At least in my orthodox parish when wine is spilled, they clean it up with a special towel and burn it / bury it. But for clothes, we dont cut it out. We just clean it with water and that towel.
Why? What happens when you literally eat your Lord??? You digest him and flush him down the toilet??? In remembrance of, is the logical conclusion. Symbolic.
@@acekoala457 lol. Why dont you try to refute my comment instead?? Because you cant. Catholicism is nothing but, man madd traditions. Have fun at mass, cannibal..
@@garrettklawuhn9874 its not arguing. Its just showing you to think a little deeper. The beginning of the video explained some the lengths orthodox go to, to dispose of the communion elements. Pouring the leftovers to avoid going into the sewage system??? That proves they dont know what they doing. Because the same elements are eaten, then digested and flushed into the toilet. Whats the difference?? Nothing. Because the bread and cup are symbolic remembrance of what Jesus did. Not eating magic bread to gain eternal life. Thats the same nonsense as the quest for the holy grail. Believing if they can find the same cup that Jesus used, and drinking from it, would grant immortality. Its Gods word , believing it, and living it, thats what gives immortality as a promise by GOD. Righteousness will be imputed unto us thru our belief. Its very simple, without all the useless traditions and mindless rituals. Thats what happened to the pharisees. They.couldnt see the forest for the trees.
I dated a Catholic in high school and a few years in college; I admit I admire the fasting before Communion, and the reverence for the ordinance. Other than that, it is still a symbolic ritual for me, a Baptist.
I don't think I'll ever understand why some who call themselves Christian don't believe what Jesus says about Holy Communion. It is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
According to the Church service plan in my catholic parish, there is service in every church either on Saturday evening or Sunday morning and during the week there is a weekday mass in almost all churches.
There has been a marked uptick in the number of Jehovah's Witnesses taking communion each year, from 8,528 in 2005 to 21,150 in 2022. It would seem that the actions of the rank and file and the official doctrine of the organization may no longer be in alignment.
From my understanding, this is officially sanctioned, as it was starting to get awkward at the service with so few eligible communicants still alive. So they started reopening up the 144,000 to new people. I think some people who were formerly counted in that number but who have died were given a posthumously boot.
In Greek, the Lord quite clearly used two plurals, which the Authorised Bible translates correctly, "Drink ye all of it." The word "ye" is already plural and refers to the people. The word "all" therefore must refer to the contents of the cup/chalice.
Latter-day Saint here. We practice communion (the sacrament) each week and it's the central part of our meeting. We believe it renews our covenants made with God. So if you are not apart of the covenant (not a member of the church) you are still welcomed to participate but we don't believe it has any effect since you're not in the covenant. Members who believe they are unworthy to partake will refuse communion. Or if the Bishop recommends they don't take communion for a few weeks.
@@MrAnd11 I joined the church in the past year. I don't think its a cult. We are definitely higher demand than other churches because we believe its the one true church.
@@MrAnd11 Depends on ones definition of "cult". Pretty much every church can be considered a "cult" by those who disagree with its practices. Ready to Harvest has a video on the topic.
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” - John 6:53-58 22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. - Mark 14:22-24
@@americanswan It is through His Holy Spirit Always remember what happened with Saint Mary, She conceived of the Word of the Father through the Holy Spirit. Exactly what is happening in all the church sacraments, it is through the Holy Spirit. Example in baptism you see the water but you don't see the power that cleans us. It is the power Holy Spirit whom proceeds from the Father and sent to us by the Son. God gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized. "2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." - 2 Peter 1:2-4 "63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. " - John 6:63
@@americanswan he was clearly referring to the sacrament that he was about to initiate. Catholics take the New Testament more literally than other denominations, which is why we believe in the real presence.
@billmartin3561 Nonsense. You have to be consistent. He was telling the people to eat Him right then and there. You can't have it both ways. If he was talking about the future than He most certainly could have been saying the bread and grape juice figuratively.
