Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 286

Thread: The Eucharist is unbiblical

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    ...

    Respect is earned. Behave like a respectable person, and I will respect you.
    LOL. I'm not interested having your respect. I would first have to respect you to care.

    P.S.-posting PMs as you did is considered low class, especially the way you did it. If you wanted to chat about my comment, the classy and grown-up way to do it is PM me.
    Don't make an insulting PM if you don't want to risk it being posted.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    LOL. I'm not interested having your respect. I would first have to respect you to care.
    Yet you waste time and bandwidth on me. Sounds like you respect me enough to want my attention so as to feel better about yourself. I call BS. People who truly don't respect me put me on ignore.

    See also the forum rules:
    2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
    • No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
    • No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
    • Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
    • Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
    • See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    Don't make an insulting PM if you don't want to risk it being posted.
    Ah, at least you're consistently low-class. I'll keep you on ignore for both our benefit now. ~hugs~
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 10-23-2014 at 02:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Yet you waste time and bandwidth on me. Sounds like you respect me enough to want my attention so as to feel better about yourself. I call BS.
    You don’t know what respect is. You’ve made over 45,000 posts, and I haven’t repped you a single time. That should tell you something. And this is a forum, posts receive the attention of people besides you.

    People who truly don't respect me put me on ignore.
    LOL, like you could know that. I’ve never put anyone on ignore. It’s easy to skip over posts and parts of posts one doesn’t want to read or see.

    See also the forum rules:

    2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
    ...
    You're amazing. Hypocrisy must be a virtue in your world.
    Last edited by robert68; 10-24-2014 at 07:05 AM.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Good night jmdrake. Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well. With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic theology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow. I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved. In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.

    Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

    “’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)
    And Clement concludes the chapter with this:
    “Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)
    Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.
    “For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)
    Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

    Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

    “If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)
    Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth.

    Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.
    The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer. He said, “The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that.

    Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the Catholic Church does have a problem with him. From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius.

    Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

    https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-...real-presence/
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  8. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    TER, just for you I did some research and found this:

    http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/

    Now I doubt this will sway you. That's not even my intent. But even going back to the church fathers you revere, one can find ammunition to refute transubstantiation. But again, feel free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe. I'm not Kevin. I'm not condemning you for your beliefs. I just disagree with them.

    Clement of Alexandria

    Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

    Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

    [COLOR="#0000CD"] “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

    Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

    Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.

    “But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (ibid)

    The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

    Giving a little context to the quote presented on Catholic websites, however, does little or nothing to sway a devout Catholic. When I presented the added context to one Catholic, he reacted with, “I admit I am completely bewildered by the Clement of Alexandria quotes you present I do not understand them and they seem to be very figurative, but they are not denying the real presence there either.” (Emphasis mine) Well, yes they do. If the doctrine hinges on Jesus’ words, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” being literal, then Clement is indeed denying the real presence doctrine.

    From a Catholic apologist at “StayCatholic.com” I received this:

    “It looks like he is saying that he believes in the “Real Presence” but that he can also see some symbolism in it as well. Remember he said: “Hear it ALSO in the following way.” The word also obviously includes both views. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a contradiction. Even in Scripture we have passages that have meanings on a number of levels.” (Emphasis his)

    Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language. I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors. And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

    “But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)

    Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

    “’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)

    And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

    “Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)

    Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.

    “For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)

    Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

    Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

    “If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)

    Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.

    The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer. He said, “The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that.”

    Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the Catholic Church does have a problem with him. From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

    So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

    The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

    From Schaff’s introductory note to Clement of Alexandria – After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

    Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

    It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

    “Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

    In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.” And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.

    “Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

    And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail:

    “‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’” (ibid)

    There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine. However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies. Unable to rely on the homilies for the topic of real presence in the eucharist, it’s no wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia decided to pass over Clement and Origen.

    beat me to it
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  9. #157
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You believing that Holy Communion is any less spiritual than the baptism or the regeneration in the belief that Jesus resides in the bread and wine as His own blood and body is the same as saying that our spiritual regeneration is a "metaphor" as well. If punishment follows improper discernment--then you're not understanding what the church fathers were saying at all.

