BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

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?

---

Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite theologians. I commend his works to all (even though he is Roman Catholic - lol). I've read many of his books. Can't remember where, but I do recall he speculated that all will have an opportunity post mortem to either accept Him (Christ) or reject Him personally. Short version: this encounter would account for all those who have never heard of Him. All will be judged based on how they manifested whatever portion of grace they had received in life. Definitely in the realm of speculative theology, but I believe there must be something like this.

Realitybites said:

---

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.

---

Christians are instructed to continue the practice of communion "in remembrance" of him. Can any Christian, with any loaf of bread, by himself without a priest, perform communion with that bread? Will Jesus' flesh become that bread that is of a Christian's choosing?

Jesus would not be the perfect sacrifice, if he broke any of the laws of the Torah. Even if somehow you entertain the crazy notion that being Jesus, he himself was allowed to break any of those Laws, still the disciples could not. The law specifically forbade them from eating blood. If Jesus made them break that law, he'd be a sinner.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-19)

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10)

Modern medicine may not be able to explain the resurrection from the dead, but it sure can tell dead from alive. And we ourselves, being resurrected, will sure be able to tell that we're alive as opposed to dead. In the same way, even if we can't explain the Eucharist, we should be able to tell the bread being Jesus' literal flesh from not being his literal flesh. And if Jesus' direct words were "UNLESS you eat my flesh, you have NO LIFE within you", I'd think this would be very important for Christians to know. What if the Priest fails to summon Jesus into the bread? Then you'd just be eating bread, and not Jesus' flesh, and thus not have life.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

You are getting hung up on the English word remembrance without grasping the full meaning of the Greek text. The Greek word rendered "remembrance," (anamnsis) means, strictly, being prompted to perceive again someone or something you had perceived before, through some likeness or some association. Importantly, what you are prompted to perceive again may exist in the present; it is only your own prior acquaintance which is in the past.

What do you mean 'if the priest fails to summon Jesus...this isn't necromancy. You are still trying to rationally grasp a scientific basis for a miracle, and since you cannot are dismissing the plain reading of Christ's words. I suggest you stop dismissing the parts of the scripture that don't align with a humanistic view.

Also. we don't pray to Mary, so stop bearing false witness on this issue. We ask those among the great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) - who are every bit alive as we are (John 11:26) - to pray for us.

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

---

How do you communicate with anyone who is alive? You talk to them.

curtpenn said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite theologians. I commend his works to all (even though he is Roman Catholic - lol). I've read many of his books. Can't remember where, but I do recall he speculated that all will have an opportunity post mortem to either accept Him or reject Him personally. Short version: this encounter would account for all those who have never heard of Him. All will be judged based on how they manifested whatever portion of grace they had received in life. Definitely in the realm of speculative theology, but I believe there must be something like this.

---

---

---

Above my pay grade, I have enough to worry about my own theosis.

But I will say that purgatory is not a thing in Orthodoxy.

Realitybites said:

---

You are getting hung up on the English word remembrance without grasping the full meaning of the Greek text. The Greek word rendered "remembrance," (anamnsis) means, strictly, being prompted to perceive again someone or something you had perceived before, through some likeness or some association. Importantly, what you are prompted to perceive again may exist in the present; it is only your own prior acquaintance which is in the past.

What do you mean 'if the priest fails to summon Jesus...this isn't necromancy. You are still trying to rationally grasp a scientific basis for a miracle, and since you cannot are dismissing the plain reading of Christ's words. I suggest you stop dismissing the parts of the scripture that don't align with a humanistic view.

Also. we don't pray to Mary, so stop bearing false witness on this issue. We ask those among the great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) - who are every bit alive as we are (John 11:26) - to pray for us.

---

Strong's Concordance:

anamnsis: remembrance

Original Word: , ,
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: anamnsis
Phonetic Spelling: (an-am'-nay-sis)
Definition: remembrance
Usage: a recalling, remembrance, memory.


HELPS Word Studies:

Cognate: 364 anmnsis (from 363 /anamimnsk, "bring to mind") properly, deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice).


Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

STRONGS NT 364:
, , (), a remembering, recollection: to call me (affectionately) to remembrance,

Realitybites said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite theologians. I commend his works to all (even though he is Roman Catholic - lol). I've read many of his books. Can't remember where, but I do recall he speculated that all will have an opportunity post mortem to either accept Him or reject Him personally. Short version: this encounter would account for all those who have never heard of Him. All will be judged based on how they manifested whatever portion of grace they had received in life. Definitely in the realm of speculative theology, but I believe there must be something like this.

