The Ten Commandments and the changed Roman Catholic version

[quintessentone]

"It is unlikely that the author of John was thinking of this in a literal way, but rather as an attempt to bring people closer to Yeshua.

The author would have been encouraging Christians to see the Eucharist as Yeshua’s presence with them, not in actual, physical terms. After all, if one could not fathom the teachings we see in Thomas, then how does one feel the connection to Yeshua and the Father?

Take note of John 6:63: ‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. [emphasis added]’ Here we see the author of John being careful to affirm what we see in Thomas 108. From Jesus’ mouth we receive the words He has spoken. This is the bread of life, which we should take part in. His blood is symbolic of the collective consciousness (Holy Spirit), which links all Souls seeking the Light. Again, in John 6:63: ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ 

Remember, when Yeshua spoke of life, or to live, He was referring to the Soul coming to life, not the body. What He aimed to show us is how to resurrect the Spirit in us—this is the only circumcision of value (Thomas 53)."

Thomas 108 relates directly to John Chapter 6 | Gospel of Thomas tells us to drink from Jesus’ mouth

Everything has to do with spirituality and one does not have to be Catholic to take part in Jesus' way.

------

"The Gospel of Jesus Welcoming Everyone

The Gospel of Jesus is a testament to His inclusive nature, welcoming all individuals regardless of their background, status, or past. Jesus' teachings and actions demonstrate a radical acceptance of those who felt outcast, such as tax collectors, sinners, and Samaritans. His parables, like the Good Samaritan, illustrate the call to love and welcome all people, transcending ethnic and cultural barriers. The Great Commission, found in Matthew 28:19-20, commands believers to "go and make disciples of all nations," reflecting the inclusive mission of Jesus." (BibleHub)

---

A disciple is a follower of Jesus, nothing else.

[FlyersFan]

"It is unlikely that the author of John was thinking of this in a literal way, ..

Says you.

2,000 years of scripture scholars and theologians and Christianity says different.

When Jesus was questioned on this He said 'AMEN AMEN ..' and once again restated his discourse on eating his body.

AMEN AMEN .. meaning that he meant exactly what He said.

The author of this thread is taking everything in the bible literally and demanding others do as well.

Therefore, he MUST also take John 6 literally.

That leaves him with only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church being his only way to salvation.  (using his illogic).

And given his hatred for Catholics and the Catholic church, I find that extremely funny.  

[Bootless]

...and once again restated his discourse on eating his body.

I suppose by that that you are used to only receiving the one kind rather than Communion under both kinds 

Take this passage from Paul: 1 Corinthians 11 NIV 

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
 
27So 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. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Current RCC practice is to let the Bishop decide who can share the cup. Sometimes only the priest.

How often have parishioners waited with bated breath as the known corrupt priest drinks the wine, expecting him to be struck dead? It doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. He stays healthy and continues on with abusing the sheep and even lambs.

What happens to those victims? What goes through their minds?

"If the wrath of God is not real,
then maybe salvation isn't real.
If those aren't real,
then maybe that God isn't real either."

That isn't a direct quote. I'm paraphrasing the words of a former Catholic victim of sexual abuse by a priest. Back in 1985 the victim was suggesting that I might consider atheism too.

[FlyersFan]

Current RCC practice is to let the Bishop decide who can share the cup. Sometimes only the priest.

Not exactly.

Catholic churches can have just the Body of Christ, or both the Body and Blood of Christ, for the parishioners.  Sometimes the Precious Blood is by drinking from the chalice, and sometimes it's from intinction (dipping).   Most places don't do both and the shared cup was cancelled after COVID.   Good thing too ... it's a germy mess.

Catholics don't use the little tiny plastic cups filled with wine and grape juice because, unlike the Protestants, Catholics have the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS whereas the Protestants just have wine and grape juice.   The little plastic cups allow for people to spill and for left overs to be thrown away.   You can't do that with the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS, that's blasphemy.   

