Holy communion or the Lord’s Supper (also known in some churches as the Lord’s Table or the Eucharist) is a source of significant disagreement within the church as a whole. What’s agreed upon is found clearly in Scripture: communion was instituted by Jesus during His last supper with His disciples. During that time, He served them bread and “the cup.” He told them that these elements were His body and blood (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24). He also instructed them to repeat the ceremony in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).

Disagreements over holy communion stem from many questions: Was Jesus speaking of His body and blood figuratively or literally, or were His words a mystical combination of the figurative and literal? How often is the church to observe communion? Is the Eucharist a means of grace or simply a memorial? What was in the cup—fermented wine or unfermented grape juice?

Because Jesus did not give specific, step-by-step instructions regarding the ritual, naturally, there is some conflict about the hows and wheres and whens, and what exactly the bread and wine represent. There are arguments about whether or not the elements actually become the blood and body of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), whether they somehow contain His Spirit (Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation), or whether the wine and bread are simply symbols of His body and blood. There are differing opinions about the liturgy that should be spoken and whether or not confession should be part of the ritual. Denominations differ on the frequency of the communion, how it should be performed, and by whom.

There are four biblical accounts of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples, three in the Synoptic Gospels and one in 1 Corinthians 11:23–34. When we look at these accounts in combination, we know the following:

1. During the Passover meal, Jesus blessed, broke, and offered bread to His disciples, saying, “Take eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
2. He also passed around a cup, telling them to divide it among them: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” He also instructed all of them to drink it.
3. It was during this last meal that Jesus mentions that one of His disciples would betray Him.
4. Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it anew with His followers in the Father’s kingdom.

As He instituted the Lord’s Supper, Jesus was focused on the spiritual relationship between Himself and His disciples. He did not provide particulars of how or when or where or by whom the elements should be served, and, therefore, different churches have some freedom to decide those details for themselves. For example, whether a church observes communion once a week or once a month is not really important.

However, other disagreements over communion are theologically significant. For example, if partaking of the Lord’s Table is necessary in order to receive grace, then grace is not really free and must be earned by deeds we perform, in contradiction of Titus 3:5. And, if the bread is actually the body of Christ, then the Lord is being sacrificed again and again, in contradiction of Romans 6:9–10. These matters are significant enough to have divided the church through the years and actually became an issue of contention during the Protestant Reformation.

Understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9) and considering Jesus’ words concerning the elements of communion to be figurative, we focus on the beauty of the new covenant (Matthew 26:28) brought into effect by Jesus’ own blood. We remember His sacrifice for us as often as we partake of the Lord’s Table (Luke 22:19). And we look forward to once again sharing the cup with Christ in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).

"Transubstantiation"

Sigh...

Even Catholics dunno they worship bread and wine as part of their whole idolatrous system

HazardAwka:
1. Was Jesus speaking of His body and blood figuratively or literally, or were His words a mystical combination of the figurative and literal?

2. How often is the church to observe communion?

3. Is the Eucharist a means of grace or simply a memorial? What was in the cup—fermented wine or unfermented grape juice?

4. Because Jesus did not give specific, step-by-step instructions regarding the ritual, naturally, there is some conflict about the hows and wheres and whens, and what exactly the bread and wine represent. There are arguments about whether or not the elements actually become the blood and body of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), whether they somehow contain His Spirit (Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation), or whether the wine and bread are simply symbols of His body and blood. There are differing opinions about the liturgy that should be spoken and whether or not confession should be part of the ritual. Denominations differ on the frequency of the communion, how it should be performed, and by whom.

1. Jesus Christ more than explained all of this in John 6 vs 32 - 58 where He went on to tell you that His blood and body was literal food.

