In some quarters, pedophilia is not pedophilia, it is man-boy love, and the one practising man-boy love will object to their practice being called pedophilia.
Some practising theft prefer to call it weslth redistribution and object to theie behViour being called theft.
What are the biblical elements of the practise of idolatry? Bowiing down and serving man-made images or created things. Calling that practise showing reverence, or using aids to focus better on God, doesn’t excuse the practise from its biblical name.
Specifically, the doctrine that identifies a man-made wafer as God and therefore worthy of the worship due to God, is biblically idolatry.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55705/adoring-christ-in-the-eucharist&ved=2ahUKEwj-j_G10pv9AhUy83MBHdl7BKwQFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2Ey0IQ6N4kVcNRwCsgxZDj
I didn’t misquote a pope. I quoted him. “Eucharistic worship.”
This is what Paul says:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord *
No other way of reading it. If you drink one, you get both. It is both and. However, it is in the form of bread and wine. That is the way it reads. Paul puts it negatively there, but the other way, when put positively, when you eat the bread you get the Body and Blood. So Paul description that it does both, fulfilling Jesus’ proclamation. One part of it fulfills both. Now you may not accept that, but that is what Scripture says, and the Church, which was established by Christ Himself (Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 18:18, 1 Tim. 3:15) says that one partakes of the body, blood, soul, & divinity of Christ in just taking either one.
Those were not his Blood brothers & sisters. Unanimous, Jerome refers to traditions from Ignatius, Polycarp the same martyr who proclaimed the reality of the Eucharist, there were no apostolic churches who thought she had blood brothers & sisters. The first real opponent was Helvidius, and he was an Arian, JW precursors. Heck, even the ‘reformers’ Wesley, Luther, even Calvin going by Scripture only thought that she was perpetually a virgin. If you really want to examine the issue, I invite you to look at this analysis including a look at all the Protestant presumptions.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mary.html
No. As I explained. Profaning the blood or the flesh of an OC sacrifice, profaned the entire sacrifice. If the blood was desecrated by being mixed with human blood, the meat was no longer sacred either. That does not at all mandate that by eating the meat of the sacrifice one also ate the blood. God says of the old sacrifices, “You shall not eat the flesh with tbe blood.”
It is fallacious sophistry to argue that because desecrating flesh or blood means one defiles both parts, that therefore, eating flesh or blood means one eats both parts.
It is not blood as of the blood of animal sacrifices. It is bread under the form of bread and wine. BTW, Acts 2:42, says breaking of the ‘bread’ breaking of bread only. Luke 24:31, 38 toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them**, he took the bread and blessed,** and broke it, and gave it to them. In the form of bread only John 6:50-52, v. 58. yes it them mentions eating of flesh & blood, True bread which is my flesh, 58, manna. Acts 2:42, breaking of the ‘bread’ only. So the apostles and Jesus Himself can give it in the form of bread only. Jesus says that, in the New Covenant, that supercedes old covenant prohibitions any way. We are not bound by Old Covenant laws, He declared all foods clean, Mk. 7:19. Mosaic laws are done away with in the New Covenant. Going by laws that are done away with in the New Covenant is against the New Covenant.
I guess Paul who says if you eat my flesh or drinks my blood, you eat the flesh and drink His blood, according to you is engaging in fallacious sophistry? But you join the Gnostic heretics who opposed the Ignatius of Antioch who went to his death, studying under the apostle John, who confessed it was the Eucharist was the true flesh of Jesus.
They did not eat the bread Jesus broke. As soon as they recognised Him in the breaking of bread, Jesus disappeared. So, your extrapolation that they had communion with only bread lacks foundation.
I expect they all ate bread and drank wine together during the meal, and did not just eat bread only.
What Part of This is my Body, and this is my Blood do you not understand? He doesn’t say this symbolized my Body, this symbolizes my Blood. Why doesn’t he say that? You are saying Ignatius of Antioch, who studied under John, who got martyrd for the faith, is an idolater? And you feel quite free to claim he is an idolator? And it was the pagans who castigated the Christians for proclaiming that they were eating what they called god, But Jesus is God incarnate. You are joining the pagan critics of Christians who went to their death proclaiming the reality of Christians eating tthe Body Blood Soul and divinity of Christ.
Justin Martyr
After we have washed someone who has been convinced and has
accepted our teaching, we bring him to the place where those
who are called “brethren” are assembled. Together, then, we offer
hearty prayers: for ourselves, for the illuminated person, and for
all others in every place. We pray that we may be counted worthy,
now that we have learned the truth, by our works be found good
citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be
saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then
bread and a cup of wine mixed with water are brought to the
president of the brethren. Taking them, he gives praise and glory
to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and he offers thanks
at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent
by saying “Amen”, the Hebrew for “so be it”. And when the president has given thanks, and all the
people have expressed their assent, those who are called “deacons” give to each person present a
portion of the bread and the wine mixed with water, over which the thanksgiving was pronounced. To
those who are absent, they carry away a portion.
