, "the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Participation (koinonia) is stronger than remembrance. You don't participate in a symbol. So concretely, what's missed is this: real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed, not a mental exercise about a past event. The whole logic of the Incarnation is that God saves us through matter, not around it. Water really regenerates in baptism, oil really heals in anointing, and bread and wine really become his body and blood, because God doesn't leave matter behind when he saves us, he sanctifies it and works through it

---

You're STILL not answering the question. You've gotten lost and are now arguing something different.

I'll try again: what exactly does a believer miss out on if they don't take communion with the "Real Presence" but rather with a symbolic/memorialist view? You quoted Jesus in John 6:53 as your "answer" - so then explain: what is this verse saying about what that believer misses out on? Tell us exactly. Be clear.

---

What's missed is real, ongoing union with Christ's actual life through the physical means he appointed. You don't have that because you deny its physical.

---

But... what does that mean? What does it entail, in REAL terms? What is a believer who is not in an "ongoing union with Christ's actual life through physical means" actually missing or in danger of?

You're only replacing unclear language with more unclear language.

---

Its very clear and you're the one refusing to answer my questions. You demand answers from me and refuse to answer questions just asked to you.

It entails multiple things: bodily resurrection, healing, and abiding.

Bodily resurrection is directly tied to eating, in the text itself. John 6:54, "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Jesus doesn't say "whoever believes" there, he specifically ties the resurrection of the body to the eating.

Healing versus judgment attaches to the act itself, not to your mental state about it. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, unworthy eating and drinking makes you "guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord," and Paul says that's why some at Corinth got sick and some died. That's not "you thought about Jesus wrong." That's the physical elements themselves having an effect, independent of whether you understood what you were doing.

Abiding (meno) is the same word John uses for the vine and branches in John 15, you either are or are not organically joined to the vine. A branch not joined to the vine doesn't get less inspiration, it gets no sap, no life, and eventually withers.

Why do you even take communion at your church? It doesn't do anything for you that you haven't already obtained according to your Zwingli based doctrines.

You already think you're part of the elect and there's literally nothing you could do to not be part of it. Your free will and attitude toward God is apparently a fixed state and can't change or lead you to apostasy.

For you everything is mental. In 2 Kings 5 (Naaman) or the bronze serpent in Numbers 21, does the physical object/action actually accomplish something there, or is it just a picture pointing to inward faith with no causal role? The Old Testament is full of physical things doing things: the bronze serpent healing people who look at it, Naaman's leprosy healed by washing in the Jordan specifically, the hem of Elijah's mantle, the ark's presence causing real effects, oil and water and blood as literal instruments God works through.