Protestants can share a common cup all they want.  Let them get sick.  Protestants can use their little plastic cups and throw around grape juice and wine all they want, it's not the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST like what Catholics have.

[Bootless]

Sometimes the Precious Blood is by drinking from the chalice, and sometimes it's from intinction (dipping). 
...
Catholics don't use the little tiny plastic cups filled with wine and grape juice because, unlike the Protestants, Catholics have the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS whereas the Protestants just have wine and grape juice.   The little plastic cups allow for people to spill and for left overs to be thrown away.   You can't do that with the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS, that's blasphemy.   

Protestants can share a common cup all they want.  Let them get sick.  Protestants can use their little plastic cups and throw around grape juice and wine all they want, it's not the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST like what Catholics have.

Catholics and most Protestants and Anabaptists and etc. have a common belief that God intervenes in Worldly affairs; such as the miracle of transubstantiation, healings, interventions by angels or saints, and etc.

It is common also for Christians to consider that Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of God "from there he will come to judge the living and the dead."

But in the meantime the body of Christ is on Earth (the church or the believers)
Colossians 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.

Ephesians 1:22-23
And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, / which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of His body.

If one were to look at the Earthly Church as the body then Paul's writing about Communion can take on another meaning.

1 Corinthians 1:29 "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."

Religious communities are formed as a defense, a safety, to feel safe. If those who are stationed above the laity are the very people preying upon the vulnerable then on the deepest emotional level (which people follow more than they do the intellectual), they flee the unsafe. Once out of harm's way, they then ask themselves, "Where was God? Where was the intervention that I was taught to expect?"

[Bootless]

@TheWay

Since your church affiliation has been outed in another thread without being removed, I feel at some liberty to give links to material that I referred to earlier.

Sunday Laws: the Great Adventist Obsession
That's the one from a French Pastor, he links to another article about Ben Carson from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Ben Carson Has No Idea What Separation Of Church And State Means

As a bonus, I looked up The International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA)

 
Forcing End-Time Events?
 
Trim first discussed the often ambivalent thoughts among early Adventist church leaders and members regarding the issue of religious liberty. Should Adventists get involved or just let events play out as they thought Bible prophecy had predicted them? He answered by quoting former IRLA secretary general John Graz, who, in the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists, wrote that “the young Seventh-day Adventist Church, in spite of its apocalyptic vision of the future, decided to firmly oppose any legislation in favor of a religious day of rest.”
 
According to Trim, the tension Graz alludes to was “between Seventh-day Adventist corporate prophetic schema, in which enforcement of a Sunday law by the United States would be one of the markers of the final eschatological scenario, and the need, on the other hand, of Seventh-day Adventists to be free of Sunday laws as part of their normal lives.”
 
Some pioneers thought that Adventists should, by provocation, bring on a national Sunday law. This “would basically oblige Christ to inaugurate the millennium by His Second Advent,” Trim explained, adding, “This was one of the extreme ideas that Seventh-day Adventists, as a whole, never accepted…. The idea that one could compel Christ to action was, to put it mildly, an idiosyncratic one.”

Historian Traces Adventist Passion for Religious Freedom

Now if someone were to ask me "Well who is the enemy of religious liberty in the U.S. today?"

My reply would be, "Well it isn't the Roman Catholic Church and Traditional Protestants". No, it is a coalition of NAR (New Apostolic Restoration) and Dispensationalists.

On the one hand NAR is attempting to bring about Theocracy as new American government (replacing Constitution) and the Dispensationalists are trying to force God's hand to end the World.

Different goals yet aligned to end secular free liberal democracy. That should be your enemy, not the RCC.

[Creaky]

Martin Luther was a mess.
He wanted to be rid of the '10 Commandments' altogether because he said no one could obey them.
His protestant contemporaries talked him out of it.

Good reading - 'The Facts about Luther' by Msgr Patrick F. O'Hare.