@@americanswan27 Therefore 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. - 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 If it is only bread and wine how can we be guilty of consuming the body and blood of the Lord in a unworthy manner?
Has anyone done research to determine these two things? 1) What do various denominations EXPECT partaking of the Lord's Supper, will effect in the Christian walks of those who partake? 2) What influence or impact does partaking of the Lord's Supper ACTUALLY have on people in those denominations? ............ Id est, which eucharistic theology produces what praxis? :--}>
in my orthodox church we have a carpet that we put down on the floor before communion and a couple months back we had to burn it because it had some communion on it
The one communion practice that I have seen and am strongly opposed to was a whole other definition of open communion. The churches i grew up around had open communion meaning to all Christians, but the open communion I saw was it was literally open to anyone and everyone, Christian, non Christian, small children with grubby hands just greedily wanting a snack, and anyone in active sin. No one was excluded or deterred from partaking. I simply couldn’t return to that church because I found the practice so sacrilegious.
Although I come from a tradition with open communion (United Methodist), I was raised in a church in that denomination that practiced closed communion. I hold myself to far stricter rules (must be orthodox in doctrine; must be 21+; must _thereafter_ be immersion-baptized trinitarially; must have been fasting since midnight; must not have any unrepented-of sins on my conscience; must not be "living in open infamy") and if I fail to meet every criterion, I will refuse communion even if it is brought to me, because I consider an inappropriately accepted communion to be an extremely grave act of blasphemy against the Son of God.
My mom was a Jehovah's Witness she was keenly faster the day of the of the memorial as they call it the Lord's supper or which are you correctly pointed out of some is the equivalent of the communion power that was her choice her choice not a religious requirement😮😊
Please tell me you don't think that because he brought up one example of a guy stealing communion wafers to make Catholics look silly in 2014, therefore no other religion or other version of Christianity has ever been attacked by Satanists. Please say it ain't so.
I wonder what a JW would do if someone started to take the communion? Would they stop them and explain it’s only for the 144000 ? But what if the person said they are part of the 144,000 would the JW just have to be silent?
Good question! The Jehovah's Witness would not try to stop them for a couple reasons. First, all the 144,000 are already dead and ruling in Heaven with Jesus, so very few JW would believe someone saying they are among the 144,000. This means that everyone not among the 144,000 partaking in communion is just expressing thanks for the sacrifice of Jesus. The second reason a JW would not try to stop them is because of the many Christian denominations, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses are among the least violent. Unlike the Catholics in 2014 who used physical force to prevent someone taking their communion, a JW would just let it happen, because they understand John 15:19 and expect unbelievers around the world to hate them.
Several of these are not "Christian denominations" such as LDS. Also I am sure there is variation between members of a denomination, but as a member of a PCA church "excommunication" isn't part of the doctrine.
He has answered that question, in that as an academic he accepts any church that self identifies themselves as Christian. Ready to Harvest has a whole video on the topic.
What really isn't Christian is judging others poorly and trying to deny them the name of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most assuredly Christian.
@@00Fisher00 What are you trying to say? The LDS is a cult. They are the mormon cult started by that grifter Joseph Smith, It is not Christian at all. In fact in the Bible Paul advises that Christians should judge other Christians. It is those outside of the church whom Christians are not to judge. Modern western English speaking people have certain ideas about judging, usually. LDS is absolutely 100 percent a cult. They refer to a false Jesus. Along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists are all cults which mention a false Jesus. Other cults are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy they are Marian cults who exalt Mary over God. Who backslid in to pagan rituals, idol worship, ancestor worship. That's why Christians need to judge other people who say they are Christian. Because all the listed cults are spreading lies. Doctrines of demons.
@@00Fisher00 Sir do you understand this scripture. from 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and verses 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you.