---

---

---

Above my pay grade, I have enough to worry about my own theosis.

But I will say that purgatory is not a thing in Orthodoxy.

---

Definitely above my pay grade, but answers many questions in a way I find satisfactory and comforting. As an
Episcopalian who identifies as AngloCatholic, I understand the notion of purgatory but question its existence. In its place, most Anglicans believe we exist in an intermediate state post mortem pre resurrection and judgement. We believe all faithful departed are able to grow in the knowledge and love of God while in this state. Hence, prayers for the dead.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

---

I think we've covered this one.

Quote:

---

What do you mean 'if the priest fails to summon Jesus...this isn't necromancy. You are still trying to rationally grasp a scientific basis for a miracle, and since you cannot are dismissing the plain reading of Christ's words. I suggest you stop dismissing the parts of the scripture that don't align with a humanistic view.

---

Isn't this what Roman Catholics believe, that the priest has to turn the bread into Jesus' literal flesh?

This has nothing to do with me trying to rationally grasp the scientific basis of a miracle. God can do anything. The question is, is what you're saying He's doing, is actually what He is doing? Why do you assert the "plain reading" of Jesus words here, when everywhere else he talks about "eating", "drinking", "food", "water", "hunger" and "thirst" you take his words figuratively and spiritually, not literally? Is Jesus a literal door?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

---

How do you communicate with anyone who is alive? You talk to them.

---

I talk with someone who is physically present where I am. That precludes people who passed on more than a thousand years ago .

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

---

How do you communicate with anyone who is alive? You talk to them.

---

I talk with someone who is physically present where I am. That precludes people who passed on more than a thousand years ago .

---

Really? Again?

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not to be snarky, but how then are you communicating to Mary?

Pretty sure it's not email or cell phone ...

---

I think we've covered this one.

---

Sorry, but I think that post is a duck attempt.

Look, consider the 'Hail Mary'.

For all intents and purposes, that is a prayer, and it is directed to Mary.

Roman Catholics pray to Mary.

Before you think I am conflating praying to Mary with worshipping Mary, I am not.

I am simply being clear about what is happening.

My problem with praying to Mary is this - I understand someone wanting to reconnect with parents, friends, loved ones who have passed on. But reaching out to someone you never actually met, whose culture, language, customs etc. are nothing like your own, that is frankly unwise as I see it.

And I believe you are avoiding the fact that people pray to Mary, because you understand the potential for that going wrong.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Look, consider the 'Hail Mary'.

For all intents and purposes, that is a prayer, and it is directed to Mary.

Roman Catholics pray to Mary.

Before you think I am conflating praying to Mary with worshipping Mary, I am not.

I am simply being clear about what is happening.

My problem with praying to Mary is this - I understand someone wanting to reconnect with parents, friends, loved ones who have passed on. But reaching out to someone you never actually met, whose culture, language, customs etc. are nothing like your own, that is frankly unwise as I see it.

And I believe you are avoiding the fact that people pray to Mary, because you understand the potential for that going wrong.

---

I'm not avoiding anything. I freely admit I incorporate the Ave into my nightly use of an Anglican form of the Rosary. I speak to Mary just as I would speak to my priest, wife, friend, spiritual advisor, etc. That the medium of invocation is different is a distinction with no consequence as far as I'm concerned. If you can't get there from here, then don't worry about it as it certainly isn't a requirement. OTOH, I commend the practice to all as an ongoing aid to personal sanctification. Abuses should never undo right uses.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Look, consider the 'Hail Mary'.

For all intents and purposes, that is a prayer, and it is directed to Mary.

Roman Catholics pray to Mary.

Before you think I am conflating praying to Mary with worshipping Mary, I am not.

I am simply being clear about what is happening.

My problem with praying to Mary is this - I understand someone wanting to reconnect with parents, friends, loved ones who have passed on. But reaching out to someone you never actually met, whose culture, language, customs etc. are nothing like your own, that is frankly unwise as I see it.

And I believe you are avoiding the fact that people pray to Mary, because you understand the potential for that going wrong.