2. The decision He left up to the individual for whom the agreement is for - Matthew 26 vs 28 - 30

3. Actually, what we call communion is in fact the signing/initiation of the individual into God's New Covenant agreement. The ritual is required before one can enter in to the Kingdom of God - a part of the process of being born-again since it is only those who eat and drink of Him that receive eternal life, a key requirement in the Kingdom of God - John 3 vs 1 - 21

So, when after you have eaten communion and become an eternal being by it aka born of Spirit(born-again step), you experience a new birth and can take do communion, maybe annually (sort of like a spirit-birthday celebration), in remembrance of that event.

About wine, I believe any wine will do since the focus wasn't on the food but on what is represented and more importantly, obedience of that which was commanded.

4. Meaningingless arguments really. What Jesus Christ taught His followers is more than enough as far a communion is concerned. He left the rest up to individuals to decide how to celebrate their spirit-birthdays in remembrance of Him really.

Man is already guilty of so much evil and wickedness such that he may not be judged for communion rights.

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ more than explained all of this in John 6 vs 32 - 58 where He went on to tell you that His blood and body was literal food.

Can you show exactly where the scripture in John 6 mentioned specifically, communion??

Mikee19:
Can you show exactly where the scripture in John 6 mentioned specifically, communion??

Are you being intentionally daft or something?

Communion is generally used to refer to the eating of the body represented as bread and drinking of the blood represented as wine of Jesus Christ. And if you read through John 6 with eyes open you will find Jesus Christ explaining why it is essential for you eat His body and drink His blood.

Kobojunkie:
Are you being intentionally daft or something?

Communion is generally used to refer to the eating of the body represented as bread and drinking of the blood represented as wine of Jesus Christ. And if you read through John 6 with eyes open you will find Jesus Christ explaining why it is essential for you eat His body and drink His blood.

I'm not being daft. I just really wanted you to note that the passage makes absolutely no mention of communion, so that I can show you this:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

He had been speaking about the bread which lasts forever, unlike the normal bread the ate and later got hungry, so they asked that it be given to them. What was his response on how to "eat" the bread of life and "drink" the everlasting drink? "He who comes to him" stands for "eating the bread", which is why he can never go hungry again. "He who believes in him" stands for "drinking of him", which is why they can not go thirsty again!

"Coming to him" and "believing in him" was Jesus telling them how to "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood" when they asked how to! He was using FIGURE OF SPEECH in line with "food" that they were discussing in context!

So no mention of actual communion there like you can see. Coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus was what he meant there in that context by "eating his flesh and drinking his blood"! And by doing so one will have everlasting life!

This harmonizes with other scripture:

NKJV Joh 3:16: "¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

NKJV 1Jo 5:13: "¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."


All these scriptures are from John. He cannot have been saying one thing in one place and then jumping all of a sudden to saying something entirely contradictory. As in all these scriptures, what gives eternal life is COMING TO JESUS and BELIEVING IN HIM. This is what gives everlasting life, NOT communion! John 6 was Jesus using allegory of food for coming to him and believing in him, not speaking of Holy communion. And all the scriptures harmonize in this way

Mikee19:
I'm not being daft. I just really wanted you to note that the passage makes absolutely no mention of communion, so that I can show you this:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

He had been speaking about the bread which lasts forever, unlike the normal bread the ate and later got hungry, so they asked that it be given to them. What was his response on how to "eat" the bread of life and "drink" the everlasting drink? "He who comes to him" stands for "eating the bread", which is why he can never go hungry again. "He who believes in him" stands for "drinking of him", which is why they can not go thirsty again!

Open your eyes and read what is written to you in John 6 vs 32 - 58 so you can save your own soul from ignorance of the one who is God's Truth.

Kobojunkie:
Open your eyes and read what is written to you in John 6 vs 32 - 58 so you can save your own soul from ignorance of the one who is God's Truth.

The thief on the cross with Jesus who never ate the communion, was he to receive everlasting life or not? Was his soul to be saved? Well according to Jesus, it was!

If what you say is true, ppl who don't eat the communion wouldn't be able to be saved, and yet they are. What i did is explain why, using passage from Jesus statements in that chapter of John 6, together with all other scripture (this is what i believe you miss by restricting yourself to only the gospels when Jesus also inspired the epistles by his Spirit. There will be contradictions, even from within the gospels such as the thief on the cross!)

