Jeremiah

@PsylohTheGrey @Be_Like_JChrist So are the Law and Spirit the same thing?

@macrofern @Be_Like_JChrist In fact, from the beginning, the Promise God made to Israel regarding the New Covenant was mentioned in the Old Testament, and that Covenant is that He would write His Law in our hearts. This doesn't dissolve it. He empowers us to keep it through His Spirit.

Those that follow the 10 Commandments don’t trust God. They have already decided that they can’t trust God to fix their sin problem. That this responsibility they must bear. But God is so much bigger than that. Jesus offers deliverance. We must see him for freedom. The life of the Spirit is so much easier than the life of willpower and flesh battles.

The earthly things pointed to heavenly things. Jesus is the man from heaven who fulfilled all the OT and all it pointed to, including the ark. Now, address the text I gave you. 2 Cor 3 is explicit in categorizing the Law and the Spirit as two different things. One is the ministry of death, the other, life.

@macrofern @Be_Like_JChrist You are mistaken about the Commandments, and your understanding of what Paul means. Rev. 11:19 And the temple sanctuary of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple sanctuary. The Commandments never go away.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner Is that all Paul was talking about? Table manners? That’s your repeated strawman, not my argument. You keep begging the question and dodging the actual text I’ve laid out the entire thread. Bad faith interlocutor. We’re done here. Peace.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Your view explains behavior, not why eating/drinking makes you guilty of Christ’s body and blood. And “no one’s getting sick today” isn’t an argument. Paul says God judged them then, not that He must always do so visibly. You’ve shrunk a sacramental warning into table manners.

Believing the Eucharist is symbolic is not heresy. Believing Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is symbolic IS heresy.

Paul isn’t the one adding. The context of the passage is clear that eating unworthily is mistreating his faithful, not whether or not you get “true presence”, which is nowhere in the entire book, correct. In fact, Paul makes the corrective exceedingly clear in 1 Corinthians 11:33-34, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.” Again, nowhere does he say “when you come together, believe in real presence, so that it won’t be for judgement”.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Acts 9 = harming the Church = harming Christ. Agreed. But here Paul adds something you can’t absorb: eating unworthily brings judgment (vv28–30). Your view explains the sin. It still can’t explain why the elements carry that level of guilt.

Bro, he couldn’t have been more clear. He used the very covenantal language Jesus used — which was perfectly fitting since he was addressing their abuses while celebrating the Lord’s table. Literally right there in v25: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Then he doesn’t say the cure for violating the covenant is to recognize “true presence.” He says the cure is being considerate: “wait for one another” (vv33-34). Moreover, he literally distinguishes body and bread: “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17). Further, he crowns the entire letter in ch. 13: “If I have not love, I have nothing” (vv1-3). He ties it to our very faith and hope: “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (v13).

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner You’re stretching a true point past what Paul actually says. He doesn’t say “guilty of the covenant” or “guilty of the Church.” He says “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” while eating and drinking (1 Cor 11:27).

Is that all that mistreating poor believers is? “Bad etiquette?” Is that what Paul describes in that passage? Are you really going to die on that hill? Is that how Saul replied to Jesus on the road to Damascus? “Saul, why are you persecuting me?” “Dude, are you really upset over some bad etiquette?”

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Your reading explains the ethics. It does not explain why Paul uses sacrificial language tied to what’s received. So answer it plainly: How does “bad etiquette” make you guilty of Christ’s blood?

Brother, you straw man my position and try to reduce it to mere ethics and you beg the question of real presence in the text of 1 Corinthians — and I’m the one deflecting? I know your position very well. I once held to your understanding. You can make a case for real presence, but it’s not here. If anything, using 1 Corinthians actually weakens your argument as we can all see the eating and drinking unworthily by your definition doesn’t actually make anyone more sick or dead than anyone else.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner You’re deflecting. I never denied the ethics. I said your reading only explains the ethics and leaves the rest hanging. So answer the one point you keep avoiding: Why does Paul say you’re “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27)?

I did explain it. But here it is again: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (v25). His people — His soma (the church, as Paul calls it throughout 1 Corinthians), His bride — were purchased with that blood. When you humiliate and exclude blood-bought believers at the meal that proclaims that blood, you are trampling the new covenant itself. That is how you become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Jesus says the exact same thing: persecuting His church = persecuting Him (Acts 9:4; Matt 25:40). You’re the one separating what Paul joins together.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner You’re dodging the only question that matters. Call it “ethics,” call it “covenant,” call it whatever you want. Explain this: How does humiliating people make you “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27)? Not just “body.” Blood.