@@br.m Verse 9 is fascinating for being one of the references to missing scripture. I understand several ideas from this passage, but what would be most helpful is if you were to explain why you are quoting it here. Also, I typically use the KJV, so I'll re-quote the same verses again from that translation: "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
You forgot one point unless I missed it which is how it’s administered and what is used for bread and wine. I have seen so many ways. I visited a Catholic Church where everyone drank 1 sip from the same large fancy goblet and the people would open their mouths and the priest would stick his fingers in their mouths to give them the wafer. I have seen some to just get regular loaf bread, haphazardly tear it up, put it on a plate as the bread but most churches will not use leaven in the bread. I’ve seen broken saltine crackers used. I’ve seen a homemade loaf of bread made where people walk by and pinch off a piece. I have seen special wafers with a cross used. Of course I have seen both wine and grape juice used. I have seen the elements passed around as people sat in their seats and I have seen people go to the priest to be served and others go to the front of the church to serve themselves.
I used to have a neighbor who was Episcopalian. He said when when he was a child he was an alter boy and the priest gave all the altar boys the leftover wine from communion and they would get tipsy. I never felt that was right especially because he turned out gay and I wondered if the priest did that on purpose to molest the boys.
25:53 Hey foot hygiene is important, can't criticize any religions for preaching good foot hygiene. I wish the churches I went to growing up did feet washing. I had to do it myself in the bath or shower.
@@maximilianusofmarchaorient596 I think that Passover involved 4 glasses of wine. Paul and Jude criticized churches for letting their “Suppers” turn into drunken parties. The Church sure took care of that problem!
@@paulral Let’s see if we can do this without annoying everyone else in the thread. In the RR thread I started to tell a story about our pastor and our church, and then I remembered that our pastor must have subscribed because he sent a link to me. I don’t know if he reads the chat, but it would not be hard to recognize me, even with this Mystery Science Theater nom de plume.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood? In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol. The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14) The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
In Luke it’s the other way around and Luke even says he is to give an “orderly account” of events. Even if Jesus did say “fruit of the vine” after consecration, it’s likely the case that he was describing the accidens rather than the essence as that’s what our senses perceive. Just because a weatherman says “the sun will rise at 5 am” it doesn’t mean he actually thinks the sun rises - it’s just what we perceive. It could also be the case that Jesus is referring to it as what it was beforehand, similar to how Eve is called the bone of Adam. In the end, we don’t know for certain what Jesus was referring to in this line, however we do know that it doesn’t disprove the abundant evidence for the true substantial change of the bread and wine.
When you slur the contraction "can't", is sounds the same a "can". No one will be offended if you simply cultivate a habit of saying "cannot" in you videos. Although you usually slur "can" as "kn", when you pronounce it carefully, we are left wondering if you were slurring "can't" again. Perhaps in stead of "can or can't" you could learn some English alternatives such as "(not) allowed to"?
I think this is mainly a problem for non-native English speakers. We can't change the English language in every context where there's some small chance non-natives may be listening. No one owes that to anyone.
11:26 This Missouri Synod response is interesting. To answer the question of whether or not to commune children, they say "we have been unable to find any reason to...". I wonder what that says about their underlying theology/philosophy. Because if their interpretation is that all of Revelation and Christian tradition are entirely silent on the matter, you could just as easily say "we have been unable to find any reason NOT to."
@@Michael-bk5nz Sure, but then they could say that the reason - or perhaps a reason among several - for not communing children is that Christian tradition is against it. If they think there is reason against it, that's just fine, but this quote seems to imply that they don't have a reason against it, they just do not find any reason to support it by any of the means that they listed - and that then causes me to wonder about the underlying theology/philosophy that would make the decision against rather than for. I guess it's possible that this quote doesn't represent their full view on the subject and that they do have stated reasons to oppose it, I just figure that if their position is "We have no reason for it and several reasons against it" then I would not have expected Ready to Harvest to just quote them as saying "We have no reason for it" to represent their position.