No, according to Jesus' own words, what saves is coming to him and believing in him. Or else the thief on the cross cannot be saved

Mikee19:
1. The thief on the cross with Jesus who never ate the communion, was he to receive everlasting life or not? Was his soul to be saved? Well according to Jesus, it was!

2. If what you say is true, ppl who don't eat the communion wouldn't be able to be saved, and yet they are. What i did is explain why, using passage from Jesus statements in that chapter of John 6, together with all other scripture (this is what i believe you miss by restricting yourself to only the gospels when Jesus also inspired the epistles by his Spirit. There will be contradictions, even from within the gospels such as the thief on the cross!)

3. No, according to Jesus' own words, what saves is coming to him and believing in him. Or else the thief on the cross cannot be saved

What the frell!

1. The thief on the cross was saved, not according to New Covenant, but God's Old Covenant- Ezekiel 33 vs 9 - 20 - with a promise of eternal life to those who are saved - Deuteronomy 30 vs 15 - 20.

This is easy to reason out. Jesus Christ said you MUST be born-again- born of water and of Spirit, just as God explained in Ezekiel 36 vs 25 - 26 - in order to gain access to the Kingdom of God - John 3 vs 5 - 8 - either through the broad gate or the narrow gate
- Matthew 7 vs 13 - 14.

The man on the cross did none of what God and Jesus Christ stipulated as far as becoming a part of the Kingdom of God which belonged to Jesus Christ hence it is absolutely impossible that He could have been saved by God's New Covenant standard.

2. It is not what I say but instead what Jesus Christ, the owner and King of the Kingdom of God tells you. Those Words belong to the one who is God's very Eternal Life and believe Him when He tells you that you can only have the Eternal life He offers only if you eat His body and drink His blood. If you don't trust His own Words, if you don't believe He is God's own Truth, I am afraid I can't help you there.

3. When it comes to the Word of Truth.... the game is not pick and choose.. instead it is All Or Nothing. The same Jesus Christ that told you in order to be save you must believe ...

▪︎also told you that in order to be saved you must east His body and drink His blood.
▪︎ also told you you have to be born of water and of Spirit in order to be saved
▪︎ also said you must deny your self in order to be saved
▪︎also the same one who told you that if you want to to saved you must lose your life - job/career/possessions, abandon family, reputation etc. - to enter through the gate the leads to True Life and be saved.
....
▪︎ also said you must remain faithful until the end in order to be saved. ....

If you can't accept ALL of what He said to you as His Truth, then you are better off accepting none of Him.

I had planned to respond to this, but hadn't been able to until now. it remains paramount that I still do so, not necessarily cos of you (I've seen that there's absolutely I can ever say to change your mind on any topic, and I accept that that's possible), but because I know the origin of some doctrine about "holy communion", being a one-time Roman Catholic. This teaching emanated from them (You don't have to realize/acknowledge this- but protestants did break out from them). The op mentioned "transubstantiation"... By this false doctrine the bread and wine BECOME Jesus, (u know, cos "his flesh" and "his blood" and are no longer bread and wine, such that Catholics now worship the bread and wine as Jesus himself!. This is of course idolatry. Parts of their doctrine have carried on to others, and people wrongly claim what scripture never said.

Now in truth, if scripture had said some things as "requirement to salvation" like you claimed, we cannot argue back against it. But it DID NOT even talk about "communion" at all in John 6. Again I CANNOT change your beliefs. You WILL NOT agree. I know this from experience. Absolutely nothing I can ever say. But that's fine; it can happen.