@eagle_greg @TheLittleSeason TLDR, but I liked the parts I read. 🤪👍😉

That is one of the flavors of the game of organized religion to prolong the return of Jesus Christ beyond the time it actually came and went. The results are many Christians seek an escape as opposed to taking a stand against the evil nature of man for the devil and his demons have been dealt with permanently. Yet Christians blame him for the evil that consumes the world when the truth is they have been practicing escapism and have let the world get in the shape it’s in because of it. From one conspiracy to another they float trying to keep the narrative alive that slowly perishes before their eyes as people begin to see the light of Truth. Then some of us realize that there is no escape but death itself that comes when God has allotted it to and we need to stop the evil of men from continuing to grow unbridled so we begin to speak out and are labeled as heretics by supposed fellow believers for speaking Truth. So be it, if the Truth hurts it still needs to be spoken and they still need to see, read and hear it, so maybe their eyes will be opened to Truth for if we do not can we truly say we love our brothers and sisters if we let them continue in this blindness. This is Truth the return of Jesus Christ has come and gone we do not live in nor will we ever live in the end of the age/days. For the end of days/age was that of the old covenant world which begin dying just after Jesus Christ died on the cross and culminated at the destruction of the last remaining symbol of the old covenant was coming to an end. As the old covenant world died screaming and thrashing the new covenant world was given birth to. There will never be peace of this earth as long as Christians continue to remain blind to the Truth and continue to be lead by those who seek to revive the old covenant world. My fellow believers we need to wake up to Truth and let our voices be heard and by doing so we can help to restore peace to this world. To many believers in Jesus Christ say God is not slack in His Promises and yet they believe He has delayed that which He told to those in the first century they would see come true by centuries. How can one say God is not slack in His Promises and yet believe this nonsense? Read and understand this the Bible was not written to any generation beyond the one to whom it was given but God has seen fit to preserve much of the Bible throughout history as a guide for you to learn from and a way to understand Who He is in even greater detail. The prophecies contained within do not have any bearing on your existence except to show you the history of what has happened and what you can expect upon your death of your flesh. Those who seek to revive the old covenant world will tell you otherwise for they seek to gain power they don’t realize never belonged to them in the first place for God has always been in control. God abolished the old covenant world and I doubt He will allow it to be revived ever again.

They prepared to die for their faith. They were tortured and they did. We’re preparing to disappear before it costs us anything. That’s NOT the same gospel. Your rapture doctrine and your false dispensationalism reeks of festering rot. The saints endured. Maybe we should stop banking on escape and start preparing to stand. Revelation 20:7-9 That’s where we’re at.

You’re conflating “spiritual” (an adjective) with “Spirit” (the Holy Spirit Himself). You wrote “The Law IS Spirit.” That’s not the same as Paul’s statement that “the Law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14). 2 Corinthians 3 makes the distinction sharp: the ministry of death (the letter carved in stone) vs. the ministry of the Spirit (which is life). They are not the same.

@macrofern @Be_Like_JChrist Rom. 7: 14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner No — you are the one who kept labeling my reading “manners” and “bad etiquette.” Now you’re accusing me of reducing it to “ethics”? Yet you literally just wrote, “Your reading explains the ethics.” Stop flipping the script.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner You’re just relabeling everything as “ethics” and ignoring the text.

The law = spirit? 2 Corinthians 3:7-8 [7] Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, [8] will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? They are not the same.

@Be_Like_JChrist And your lies are obvious. You teach disobedience, and hide it behind a claim that you preach transformation through a spirit that contradicts the Commandments of God. The Law IS Spirit, therefore the Spirit of God cannot contradict it. You're preaching a lie.

On the contrary — my reading explains both the ethics and the Eucharistic language perfectly. Yours is the one that has to flatten the text. Paul quotes the words of institution (“This is my body… this cup is the new covenant in my blood” verses 24-25) precisely because the Corinthians are profaning the new-covenant meal itself by the division he’s been rebuking for 20 verses: rich getting drunk while humiliating and excluding poorer believers at the table (vv17-22, 33). That division is failing to discern the body — the church. Despising Christ’s visible bride is despising Christ Himself (Acts 9:4). That’s why the language is strongly covenantal: they were violating the very covenant sealed in His blood. You completely ignored James 2, which speaks to this exact sin. James 2:1-13 rebukes showing favoritism and humiliating the poor in the assembly and calls it a violation of the “royal law” of love (v8). Faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26) — just like Paul’s “a number of you have fallen asleep.” James doesn’t need a wafer; he needs love for the brother. Same here. Your “Catholic reading” doesn’t explain both better — it detaches the warning from the actual problem Paul names and imports a later doctrine the text never states. The grammar, context, and parallel in James all flow the other way just as it does in 1 Corinthians.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Your reading explains the ethics. It does not explain the Eucharistic language. The Catholic reading explains both. Yours has to flatten one to preserve the other. That is why it fails.