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    You believing that Holy Communion is any less spiritual than the baptism or the regeneration in the belief that Jesus resides in the bread and wine as His own blood and body is the same as saying that our spiritual regeneration is a "metaphor" as well. If punishment follows improper discernment--then you're not understanding what the church fathers were saying at all.
    It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.
    You have an unusual sense of humor...
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    You have an unusual sense of humor...
    Unusual to you maybe. I think others might find it funny. That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-25-2014 at 06:28 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Unusual to you maybe. I think others find it funny. That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?
    What do I get if I do? I'm not a non-profit org. AFAICT, it's not a wise investment of my time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  16. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Unusual to you maybe. I think others find it funny. That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?
    Sigh. If some of you guys would be a small fraction as critical with your own beliefs as you are of others, you'd be Orthodox. There seems to be quite an inferiority complex among many posters in the religious forum when you can't describe your own faith without referencing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

    For me I see a far greater perponderence of evidence, both scripturally and traditionally for the Eucharist, as well as experientially with the Spirit of God, than against. I've seen debates on Clement's writings on other forums and I just don't have the desire to enter into a endless internet debate about Clement, nor do I really feel like reading all of Clement's writings to take it in context, at this time. My faith isn't hinged on Clement's statement as your lack of faith seems to be.

    Right now, I'm spending my time reading the Bible along with the Philokalia, with an occasional visit here. If some of you would work on your relationship with our Lord rather than worrying about the specks in other's eyes, the world would be a much better place

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Sigh. If some of you guys would be a small fraction as critical with your own beliefs as you are of others, you'd be Orthodox. There seems to be quite an inferiority complex among many posters in the religious forum when you can't describe your own faith without referencing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
    That's the way you see it I suppose. I think if you were held yourself to that same standard you wouldn't be Orthodox. The fact here is simple. I'm not the one that started with the criticism. I said early on in this thread that you are free to believe what you want but that it's just as reasonable to believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor as to believe He was speaking literally. TER insisted at first that Jesus said He was being literal (He didn't) and then that there as no support from any church fathers that He was being metaphorical. I've proven those ideas now both to be false. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong with your ultimate conclusions. It does mean that the claims TER was making simply don't hold water. Or if they do you have some 'splaining to do. But again. In the end believe what you want to believe. Just realize that's what you're doing. We all evaluate the evidence and come to our own conclusion. This "I'm taking the interpretation of all of the saints and you're putting yourself above all historical Christians" argument that I've been hearing is nonsense.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    What do I get if I do? I'm not a non-profit org. AFAICT, it's not a wise investment of my time.
    The praise of TER. After all he started this particular part of this thread. I was happy to go with "You interpret was Jesus said in John 6 one way and I interpret it another way." He's the one that asked me the same question about 6 different times (at least). Once I finally did some research and found out that there actually were church fathers that came to the same "metaphor" conclusion that I came to, I expected him or you or somebody to come up with an actual refutation. Instead you just linked to where Clement said what I quoted him as saying. But if you want to leave this Eucharist thing where I started it, which is you have your belief and I have mine and neither is unreasonable, I'm happy to leave it at that.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That's the way you see it I suppose.
    I enjoy conversations with you. On another day I might have gone in a deeper conversation, but on this forum it seems like you try to have an intelligent conversation with some good people, while a few others are nipping at your ankles like enraged Chihuahuas. A lot of what I wrote was addressed at them.

    I very rarely quote the early church fathers. I respect them, but TER, Erowe1 and others know them far better than I. I've read into them a little, but Erowe1 once asked someone if they actually read the writings or cut and paste some quotations from a google search. If I comment on scripture or any writing for that matter, it's because I've usually read the writings in detail, not just because I found a quick quote. I know on this thread you were mainly addressing one person in particular, but I've seen you imply at least two others were avoiding answering in other threads. I guess I wrote the above mostly to say, I'm not hiding or avoiding, I'm just not interested, nor knowledgeable enough at this time.