---

I'm not avoiding anything. I freely admit I incorporate the Ave into my nightly use of an Anglican form of the Rosary. I speak to Mary just as I would speak to my priest, wife, friend, spiritual advisor, etc. That the medium of invocation is different is a distinction with no consequence as far as I'm concerned. If you can't get there from here, then don't worry about it as it certainly isn't a requirement. OTOH, I commend the practice to all as an ongoing aid to personal sanctification. Abuses should never undo right uses.

---

Agreed, except that we should be aware of the potential for abuse, and provide for that.

And that of course applies to Protestants as much as Catholics.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't this what Roman Catholics believe, that the priest has to turn the bread into Jesus' literal flesh?

---

The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus at the organic chemistry level. This is not the teaching of the church of the first millennium because the Eucharist predates both atomic theory and organic chemistry. And if there is one thing about Orthodoxy it is an absolute refusal to interpret the ancient faith through a modernist lens.

As far as the priest performing this action, I do not know whether in a Roman Catholic mass this is the action of the priest or the Holy Spirit.

Go back and read the original post. The transformation is a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said it, so we believe it. We don't have to try and explain it any more than we have to explain the technical specifications of the other miracles he performed.

The question for you in 2023 is not how it happens, but whether you will be like the disciples who quit following Him when He said it, or will your response be that of the twelve in John 6:67-68 when Jesus asked them if they would quit following Him as well: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Worth spending some time with:

https://www.anglican.net/works/john-jewel-a-treatise-of-the-sacraments-1583/

"Moreover, we allow the Sacraments of the Church, that is to say, certain holy signs and ceremonies, which Christ would we should use, that by them He might set before our eyes the mysteries of our salvation, and might more strongly confirm our faith which we have in His blood, and might seal His grace in our hearts. And these Sacraments, together with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Basil, Dionysius, and other Catholic fathers, do we call figures, signs, marks or badges, prints, copies, forms, seals, signets, similitudes, patterns, representations, remembrances and memories. And we make no doubt, together with the same doctors, to say, that these be certain visible words, seals of righteousness, tokens of grace: and do expressly pronounce, that in the Lord's Supper there is truly given unto the believing the body and blood of the Lord, the flesh of the Son of God, which quickeneth our souls, the meat that cometh from above, the food of immortality, grace, truth, and life, and the Supper to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ; by the partaking whereof we be revived, we be strengthened, and be fed unto immortality; and whereby we are joined, united, and incorporate unto Christ, that we may abide in Him, and He in us.

Besides, we acknowledge there be two Sacraments, which, we judge, properly ought to be called by this name; that is to say, Baptism and the Sacrament of thanksgiving. For thus many we say were delivered and sanctified by Christ, and well allowed of the old fathers, Ambrose and Augustine." John Jewell

http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

The way that nations are turning on Israel is a clear sign that Christ is about to return.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

---

I suggest you try harder to make correct assertions in your attempts at what you pass off as "inductive reasoning".

" If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture."

No, it doesn't. That's just your opinion.

"If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross."

This "if" followed by your "then" is an incorrect conclusion. His offering at the last supper of His body is not the same thing as what happened on the cross. His death on the cross was the propitiating event.

"And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life."

Jesus did not say if you eat my body you will have eternal life, so this assertion is wrong from its beginning. Again, you are confused about the Eucharist. Study more.

"If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?"

= silly word salad following another faulty "if".

As an Anglican, I am indifferent to Mary's perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, and sinlessness. That said, you cannot "prove" from Holy Scripture that she is not able to intercede on our behalf. Further, as the Mother of God it should be expected that she is due respect and adoration, and could be considered the glory of heaven or queen of heaven if we choose to use that sort of imagery. Of course, it sounds odd to our ears now that there are few kings or queens, but for most of recorded history such usage would make perfect sense.

"Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood?" Irrelevant since Christ and His sacrifice represent a New Covenant that fulfills and replaces the old.

"Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? "

Mere partaking of the elements is not salvific. Again, study the works of Jewell, Hooker, Andrewes, Cranmer, et al, and help yourself out. Sola Scriptura is a myth. We all bring our own interpretations. If you deny this, then you are deluded or a liar.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The way that nations are turning on Israel is a clear sign that Christ is about to return.

---

You should consider letting go of your Dispensationalism. You will only be disappointed at some point. That said, maranatha!

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't this what Roman Catholics believe, that the priest has to turn the bread into Jesus' literal flesh?

---

The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus at the organic chemistry level. This is not the teaching of the church of the first millennium because the Eucharist predates both atomic theory and organic chemistry. And if there is one thing about Orthodoxy it is an absolute refusal to interpret the ancient faith through a modernist lens.