NKJV Joh 6:30-33: "³⁰ Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” ³² Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”"

They asked for a sign from Jesus. They wanted to eat bread. So Jesus told them about the true bread from heaven which is himself, sent by God, coming down to give life to mankind. This aroused their curiosity, so they asked for this bread:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

They asked that they be given the bread!. The next response of Jesus was the answer to "I want this bread, give it to me". If that were you answering them, would your next response, to ppl who seemingly want the bread you're telling them to get, not be "ok so now this is how you get it"? It's only logical and common sense! That would be ANYBODY'S response! It was therefore Jesus telling them how he gives them the bread! So how does Jesus give the bread of life? Look again:

NKJV Joh 6:35: "³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Again, how did Jesus in response to ppl asking him how he will give them the bread of life respond telling them the way to get it? See it VERY CLEARLY! He gives to them by they coming to him and they believing in him!. This is the only way that scripture makes sense! Or else why would ppl just by coming to Jesus, before having yet eaten communion at all, never get hungry again , if this doesn't mean they're eating of the bread of life just by coming to him ALONE, and why would ppl who merely believe in Jesus without having taken any communion at all yet, never thirst again unless this means by believing in him ALONE they're drinking of him?

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THIS SCRIPTURE MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!

Jesus told them how to get the bread of life! Coming to him and believing in him is eating of Jesus as the bread of life! It's eating his flesh and drinking his blood! This has absolutely nothing to do with communion! The passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE AT ALL to communion! It is man-made interpretation of Jesus' words that it means communion, because the part of the passage where he tells them how to get the bread of life is by believing in him and coming to him is ignored!

Actually, NOWHERE does "communion" mean eating Jesus' flesh and drinking of his blood literally. It is always a FIGURATIVE expression to show that the bread stands for his body that was crucified, and the wine for his blood that was poured out in the cross as he gave his life for us. They ARE NOT literally flesh and blood of Jesus, but merely stand for them in crucifixion!

NKJV Mr 14:23-25: "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. ²⁵ Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”"


Two things should make it immediately clear that this is a figurative description given in this passage

1) He called it the "blood of the new covenant" which really was yet to be shed for many at the time they were drinking of it! This was a futuristic thing! Were they drinking of something from the future yet to even be given? That would literally be IMPOSSIBLE! The only reasonable meaning is that it was merely a figurative representation of the blood of Jesus which he was yet to give!

2) Right after saying "this is my blood", Jesus then says "I won't drink of this "fruit of the vine".." Jesus called what they just drank "fruit of the vine"! (other translations, "wine". Why call it wine again if it no longer was wine but now Jesus blood they were literally drinking? Was Jesus confused as to what it really was, one moment it was his blood, the very next moment it was wine? The only reasonable interpretation is that it was wine ALL THROUGH! It never BECAME his blood, but only stood to represent is, which is why he still called it "this wine"!

See again Paul also saying similar things:

NKJV 1Co 11:23-26: "²³ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; ²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ²⁵ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

Although he says Jesus said "this is my body", what we really eat is bread, NOT his body (verse 26)! Meaning that it is bread and wine we eat and drink in communion, they merely represent the body and blood of Jesus! They ARE NOT literally body and blood, just represent them!

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine from the Roman Catholic church. It is literally bread and wine in the communion, NOT flesh and blood! Absolutely NO scripture speaks of literally eating flesh and drinking blood in communion. You eat bread and drink wine, which merely represent the body and blood of Jesus. So says scripture.

Kobojunkie:
What the frell!

1. The thief on the cross was saved, not according to New Covenant, but God's Old Covenant- Ezekiel 33 vs 9 - 20 - with a promise of eternal life to those who are saved - Deuteronomy 30 vs 15 - 20.

This is easy to reason out. Jesus Christ said you MUST be born-again- born of water and of Spirit, just as God explained in Ezekiel 36 vs 25 - 26 - in order to gain access to the Kingdom of God - John 3 vs 5 - 8 - either through the broad gate or the narrow gate
- Matthew 7 vs 13 - 14.

The man on the cross did none of what God and Jesus Christ stipulated as far as becoming a part of the Kingdom of God which belonged to Jesus Christ hence it is absolutely impossible that He could have been saved by God's New Covenant standard.