    There is much I do not know.

  20. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.
    What's even more hilarious is Ellen White--the leader and founder of your faith endorsed a false prophecy by William Miller that Christ would return, first in 1843 and then 1844. I'm sure they had their bags packed and ready to go too. lol

    You may have found one word that St. Clement used to support your misunderstanding of what the church fathers taught--but at least they weren't false prophetesses who also thought if we eat meat, we take on the nature of the beast.


    You shouldn't be gloating over something that's more your misunderstanding than the fault of any church father. Mind your own faith--you have your hands full believing other crap as well.

  21. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    What's even more hilarious is Ellen White--the leader and founder of your faith endorsed a false prophecy by William Miller that Christ would return, first in 1843 and then 1844. I'm sure they had their bags packed and ready to go too. lol

    You may have found one word that St. Clement used to support your misunderstanding of what the church fathers taught--but at least they weren't false prophetesses who also thought if we eat meat, we take on the nature of the beast.


    You shouldn't be gloating over something that's more your misunderstanding than the fault of any church father. Mind your own faith--you have your hands full believing other crap as well.
    Right. More ad homenems. You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger. It's okay. I'm used to it. Ellen White was neither the leader nor the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. As a woman she couldn't be because the church didn't (and still doesn't) ordain women pastors. But I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, like I said, the only reason we're even having this discussion is because your side insisted on it. I was happy to leave it at "You interpret John 6 as being literal. I interpret it as being metaphorical." But it was your side that [b]insisted[b] that I find support for my position among the church fathers. Well....I did. And now your side seems unable or unwilling to just deal with it. If St. Clement didn't really use the word "metaphor" when talking about the Lord's supper (He did and that's irrefutable) or if you have some other explanation for why he used the word metaphor than please give it. If your explanation is "Well the church fathers weren't infallible" great! That's my position as well! I don't think they should be ignored, but I don't consider them infallible or in the same category as Old Testament and Apostolic scripture.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-25-2014 at 07:23 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    I enjoy conversations with you. On another day I might have gone in a deeper conversation, but on this forum it seems like you try to have an intelligent conversation with some good people, while a few others are nipping at your ankles like enraged Chihuahuas. A lot of what I wrote was addressed at them.

    I very rarely quote the early church fathers. I respect them, but TER, Erowe1 and others know them far better than I. I've read into them a little, but Erowe1 once asked someone if they actually read the writings or cut and paste some quotations from a google search. If I comment on scripture or any writing for that matter, it's because I've usually read the writings in detail, not just because I found a quick quote. I know on this thread you were mainly addressing one person in particular, but I've seen you imply at least two others were avoiding answering in other threads. I guess I wrote the above mostly to say, I'm not hiding or avoiding, I'm just not interested, nor knowledgeable enough at this time.

    There is much I do not know.
    Okay. That's a fair statement. And I accept it. There's a lot that I don't know either. And there's a lot that I do know that can be interpreted multiple ways. We all have our own spiritual journeys to go on.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Right. More ad homenems. You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger. It's okay. I'm used to it. Ellen White was neither the leader nor the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. As a woman she couldn't be because the church didn't (and still doesn't) ordain women pastors. But I don't expect you to be informed about that when you seem so ill informed about your own church fathers. Anyway, like I said, the only reason we're even having this discussion is because your side insisted on it. I was happy to leave it at "You interpret John 6 as being literal. I interpret it as being metaphorical. I'm willing to leave it at that." But it was your side that [b]insisted[b] that I find support for my position among the church fathers. Well....I did. And now your side seems unable or unwilling to just deal with that like adults. At the end of the day though, you're free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.
    Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit. You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.

    Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching. After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.
    Last edited by Terry1; 10-25-2014 at 07:34 PM.

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit. You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.

    Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching. After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.
    there are several church fathers who believed that the eucharist was only symbolic and a memoriam and NOT the real presence.
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. That's a fair statement. And I accept it. There's a lot that I don't know either. And there's a lot that I do know that can be interpreted multiple ways. We all have our own spiritual journeys to go on.
    Now comes the clean-up eh? It's too late.

