Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Realitybites said:

---

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.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Realitybites said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

St Augustine on Christmas Day

He was also the Word. Him whom the heavens cannot contain, the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our Ruler; she carried Him in whom we are; she gave milk to our Bread.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Hail Mary is quoting scripture: Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:41-42."

Those verses only say Mary is 'blessed among women'. It never says or implies you should pray to her.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

This is NOT correct. ALL of the ACCIDENTS remain the same. The SUBSTANCE changes...

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Hail Mary is quoting scripture: Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:41-42."

Those verses only say Mary is 'blessed among women'. It never says or implies you should pray to her.

---

What do you mean by "pray to her"?

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Hail Mary is quoting scripture: Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:41-42."

Those verses only say Mary is 'blessed among women'. It never says or implies you should pray to her.

---

What do you mean by "pray to her"?

---

I already answered that. You reach out to Mary in exactly the same way you reach out to our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot reach her by phone, mail, email, chat et cetera.

And I have made clear that praying to Mary is not the same as worshipping her, but you need to be honest about how you are reaching to her.

And because praying to Mary is the same as praying to anyone else, there is real danger of some crossing that line and changing respect for the lady into worship of her.

Asking Mary for the things we should ask from God is a warning sign.

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

The "great cloud of witnesses" tells us that there are those able to see and hear us, and by inference are able to intercede on our behalf.

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Hail Mary is quoting scripture: Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:41-42."

Those verses only say Mary is 'blessed among women'. It never says or implies you should pray to her.

---

What do you mean by "pray to her"?

---

I already answered that. You reach out to Mary in exactly the same way you reach out to our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot reach her by phone, mail, email, chat et cetera.

And I have made clear that praying to Mary is not the same as worshipping her, but you need to be honest about how you are reaching to her.

And because praying to Mary is the same as praying to anyone else, there is real danger of some crossing that line and changing respect for the lady into worship of her.

Asking Mary for the things we should ask from God is a warning sign.

---

As you undoubtedly know and as been discussed repeatedly here within this very topic, there are many who see no distinction between "praying to" and talking to. That you choose to define your terms differently doesn't change anything for anyone. I'm going to speculate that no one will be cast into eternal darkness because they venerated Mary or invoked those who have gone before. Further, it is possible to speculate that many have come to Christ and/or strengthened their walk of faith as a consequence of their interactions with the great cloud of witnesses. If you believe that somehow your faith is degraded by these practices then don't engage in them.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

The "great cloud of witnesses" tells us that there are those able to see and hear us, and by inference are able to intercede on our behalf.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

"You can not have eternal life, if there is no propitiation." This is correct. The propitiation is His life, not His pre-crucifixion institution of the Eucharist.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

So you are finally getting around to answering my many requests at letting us all know what you take to be salvific and you are saying taking Communion/eating the literal flesh of Christ and drinking of His
blood qualifies one for salvation?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

We *are* surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, not will be.

Disregarding scripture that doesn't line up with scientific human reasoning is the core of humanism.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it still makes no sense to reach out to someone you never actually knew, from a different time, culture and language.

---

So what is your plan for when you get to heaven?

---

In Heaven, I will greet people and get to know them just as I do here on Earth. I cannot do so now because those people are separated from Earth.

I thought that was obvious.

---

Well, not obvious to someone who believes Hebrews 12:1 but intellectually consistent with a humanist philosophy that says Christians die.

---

Odd. Here is Hebrews 12:1 :

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, "

Not one word of that supports your post.

And hey, nice personal shot calling me a 'humanist'. Hint boyo, humanists do not quote Scripture.

Be better.

---

We *are* surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, not will be.

Disregarding scripture that doesn't line up with scientific human reasoning is the core of humanism.

---