xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" the Church views sprinkling as illicit, but valid"

That is, the Roman Catholics view, say, the Methodists as rebels, huh?

---

What is the argument for sprinkling vs immersion?

---

Given the example of the thief on the cross, I would say that dispute misses the point.

My personal preference is the full-immersion baptism, in part because the ceremony requires more from everyone involved. I also think baptism, as a once-in-a-lifetime event should be treated with special attention and respect.

But Jesus repeatedly warned against being overly legalistic. Jesus chided the pharisees because they obsessed on minutia but missed the main intent. Baptism is a public affirmation of commitment to Christ, and so the mechanism is far less important than the event.

My father was involved in providing support for the Baptist Church in China, and many ministers there were harshly persecuted for their work. If you go to China today you will find a number of ostensible churches which are state-approved, which in practice means they say what the state tells them rather than what God tells them. One of the differences is that state-approved churches do not commonly perform baptisms, and when they do it is usually an infant christening and always a private ceremony. Public, full-immersion baptism of new Christians is actually a serious crime in many parts of China; they get away with it in rural areas to some degree, but I have known ministers to be sentenced to labor camps for baptizing members. I say all this to convey the impact that ceremony has for me, knowing what it costs some believers to make a public commitment to Christ in that way.

So I think Christ readily accepts all who come to Him in hope and faith, and won't even mention whether they were dunked or sprinkled. But I also believe He has great love for those who made sure to commit to Him in public.

I hope that makes sense.

Realitybites said:

---

The actual text of the Didache says "But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

So there's not a lot of wiggle room for voluntarily abandoning the ordinary form of baptism and adopting sprinkling as regular practice.

---

You are correct. For some reason, I thought that sprinkling was stated in the Didache. It is NOT. That is why I remember that the Church does not allow sprinkling as a licit baptism.

I should have re-read the passage before posting.

The Western (Latin) rites will sprinkle during the Easter vigil and Easter masses during renewal of baptismal promises. I don't know if the Orthodox do that. My dad is a deacon so he assists our priest when he served those masses he was always sure to ensure that our family was "sprinkled" pretty hard with the holy water.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

---

I do take His words as literal. It's a shame that you don't trust Him here.

It seems pretty simple, if one participates in the Eucharist, they will have eternal life where they will never hunger or thirst again.

If you fail to do so, one will end up in hell where they will have hunger and thirst forever.

---

Then you must believe the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? I mean, if you take his words as literal like you say. You are avoiding this question.

---

I'm not avoiding the question. I have answered it in a previous post. it is ordinarily required for those that are aware of it.

---

According to Jesus' literal words, you don't have life in you if you don't eat his flesh. That would make it not just "ordinarily required for those that are aware of it", it would make it an absolute requirement regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.

You say you take Jesus at his literal word, and then you aren't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

---

I do take His words as literal. It's a shame that you don't trust Him here.

It seems pretty simple, if one participates in the Eucharist, they will have eternal life where they will never hunger or thirst again.

If you fail to do so, one will end up in hell where they will have hunger and thirst forever.

---

Then you must believe the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? I mean, if you take his words as literal like you say. You are avoiding this question.

---

I'm not avoiding the question. I have answered it in a previous post. it is ordinarily required for those that are aware of it.

---

According to Jesus' literal words, you don't have life in you if you don't eat his flesh. That would make it not just "ordinarily required for those that are aware of it", it would make it an absolute requirement regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.

You say you take Jesus at his literal word, and then you aren't.

---

His Literal Word goes on to say that these things are Spirit and they are life. They are not physical.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

His Literal Word goes on to say that these things are Spirit and they are life. They are not physical.

---

Spirit does NOT mean symbol. Spirit signifies all that is supernatural, heavenly, and divine.

Jesus is saying that the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.


This is more directed to BDT17 -

You still have not answered why ALL of the disciples left if He was speaking in symbols, metaphors or using Jewish hyperbole. They never left when He said in John 10:9, "I am the door" or when He said in John 15:5 "I am the vine."