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin007 View Post
    there are several church fathers who believed that the eucharist was only symbolic and a memoriam and NOT the real presence.
    Well do the Holy Communion your way and see what happens. I doubt that you even take communion and if you do is probably why you're subscribing to OSAS instead of believing in the true Gospel of Christ. I guess condemnation and judgment can come in many forms.

    Why don't you and your new buddy there start another Catholic bashing thread and just be yourselves instead of playing the part of a rational intelligent exegete.
    Last edited by Terry1; 10-25-2014 at 07:42 PM.

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    Well do the Holy Communion your way and see what happens. I doubt that you even take communion and if you do is probably why you're subscribing to OSAS instead of believing in the true Gospel of Christ. I guess condemnation and judgment can come in many forms.

    Why don't you and your new buddy there start another Catholic bashing thread and just be yourselves instead of playing the part of a rational intelligent exegete.
    I do it as a memoriam, which is exactly the way it was intended.
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  29. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    Now comes the clean-up eh? It's too late.
    Too late for what? My position has been consistent all along. It's you who's been all over the map. Again, believe what you want. But the idea that Jesus said the Eucharist was literally His body and blood or that the church fathers 100% agreed on that is laughable.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.
    St. Clement did not call the bread and wine a metaphor. Your misunderstanding is because you fail to see how the Holy Eucharist can be a symbol as well as a reality.

    In the traditional Jewish linear liturgy of time, the Kingdom of God is apart from it. There is an understanding of the seasons, and of the cycles of the sun and the moon and the keeping of God's will within the turning of time, however the Almighty is understood to be apart from time, without time, outside of time. And this too is found within the worship of the Hebrews.

    In the traditional Passover meal, there are symbols used in order to 're-enact' the exodus from Egypt and the 40 years in the desert until arrival to the Promised Land. The participants use symbols in order to 're-live' this event. However, they are not just doing so in remembrance, they do this to share in the journey, to leave the time and become actual participants in it. So while the passover of the Jews with Moses leading them happened once in time, in the seder dinner ritual they mystically walk with those Jews from those thousands of years ago, they eat with them the bitter herbs found in the desert, they suffer in the journey and become compatriots upon the journey. That it happened once in time, it is forever within the memory and reality of God's presence, thus they find mystical communion as one Israel making the journey towards the Promised Land.

    You see jmdrake, you misunderstand what symbols are because you are approaching it from a Western scholastic approach. For the Jews (as well as for the Greeks), while some symbols may be mere symbols, other symbols are much more than that. They are figures of a reality which transcends time and human comprehension. This is the same with the Holy Eucharist.

    Take for example the bread and the wine given by the High Priest of Jerusalem Melchezedek to Abraham. This was a symbol of the Holy Eucharist. It was a foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist. But while in time (at that time) it is thought of a symbol of a future event, to God Who is not restrained to time, it is the very Body and Blood of Christ being offered to Abraham. For while in time the death and resurrection of Christ had not yet come, outside of time, the pre-eternal Word of God offers this Body and Blood to Abraham as He offered it to His Apostles on the night before He died.

    I find it slightly amusing that you would fixate on a few verses of a Church Father or two taken out of context because you have little knowledge about the idea of what symbols and figures mean within the mind of the Jew or Greek or early Christian, but because you think you found proof you ignore the overwhelming clear cut undisputable evidence from the Church Fathers regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

    But since you ignore the very words of Christ regarding what the Bread and Blood to be His Body and Blood, and you ignore the teachings of St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers which overwhelmingly confirm the Eucharist to be the very Body and Blood of Christ, perhaps some non-Orthodox scholars can help you learn some history which you refuse to seriously consider.

    As you are a child of Protestantism, and the urge is to protest what the mind refuses to accept, listen to these Protestant scholars (well respected and honored for their knowledge of the Church Fathers and history of the early Church, that is, much more knowledgable than you) and see what they have said regarding the early Church and the Holy Eucharist:

    William Webster, in his book “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History”, p. 117 says:
    From the beginning of the Church the Fathers, generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice…”
    lets consider some more...