Chapter 66: The Eucharist
This food we call Eukaristia [the Eucharist], and no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that
our doctrines are true, who has been washed with the washing for the remission of sins and rebirth,
and who is living as Christ has enjoined.
We do not receive these as common bread and drink. For Jesus Christ our Saviour, made flesh by the
**Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. Likewise, we have been taught that the food **
> blessed by the prayer of his word…is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh.
The apostles, in the memoires they composed called “Gospels”, have passed on to us what was
enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “Do this in memory
of Me. This is My body”. In the same way, after taking the cup and giving thanks, He said “This is My
blood” and He gave it to them alone.
Hmm, that is exactly like the Mass that we partake of. Baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Acts 22:16, and partake of the real Body & Blood of Christ. Eucharist central to Worship, not just a symbol. There were no symbolic only Christians who though Baptism & the Eucharist were symbols only in the 2nd century. Justin Martyr is called that a Martyr in the 2nd century.
I agree. But the fact that if either the sacrificed blood or the sacrificed flesh were profaned, both the flesh and the blood of that offering became unacceptably profaned, while eating the flesh did not entail drinking the blood, show that your logic by which Paul’s statement about prophaning bread or cup applies also to eating bread or drinking the cup is a severe non sequitur logical fallacy.
You expect is not what they said. It says breaking of bread only.
All it says is that after the meal, which almost certainly included bread and drink, ooJesus took bread and broke it and He disappeared before they ate it, but instead they immediately returned to Jerusalem.
There is no logical basis for your assuming Jesus’ purpose in breaking the bread was to give them the bread of communion to eat without wine following.
The inducations are that Jesus blessed and broke the bread to reveal to them who He was, not as a prototype of a new testament split clergy/laity participation in communion.
It seems everyone received both bread and wine.
SixFoot
214
Pick one, and lace those shoes up. 
No, I am just reading Scripture. Jesus is specifically said to break the bread. It doesn’t say he provided the wine. You want to assume what you want to assume. Your presumption is going beyond what is written. It doesn’t talk about a full meal, it just says: 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
It doesn’t matter that he disappeared, that is what he gave. They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. It shows the importance of that. Scripture is God-breathed. Breaking of the bread was good enough for Jesus to give them. You are going beyond what it says.
The same as in Acts 2:42, what was worship?
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
It doesn’t say breaking of bread and wine, it says bread only. The bread, which Paul specifically says when you partake of, is the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10:16. The worship is centered on the Eucharist, and God inspires it to say, only the breaking of the bread, so apparently the breaking of bread, is sufficient. Anything else, is just adding to the Word of God.
Sure, there is nothing about you can not do under both species. Giving it under both species is fine, just as Jesus providing them under the species of bread only in Luke 24, and the Apostles only giving the bread only in Acts 2:42 is fine as well.
No offense six but that is the very thing i used to run into with Meriwether.
He/She/Catholics are much better(he/she/they think) at reading and understanding the scriptures than others are.
That’s why i seldom post in the religious threads anymore.
My point being that sort of thing is not one sided by a long shot. 
1 Like
SixFoot
218
Not my experience over the last decade or two. I love hearing about the different ways people worship and love and praise and spend time with God. I can personally get far more quality time with the Lord in any given psychedelic session than all my years of church attendance combined. Having a relationship with God is what’s important, now how you have one compared to others.
When someone comes in telling everyone else how wrong they are, it’s no different than the atheists being their petty selves about religion in general. I admittedly lost my cool, but it was from a pure feeling of disappointment.
The only people who have “it” wrong are those who think they have it right. Always been that way. 
1 Like
It was my experience in the religious forum in times past.
I know the scriptures quite well and will not be told i don’t in an effort to convert me.
Doesn’t matter if it is Meriwether, Thompson or whoever.
I say this with all due respect.
It is not “much better” to present a different understanding/perspective of scripture. I, myself, truly delight in everyone’s different perspective and understanding. So very sorry that my perspective has been so hurtful to you. Peace.
1 Like
I agree that it does not say Jesus provided wine. I never said he had provided wine. But neither does he say, “This is my body broken for you.”
You are assuming Jesus was going through a eucharistic ritual, rather than simply doing what he had always done at meals with his disciples: Blessing the food before the meal. Just as plausibly, it was by the particular custom Jesus had practised before eating that the two had recognised it was Jesus , just as it was by Jesus’ customary intonation in addressing Mary Magdalene that Mary had recognised Jesus outside the tomb. The Lucian text does not state that the breaking of bread at Emmaus was a eucharistic rite.
.