@@John_Fisher Specifically, western tradition, in the East, as noted in the video,, infant communion and indeed infant confirmation, is common. Since Lutherans, by and large, follow the common Western tradition, I take their statement to be a shorthand way of saying "this is not something we have ever done, and we can see no reason to start doing it", the bias is always in favor of maintaining the status quo, you need to a reason to break from tradition, but you never need a reason to retain it
@@John_Fisherits very simple. First you need to believe and be baptised into the covenant. Then you can partake of the communion of believers in the covenant.
@@astutik8909 Are you explaining the Missouri Synod position on communing infants, or sharing your own? Because my understanding was that Lutherans generally do consider infants to have faith and be baptized into the covenant, so I don't understand how that would be a reason not to commune them.
Honestly, the effort catholic/ orthodox go to, to dispose of the leftover elements proves you really cannot discern the Lords body and have no idea what youre doing. The beginning said, the elements are poured into the earth, so as to avoid the sewer system??? What happens when you supposedly eat your Lord??? You digest him and then later, flush him down the toilet??? Consider your ridiculous position. In remembrance of, is obviously what is called for. The symbolic view.
@@kuafer3687 no they didnt,and ignatius is not an apostle. These are catholic philosophers written centuries later and then predated to give the lying church credibility. And nothing they wrote is considered inspired by anyone. So what happens after you eat Jesus?? You digest him and flush him down the toilet. Thats what happens if you believe its literal doesnt it?? Now your practice is beyond abomination.
This "Close Communion" stuff is new to me and I got to say it horrifies me, as the bible has several verses clearly stating that no one should be left out, if they are a member, which, if you are in communion, you are. Even the phrase "in communion" derives from this. I don't know why it horrifies me so much compared to the other stuff, that I consider sacrilegious, but it somehow does, cause it feels like they are so close to understanding, yet not there at all.
You need to read what the Bible says. 1 Corinthians 11. "27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world."
@@jacksprattt6396 nice of you to omit verse 33 at the end: So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should *all* eat together. And omit the beginning(from 17 onwards): 17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you *come together as a church, there are divisions among you*, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, And so on, until it reaches the verses you quoted, just figured that these 2 pieces show the importance of everyone who is in communion, actually partaking in communion and not just members of that local congregation.
@@lamename2010good point, but the whole point of being in communion is being in a state of ‘worthiness’ in regards to the Lords Supper. So anyone who is in a state of unworthiness is not in a state of communion with the body of Christ
I think my childhood church got it right in that it was open communion BUT everyone was admonished with Scripture reading about examining oneself before partaking. Then the pastor would explain the scriptures and tell everyone if one’s heart wasn’t right or they were living in active sin they should refrain as well as all none Christians. We were then given a moment of silence to pray and examine our own hearts so the it was between us and God of who should partake and who should refrain. I am sure if someone had been known to be in active sin and partook, I believe the pastor would have discussed it with them privately at another time but to my knowledge we never had that problem.
The main thing is, they are all created by Men, not Jesus. Jesus created One Church, see Matt 16:18. In 107AD, St Ignatius of Antioch, a Bishop in Jesus's Church, first called the Church "Catholic", meaning universal. All other Churches are man made. The end.
Yes. Jesus wanted a church that would become a sovereign state,that would have its own army, political corps, billions in the bank, be responsible for the crusades and the slaughter of millions, including those who wanted the Bible in a language they could understand, and to be a refuge of child abusers
Do the Protestant's not know that he that professes to eat the flesh and drink Christ's blood in the spirit, does also in the reality? And, why do they condemn us, when they profess to do the same thing by taking a symbol which we do in reality? They are only imitating us, whom they condemn! Are they not condemning themselves pretending in your heart to the same thing we do in reality? *Ah, my friends, they that accuse us, are guilty of the same.*
Did you not watch the whole video? Several Protestant churches believe that it's the body and blood, they profess that taking it in vain is wrong, and they have confession/absolution prior to the sacrament. For example, confessional Lutherans, which are more or less the original Protestants practice the sacrament pretty much the same way as Catholics, but hold a different theological view on what happens during the Sacrament.