As far as the priest performing this action, I do not know whether in a Roman Catholic mass this is the action of the priest or the Holy Spirit.

Go back and read the original post. The transformation is a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said it, so we believe it. We don't have to try and explain it any more than we have to explain the technical specifications of the other miracles he performed.

The question for you in 2023 is not how it happens, but whether you will be like the disciples who quit following Him when He said it, or will your response be that of the twelve in John 6:67-68 when Jesus asked them if they would quit following Him as well: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

---

I am not asking "how" it happens. You are arguing against something that isn't being argued. I am asking if it is actually what happens. You seem to be arguing that the "plain reading" of the text shows that it is. I am arguing that the plain reading shows that it is figurative, because that would make it consistent with the entire gospel of John, not to mention all of Scripture. If you say that the meaning is literal rather than figurative, then there are logical and scriptural inconsistencies and contradictions. I am asking questions to highlight those inconsistencies and contradictions, but you aren't answering them. You need to be able to validly answer these questions if you are interested in holding valid beliefs.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

---

I suggest you try harder to make correct assertions in your attempts at what you pass off as "inductive reasoning".

" If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture."

No, it doesn't. That's just your opinion.

"If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross."

This "if" followed by your "then" is an incorrect conclusion. His offering at the last supper of His body is not the same thing as what happened on the cross. His death on the cross was the propitiating event.

---

If the offering of Jesus' body at the Last Supper is NOT the same thing as the propitiating event on the cross, then Jesus' words are false when he told them that if they eat his flesh, they will have eternal life. You can not have eternal life, if there is no propitiation.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

---

.......

"And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life."

Jesus did not say if you eat my body you will have eternal life, so this assertion is wrong from its beginning. Again, you are confused about the Eucharist. Study more.

---

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:54)

Study the bible more.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

---

.....

"If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?"

= silly word salad following another faulty "if".

---

Right. So silly and faulty, that you weren't able to answer.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In typical Tarp Dusting fashion, you haven't SHOWN anything other than your invincible ignorance and overwhelming arrogance. You have nothing but your typical begging the question repeated ad nauseam.

You clearly don't understand the Trinity as you deny Christ's humanity via Mary. Inasmuch as God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one per SCRIPTURE, and Christ is fully God and fully man, and Mary imparted her humanity to Jesus, then she is truly the Theotokos. As such, she is worthy of veneration and able to intercede on our behalf, though intercession is by no means limited to Mary.

You also demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Eucharistic Feast/Mass/Communion/Lord's Supper, as believed by most Christians throughout the history of Christ's church and continuing to this day. These beliefs have their origins in first century teaching and are consistent with the teachings re the Last Supper as found in the synoptic gospels. They are also fully consistent with covenantal theology. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast." - Book of Common Prayer via I Cor 5:7-8. At the Eucharist, we are participating in the very room of Christ's own sacrificial offering of Himself in the forms of bread and wine. We partake of Him physically and spiritually both in obedience to His command and for our own sanctification as we re-create His once for all and all time sacrifice. How this is so, I am content to leave as a mystery, but accept on faith.

Mere Memorialism has its roots in a reaction contra Rome that is as much political as it is theological. Not hard to trace this movement to Puritans and thence to our nation's founding as well as to the flourishing of evangelical denominations and the modern phenomenon of so called "Bible" churches. No surprise that those of you who embrace the "priesthood of believers" ultimately have nowhere to stand other than upon your own interpretation of Scripture, however flawed that may be. That others may arrive at a different interpretation and claim their own authority as normative is to be expected. Ultimately it's all turtles all the way down for you, as it is for us all. In any event, you remain a tool of Satan as you needlessly attack the body of Christ.

---

A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan, because a house divided can not stand. If you can not see that those prayers to Mary are idolatrous and heretical, then it's more likely that YOU are of Satan, not I.

"Do this in remembrance of me."

---

"A "tool of Satan" can not work against Satan". Exactly my point. You take issue with something that isn't Roman dogma and endlessly denigrate the largest body of believers ever. It's more likely YOU are of Satan.

"This is my body...this is my blood".

---

For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be Roman dogma to be a carried belief and practice of Roman Catholics. And the Marian dogmas are indeed unbiblical, not to mention idolatrous.