You still have not answer why this believe was and has been believed from the Apostles, Paul, the Didache (late 1st century), Ignatius - 107AD, Irenaeus - 189AD, Justin Martyr - 155AD, Tertullan - 210 AD, Cyprian - 251D, Council of Nicaea - 325AD, Cyril - 350AD, Ambrose - 390AD, Augustine - 405AD, Council of Ephesus - 431 AD, etc.

Why wasn't this believe condemned by the Councils? Why does opponents of Christianity accuse them of cannibalism? Why is this believe held by all until the so-called "Reformers"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

According to Jesus' literal words, you don't have life in you if you don't eat his flesh. That would make it not just "ordinarily required for those that are aware of it", it would make it an absolute requirement regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.

You say you take Jesus at his literal word, and then you aren't.

---

I am. For those who know, it IS required.

This is another BOTH / AND blessing that the Church adheres to. I've stated again and I'll restate it - God can work outside the sacraments - we can't.

What about those 14th Century Native Americans who never heard of Jesus? Did they have a chance of salvation? Did any of them get to Heaven?

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

His Literal Word goes on to say that these things are Spirit and they are life. They are not physical.

---

Spirit does NOT mean symbol. Spirit signifies all that is supernatural, heavenly, and divine.

Jesus is saying that the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.


This is more directed to BDT17 -

You still have not answered why ALL of the disciples left if He was speaking in symbols, metaphors or using Jewish hyperbole. They never left when He said in John 10:9, "I am the door" or when He said in John 15:5 "I am the vine."

You still have not answer why this believe was and has been believed from the Apostles, Paul, the Didache (late 1st century), Ignatius - 107AD, Irenaeus - 189AD, Justin Martyr - 155AD, Tertullan - 210 AD, Cyprian - 251D, Council of Nicaea - 325AD, Cyril - 350AD, Ambrose - 390AD, Augustine - 405AD, Council of Ephesus - 431 AD, etc.

Why wasn't this believe condemned by the Councils? Why does opponents of Christianity accuse them of cannibalism? Why is this believe held by all until the so-called "Reformers"?

---

"Why" the disciples left has no bearing on the truth of what he said. If they understood incorrectly that they had to literally eat Jesus' flesh, it would not mean that their leaving, and Jesus leftting them leave, means that their understanding was correct. You are also assuming that is the only reasoning they left - they were also balking at Jesus' claim that he "came down from heaven". They grumbled at his claim to divinity.

I do not think the early church fathers believed in the literal interpretation. Can you cite proof? You might be reading into their interpretation, just like you are with Paul's. Regardless, the question isn't what the early church fathers thought - it's what Scripture says. Did Jesus teach it, and did his apostles believe it? You've claimed that the early church fathers believed in other things that I am saying is unscriptural as well, right? So that isn't going to help your point, because it's not arguing from scripture, it's arguing from tradition.

The Church councils didn't condemn other egregiously heretical and idolatrous beliefs like those pertaining to Mary either. In fact, they dogmatized them. So your point here doesn't help you.

The opponents of Christianity who claimed "cannibalism" were wrong, because it wasn't cannibalism.

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

According to Jesus' literal words, you don't have life in you if you don't eat his flesh. That would make it not just "ordinarily required for those that are aware of it", it would make it an absolute requirement regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.

You say you take Jesus at his literal word, and then you aren't.

---

I am. For those who know, it IS required.

This is another BOTH / AND blessing that the Church adheres to. I've stated again and I'll restate it - God can work outside the sacraments - we can't.

What about those 14th Century Native Americans who never heard of Jesus? Did they have a chance of salvation? Did any of them get to Heaven?

---

"Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have NO LIFE within you."

I'm sorry....if you're taking Jesus at his literal word, then eating his flesh is an absolute necessity for salvation, regardless if you know about it or not. You're trying assert the literal meaning of John 6, but then skirt around this passage.

