The catholic communion as a false doctrine

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
#21
PAGAN ORIGIN
The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.
The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#22
Wasn't Paul bringing up discerning the body in relation to their selfishness towards each other. They didn't see as members of the Body of Christ they were to esteem others better than themselves, something they were in gross blindness of. Their selfishness had no place at the Lord's Table.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22, 29, 31, 33-34
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 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.
Yeah where is the eucharist here?

It was a meal, They broke bread and were drinking. Not given a wafer and cup by a priest.

the warning was the horders, who would be filled because they ate to much food and drunk because they drank to much wine, and when the people who were hungry came, there was no food or drink left.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#23
From your previous comments, it is clear that to you even the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is "Plato through and through" since you don't believe it brought deliverance to national Israel from her enemies.
tell that to the thousands of jews who died at the hands of the roman catholic church, hitlers ovens, and the muslims in Palestine

You have alot to learn!
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#24
Because unfortunately, a church has twisted and distorted the words of God to take this flesh and blood which will give anyone who eats eternal life, The assurance they would never hunger, never thirst, live forever, and never die, and oh, the promise to be raised on the last day, into a pagan ritual which promises non of the above, and people do not trust god, and thinks he needs their help. so change the meaning thinking it will help. when they should just leave it to God.
Do you think that it is possible that at the basis of "the distortion and the twisting" can be the very words of Jesus Christ?

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

If these were the words of Jesus Christ, why not believe exactly what Jesus said?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#25
Do you think that it is possible that at the basis of "the distortion and the twisting" can be the very words of Jesus Christ?

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

If these were the words of Jesus Christ, why not believe exactly what Jesus said?
Because jesus said SO MUCH more than that.

we do not get a doctrine from a few verses. we use the whole passage.

But then again I already showed you the whole passage, And you, like the poeple who left him, do not believe.
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#26
Because jesus said SO MUCH more than that.
So? Does that eliminate in some way the fact that Jesus also said "this is my flesh and this is my blood"? or that He said "I am the bread that cometh from heaven"? or that He said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood won't have eternal life"?

we do not get a doctrine from a few verses. we use the whole passage.
Where does Jesus say "hey guys, I'm only joking around. This is not my flesh and this is not my blood"?

But then again I already showed you the whole passage, And you, like the poeple who left him, do not believe.
The passage you showed me doesn't cancel the words of Jesus Christ.

Are you ashamed with Jesus' words? That's why you try to change them?
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#28
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life"


The Lord refers to the requirement that one must believe upon Him for eternal life .... there is no other way

.... not to eat Him for dinner, and certainly not some superficial ceremony played out by religious dogma

Pomp and ceremony is worthless and only put on by the pied pipers of pseudo religions of men
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#29
So? Does that eliminate in some way the fact that Jesus also said "this is my flesh and this is my blood"? or that He said "I am the bread that cometh from heaven"? or that He said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood won't have eternal life"?


No the fat he said whoever eats will NEVER hunger or THIRST, He will LIVE FOREVER, He will NOT DIE. he HAS ETERNAL LIFE. and he will be RISEN ON THE LAST DAY, and he said they would NEVER BE LOST.

Does the eucharistic mass promise all of those things to whoever eats? Oh wait thats right, they eat every week, because they still hunger and thirst. They eat every week, because they believe they can still die, and do not believe they will live forever. And finally, They eat every week. because they think they can be lost, and not risen on the last day.



Where does Jesus say "hey guys, I'm only joking around. This is not my flesh and this is not my blood"?
When he sais it is the spirit who gives life (not his literal flesh and blood) and the words he speaks are SPIRIT AND LIFE.

The passage you showed me doesn't cancel the words of Jesus Christ
That passage I showed you? It is the PASSAGE FROM WHERE JESUS SPOKE THOSE WORDS.

If you do not even understand that, how can we believe anything else you say?.


Are you ashamed with Jesus' words? That's why you try to change them?