THE Protestants THEOLOGY TELLS CHRIST *A THING OR TWO ABOUT THE EUCHARIST* Christ: “This *IS* my body” (Mt. 26:26) Protestants: "this *IS NOT* your body" Christ: "This *IS* my blood" (Mt. 26:26-29) Protestants: "This *IS NOT* my blood" Paul "I received from Christ "this *IS* my body" (1Cor.11) Protestants: "I don't care, it *IS NOT* his body" Paul: Many are sick and some sleep in the dust of the earth because they: “discern NOT THE LORD’S BODY” (1Cor.11) Protestants: It *IS* NOT the Lord’s Body, it *IS* a mere piece of bread. We will never call it the "Lord's body". It *IS* a piece of bread. Paul: Whosoever eats and drinks unworthily *IS* GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. (1Cor.11) Protestants: There *IS* no guilt associated with eating bread. Gospel of John, Chapter 6. Christ: John 6 vs 53 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" Protestants: Verily, Verily, I say unto you it is *not his blood and not his flesh* and we can have life anyway. Christ: John 6:54 Whoso eateth *my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;* and I will raise him up at the last day. Protestants: Whosoever eats *not Christ's flesh and does NOT drink his blood* has eternal life. Christ: John 6: 55 *For my flesh is MEAT indeed, and my blood is DRINK indeed* Protestants: *HIS FLESH is NOT food, and his blood is NOT drink* Christ: 56 *He that EATETH my flesh, and DRINKETH my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him* Protestants: He that *eats his flesh is a heretic and does NOT dwell in Christ and is a of a great false church* . Christ: 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: *so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me* Protestants: *he that eats Christ's flesh is OF THE GREAT HARLOT AND WHORE and will NOT live* Christ: 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. Comment: If those who eat manna from heaven are dead, HOW MUCH MORE ARE THOSE WHO EAT EARTHLY BREAD WILL DIE TOO? Protestants: he that eats the *earthly bread* will live forever and HE that eats the Christ's flesh will die* Christ: John 6:64 But there are *some of you that believe not*. Protestants: *We don't need to believe and never will* Christ: Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. Protestants: JOHN 6 VS 66 *From that time MANY of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him* *The PROTESTANTS WALKED NO MORE WITH CHRIST A LONG TIME AGO* !
@@chucksmith4624Well, clearly you don't love Christ enough to not bear false witness against people you disagree with. I guess it is ok to lie and slander in the endeavor to promote Rome.
The expansive discussions are necessary to distinguish the true from the false. For example you are probably currently following some false teachings, and not even realize until you listen to an expansive discussion. Christians can win more souls for Jesus if the disagreements are solved and Christians come to an agreement through discussion. The alternative to solving the many disagreements through dialogue is through tests of strength like we used to do. I imagine you are a civilized person and prefer talking.
I will tell you what I am a born again Christian who follows the King James version who has the indwelling holy Spirit who gives discernment. I don't need a 20-minute teaching on a false religion and all of their false practices before I understand in the first two minutes that they're a false religion as a matter of fact I already know that before I listen to this video.
@@TLC26 The King James version is indeed a wonderful piece of literature, but I wouldn't be so quick to think you can discern the true and false practices just from that one translation. There is so much to be learned from Greek and German and Hebrew Bible text history.
@@TLC26 If an older meaning of a verse is different than the KJV, I'd say that counts as an error, or if parts of the KJV are not divinely inspired I think that counts as an error. For example John 8:7 is a forgery, not written by any of the gospel authors, but rather added in much later, and kept in the KJV even after it became widely known it was not inspired by God.