Luther was a failed priest who couldn't follow the rules and wanted everyone else to fail as well.   His famous line - 'if the wife is unwilling then take the maid'.  He advocated molesting the hired help if the husband couldn't get his rocks off with his wife.

Luther aside, you can obey the 10 commandments? what about the sermon on the mount,
[sup]21 [/sup]“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[sup][a][/sup] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ [sup]22 [/sup]But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[sup][b][/sup][sup][c][/sup] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[sup][d][/sup] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Adultery[sup]27 [/sup]“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[sup][e][/sup] [sup]28 [/sup]But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [sup]29 [/sup]If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. [sup]30 [/sup]And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
 what about the other 617 Mosaic commands, ignore them? 
Take what you want and dismiss the other Mosaic commands as irrelevant

Hard task

[FlyersFan]

Luther aside, you can obey the 10 commandments? 

You missed the point, or I didn't make the point well .... Luther wanted to change the text of the bible to match his own notions and to make himself feel better about being a mess.  For example, he was unable to stop lusting so he wanted to be rid of the texts about lust being bad.  (He famously said "If the wife is unwilling, then take the maid").  It was only because his contemporaries said not to that he didn't change the text and wipe out the ten commandments story from scripture.

[Creaky]

You missed the point, or I didn't make the point well .... Luther wanted to change the text of the bible to match his own notions and to make himself feel better about being a mess.  For example, he was unable to stop lusting so he wanted to be rid of the texts about lust being bad.  (He famously said "If the wife is unwilling, then take the maid").  It was only because his contemporaries said not to that he didn't change the text and wipe out the ten commandments story from scripture.

Care less about Luther, explained that in the first statement 

I asked about your capacity to follow the law, you ignored that all together, interestingly


So are you saying that you can obey the 10 commandments? what about the sermon on the mount,
[sup]21 [/sup]“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[sup][a][/sup] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ [sup]22 [/sup]But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[sup][b][/sup][sup][c][/sup] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[sup][d][/sup] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Adultery[sup]27 [/sup]“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[sup][e][/sup] [sup]28 [/sup]But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [sup]29 [/sup]If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. [sup]30 [/sup]And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

 what about the other 617 Mosaic commands, ignore them? 
Take what you want and dismiss the other Mosaic commands as irrelevant?
New wine in old skins?

Hard task I recon, quite impossible wouldn’t you agree?

[Bootless]

You missed the point, or I didn't make the point well .... Luther wanted to change the text of the bible to match his own notions and to make himself feel better about being a mess.  For example, he was unable to stop lusting so he wanted to be rid of the texts about lust being bad.  (He famously said "If the wife is unwilling, then take the maid").  It was only because his contemporaries said not to that he didn't change the text and wipe out the ten commandments story from scripture.

No. He did not want to change the Bible text. It was whether or not to put the 10 Words in the catechism or not.

You obviously have not read the book The Estate of Marriage (1522)

But a public divorce, whereby one [the innocent party] is enabled to remarry, must take place through the investigation and decision of the civil authority so that the adultery may be manifest to all - or, if the civil authority refuses to act, with the knowledge of the congregation, again in order that it may not be left to each one to allege anything he pleases as a ground for divorce [...].
 
The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:1 :17].
 
Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7 [:4-5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone's life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?

Wow! Seriously? The civil authority should compel the wife or put her to death?

According to canonical scripture Matthew 19, Jesus was totally against no-fault divorce.

In all this discussion of Moses, Jesus, Luther, it's always about the man and his rights. That's why I am in favor of No-fault divorce. That way the wife has the right to divorce.

Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, based on findings in their research, argue that domestic violence and female suicide declines in states that legalize no-fault divorce. Specifically, they report that "states that adopted no-fault divorce experienced a decrease of 8 to 16 percent in wives' suicide rates and a 30 percent decline in domestic violence." They also argue that their research proves that there is no permanent effect of no-fault divorce laws on divorce rates.