I am not changing them. I ate his flesh and blood, when I received his gospel. his blood cleansed me of all sin, And his dead and resurrection raised me to eternal life.
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#30
"I am not changing them. I ate his flesh and blood, when I received his gospel. his blood cleansed me of all sin, And his dead and resurrection raised me to eternal life"


Yes you did
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#31
No the fat he said whoever eats will NEVER hunger or THIRST, He will LIVE FOREVER, He will NOT DIE. he HAS ETERNAL LIFE. and he will be RISEN ON THE LAST DAY, and he said they would NEVER BE LOST.

Does the eucharistic mass promise all of those things to whoever eats? Oh wait thats right, they eat every week, because they still hunger and thirst. They eat every week, because they believe they can still die, and do not believe they will live forever. And finally, They eat every week. because they think they can be lost, and not risen on the last day.
So does this mean that Jesus Christ lied and deceived them into believing that they will have eternal life if they partake with Him? Does this mean that the catholics won't be saved because they believe they partake every Sunday with Jesus Christ?

When he sais it is the spirit who gives life (not his literal flesh and blood) and the words he speaks are SPIRIT AND LIFE.

Where does He say that "my flesh and blood do not give life"? Was His Spirit that was shed on the cross or His literal flesh and literal blood?

That passage I showed you? It is the PASSAGE FROM WHERE JESUS SPOKE THOSE WORDS.

If you do not even understand that, how can we believe anything else you say?.
You don't have to believe nothing I say. I only want to understand how are those people in the wrong if they believe the words of Jesus Christ? Why couldn't Jesus be more clear and specific when saying "eat for this is my flesh, drink for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, that is shed for you, for the remission of sins and for eternal life"?

I am not changing them. I ate his flesh and blood, when I received his gospel. his blood cleansed me of all sin, And his dead and resurrection raised me to eternal life.
So you partook only once and now you don't partake anymore? I thought He said "do this in remembrance of me"...
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#32
tell that to the thousands of jews who died at the hands of the roman catholic church, hitlers ovens, and the muslims in Palestine

You have alot to learn!
So, does this mean that Jesus of Nazareth is a failure?
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#33
No .... you are .... and so are all that fail to respond to His call

Tell me when do you dine on His flesh and blood .... explain the ritual

How do you do it?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#34
So, does this mean that Jesus of Nazareth is a failure?
You tell me.

Your the one that is saying he came to deliver Israel from her enemies.

I showed you their enemies were still slaughtering her, and not just slaughter, but painfull, evil slaughter.

So which is it? I just answered your question.
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#35
No .... you are .... and all that fail to respond to His call

Tell me when do you dine on His flesh and blood .... explain the ritual

How do you do it?
I am a failure. Is Jesus of Nazareth also a failure since He didn't met the expectation of the Jews? Or will He come one more time and this time literally destroy the political enemies of Israel just like the 1st century and today Jews expect from the Messiah?
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
#36
Did Jesus lie when He said "this is my flesh, this is my blood"?
Why did Jesus Christ asked the persons that were present "does this offend you"?
Why were the words of Jesus a stumbling block for many?

Why do some Bibles render Jesus' words as saying "this represent my flesh, this represent my body"? If this is what Jesus meant to say why didn't He say like that and why didn't He clarified the "issue" to those that were present and found His words too hard to be understood?
I sometimes have to resort to simple analogies when counseling young marrieds in and out of court over battering each other, neglecting their children, teaching about marriage. Very often they can't comprehend Bible words or any explanations using words only. I might say to the husband insisting he is Christian "You are the priest of your household". A blank stare ends that explanation. So we pull out the Barbie dolls :eek: Ken is used with the subject's name, Barbie called by the wife's name. Now that they all get. Barbie: "Why did you beat me up like that?" Ken:"I don't know. Maybe we should talk about that." So the Ken guy admits that need, sometimes. Ah, progress.

There are many figures of speech in the Bible that the Jews understood perfectly, like that one about mere bread and wine 'being' literally the body and blood of Jesus. The average American won't figure them out without being taught. I do believe that a man with the Holy Spirit indwelling can be taught of the Spirit. I doubt a man that beats his wife has that benefit, or the Spirit living in him.