2. It is not what I say but instead what Jesus Christ, the owner and King of the Kingdom of God tells you. Those Words belong to the one who is God's very Eternal Life and believe Him when He tells you that you can only have the Eternal life He offers only if you eat His body and drink His blood. If you don't trust His own Words, if you don't believe He is God's own Truth, I am afraid I can't help you there.

3. When it comes to the Word of Truth.... the game is not pick and choose.. instead it is All Or Nothing. The same Jesus Christ that told you in order to be save you must believe ...

▪︎also told you that in order to be saved you must east His body and drink His blood.
▪︎ also told you you have to be born of water and of Spirit in order to be saved
▪︎ also said you must deny your self in order to be saved
▪︎also the same one who told you that if you want to to saved you must lose your life - job/career/possessions, abandon family, reputation etc. - to enter through the gate the leads to True Life and be saved.
....
▪︎ also said you must remain faithful until the end in order to be saved. ....

If you can't accept ALL of what He said to you as His Truth, then you are better off accepting none of Him.

Mikee19:
1. I had planned to respond to this, but hadn't been able to until now. it remains paramount that I still do so, not necessarily cos of you (I've seen that there's absolutely I can ever say to change your mind on any topic, and I accept that that's possible), but because I know the origin of some doctrine about "holy communion", being a one-time Roman Catholic. This teaching emanated from them (You don't have to realize/acknowledge this- but protestants did break out from them). The op mentioned "transubstantiation"... By this false doctrine the bread and wine BECOME Jesus, (u know, cos "his flesh" and "his blood" and are no longer bread and wine, such that Catholics now worship the bread and wine as Jesus himself!. This is of course idolatry. Parts of their doctrine have carried on to others, and people wrongly claim what scripture never said.

Now in truth, if scripture had said some things as "requirement to salvation" like you claimed, we cannot argue back against it. But it DID NOT even talk about "communion" at all in John 6. Again I CANNOT change your beliefs. You WILL NOT agree. I know this from experience. Absolutely nothing I can ever say. But that's fine; it can happen.

NKJV Joh 6:30-33: "³⁰ Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” ³² Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”"

They asked for a sign from Jesus. They wanted to eat bread. So Jesus told them about the true bread from heaven which is himself, sent by God, coming down to give life to mankind. This aroused their curiosity, so they asked for this bread:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

They asked that they be given the bread!. The next response of Jesus was the answer to "I want this bread, give it to me". If that were you answering them, would your next response, to ppl who seemingly want the bread you're telling them to get, not be "ok so now this is how you get it"? It's only logical and common sense! That would be ANYBODY'S response! It was therefore Jesus telling them how he gives them the bread! So how does Jesus give the bread of life? Look again:

NKJV Joh 6:35: "³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Again, how did Jesus in response to ppl asking him how he will give them the bread of life respond telling them the way to get it? See it VERY CLEARLY! He gives to them by they coming to him and they believing in him!. This is the only way that scripture makes sense! Or else why would ppl just by coming to Jesus, before having yet eaten communion at all, never get hungry again , if this doesn't mean they're eating of the bread of life just by coming to him ALONE, and why would ppl who merely believe in Jesus without having taken any communion at all yet, never thirst again unless this means by believing in him ALONE they're drinking of him?

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THIS SCRIPTURE MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!

Jesus told them how to get the bread of life! Coming to him and believing in him is eating of Jesus as the bread of life! It's eating his flesh and drinking his blood! This has absolutely nothing to do with communion! The passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE AT ALL to communion! It is man-made interpretation of Jesus' words that it means communion, because the part of the passage where he tells them how to get the bread of life is by believing in him and coming to him is ignored!

Actually, NOWHERE does "communion" mean eating Jesus' flesh and drinking of his blood literally. It is always a FIGURATIVE expression to show that the bread stands for his body that was crucified, and the wine for his blood that was poured out in the cross as he gave his life for us. They ARE NOT literally flesh and blood of Jesus, but merely stand for them in crucifixion!