Regarding the Native Americans - that is a whole different discussion. It is generally believed by Christians that those who had no knowledge of Jesus, won't be judged for it. One thing to also consider is that in John 6, Jesus is speaking to Jews, not Gentiles. Frodo brought up the whole thing about dispensationalism, and if one really looks into it, there is a lot of truth there. But let's not open up that can of worms just yet. The question before you is: if Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then he is also saying that doing this is absolutely essential for salvation - whether you know it or not. If God can work outside his sacraments, then it isn't essential. But then that would mean Jesus is wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Why" the disciples left has no bearing on the truth of what he said. If they understood incorrectly that they had to literally eat Jesus' flesh, it would not mean that their leaving, and Jesus leftting them leave, means that their understanding was correct. You are also assuming that is the only reasoning they left - they were also balking at Jesus' claim that he "came down from heaven". They grumbled at his claim to divinity.

---

They grumbled then, but Jesus levels up His language with them and verse 52 says:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

They were clearly shocked. Jesus ratcheted up His language and they walk away.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I do not think the early church fathers believed in the literal interpretation. Can you cite proof? You might be reading into their interpretation, just like you are with Paul's. Regardless, the question isn't what the early church fathers thought - it's what Scripture says. Did Jesus teach it, and did his apostles believe it? You've claimed that the early church fathers believed in other things that I am saying is unscriptural as well, right? So that isn't going to help your point, because it's not arguing from scripture, it's arguing from tradition.

---

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ"

COUNCIL OF NICAEA
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


I've already offered passages in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30 showing that they believed it.

Why should I believe your interpretation? Are you infallible in YOUR interpretation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Church councils didn't condemn other egregiously heretical and idolatrous beliefs like those pertaining to Mary either. In fact, they dogmatized them. So your point here doesn't help you.

---

Deflection of the topic at hand. They didn't deny those beliefs because they are true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The opponents of Christianity who claimed "cannibalism" were wrong, because it wasn't cannibalism.

---

You are correct. It is NOT cannibalism. They opponents stating what the Christians believed that they were eating the flesh. That's why the falsely accused them of cannibalism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question before you is: if Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then he is also saying that doing this is absolutely essential for salvation - whether you know it or not. If God can work outside his sacraments, then it isn't essential. But then that would mean Jesus is wrong.

---

So if those 13th century Native Americans can get to Heaven then Jesus was wrong about John 5:24:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Why" the disciples left has no bearing on the truth of what he said. If they understood incorrectly that they had to literally eat Jesus' flesh, it would not mean that their leaving, and Jesus leftting them leave, means that their understanding was correct. You are also assuming that is the only reasoning they left - they were also balking at Jesus' claim that he "came down from heaven". They grumbled at his claim to divinity.

---

They grumbled then, but Jesus levels up His language with them and verse 52 says:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

They were clearly shocked. Jesus ratcheted up His language and they walk away.

---

They also grumbled at his claim to divinity: "So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (v 41-42)

So did Jesus let them walk away because they didn't want to eat flesh, or did he let them walk away because they weren't believing?

And even if we assume it was because they took eating of Jesus' flesh literally, how does Jesus letting them walk away mean that he was being literal? Jesus said that he spoke in parables, i.e. figuratively so that "hearing they don't hear" and that scripture would be fulfilled.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I do not think the early church fathers believed in the literal interpretation. Can you cite proof? You might be reading into their interpretation, just like you are with Paul's. Regardless, the question isn't what the early church fathers thought - it's what Scripture says. Did Jesus teach it, and did his apostles believe it? You've claimed that the early church fathers believed in other things that I am saying is unscriptural as well, right? So that isn't going to help your point, because it's not arguing from scripture, it's arguing from tradition.

---

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ"

COUNCIL OF NICAEA
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


I've already offered passages in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30 showing that they believed it.

Why should I believe your interpretation? Are you infallible in YOUR interpretation?

---

I'd have to read their entire discourse to see the context for these words. You still could be reading into their interpretation, like you are Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Regardless, most of these quotes are 300 years after Jesus. As I already said, even if we assume they took it literally, the real question is are they right or not. The real question is whether that is actually what Jesus and his apostles taught. Are the early church fathers infallible?

No, of course I'm not infallible in my interpretation. But I'm not just giving you my interpretation. I'm giving you the reasoning, which is consistent with the whole of scripture. I think I've demonstrated how your interpretation is fallible for many reasons, one of them being because if you take Jesus literally, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation. And that is definitely not taught by Jesus and his apostles in Scripture.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The opponents of Christianity who claimed "cannibalism" were wrong, because it wasn't cannibalism.

