Jeremiah

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner Uh huh.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner You’re not wrong that Paul rebukes division. You’re wrong to say that’s all he’s doing.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner If this were about believing the “right” thing about presence in the bread, then why aren’t the millions of Christians who disagree with you sick and dying today?

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner And he adds people are getting sick and even dying because of it (v30). That’s not a warning over bad etiquette.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner Yes — because those who don’t have love for their fellow saints don’t have God.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Paul gives the reason: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment” (v29) That’s tied to what is being received, not just how people behave.

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner We are his body. Thats the entire thrust of the passage. Thats how Paul refers to believers in his epistles.

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Love of neighbor matters. But Paul’s warning only makes sense if the Eucharist is actually connected to Christ’s body and blood, not just a symbol.

No, I’m not collapsing anything. The entire letter ties soma/body to the church (see 1 Cor 10:17 — “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread”; then the very next chapter is 11; then ch. 12 spells out the body metaphor in detail). Paul is explicitly rebuking how some “Christians” were humiliating and excluding poorer believers at the table (1 Cor 11:17-22). To suddenly switch soma to mean only Christ’s individual body, abandon the argument he’s been making for 20 verses, and insert a side caveat about the elements makes zero grammatical or logical sense. The warning is clear: if you despise your brother or sister while eating the Lord’s Supper, you are despising the body of Christ. That’s why he immediately ties it back to self-examination and waiting for one another (v. 28, 33).

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner Paul uses “body” for the Church elsewhere, yes. But here he ties the Eucharist directly to Christ’s body and blood. You’re collapsing two meanings to dodge the obvious.

Disrespecting? Is that what was happening in that passage? It sure seems Jesus and the apostles took loving your fellow believers quite seriously: 1 John 4:7 ““Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Or how about: John 13:34-35, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Or: 1 Peter 1:22:
“Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.” What more do you need?

@macrofern @IndianaBrunner If “body” = the Church, then disrespecting people somehow makes you guilty of Christ’s blood. That doesn’t work.

@IndianaBrunner I’ll bet Jesus gave us communion so we can fight over it. 🤪

@PryceSion @IndianaBrunner He was speaking of the church. Soma is used throughout 1 Corinthians in reference to the ecclesia. The entire context demonstrates it’s about disregard for fellow believers at the table.

@IndianaBrunner Paul doesn’t treat it as symbolic either. He says those who receive unworthily are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). You can’t be guilty of a symbol.

@parousia70 @IndianaBrunner Perhaps not merely symbolic?

@IndianaBrunner Of course Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are symbolic. How could anyone be crucified with Christ and resurrected with Him if it's not symbolic?