Every Protestant denomination from coast to coast or from one end of the Earth to the other, is not the Church created by Jesus. See Matt 16:18. He created One Church, His Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". See 1 Tim 3:15. Also, his Church is the Final Authority (not the Bible Alone, which is an unbiblical heresy). See Matt 18:15-18. In 107AD, St Ignatius, a Bishop in his Church, wrote a letter calling it "Catholic" meaning Universal. The name stuck. His Church has been united in its beliefs from the beginning. When people like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin came along, The Church was fractured by their misleading and False teachings, which they had No Authority to teach. Now you have tens of thousands of Protestant (as in Protest), "churches" all believing different doctrines, yet reading the same Bible, which the Catholic Church created and gave to the world. "Bible Alone" is false. "Faith Alone" is false. "Once Saved Always Saved" is false. And there are plenty of other false teachings also.
@@michaelseay9783 everyone is a mediator in the catholic church, except Jesus. And they pray to everyone else, except GOD as Jesus instructed, after the disciples asked that very question. Their church is built on the rock of Peter, not the cornerstone of Christ. The same Peter, who, just a few verses later, Jesus called satan. So their church, by their own admission, is actually built on satan. No wonder they killed so many christians during the centuries of inquisitions.
Jesus says, “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 them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Upon hearing these words, many of Jesus’ followers said, “This is a hard teaching” (verse 60), and many of them actually stopped following Him that day (verse 66). Jesus’ graphic imagery about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is indeed puzzling at first. Context will help us understand what He is saying. As we consider everything that Jesus said and did in John 6, the meaning of His words becomes clearer. Earlier in the chapter, Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6:1-13). The next day, the same multitudes continued to follow Him, seeking another meal. Jesus pointed out their short-sightedness: they were only seeking physical bread, but there was something more important: “Food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (verse 27). At this point, Jesus attempts to turn their perspective away from physical sustenance to their true need, which was spiritual. This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47). Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3). Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT). To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63). Those who misunderstood Jesus and were offended by His talk about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were stuck in a physical mindset, ignoring the things of the Spirit. They were concerned with getting another physical meal, so Jesus uses the realm of the physical to teach a vital spiritual truth. Those who couldn’t make the jump from the physical to the spiritual turned their backs on Jesus and walked away (verse 66). At the Last Supper, Jesus gives a similar message and one that complements His words in John 6-when the disciples gather to break bread and drink the cup, they “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). In fact, Jesus said that the bread broken at the table is His body, and the cup they drink is the new covenant in His blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:26-28). Their act of eating and drinking was to be a symbol of their faith in Christ. Just as physical food gives earthly life, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross gives heavenly life. Some people believe that the bread and wine of communion are somehow transformed into Jesus’ actual flesh and blood, or that Jesus somehow imbues these substances with His real presence. These ideas, called transubstantiation (professed by the Catholic and Orthodox churches) and consubstantiation (held by Lutherans), ignore Jesus’ statement that “the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63). The majority of Protestants understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His flesh and blood and hold that the bread and wine are symbolic of the spiritual bond created with Christ through faith. In the wilderness testing, the devil tempts Jesus with bread, and Jesus answers, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). The implication is that the bread is God’s Word and that is what sustains us. Jesus is called the Word of God who came to earth and was made flesh (John 1:14). The Word of God is also the Bread of Life (John 6:48). The book of Hebrews references the way that God uses the physical things of this earth as a way to help us understand and apply spiritual truth. Hebrews 8:5 says that some tangible things are “a copy and shadow of what is in heaven,” and that chapter explains how the Old Covenant, so concerned with physical rites and ceremonies, was replaced by the New Covenant in which God’s laws are written on our hearts (verse 10; cf. Jeremiah 31:33). Hebrews 9:1-2 says, “The first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.” According to Hebrews 8:5, the consecrated bread, or the “bread of the Presence,” was a physical representation of a spiritual concept, namely, the actual presence of God being continually with us today. The physical tent of meeting has been replaced by a spiritual temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16), and the physical bread of the Presence has become the spiritual bread that abides within us through the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said we must “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), He spoke, as He often did, in parabolic terms. We must receive Him by faith (John 1:12). “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6). We understand that we need physical food and drink; Jesus wants us to understand that we also need spiritual food and drink-and that is what His sacrifice provides.