---

You are correct. It is NOT cannibalism. They opponents stating what the Christians believed that they were eating the flesh. That's why the falsely accused them of cannibalism.

---

It is not cannibalism, because the opponents incorrectly viewed it as being literal. If Christians were actually eating Jesus' flesh, then they would be correct in saying it was cannibalism.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

It's not a question of me being "better than that". The issue is whether or not the Church actually did ostracize and kill people for what they perceived to be incorrect beliefs. Do you deny this?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question before you is: if Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then he is also saying that doing this is absolutely essential for salvation - whether you know it or not. If God can work outside his sacraments, then it isn't essential. But then that would mean Jesus is wrong.

---

So if those 13th century Native Americans can get to Heaven then Jesus was wrong about John 5:24:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life"

---

No, because technically, notice he says "whoever hears my word". This would not include the Native Americans, who didn't.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

The Catholic Church murdered millions of Christians for disagreeing with their false Doctrine. "Foxes Book Of Christian Martyrs" recorded much of it. Also "The Trail Of Blood" by Carroll also records it. The Wheat and the Tares also talks about it.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

The Catholic Church murdered millions of Christians for disagreeing with their false Doctrine. "Foxes Book Of Christian Martyrs" recorded much of it. Also "The Trail Of Blood" by Carroll also records it. The Wheat and the Tares also talks about it.

---

froddo - God bless you brother. "Foxes Book of Christian Martyrs" and "The Trail of Blood" have both been debunked and are not taken seriously by scholars on either side.

I almost expect you to bring some Jack Chick booklet material next.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

It's not a question of me being "better than that". The issue is whether or not the Church actually did ostracize and kill people for what they perceived to be incorrect beliefs. Do you deny this?

---

Please present evidence that the Church has killed people for not holding those beliefs.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The opponents of Christianity who claimed "cannibalism" were wrong, because it wasn't cannibalism.

---

You are correct. It is NOT cannibalism. They opponents stating what the Christians believed that they were eating the flesh. That's why the falsely accused them of cannibalism.

---

It is not cannibalism, because the opponents incorrectly viewed it as being literal. If Christians were actually eating Jesus' flesh, then they would be correct in saying it was cannibalism.

---

That is the point. The opponents believed that what the Christians believed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd have to read their entire discourse to see the context for these words. You still could be reading into their interpretation, like you are Paul in 1 Corinthians.

---

Here is a link to:

Didache - last first century
Ignatius - 107 AD
Ireneaus - 190 D (speed tip - Control-F search with Eucharist, pg. 103-105

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regardless, most of these quotes are 300 years after Jesus. As I already said, even if we assume they took it literally, the real question is are they right or not. The real question is whether that is actually what Jesus and his apostles taught. Are the early church fathers infallible?

---

I only supplied from less than 200 years of Church history so that you will see that what we have believe since the beginning.

No, the Church fathers aren't infallible. But the totality of there writing show what they believed and it has been consistently taught since 33 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, of course I'm not infallible in my interpretation. But I'm not just giving you my interpretation. I'm giving you the reasoning, which is consistent with the whole of scripture. I think I've demonstrated how your interpretation is fallible for many reasons, one of them being because if you take Jesus literally, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation. And that is definitely not taught by Jesus and his apostles in Scripture.

---

No you're giving me YOUR fallible interpretation of the the passages with YOUR logic. You are arguing against 2000 years of tradition, the Bible, and the magisterium.

ADDENDUM - I have also provide the logic behind the Catholic position, the koine Greek, the ties to the OT testament with respect to manna in the desert and the Passover meal.

The typology, the Greek, the scriptures, the fathers, and the tradition are squarely on the side on the Real Presence. Your position is based on YOUR fallible interpretation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question before you is: if Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then he is also saying that doing this is absolutely essential for salvation - whether you know it or not. If God can work outside his sacraments, then it isn't essential. But then that would mean Jesus is wrong.

---

So if those 13th century Native Americans can get to Heaven then Jesus was wrong about John 5:24:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life"

---

No, because technically, notice he says "whoever hears my word". This would not include the Native Americans, who didn't.