NKJV Mr 14:23-25: "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. ²⁵ Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”"


Two things should make it immediately clear that this is a figurative description given in this passage

1) He called it the "blood of the new covenant" which really was yet to be shed for many at the time they were drinking of it! This was a futuristic thing! Were they drinking of something from the future yet to even be given? That would literally be IMPOSSIBLE! The only reasonable meaning is that it was merely a figurative representation of the blood of Jesus which he was yet to give!

2) Right after saying "this is my blood", Jesus then says "I won't drink of this "fruit of the vine".." Jesus called what they just drank "fruit of the vine"! (other translations, "wine". Why call it wine again if it no longer was wine but now Jesus blood they were literally drinking? Was Jesus confused as to what it really was, one moment it was his blood, the very next moment it was wine? The only reasonable interpretation is that it was wine ALL THROUGH! It never BECAME his blood, but only stood to represent is, which is why he still called it "this wine"!

See again Paul also saying similar things:

NKJV 1Co 11:23-26: "²³ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; ²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ²⁵ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

Although he says Jesus said "this is my body", what we really eat is bread, NOT his body (verse 26)! Meaning that it is bread and wine we eat and drink in communion, they merely represent the body and blood of Jesus! They ARE NOT literally body and blood, just represent them!

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine from the Roman Catholic church. It is literally bread and wine in the communion, NOT flesh and blood! Absolutely NO scripture speaks of literally eating flesh and drinking blood in communion. You eat bread and drink wine, which merely represent the body and blood of Jesus. So says scripture.

■ I never said anything about a "holy" communion neither did I suggests anything about a doctrine of holy communion. The word communion or fellowship is typically associated with the eating of the bread and drinking of blood of Jesus Christ which is what the focus of my write up happens to be. If you believe the word remains a problem, then maybe, you should wait until I catch up to no longer using it abeg.

■Now go back through my previous post and reread before, making certain to review each of the contained passages to be sure you understand Jesus Christ's direct commandments to you, since you continue to imagine this is still about me telling you things when instead this is about what Jesus Christ, the one who said, " my friends are those who do what i say" - John 15 vs 14 - , infact said you should do in His name..

---

1. The thief on the cross was saved, not according to New Covenant, but God's Old Covenant- Ezekiel 33 vs 9 - 20 - with a promise of eternal life to those who are saved - Deuteronomy 30 vs 15 - 20.

This is easy to reason out. Jesus Christ said you MUST be born-again- born of water and of Spirit, just as God explained in Ezekiel 36 vs 25 - 26 - in order to gain access to the Kingdom of God - John 3 vs 5 - 8 - either through the broad gate or the narrow gate
- Matthew 7 vs 13 - 14.

The man on the cross did none of what God and Jesus Christ stipulated as far as becoming a part of the Kingdom of God which belonged to Jesus Christ hence it is absolutely impossible that He could have been saved by God's New Covenant standard.

2. It is not what I say but instead what Jesus Christ, the owner and King of the Kingdom of God tells you. Those Words belong to the one who is God's very Eternal Life and believe Him when He tells you that you can only have the Eternal life He offers only if you eat His body and drink His blood. If you don't trust His own Words, if you don't believe He is God's own Truth, I am afraid I can't help you there.

3. When it comes to the Word of Truth.... the game is not pick and choose.. instead it is All Or Nothing. The same Jesus Christ that told you in order to be save you must believe ...

▪︎also told you that in order to be saved you must east His body and drink His blood.
▪︎ also told you you have to be born of water and of Spirit in order to be saved
▪︎ also said you must deny your self in order to be saved
▪︎also the same one who told you that if you want to to saved you must lose your life - job/career/possessions, abandon family, reputation etc. - to enter through the gate the leads to True Life and be saved.
....
▪︎ also said you must remain faithful until the end in order to be saved. ....

If you can't accept ALL of what He said to you as His Truth, then you are better off accepting none of Him.