When the Jews believed Jesus was literally pointing to his body, that blew them away. They knew the spiritual element, to which Jesus asked "Does this offend you?" He was not guity of braking the law of Moses suggesting the Jews literally eat his body and drink his blood. They should have connected the dots, and were without excuse if they had listened to His previous teachings.
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
#37
You tell me.

Your the one that is saying he came to deliver Israel from her enemies.

I showed you their enemies were still slaughtering her, and not just slaughter, but painfull, evil slaughter.

So which is it? I just answered your question.
Your answer tells me that Jesus of Nazareth failed to fulfill His mission. According to you, He only came to perform an abstract atonement that has nothing to do with the situation of Israel in the 1st century.
In this logic (your logic), the Jews are correct when they reject Jesus of Nazareth as being the true Messiah, sent from God.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#38
So does this mean that Jesus Christ lied and deceived them into believing that they will have eternal life if they partake with Him? Does this mean that the catholics won't be saved because they believe they partake every Sunday with Jesus Christ?
No Jesus did not lie, He meant it.

The catholics are the ones who said he lied. because they do not believe him when he said those things.


If the catholics ate his true flesh and blood, they would know they have eternal life. and not continue eating it,



Where does He say that "my flesh and blood do not give life"? Was His Spirit that was shed on the cross or His literal flesh and literal blood?

I posted what Jesus said, your going to argue with JESUS? Those were not my words.

I do not know what your problem is, But your attitude is not helping you. Your so focused on proving me wrong, your not even reading what is being said, and Making yourself look foolish.

To think those were my words.. HA!


You don't have to believe nothing I say. I only want to understand how are those people in the wrong if they believe the words of Jesus Christ? Why couldn't Jesus be more clear and specific when saying "eat for this is my flesh, drink for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, that is shed for you, for the remission of sins and for eternal life"?
If you would stop at your extreme anger at me And read what Jesus said in the passage, you would understand.

But your to focused on proving me wrong in everything I say, so your not reading what he said.



So you partook only once and now you don't partake anymore? I thought He said "do this in remembrance of me"...

The flesh and blood he said to do in remembrance of me is not the flesh and blood in john 6.

Jesus gave promises to whoever ate the flesh and blood in john 6..

He never gave those promises to the ceremony of the last supper.

the flesh and blood in john 6 saves forever those who eat.

The flesh and blood of the last supper bring us to remember the flesh and blood spilt to give us the promises given in john 6.
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,889
2,534
113
#39
My 2 cents... This is not just about how is flesh and blood defined and used in that very passage - it is also how it is used elsewhere in the Bible, aka what it means in God's dictionary because the Bible defines itself.

meat
= righteousness of saints:

John 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
This is not just for Jesus - God made us all in this manner to reflect this spiritual principle in creation:
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
milk = hearer
meat = doer
Milk is soft and easy to swallow by a babe, but meat takes some maturity - meat is the obedience of the Word.


If we are the Body of Christ, what makes it alive?
Aka, what is the blood of this body? (Gen 9:4 teaches that life = blood)

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness tendeth to life: so he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death.
Job 33:4 ...the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Romans 8:10 ...the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
John 20:22 ...he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ (...) being put to death in the flesh, but quickened (="made alive") by the Spirit:
Finally, back to John 6...
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
...and just a few verses below - what is life?
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth (="makes alive"); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
...and just a few verses above - what gives everlasting life?
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
If somebody feels convicted to take eucharist I guess it is good for you to do after your own conviction, I dont condemn anybody. Let us respect one another if possible. I believe only the Word of God and Spirit in me can give me eternal life. Still doesnt mean I wont break bread and have a small bit of wine in remembrance of Jesus as led and respectfully. But just an observance of this physically cannot add anything to anybody's salvation.
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#40
"I am a failure. Is Jesus of Nazareth also a failure since He didn't met the expectation of the Jews? Or will He come one more time and this time literally destroy the political enemies of Israel just like the 1st century and today Jews expect from the Messiah?"


Not really worth a response .... I suspect that you already know what you pretend to be ignorant of

Get a grip for your own good

I know that most never do ..... but you have a chance .... the clock is ticking for you