---

Let's use your 6:47 passage:

"Whoever believes in me has real life, eternal life."

The Native Americans didn't believe in him. They will not have eternal life.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

It's not a question of me being "better than that". The issue is whether or not the Church actually did ostracize and kill people for what they perceived to be incorrect beliefs. Do you deny this?

---

Please present evidence that the Church has killed people for not holding those beliefs.

---

Jan Hus, for one. He was killed for saying much of what I've been saying. If I lived during his time, I would have been executed for the things I've said on this thread.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The opponents of Christianity who claimed "cannibalism" were wrong, because it wasn't cannibalism.

---

You are correct. It is NOT cannibalism. They opponents stating what the Christians believed that they were eating the flesh. That's why the falsely accused them of cannibalism.

---

It is not cannibalism, because the opponents incorrectly viewed it as being literal. If Christians were actually eating Jesus' flesh, then they would be correct in saying it was cannibalism.

---

That is the point. The opponents believed that what the Christians believed.

---

The opponents got it wrong. No wonder, since they didn't have the eyes and ears to see and hear.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd have to read their entire discourse to see the context for these words. You still could be reading into their interpretation, like you are Paul in 1 Corinthians.

---

Here is a link to:

Didache - last first century
Ignatius - 107 AD
Ireneaus - 190 D (speed tip - Control-F search with Eucharist, pg. 103-105

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regardless, most of these quotes are 300 years after Jesus. As I already said, even if we assume they took it literally, the real question is are they right or not. The real question is whether that is actually what Jesus and his apostles taught. Are the early church fathers infallible?

---

I only supplied from less than 200 years of Church history so that you will see that what we have believe since the beginning.

No, the Church fathers aren't infallible. But the totality of there writing show what they believed and it has been consistently taught since 33 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, of course I'm not infallible in my interpretation. But I'm not just giving you my interpretation. I'm giving you the reasoning, which is consistent with the whole of scripture. I think I've demonstrated how your interpretation is fallible for many reasons, one of them being because if you take Jesus literally, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation. And that is definitely not taught by Jesus and his apostles in Scripture.

---

No you're giving me YOUR fallible interpretation of the the passages with YOUR logic. You are arguing against 2000 years of tradition, the Bible, and the magisterium.

ADDENDUM - I have also provide the logic behind the Catholic position, the koine Greek, the ties to the OT testament with respect to manna in the desert and the Passover meal.

The typology, the Greek, the scriptures, the fathers, and the tradition are squarely on the side on the Real Presence. Your position is based on YOUR fallible interpretation.

---

The logic you've presented is wrong. You're appealing to tradition, which is wrong. The Koine Greek doesn't support your position like you think it does.

Based on the logic FROM SCRIPTURE, I've shown that your position is wrong. The fact that you can't accept the fact that the literal reading of Jesus' words shows that the Eucharist is absolutely required for salvation shows this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question before you is: if Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then he is also saying that doing this is absolutely essential for salvation - whether you know it or not. If God can work outside his sacraments, then it isn't essential. But then that would mean Jesus is wrong.

---

So if those 13th century Native Americans can get to Heaven then Jesus was wrong about John 5:24:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life"

---

No, because technically, notice he says "whoever hears my word". This would not include the Native Americans, who didn't.

---

Let's use your 6:47 passage:

"Whoever believes in me has real life, eternal life."

The Native Americans didn't believe in him. They will not have eternal life.

---

Is that verse saying that whoever didn't believe me because they never heard of me will NOT have eternal life?

Here's my questions for you regarding that verse:

• can a person believe in Jesus and NOT literally eat his flesh?
• can a person NOT believe in Jesus and literally eat his flesh?

It really does feel like an echo chamber sometimes.

1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love Him

Not everything under heaven and earth - particularly the former - can be reasoned out with the scientific method and logic.

The view of the Church from the first millennium of Christianity:

"The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, His true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of realitythe world and man himselfis real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6.34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6.51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

Realitybites said:

---

Not everything under heaven and earth - particularly the former - can be reasoned out with the scientific method and logic.