If Jesus was saying that the bread was literally his body, then his body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Hebrews says his body was sacrificed "ONCE for all". And if the bread was literally his body, then according to his literal words, if you eat that bread, you have eternal life. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus just make all the bread given during the feeding of the 5000 and 7000 his body, so that all those people could eat it and get eternal life, regardless of whether or not they believed in him? If fact, wouldn't it have easier for Jesus to make every bread on the globe his body, that way people will unknowingly eat his body and be saved, and that way he could save everyone in the world even if they don't have faith in him? Wouldn't that have been magnitudes easier than having to go the cross and suffer intensely and die, only to still lose people to hell because they don't believe in him?

---

Marian veneration is not "unbiblical". For the umpteenth time, Marian practices of whatever sort are not mutually exclusive with salvation nor do they preclude it. It is adiaphora to the core.

I see a lot of your typical "if" statements tortuously strung together as always. No surprise there. There is no conflict between Jesus saying the bread and wine are his body and blood and Hebrews "ONCE for all" once one has a proper understanding of the Eucharistic Feast. I suggest you study harder and try to learn something rather than continue with your juridical excess. Embrace the mystery. It will do you good, as it is intended to do.

---

Marian "veneration" that promotes the belief that she was sinless, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin are not biblical. Neither is Marian "veneration" that includes praying to her for intercession. Or "devotions"/prayers that call her sovereign, intercessor between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, Co-Mediatrix, or that we should entrust our soul and salvation into her hands.

Those "if" statements are called inductive reasoning. If we assume that your belief that the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, then what logically follows would fail, or be contrary to Scripture. The more logically and scripturally sound belief is that the meaning is figurative. If you'r'e not familiar with basic logic, then that's a fault on you, not me.

If the Last Supper bread was actually Jesus' body, his body was being offered as a sacrifice for the disciples to eat. How does a "proper understanding" of the Eucharist make this consistent with Hebrews 7:27 - "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself." and Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?

Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood? Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? Just to name a few - I could go on.


I suggest you try harder and try to rightly divide the Word of God.

---

As an Anglican, I am indifferent to Mary's perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, and sinlessness. That said, you cannot "prove" from Holy Scripture that she is not able to intercede on our behalf.

---

The argument wasn't whether I can prove she can intercede on our behalf, it was whether this belief was BIBLICAL.

You just aren't very good at this.

Quote:

---

"Not only that, how would this be consistent with the law of Torah, which forbade the eating of blood?" Irrelevant since Christ and His sacrifice represent a New Covenant that fulfills and replaces the old.

---

Think carefully about what you are saying here: if the New Covenant replaced the old during the Last Supper, then you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice took place at the Last Supper. Then if Jesus was sacrificed again at the cross, it was either a second sacrifice, which would falsify Hebrews 7:27 and 10:10, or Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

"Or whether Judas was saved or not, since he ate the bread? Or how all the times where how one gets saved is mentioned, the requirement of eating his literal flesh is never mentioned? Or how the thief on the cross got saved without partaking in the Eucharist? "

Mere partaking of the elements is not salvific. Again, study the works of Jewell, Hooker, Andrewes, Cranmer, et al, and help yourself out. Sola Scriptura is a myth. We all bring our own interpretations. If you deny this, then you are deluded or a liar.

---

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

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

If you say you take Jesus at his literal word, and deny these, then you are deluded or a liar.

curtpenn said:

---

I've read many of his books. Can't remember where, but I do recall he speculated that all will have an opportunity post mortem to either accept Him (Christ) or reject Him personally. Short version: this encounter would account for all those who have never heard of Him. All will be judged based on how they manifested whatever portion of grace they had received in life. Definitely in the realm of speculative theology, but I believe there must be something like this.

---

Please double check that Peter Kreeft comment. He's written close to a 100 books, is a brilliant theologian, and at 86 still has a mind that's a sharp as a tack.

Having said that, the belief that one gets a postmortem chance at redemption is completely against Catholic and, I would guess, Protestant theology.

Kreeft is as solid and orthodox Catholic as can be. I would struggle to believe that he held this belief.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Jan Hus? I thought you were going to provide some great example from earlier in the 1st millennia, not a so-called proto-reformer from the 15th century.

Irrespective, Jan, a Catholic priest, was found guilty of heresy by the Church, but executed by the state (but we're splitting hairs here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

This is your FALLIBLE opinion of John 6. It does not square with scripture, tradition, or history.

Why should I trust your FALLIBLE opinion over those less than 100 years away from the Source?