No — you’re the one equivocating and dodging. You used v30 (“weak, ill, fallen asleep”) to prove the offense must be about profaning a wafer, then walked it back to “God doesn’t always judge publicly.” Which is it? You’re assuming the premise: that “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v27) can only mean real presence in the elements. The text never says that. Paul ties the entire warning to the exact behavior he’s rebuking: rich getting drunk while humiliating and excluding poorer believers at the table (vv17-22, 33). That division is failing to discern the body — the church (1 Cor 10:17 and ch. 12). You keep minimizing how seriously Jesus takes His bride. Despising the visible body of Christ is despising Christ Himself (Acts 9:4). That’s why Paul uses such strong covenant language. You’re also ignoring the law of Christ — love (John 13:34-35; Gal 6:2). James 2 speaks to this exact sin: showing favoritism and humiliating the poor in the assembly… and calls faith without works dead (just like Paul’s “fallen asleep”). The text is about love for fellow believers at the Lord’s table. You’re the one imposing a later doctrine on it.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner I clarified it. You’re the one dodging: “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v27). If it’s just about behavior toward people, explain the blood. Until you can, you’re the one walking it back.

@Mizziplier @Fulfilled70 @HazelAppleyard What’s with the hysterics? Enjoy your cats. Poor cats.

@Fulfilled70 @macrofern @HazelAppleyard This is NOT how marriage works, this is rape. There isn't any other way ti describe it, search the definition of rape and compare these situations. It isn't up for discussion. The fact so many people in this comment section are defeanding blatant sexual assault is horrifying.

Ignoring your own children to punish your wife is unhinged

@CaroleJohn56659 @TheresaArueyin1 Yep.

@TheresaArueyin1 Wait until you become the mother of a grandfather!

@iOccupyNigeria @damnidc__ Racist.

Pedophilia has a specific definition. It refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not adults. A 19 or 20-year-old is legally and biologically an adult. You can disagree with large age gaps. You can find them uncomfortable. That’s a valid opinion. But redefining serious terms like pedophilia to include consenting adults only dilutes the meaning and takes attention away from actual abuse involving minors. Two adults choosing to date each other may raise questions about preferences or dynamics, but it is not pedophilia. Words have meanings, and when we stretch them to fit opinions, we lose clarity on real issues.

Pedophiles aren't just old men touching up little kids They're also men who are 50y old and flirting with a 19/20 year old girl

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner Sounds like you’re walking your position back.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Paul isn’t teaching instant punishment every time. He’s saying the offense is real enough that God can judge it (1 Cor 11:30). No constant visible punishment ≠ no real presence. It just means God isn’t always judging it publicly.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner You don’t think God takes loving fellow believers deadly serious?

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Yes, lack of love condemns,but why so severe? Because they’re profaning Christ Himself in the Eucharist. If it’s only about manners, Paul’s warning makes no sense.

No, I’m not skipping vv24-25 at all. The words of institution use “body” for Christ’s own body given for us — I affirm that. But Paul immediately applies it to the division happening at the table: some getting drunk while others are humiliated and excluded (vv17-22, 33). That is precisely what it means to eat and drink “without discerning the body” (v29). The body Paul has been talking about for chapters is the church (1 Cor 10:17; ch. 12). Despising a brother or sister at the Lord’s Supper is despising Christ’s body. There are better arguments for real presence, but it’s not found in this text. It’s imposed by those who already hold the view. If it were only about “what is received” detached from how we treat each other, Paul’s entire opening rebuke of the factions (the actual problem he’s addressing) becomes pointless. And the observable judgment — weakness, illness, and literal death (“fallen asleep” as in ch. 15) — would hit millions of faithful Christians who don’t share your view. It doesn’t. This is why Jesus and the apostles took love for fellow believers deadly seriously: attacking the visible body is attacking Christ Himself (John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:14-15; 1 John 4:20-21; Acts 9:4).

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner “Discerning the body” (v29) is tied to what is received, the same body he just defined: “This is my body… this is my blood” (vv24–25). You’re skipping the definition in the same paragraph.