The view of the Church from the first millennium of Christianity:

"The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, His true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of realitythe world and man himselfis real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6.34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6.51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

---

When Jesus said "This is my body" - isn't he saying that about that one particular loaf of bread during the Last Supper? Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus' flesh will be in any wafer that we designate for communion/the Eucharist?

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When Jesus said "This is my body" - isn't he saying that about that one particular loaf of bread during the Last Supper? Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus' flesh will be in any wafer that we designate for communion/the Eucharist?

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

As to your first point, no. If he was only referring to the elements used at the last supper, it would make the whole point of ongoing communion superfluous. Instead he instructs Christians to repeat this practice going forward.

As far as the Levitical law, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Christ's declaration that he is Lord of the Sabbath. As such, a dietary rule restricted to the Israelites did not apply to Him to begin with. He is the lawgiver, we are those on the receiving end of the covenant. Furthermore, it would be a logical fallacy to compare the Blood of Christ to the blood of His fallen creation. Even the hymn "There is a fountain filled with blood" can recognize that truth, although it turns the fountain into some sort of location-less allegory like the mythical fountain of youth.

You also need to understand how recent your interpretation of communion is. Prior to the reformation of the 1600s it was unknown. Prior to the Gutenberg press, widespread distribution of the Bible as we know it today was unknown. Prior to the late 1800s Bibles were published with more than 66 books. If you pick up a Bible today and attempt to practice a religion based solely on a modern opinion of what you find in it, you are practicing something aside from the faith once delivered to the saints. Jesus said He would found his church, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it...he didn't say He would publish his book.

Cyril of Jerusalem describes the proper way to partake circa 400 AD, and what is being partaken of: "Approaching (Communion)…come not with your palms extended and stretched flat nor with your fingers open. But make your left hand as if a throne for the right, and hollowing your palm receive the body of Christ saying after it, Amen. Then after you have with care sanctified your eyes by the touch of the holy Body, partake…giving heed lest you lose any particle of it (the bread). For should you lose any of it, it is as though you have lost a member of your own body, for tell me, if any one gave you gold dust, would you not with all precaution keep it fast, being on the guard lest you lose any of it and thus suffer loss? How much more cautiously then will you observe that not a crumb falls from you, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones. Then having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also the cup of His blood; not extending your hands, but bending low and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen, be you sanctified by partaking, also of the blood of Christ."

But that aside, you are missing the larger point of my post.

Today in America the argument has taken on a pseudo scientific nature: Roman Catholics arguing that the real presence of Christ demands a sort of molecular alchemy in light of atomic theory in support of their doctrine of Transubstantiation and Evangelicals / Protestants arguing in a purely symbolic meaning for communion which requires an allegorical interpretation of Jesus' words from a group of people who see almost nothing else in scripture as allegory.

The true meaning of the Eucharist is setting aside this fruitless debate, accepting Christ's words as literal and using communion to truly commune with God as we partake of the spiritual food and drink He gives us at a level that is more than the celebration of an anniversary of an event.

Our focus is not a scientific understanding of the elements, but rather a focus on ourselves, confessing our sins, and ensuring that we do not partake of this gift unworthily. You cannot rationalize the miracle of the Eucharist any more than modern medicine can explain resurrection from the dead.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know that this belief was "held by all" - did the apostles and the first churches believe it? If so, then they would have made complete sure that their gospel message emphasized that the Eucharist was absolutely required for salvation, based on Jesus' literal words. And how do you know Catholics within the church didn't believe it literally either? They probably would have been ostracized or even killed for suggesting it, so they likely would have kept such beliefs to themselves.

---

Come on, man. You're better than the "The ChURCh KilLeD aLl ThOSe wHO OppOsEd heR"! excuse.

No evidence supports this. Will you next use the, "ThE ChUrCH SupPrEsSeD ALl the EviDenCe!" theory next.

---

It's not a question of me being "better than that". The issue is whether or not the Church actually did ostracize and kill people for what they perceived to be incorrect beliefs. Do you deny this?

---

Please present evidence that the Church has killed people for not holding those beliefs.

---

14th crusade against Protestants