    1) Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:

    The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.
    2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:

    By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread
    3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:

    The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . . In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim.

    On p. 96: The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question.
    4) J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:

    The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.
    5) F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:

    That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .

    It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . .

    From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.
    6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

    By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

    The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

    . . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .

    Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

    The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .

    Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . .

    Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . ‘At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.’ [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.
    7) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 440:

    Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.
    On pg 196: [T]he Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier.
    8) Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:

    Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
    9) Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173:

    Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful.
    Jmdrake, these are Protestant scholars.

    In the next few days, as I have time, we can start discussing the patristic proofs to further back up their claims above.

    Did you know that your Protestant forefathers believed in the Real Presence as well before they threw that out the window along with many other apostolic traditions?

    And when we finish this topic, we can then start dissecting why you put St. Clement as an authority (well, I know why, because you think he is teaching your position though he is not), yet when it comes to the clerical hierarchy and ecclesiological doctrines he espouses, I think you would consider him to be not so much an authority. This is what is commonly called these days as cafeteria Christianity. Or Burger King Christianity. Have it your way! Well, unfortunately, that is not what it has ever meant to be a member of the Body of Christ. It requires a little more humility and obedience.

    I dont know how much time I will have to walk you through the first few centuries of the writings of the saints because of personal commitments. You would help this along much better if you stopped pretending to know how the early Church worshiped and what the teachings of the Church Fathers were, and actually spent more time reading them to learn. Or perhaps you don't want to face certain real historical truths? Don't be scared my friend. The truths cannot hurt you.
    Last edited by TER; 10-25-2014 at 09:26 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post
    Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit. You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.

    Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching. After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.
    Except all of the church fathers didn't believe the Eucharist was literal. Also Ellen White wasn't the founder of the SDA church. When she believed William Miller's interpretation of Daniel 9 she had not had a single vision at that point. And none of that has anything to do with this thread. If I "disappoint you" then that's fine. You treat everyone that disagrees with you as an enemy. You treated me as an enemy before. Then you were happy to cheer me on when I disagree with Lily or Kevin. Now you're back to the "jmd is an enemy" camp. That's fine. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

    Again, the reason I don't take the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Jesus is because in John 6:63 Jesus seems to be making the point that He was talking in metaphor. "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and they are Life". St. Clement read that pretty much the same way I did. When I took your sides advice and researched to see if there were any church fathers that agreed with me, surprise surprise I found some. Why are you mad at me for doing what your side of the argument asked me to do? If I hadn't done the research I would have heard "You don't care about what the church fathers think". Make up your mind.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #178
    IT cannot be both literal and symbolic.
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  34. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    St. Clement did not call the bread and wine a metaphor. Your misunderstanding is because you fail to see how the Holy Eucharist can be a symbol as well as a reality.
    I gave you the quote where he did. I'm not misunderstanding anything. And if I am then your reply here isn't helpful. You haven't addressed what he said. Instead you've dug up other references that agree with you. I'm not surprised. I'm sure on a lot of subjects one can find someone that agrees with them. But your argument wasn't whether or not all church fathers agreed with the metaphor interpretation or even if most did. I only needed to find one. I did. Sorry that bothers you.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  35. #180
    The only thing that bothers me is your stubbornness and your unwillingness to learn. And that is because I care for you. But you approach this topic as a lawyer trying to instill reasonable doubt. Approach this as a child and as a servant of Christ and do not pit yourself against Him and His saints.
    Last edited by TER; 10-25-2014 at 09:38 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Ratzinger doesn't believe in the Eucharist as RC's teach
    By Kevin007 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 06:41 AM
  2. Penance is unbiblical
    By Kevin007 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-20-2014, 05:57 PM
  3. The Eucharist & Cannibalism
    By eduardo89 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 05-22-2014, 04:36 PM
  4. The Eucharist – eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood
    By eduardo89 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-21-2014, 01:41 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •