Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for your post Coke Bear, but I have two problems with that statement.

First, the concept of separating sins into 'mortal' and 'veinal' certainly looks to be an invention of the RCC, and dangerous one. Sctipture warns that any sin can lead to destruction, and while there is a specific kind of sin mentioned by Christ, he called it 'unforgiveable' so there is no coming back from it/

---

Thanks for your post. If we think logically about the nature of sin, (I chuckle typing that, because sin is NOT logical, but I digress.) we sin that some sins are less than others. For instance, lying is a sin. Me lying about something taste of something that someone cooked, to spare they're feelings, is a lie (bearing false witness). If I lied in court (bearing false witness) and sent a person to prison for life, that would be a grave sin.

In 1 John 5:16, he states that "there is sin that is NOT deadly." That would be venial sin.

In Matt 5:19, Jesus says,
"Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That gives us a look at venial sin. We still remain "in the kingdom." Jesus shows an example a few verses later in 5:22
"… whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

Then he punctuates with a further example of mortal sin in verses 28-29
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."

I realize that few here will accept the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church); however, I post what it says about mortal & venial sin for a better understanding of what the Church teaches us about the differences:
[1855] Mortal Sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God… by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, though it offends and wounds it.
[1861] Mortal sin… results in… the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell…
[1862] One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.
[1863] Venial sin weakens charity… and… merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However, venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace, it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently, eternal happiness."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, I really worry when someone treats reconciliation with God as if it were on the same level as getting your car serviced.

'Oh, I have a sin, I better go to confession and get that fixed'

Trivializes the matter to me and I have seen a lot of people who seem to treat their sins that casually. It's also the problem I have with Once Saved Always Saved; it leads some people to imagine that as long as they are 'in the club' it does not matter how they speak and act.

That way lies great peril.

---

I understand your point. I would agree that some people may treat confession like this.

I have a very good friend who, while living in Alaska, would go out every weekend and commit a particular sin. She would go to confession, received absolution, go to communion, and do it all over again next weekend.

After several weeks of the same thing, the priest refused to give her absolution, stating that she wasn't truly repentant. He told her to come back in a few weeks when she had truly thought and prayed about this particular sin and return with a contrite heart. It broke her and she left in tears. She realized what she had been doing. She wasn't able to receive the Eucharist for those weeks. After a few weeks, she came back with a firm purpose of amendment and she was able to break out of that cycle and avoid that sin forever.

Going to confession helps us cleanse the soul of mortal (and venial) sin and it also provides us graces to help to refrain from sinning.

I go about once a month. I want to go about every two weeks, because I need those graces. I can tell when I haven't been to confession, I'm a little shorter with my family or I may snap at them more. After my confessions, I always receive this new feeling of clarity. Why, because sin makes you stupid. Once my soul is clean again, I feel better equipped to fight those spiritual battles.

I wasn't requesting quotes about the Eucharist being a symbol. While the Catholic Church has ALWAYS affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it also acknowledges symbolic aspects. The Eucharist is described as a "sign" and "symbol" (CCC 1148, 1412), reflecting its dual nature. This understanding aligns with the "both/and" approach, recognizing both the literal and symbolic dimensions.

What I was asking you to defend with Church fathers was your "'trogo'" being the suffering of his body and the 'taking in' was the breaking down our food …" gibberish eisegesis that you typed.

Let's look at other quotes from the same fathers -

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Tertullian (155-220 AD): "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, 'This is My body,' that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (Against Marcion, 4.40).

---

You're misunderstanding Tertullian here. He is affirming the reality of his body.
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD): "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood" (The Instructor, 2.2)

---

Later in the same chapter he affirms the Real Presence
"Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Origen (185-253): "We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist" (Against Celsus, 8.57)

---

"Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink' [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Cyprian (200258): "I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ" (Epistle 63.7)

---

And yet Cyprian discusses St Paul admonishing those who eat and drink unworthily
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 1516 [A.D. 251]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Eusebius of Caesarea (263340): "For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk" (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.7680)

---

"Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself."
Eusebius is saying that Christians shouldn't "fall back upon the first beggarly elements" (the mere bread and wine). Those are the symbols. The truth is the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Athanasius (296-373): "[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him." (Festal Letter, 4.19)

---

Anthansius - You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. […] Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine and thus His Body is confected.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Augustine: "Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood" (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)...... "He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood." (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).....
"'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

---

I'll add this third quote from Augustine to his list …
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ"

In conclusion again, the Church will argue that the Eucharist BOTH contains a symbolic nature AND the Real Presence body, blood, soul, & divinity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Let's back up and look at the words of Paul writing to the Corinthians in his first epistle 10:16

" Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

Of course, he then affirms it again in 1 Cor 27-30

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

From Carlo Broussard, "The phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder. This language appears in the Old Testament, when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom): "you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you" (Ezek. 35:27)."

One cannot be "guilty" of killing a symbol.BusyTarpDuster201

---

- You're presupposing Paul is referring to them in literal terms, the same way you are with Jesus.

- Paul didn't say "guilty of blood", he said "guilty of sinning against the blood of the Lord".

---

You are reading around the scriptures.

You are arguing a distinction without a difference here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

---

The only obfuscation is your stubbornness to understand that one can lose salvation.

We would both agree that sanctifying grace is a free, unmerited gift.

We can reject God's gift.

Jesus, himself, tells us this in parable of the Prodigal Son. The son rejects the father's grace and falls away.

He repents and comes back into the father's good grace again.

Luke 15:24 "for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."

If one receives the Eucharist and everlasting life. BUT later they can reject God's gift by falling away or committing a mortal sin. If one repents, he can obtain everlasting life again.

It's not a difficult concept when one looks at ALL of scripture, not just selective passages out of context.

Coke Bear said:

---

I wasn't requesting quotes about the Eucharist being a symbol. While the Catholic Church has ALWAYS affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it also acknowledges symbolic aspects. The Eucharist is described as a "sign" and "symbol" (CCC 1148, 1412), reflecting its dual nature. This understanding aligns with the "both/and" approach, recognizing both the literal and symbolic dimensions.

What I was asking you to defend with Church fathers was your "'trogo'" being the suffering of his body and the 'taking in' was the breaking down our food …" gibberish eisegesis that you typed.

Let's look at other quotes from the same fathers -

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Tertullian (155-220 AD): "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, 'This is My body,' that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (Against Marcion, 4.40).

---

You're misunderstanding Tertullian here. He is affirming the reality of his body.
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD): "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood" (The Instructor, 2.2)

---

Later in the same chapter he affirms the Real Presence
"Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Origen (185-253): "We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist" (Against Celsus, 8.57)

---

"Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink' [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Cyprian (200258): "I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ" (Epistle 63.7)

---

And yet Cyprian discusses St Paul admonishing those who eat and drink unworthily
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 1516 [A.D. 251]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Eusebius of Caesarea (263340): "For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk" (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.7680)

---

"Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself."
Eusebius is saying that Christians shouldn't "fall back upon the first beggarly elements" (the mere bread and wine). Those are the symbols. The truth is the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Athanasius (296-373): "[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him." (Festal Letter, 4.19)

---

Anthansius - You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. […] Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine and thus His Body is confected.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Augustine: "Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood" (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)...... "He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood." (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).....
"'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

---

I'll add this third quote from Augustine to his list …
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ"

In conclusion again, the Church will argue that the Eucharist BOTH contains a symbolic nature AND the Real Presence body, blood, soul, & divinity.

---

I gave you early church father quotes about it being a symbol and not literal. I gave you my understanding of what Jesus means by eating his flesh, that it was symbolic and not literal. My understanding is not at all out of bounds from what the early church fathers believed, as shown.

In all your retorts about the church father quotes I provided, you are operating with circular logic: you presuppose that every time they say the bread IS Jesus' flesh they are being literal - even when they had just told you that they are speaking symbolically and/or spiritually (just like Jesus did in John 6). In the Eusebius quote you provided, "containing the truth itself" doesn't mean that the bread is the "real presence", it's saying the truth that the symbol contains is that Jesus truly sacrificed his body for our sins, and that we must remember that while we eat, that it's not just eating the "beggarly elements" of bread, it's the true meaning behind it. Tertullian was arguing against Docetism, which said that Jesus did not have a physical body. He's arguing that the bread is a symbol of Jesus' body, and symbols can not be symbolic of something that doesn't actually exist. He's not saying that Jesus' had a real body, and that it's in the bread. When he says the bread IS Jesus' body, he's just speaking symbolically - he had just told you it was a symbol.

Something can't be both the actual thing and also a symbol of the actual thing. This is just double-talk nonsense in order get out of contradictions, like "both/and". Your body is your body - your body isn't a symbol of your body.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Let's back up and look at the words of Paul writing to the Corinthians in his first epistle 10:16

" Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

Of course, he then affirms it again in 1 Cor 27-30

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

From Carlo Broussard, "The phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder. This language appears in the Old Testament, when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom): "you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you" (Ezek. 35:27)."

One cannot be "guilty" of killing a symbol.BusyTarpDuster201

---

- You're presupposing Paul is referring to them in literal terms, the same way you are with Jesus.

- Paul didn't say "guilty of blood", he said "guilty of sinning against the blood of the Lord".

---

You are reading around the scriptures.

You are arguing a distinction without a difference here.

---

I'm not reading around anything. You are reading INTO the scriptures your presuppositions.

And there is definitely a difference between being "guilty OF blood" and being "guilty of sinning against the blood". If you can't see the difference there, it just shows how strong your presuppositions are.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

---

The only obfuscation is your stubbornness to understand that one can lose salvation.

We would both agree that sanctifying grace is a free, unmerited gift.

We can reject God's gift.

Jesus, himself, tells us this in parable of the Prodigal Son. The son rejects the father's grace and falls away.

He repents and comes back into the father's good grace again.

Luke 15:24 "for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."

If one receives the Eucharist and everlasting life. BUT later they can reject God's gift by falling away or committing a mortal sin. If one repents, he can obtain everlasting life again.

It's not a difficult concept when one looks at ALL of scripture, not just selective passages out of context.

---

So, what you're telling me is that you don't have a way to get around your contradiction of Jesus' own literal and direct words. So who's really the one "reading around the scriptures"?

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I gave you early church father quotes about it being a symbol and not literal. I gave you my understanding of what Jesus means by eating his flesh, that it was symbolic and not literal. My understanding is not at all out of bounds from what the early church fathers believed, as shown.

In all your retorts about the church father quotes I provided, you are operating with circular logic: you presuppose that every time they say the bread IS Jesus' flesh they are being literal - even when they had just told you that they are speaking symbolically and/or spiritually (just like Jesus did in John 6). In the Eusebius quote you provided, "containing the truth itself" doesn't mean that the bread is the "real presence", it's saying the truth that the symbol contains is that Jesus truly sacrificed his body for our sins, and that we must remember that while we eat, that it's not just eating the "beggarly elements" of bread, it's the true meaning behind it. Tertullian was arguing against Docetism, which said that Jesus did not have a physical body. He's arguing that the bread is a symbol of Jesus' body, and symbols can not be symbolic of something that doesn't actually exist. He's not saying that Jesus' had a real body, and that it's in the bread. When he says the bread IS Jesus' body, he's just speaking symbolically - he had just told you it was a symbol.

---

Look at John 6:61-66 carefully this time:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

If he "explained" it to them, why did they leave? Why did Jesus ask if the others were going to leave too?

Why should I trust your interpretation when it doesn't follow logically according to the Gospel?

The fact remains that the Church has ALWAYS taught that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

This is proven by Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107 or 110 and again as early as AD 151 with Justin Martyr:

"And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."


Here Justin is stating that in order to partake in the Eucharist, one must do two things:

a) believe the teachings are true.
b) be baptized

The first person to even question this was Berengar of Tours in the 11th century. He didn't doubt the Real Presence, but he believe that the bread and wine remained after consecration. The next people to doubt the existence was Luther and Zwingli.

The believe remained unchallenged for 1500 years until the Protestant rebellion.

If you doubt me, ask Google how long the Church has been believed in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Something can't be both the actual thing and also a symbol of the actual thing. This is just double-talk nonsense in order get out of contradictions, like "both/and". Your body is your body - your body isn't a symbol of your body.

---

It is symbolic because the accidents remain (color, shape, texture, etc.) while the substance (the Real Presence) is changed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not reading around anything. You are reading INTO the scriptures your presuppositions.

And there is definitely a difference between being "guilty OF blood" and being "guilty of sinning against the blood". If you can't see the difference there, it just shows how strong your presuppositions are.

---

You would have a great career in Contract Law.

The WHOLE point on Paul's passage is that eating and drinking unworthily, those that are doing so are guilty of sinning against God (his body and blood.)

If it was just a symbol, you can't be guilty. A picture of a person is a symbol of them. When Sinead O'Conner ripped up a picture of John Paul II (Happy JPII Feast Day - Oct 22 btw), she wasn't guilty of committing a crime. When Mehmet Ali Aca shot JPII on May 13, 1981 (The feast day of Our Lady of Fatima) he was guilty of attempted murder.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, what you're telling me is that you don't have a way to get around your contradiction of Jesus' own literal and direct words. So who's really the one "reading around the scriptures"?

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

---

Bless your heart. You are hung up on this. Christ can give someone Eternal life, but they can reject it.

There is some debate about whether Judas Iscariot part took of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. What do you say? If he DID, did he still go to Heaven after betraying Jesus?

Second point to consider ...

Imagine someone gave you 100 billion dollars, more that you could ever spend. You could have it for a while or even a lifetime, but if you rejected it at some point, you would no longer have it.

This is the same concept. Jesus can give Eternal life. We can reject it. Is the logic wrong?

I would ask others to chime in here as well. I'd like to hear their opinions.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous". If it isn't God's inerrant word, then you are distinctly saying that it is corrupt. Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I gave you early church father quotes about it being a symbol and not literal. I gave you my understanding of what Jesus means by eating his flesh, that it was symbolic and not literal. My understanding is not at all out of bounds from what the early church fathers believed, as shown.

In all your retorts about the church father quotes I provided, you are operating with circular logic: you presuppose that every time they say the bread IS Jesus' flesh they are being literal - even when they had just told you that they are speaking symbolically and/or spiritually (just like Jesus did in John 6). In the Eusebius quote you provided, "containing the truth itself" doesn't mean that the bread is the "real presence", it's saying the truth that the symbol contains is that Jesus truly sacrificed his body for our sins, and that we must remember that while we eat, that it's not just eating the "beggarly elements" of bread, it's the true meaning behind it. Tertullian was arguing against Docetism, which said that Jesus did not have a physical body. He's arguing that the bread is a symbol of Jesus' body, and symbols can not be symbolic of something that doesn't actually exist. He's not saying that Jesus' had a real body, and that it's in the bread. When he says the bread IS Jesus' body, he's just speaking symbolically - he had just told you it was a symbol.

---

Look at John 6:61-66 carefully this time:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

If he "explained" it to them, why did they leave? Why did Jesus ask if the others were going to leave too?

Why should I trust your interpretation when it doesn't follow logically according to the Gospel?

The fact remains that the Church has ALWAYS taught that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

This is proven by Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107 or 110 and again as early as AD 151 with Justin Martyr:

"And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."


Here Justin is stating that in order to partake in the Eucharist, one must do two things:

a) believe the teachings are true.
b) be baptized

The first person to even question this was Berengar of Tours in the 11th century. He didn't doubt the Real Presence, but he believe that the bread and wine remained after consecration. The next people to doubt the existence was Luther and Zwingli.

The believe remained unchallenged for 1500 years until the Protestant rebellion.

If you doubt me, ask Google how long the Church has been believed in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Something can't be both the actual thing and also a symbol of the actual thing. This is just double-talk nonsense in order get out of contradictions, like "both/and". Your body is your body - your body isn't a symbol of your body.

---

It is symbolic because the accidents remain (color, shape, texture, etc.) while the substance (the Real Presence) is changed.

---

You are assuming wrong things about Jesus' disciples leaving him after that teaching:

1) that they left him because of the "eating of his flesh" part, and not the "ascending into heaven" part. Jesus said in that passage that there were disciples who didn't believe, and he said it after he talked about ascending to heaven - they apparently only believed in him being the earthly Messiah, not one who is divine, i.e. "ascend to where he was before". So it makes perfectly logical sense for the disciples to have left him for that reason.

2) that the disciples took Jesus to mean they had to eat his literal flesh, and Jesus allowing them to leave necessarily means that their understanding was correct. Jesus said that he was going to speak "in parables" and symbolically: "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" (Matthew 13:13). You also might be assuming that by Jesus letting them leave, it means they wouldn't gain the true understanding of his words (and verification of them, by his death, resurrection, and ascension) later or even after it's all happened, and follow him again. Remember, at this time, NO ONE knew that Jesus was going to be killed, resurrected, and ascended.

So this all perfectly follows logic. The problem in logic is actually with your interpretation, because it involves non sequiturs, as explained.

You are also making the wrong assumption that just because a certain belief may have originated in the early church, that it is a correct belief. The early church fathers were fallible human beings, like you and me. And the church fathers are NOT scripture. There were early church fathers who believed the Eucharist was symbolic, too. There wasn't full agreement in the early church in many areas, such as what we demonstrated with the issue of the Old Testament canon. Early origins does not necessarily mean correct. Besides, we can demonstrate that Marian dogmas and icon veneration lacked early church origin, yet Catholics dogmatically hold to these beliefs, so what's the validity of early church origin to Catholics?

Even if the "accidents" remain, it still IS the substance, therefore it can't be a symbol. Symbols do not have the actual substance of what they represent, not at all. If I were to take a piece of someone's skin and let it sit for months, it would change in color, shape, and texture, and look nothing like the original skin when first taken. Yet, it isn't a "symbol" of their skin, it will still be, and always will be, that person's actual skin.

And among the early church fathers I quoted who referred to it as a "symbol" - where did they say anything about "accidents" and "substance"?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not reading around anything. You are reading INTO the scriptures your presuppositions.

And there is definitely a difference between being "guilty OF blood" and being "guilty of sinning against the blood". If you can't see the difference there, it just shows how strong your presuppositions are.

---

You would have a great career in Contract Law.

The WHOLE point on Paul's passage is that eating and drinking unworthily, those that are doing so are guilty of sinning against God (his body and blood.)

If it was just a symbol, you can't be guilty. A picture of a person is a symbol of them. When Sinead O'Conner ripped up a picture of John Paul II (Happy JPII Feast Day - Oct 22 btw), she wasn't guilty of committing a crime. When Mehmet Ali Aca shot JPII on May 13, 1981 (The feast day of Our Lady of Fatima) he was guilty of attempted murder.

---

So, you do concede that "guilty OF blood" has a completely different connotation and meaning than "guilty of sinning against the blood"? You seem to be conceding it here, but I want to be sure.

Yes, of course you can be "guilty" when doing something to a symbol rather than the actual thing. You can be guilty of a certain attitude, fomenting disrespect or rebellion, etc.

Seriously, this isn't that difficult, if you'd just let go of your presuppositions and treat the text objectively and fair-mindedly.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, what you're telling me is that you don't have a way to get around your contradiction of Jesus' own literal and direct words. So who's really the one "reading around the scriptures"?

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

---

Bless your heart. You are hung up on this. Christ can give someone Eternal life, but they can reject it.

There is some debate about whether Judas Iscariot part took of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. What do you say? If he DID, did he still go to Heaven after betraying Jesus?

Second point to consider ...

Imagine someone gave you 100 billion dollars, more that you could ever spend. You could have it for a while or even a lifetime, but if you rejected it at some point, you would no longer have it.

This is the same concept. Jesus can give Eternal life. We can reject it. Is the logic wrong?

I would ask others to chime in here as well. I'd like to hear their opinions.

---

The question about Judas should point squarely at YOU. If Judas did eat the bread, then based on your belief, isn't he in heaven? The scripture indicates that he did not.

Your analogy is flawed. It is a category error. You are comparing eternal life (duration of something) with an object (physical presence of something). A more apt analogy would be where you are TOLD that you will be a billionaire for life, but you give away all your money, which means you ended up NOT being a billionaire for life, which would thus falsify their words.

Likewise, if Jesus says a person HAS eternal life, it means that person's life is eternal from then on. If that person were able to LOSE that eternal life, it would mean they would not live eternally but rather they'd die at some point. This would invariably mean that Jesus' words were falsified. Jesus telling you that you HAVE eternal life is the same thing as him telling you that you will live for an eternity. If you end up NOT living eternally, then his words are false.

Jesus can OFFER eternal life, and we can reject that offer. But if Jesus GIVES you eternal life, and you now HAVE it, then it can't end, otherwise it was never eternal life to begin with.

Quote:

---

Jesus telling you that you HAVE eternal life is the same thing as him telling you that you will live for an eternity. If you end up NOT living eternally, then his words are false.

---

God gave Adam and Eve eternal earthly and spiritual life. They listened to Satan and chose both earthly and spiritual suicide. Likewise, Christ offers us eternal life. We also can walk away and commit spirtual suicide.

Let's set aside questions of how for a moment. In the end, what determines whether we get into heaven or not? Quite simply this:

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15).

You are in the book, you are in. You are not in the book, you are spending eternity in a place hotter than Waco in August. Is that at least a point of agreement?

The problem is that your OSAS viewpoint leads you to believe that once your name is written, it is there permanently when the Bible clearly states at least three times that God erases names from it.

"May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous. "
Psalm 69:28

"Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book."
Exodus 32:33

[Jesus speaking]
"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."
Revelation 3:5

It is pretty clear that God has a big eraser.

Also, let us look at John 3:36, the verse where you focus exclusively on the meaning of has.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

Obedience is an ongoing process. Feeding our souls through the eucharist is an ongoing process. There are no contradictions in that view. The contradiction is OSAS.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Jesus telling you that you HAVE eternal life is the same thing as him telling you that you will live for an eternity. If you end up NOT living eternally, then his words are false.

---

God gave Adam and Eve eternal earthly and spiritual life. They listened to Satan and chose both earthly and spiritual suicide. Likewise, Christ offers us eternal life. We also can walk away and commit spirtual suicide.

Let's set aside questions of how for a moment. In the end, what determines whether we get into heaven or not? Quite simply this:

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15).

You are in the book, you are in. You are not in the book, you are spending eternity in a place hotter than Waco in August. Is that at least a point of agreement?

The problem is that your OSAS viewpoint leads you to believe that once your name is written, it is there permanently when the Bible clearly states at least three times that God erases names from it.

"May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous. "
Psalm 69:28

"Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book."
Exodus 32:33

[Jesus speaking]
"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."
Revelation 3:5

It is pretty clear that God has a big eraser.

Also, let us look at John 3:36, the verse where you focus exclusively on the meaning of has.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

Obedience is an ongoing process. Feeding our souls through the eucharist is an ongoing process. There are no contradictions in that view. The contradiction is OSAS.

---

Yes, I agree that scripture says if your name is written in the Lamb's book of life, then you have eternal life, i.e. you are saved.

But what you are not showing anywhere, is that if you are saved, then you can have your name blotted out afterwards. In the Old Testament, they were under the Law so they could have their name blotted out by sinning. Now we are under grace through Jesus Christ, and those who are true believers have their name in the book of life. Jesus says he won't ever blot out the names of those "who conquer" - they are the true believers who keep on believing.

Think of it this way - everyone who is born has their name in the book of life to start. You then get blotted out by transgressions, unless your faith is in Jesus who covers your transgressions, then your name remains. As long as you stay believing in him, then your name "never gets blotted out". You're actually giving evidence for once saved always saved.

The Greek word for "not obey" in John 3:36 is apeithe. Apeithe means to disbelieve, to reject, to refuse to believe. It's a word that's used fourteen times in the NT. Here are some examples:

"But the Jews who refused to believe [apeithe] stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers." - Acts 14:12

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth [apeithe] and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." - Romans 2:8

"And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief [apeithe] speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.[url=https://biblehub.com/esv/acts/19.htm#footnotes][/url]" - Acts 19:8-9

And as a final note, you still have not dealt with your contradiction:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

If the Eucharist is eating the literal flesh of Jesus, then according to Jesus anyone who eats, or "continues" to eat, even if they aren't even a believer, has eternal life. Obviously, this can't be true, therefore your literal interpretation of eating Jesus' flesh can't be correct. If it was, then the whole world can be saved by feeding them the bread from the Eucharist, regardless of what a person believes. Obviously, "eating Jesus' flesh" has to be related to something about that person's belief and faith.

Quote:

---

Obviously, "eating Jesus' flesh" has to be related to something about that person's belief and faith.

---

Of course. The Bible clearly states that there are those who partake unto damnation. I've never made the case that it isn't. That's why for the overwhelming majority of Christian history, closed communion was a thing to the point that non-Christians were dismissed from the service before the eucharist was given. But the very fact that you can partake unto damnation proves that there is something far more significant than a memorial service going on in the eating and drinking of the eucharist.

Quote:

---

Jesus says he won't ever blot out the names of those "who conquer" - they are the true believers who keep on believing.

---

They are the true believers who pick up their cross and follow him. Note that he said those who conquer, not those who believe. Regardless, we've at least gotten you to the point that you admit a Christian's name can be erased from the Book of Life, that "keeping on believing" is a thing (which in and of itself is a ongoing lifelong process), thereby disproving OSAS. That's an enormous step for most evangelicals to take.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously, "eating Jesus' flesh" has to be related to something about that person's belief and faith.

---

Of course. The Bible clearly states that there are those who partake unto damnation. I've never made the case that it isn't. That's why for the overwhelming majority of Christian history, closed communion was a thing to the point that non-Christians were dismissed from the service before the eucharist was given.

Quote:

---

Jesus says he won't ever blot out the names of those "who conquer" - they are the true believers who keep on believing.

---

They are the true believers who pick up their cross and follow him. Note that he said those who conquer, not those who believe. Regardless, we've at least gotten you to the point that you admit a Christian's name can be erased from the Book of Life, that "keeping on believing" is a thing (which in and of itself is a ongoing lifelong process), thereby disproving OSAS. That's an enormous step for most evangelicals to take.

---

Aren't you a believer in the position that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus?

And no, I never said that a true believer's name can be erased from the book of life. I specifically said that you haven't shown in scripture where that can happen. Did you not read my post? True believers are ones who keep on believing. If they stop believing, then they were never true believers. This is supported by scripture (1 John 2:19)

Quote:

---

Aren't you a believer in the position that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus?

---

That's the Roman Catholic position of "transubstantiation"...that the body and blood and literally transformed into the flesh and blood at an atomic level. This was established as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 A.D, 154 years after that church was established.

This is not the position of the church of the first millenium.

"none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes placebut that it is merely a reference to our Lord being "truly, really, and substantially" present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension."

and

"In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God"

Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow

Basically, Jesus said "this is my body, this is my blood" and some who refused to accept that left Him. We're not going to leave Him, and we will take him at his word, but the technical aspects of how Jesus is present in the Eucharist is as much a mystery to us as how a man dead for 3 days can walk out of his grave.

One of the many things American Christians (and I include myself in that category before I started digging around) is that neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism are in any way representative of the Church of the first 1000 years after Christ. In some ways it is closer to Luther's position than Rome.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Aren't you a believer in the position that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus?

---

That's the Roman Catholic position of "transubstantiation"...that the body and blood and literally transformed into the flesh and blood at an atomic level. This was established as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 A.D, 154 years after that church was established.

This is not the position of the church of the first millenium.

"none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes placebut that it is merely a reference to our Lord being "truly, really, and substantially" present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension."

and

"In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God"

Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow

Basically, Jesus said "this is my body, this is my blood" and some who refused to accept that left Him. We're not going to leave Him, and we will take him at his word, but the technical aspects of how Jesus is present in the Eucharist is as much a mystery to us as how a man dead for 3 days can walk out of his grave.

One of the many things American Christians (and I include myself in that category before I started digging around) is that neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism are in any way representative of the Church of the first 1000 years after Christ. In some ways it is closer to Luther's position than Rome.

---

So, you DO, then, believe the Eucharist bread is the actual flesh of Jesus.

The question is, then, why do you take "eating Jesus' flesh" to be figurative/symbolic but you take "this is my body" literally? There isn't consistency here. If the former is symbolic, why isn't the latter?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you DO, then, believe the Eucharist bread is the actual flesh of Jesus.

The question is, then, why do you take "eating Jesus' flesh" to be figurative/symbolic but you take "this is my body" literally? There isn't consistency here. If the former is symbolic, why isn't the latter?

---

The teaching of the church of the first millenium is neither that the eucharist is symboilc (an innovation that dates to around 1515 A.D.), nor that what is served is human flesh and blood at a biochemical level (an innovation that dates to 1215 A.D.). It is merely that Jesus said that this is His body and blood, we accept that at face value, and in our human understanding are incapable of understanding how He is present in it.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you DO, then, believe the Eucharist bread is the actual flesh of Jesus.

The question is, then, why do you take "eating Jesus' flesh" to be figurative/symbolic but you take "this is my body" literally? There isn't consistency here. If the former is symbolic, why isn't the latter?

---

The teaching of the church of the first millenium is neither that the eucharist is symboilc (an innovation that dates to around 1515 A.D.), nor that what is served is human flesh and blood at a biochemical level (an innovation that dates to 1215 A.D.). It is merely that Jesus said that this is His body and blood, we accept that at face value, and in our human understanding are incapable of understanding how He is present in it.

---

First of all, it isn't an innovation that dates to the 16th century. I literally posted quotes from early church fathers from the 2nd century who referred to it as a symbol. Forgive me, but you really seem to have selective way of looking at church history, similar to what you did with the history of the Old Testament canon, repeatedly saying the Protestant canon was a 15th century innovation even after I provided extensive historical evidence showing it to be even earlier than the Catholic canon.

The question remains, then, why do you accept the statement "this is my body" at face value... but not the statement "whoever eats my flesh..."?? The inconsistency is still there. You seem to be just picking and choosing which to take literal and which not to. That is not very solid hermaneutics.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you DO, then, believe the Eucharist bread is the actual flesh of Jesus.

The question is, then, why do you take "eating Jesus' flesh" to be figurative/symbolic but you take "this is my body" literally? There isn't consistency here. If the former is symbolic, why isn't the latter?

---

The teaching of the church of the first millenium is neither that the eucharist is symboilc (an innovation that dates to around 1515 A.D.), nor that what is served is human flesh and blood at a biochemical level (an innovation that dates to 1215 A.D.). It is merely that Jesus said that this is His body and blood, we accept that at face value, and in our human understanding are incapable of understanding how He is present in it.

---

....and I have to add the fact that xfrodobagginsx is probably perplexed by this post, as he's been hammering the fact that Jesus himself had explained that it was symbolic, and he's correct. That would make your claim that the idea is a 16th century innovation truly perplexing indeed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous".Yes, I did.

If it isn't God's inerrant word, It is not an inerrant word.

Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point. Your Baptist upbringing apparently has made you blind to how the Bible came to be.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not reading around anything. You are reading INTO the scriptures your presuppositions.

And there is definitely a difference between being "guilty OF blood" and being "guilty of sinning against the blood". If you can't see the difference there, it just shows how strong your presuppositions are.

---

You would have a great career in Contract Law.

The WHOLE point on Paul's passage is that eating and drinking unworthily, those that are doing so are guilty of sinning against God (his body and blood.)

If it was just a symbol, you can't be guilty. A picture of a person is a symbol of them. When Sinead O'Conner ripped up a picture of John Paul II (Happy JPII Feast Day - Oct 22 btw), she wasn't guilty of committing a crime. When Mehmet Ali Aca shot JPII on May 13, 1981 (The feast day of Our Lady of Fatima) he was guilty of attempted murder.

---

So, you do concede that "guilty OF blood" has a completely different connotation and meaning than "guilty of sinning against the blood"? You seem to be conceding it here, but I want to be sure.

Yes, of course you can be "guilty" when doing something to a symbol rather than the actual thing. You can be guilty of a certain attitude, fomenting disrespect or rebellion, etc.

Seriously, this isn't that difficult, if you'd just let go of your presuppositions and treat the text objectively and fair-mindedly.

---

No, I do NOT concede that. I concede that you can't grasp that they are the same.

I also concede that I have failed to help you understand a simple analogy. An attitude or disrespect is NOT a symbol.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are assuming wrong things about Jesus' disciples leaving him after that teaching:

1) that they left him because of the "eating of his flesh" part, and not the "ascending into heaven" part. Jesus said in that passage that there were disciples who didn't believe, and he said it after he talked about ascending to heaven - they apparently only believed in him being the earthly Messiah, not one who is divine, i.e. "ascend to where he was before". So it makes perfectly logical sense for the disciples to have left him for that reason.

2) that the disciples took Jesus to mean they had to eat his literal flesh, and Jesus allowing them to leave necessarily means that their understanding was correct. Jesus said that he was going to speak "in parables" and symbolically: "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" (Matthew 13:13). You also might be assuming that by Jesus letting them leave, it means they wouldn't gain the true understanding of his words (and verification of them, by his death, resurrection, and ascension) later or even after it's all happened, and follow him again. Remember, at this time, NO ONE knew that Jesus was going to be killed, resurrected, and ascended.
1) You are also making the wrong assumption that just because a certain belief may have originated in the early church, that it is a correct belief. The early church fathers were fallible human beings, like you and me. And the church fathers are NOT scripture. There were early church fathers who believed the Eucharist was symbolic, too. There wasn't full agreement in the early church in many areas, such as what we demonstrated with the issue of the Old Testament canon. Early origins does not necessarily mean correct. Besides, we can demonstrate that Marian dogmas and icon veneration lacked early church origin, yet Catholics dogmatically hold to these beliefs, so what's the validity of early church origin to Catholics?

---

This is another one of your reading into this what you want to believe. Verse 52 states

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

Jesus explains these over the next several verses and they respond with Verse 60

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

They understood perfectly what Jesus meant. How does Jesus respond in verse 61?

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?"

This clearly shows that the disciples fully understood that he was talking about "eating his flesh."

They knew that he meant it literally.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even if the "accidents" remain, it still IS the substance, therefore it can't be a symbol. Symbols do not have the actual substance of what they represent, not at all. If I were to take a piece of someone's skin and let it sit for months, it would change in color, shape, and texture, and look nothing like the original skin when first taken. Yet, it isn't a "symbol" of their skin, it will still be, and always will be, that person's actual skin.

---

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's not true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And among the early church fathers I quoted who referred to it as a "symbol" - where did they say anything about "accidents" and "substance"?

---

Please tell me where the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Homoousios were fully fleshed out in the first two centuries. Doctrine and terminology take time to develop.

I have shown how those same Church fathers always meant it literally.

Finally, as I stated, the Church as ALWAYS believed in the Real Presence.

If you doubt this, you are ignoring history to fit your narrative.

Please Google, "Has the catholic church always believed in the real presence in the Eucharist?"

Let me know what you discover.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous".Yes, I did.

If it isn't God's inerrant word, It is not an inerrant word.

Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point. Your Baptist upbringing apparently has made you blind to how the Bible came to be.

---

---

Your quote: "I do not say the bible is corrupt".

If you say it isn't inerrant, then you are saying it's corrupt. If you can't understand what words mean, then I'm afraid you just can't have this conversation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not reading around anything. You are reading INTO the scriptures your presuppositions.

And there is definitely a difference between being "guilty OF blood" and being "guilty of sinning against the blood". If you can't see the difference there, it just shows how strong your presuppositions are.

---

You would have a great career in Contract Law.

The WHOLE point on Paul's passage is that eating and drinking unworthily, those that are doing so are guilty of sinning against God (his body and blood.)

If it was just a symbol, you can't be guilty. A picture of a person is a symbol of them. When Sinead O'Conner ripped up a picture of John Paul II (Happy JPII Feast Day - Oct 22 btw), she wasn't guilty of committing a crime. When Mehmet Ali Aca shot JPII on May 13, 1981 (The feast day of Our Lady of Fatima) he was guilty of attempted murder.

---

So, you do concede that "guilty OF blood" has a completely different connotation and meaning than "guilty of sinning against the blood"? You seem to be conceding it here, but I want to be sure.

Yes, of course you can be "guilty" when doing something to a symbol rather than the actual thing. You can be guilty of a certain attitude, fomenting disrespect or rebellion, etc.

Seriously, this isn't that difficult, if you'd just let go of your presuppositions and treat the text objectively and fair-mindedly.

---

No, I do NOT concede that. I concede that you can't grasp that they are the same.

I also concede that I have failed to help you understand a simple analogy. An attitude or disrespect is NOT a symbol.

---

- I think you do realize that "guilty OF blood" is completely different than saying "guilty of sinning against the blood" of Jesus. Everyone is capable of seeing it, maybe except Waco47. At this point I think you're just not willing to concede anything to me.

- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I think you do realize that "guilty OF blood" is completely different than saying "guilty of sinning against the blood" of Jesus. Everyone is capable of seeing it, maybe except Waco47. At this point I think you're just not willing to concede anything to me.

---

That's not true. You have presented a few logical arguments in our discourses that I have agreed with in the past. I am very open to changing my mind when presented with logical evidence.

You are stating that there is a difference. There is not. Please look at the multitude of translations. Many translations say,

"shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

This includes the KJV, NASB, and ASV. You are splitting hairs on English translations in an attempt to discredit a valid point.

The meaning is the same.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

---

But you are NOT guilty of the body and blood or even sinning "against the blood" in burning an effigy.

St Paul isn't taking about a symbol.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are assuming wrong things about Jesus' disciples leaving him after that teaching:

1) that they left him because of the "eating of his flesh" part, and not the "ascending into heaven" part. Jesus said in that passage that there were disciples who didn't believe, and he said it after he talked about ascending to heaven - they apparently only believed in him being the earthly Messiah, not one who is divine, i.e. "ascend to where he was before". So it makes perfectly logical sense for the disciples to have left him for that reason.

2) that the disciples took Jesus to mean they had to eat his literal flesh, and Jesus allowing them to leave necessarily means that their understanding was correct. Jesus said that he was going to speak "in parables" and symbolically: "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" (Matthew 13:13). You also might be assuming that by Jesus letting them leave, it means they wouldn't gain the true understanding of his words (and verification of them, by his death, resurrection, and ascension) later or even after it's all happened, and follow him again. Remember, at this time, NO ONE knew that Jesus was going to be killed, resurrected, and ascended.
1) You are also making the wrong assumption that just because a certain belief may have originated in the early church, that it is a correct belief. The early church fathers were fallible human beings, like you and me. And the church fathers are NOT scripture. There were early church fathers who believed the Eucharist was symbolic, too. There wasn't full agreement in the early church in many areas, such as what we demonstrated with the issue of the Old Testament canon. Early origins does not necessarily mean correct. Besides, we can demonstrate that Marian dogmas and icon veneration lacked early church origin, yet Catholics dogmatically hold to these beliefs, so what's the validity of early church origin to Catholics?

---

This is another one of your reading into this what you want to believe. Verse 52 states

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

Jesus explains these over the next several verses and they respond with Verse 60

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

They understood perfectly what Jesus meant. How does Jesus respond in verse 61?

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?"

This clearly shows that the disciples fully understood that he was talking about "eating his flesh."

They knew that he meant it literally.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even if the "accidents" remain, it still IS the substance, therefore it can't be a symbol. Symbols do not have the actual substance of what they represent, not at all. If I were to take a piece of someone's skin and let it sit for months, it would change in color, shape, and texture, and look nothing like the original skin when first taken. Yet, it isn't a "symbol" of their skin, it will still be, and always will be, that person's actual skin.

---

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's not true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And among the early church fathers I quoted who referred to it as a "symbol" - where did they say anything about "accidents" and "substance"?

---

Please tell me where the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Homoousios were fully fleshed out in the first two centuries. Doctrine and terminology take time to develop.

I have shown how those same Church fathers always meant it literally.

Finally, as I stated, the Church as ALWAYS believed in the Real Presence.

If you doubt this, you are ignoring history to fit your narrative.

Please Google, "Has the catholic church always believed in the real presence in the Eucharist?"

Let me know what you discover.

---

It's becoming very frustrating how you can't follow the arguments. The argument was NOT that the disciples didn't take him literally. Some might have. It doesn't matter to the point. The point was that YOUR argument is a non-sequitur - you're arguing that because the disciples took it literally, and then left, and because Jesus let them leave, that it necessarily means that Jesus did in fact mean it literally. That isn't true. Your argument is false. You're completely leaving out the possibility that Jesus let them leave, WITH the misunderstanding of what he said, just as he said he was going to do (Matthew 13:13).

The question was never whether the church has always believed in the "real presence" or not. You're losing track of the argument yet again. No one questioned whether it was an early belief that continued. The question was whether this is a correct belief. I specifically argued that just because a belief appeared early and continued doesn't mean it is correct. The early church also referred to the Eucharist as a symbol, too, as I have shown. Is that correct? No one is "ignoring history". You are arguing something not in contention, a strawman.

You're also losing track of the argument about accidents and substance. You argued that the early church called the Eucharist a "symbol" because it was BOTH a symbol and the real thing, due to the concept of accidents vs. substance. But if the early church didn't even have that concept, or made mention of it in any way, then when they called it a symbol, they just meant it was a symbol. They couldn't have meant it was BOTH a symbol and the real thing if the concept didn't even exist. That's why I asked you where these early church fathers who called it a "symbol" said ANYTHING about accidents vs substance, or anything even related to it. You couldn't, so your argument fails.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I think you do realize that "guilty OF blood" is completely different than saying "guilty of sinning against the blood" of Jesus. Everyone is capable of seeing it, maybe except Waco47. At this point I think you're just not willing to concede anything to me.

---

That's not true. You have presented a few logical arguments in our discourses that I have agreed with in the past. I am very open to changing my mind when presented with logical evidence.

You are stating that there is a difference. There is not. Please look at the multitude of translations. Many translations say,

"shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

This includes the KJV, NASB, and ASV. You are splitting hairs on English translations in an attempt to discredit a valid point.

The meaning is the same.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

---

But you are NOT guilty of the body and blood or even sinning "against the blood" in burning an effigy.

St Paul isn't taking about a symbol.

---

Just to be clear, you DID NOT say "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", you specifically quoted "guilty of sinning against the blood of the Lord". What you're saying now wasn't the argument. So I'll take that as a concession that you realize your first post was wrong.

The point about the effigy was to show that your claim that you can't be guilty of sinning against something or someone when you do something to symbol rather than the actual person, is false. In the same way, you can be guilty of "sinning against the blood of Jesus" by eating the bread and drinking the wine with a bad heart, because it disrepects Jesus' sacrifice. Just like doing something disrespectful to an effigy of you is in reality showing YOU disrespect, not the effigy. In the same way, I'd be sinning against YOU by being disrespectful to your effigy, I'd be sinning against Jesus' blood and body by being disrespectful to its symbols.

He has admitted that the name of a Christian who fails to persevere and conquer can be blotted out of the Book of Life. That's a lot to digest for someone from a Sinners Prayer = OSAS background.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's becoming very frustrating how you can't follow the arguments. The argument was NOT that the disciples didn't take him literally. Some might have. It doesn't matter to the point. The point was that YOUR argument is a non-sequitur - you're arguing that because the disciples took it literally, and then left, and because Jesus let them leave, that it necessarily means that Jesus did in fact mean it literally. That isn't true. Your argument is false. You're completely leaving out the possibility that Jesus let them leave, WITH the misunderstanding of what he said, just as he said he was going to do (Matthew 13:13).

---

Fair enough. I'll amend my argument for you …
I claim that Jesus meant what he said literally in John 6 when he said "eat my flesh and drink my blood".

• Jesus says this 6 times in John 6 during the Bread of Life Discourse.
• He stresses this fact when he uses the phrase, "Amen, amen" or "Verily, verily."
• When the disciples grumble, he ratchets up the language to ensure they, the disciples, knew exactly what he meant.
• They again question. Jesus affirms their concern and does NOT change their interpretation of his words.
• Jesus does not correct their thinking. He doesn't need to because he said what he meant and meant what he said.
• We know this because Jesus says in verse 64
• Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Jesus is the greatest teacher in the world. My Jesus wouldn't mislead thousands of his followers with a misinterpretation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question was never whether the church has always believed in the "real presence" or not. You're losing track of the argument yet again. No one questioned whether it was an early belief that continued. The question was whether this is a correct belief. I specifically argued that just because a belief appeared early and continued doesn't mean it is correct. The early church also referred to the Eucharist as a symbol, too, as I have shown. Is that correct? No one is "ignoring history". You are arguing something not in contention, a strawman.

---

I understand your argument, but disagree with your premise. You want to accept Jerome's early beliefs in the Deuterocanon, but you won't accept his belief in the Real Presence. It seems that you pick and choose which part of the Church fathers you want to believe.

Please tell me why the Real Presence is an incorrect belief.

Then tell me my what authority that I, or anyone else here, should accept your opinion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're also losing track of the argument about accidents and substance. You argued that the early church called the Eucharist a "symbol" because it was BOTH a symbol and the real thing, due to the concept of accidents vs. substance. But if the early church didn't even have that concept, or made mention of it in any way, then when they called it a symbol, they just meant it was a symbol. They couldn't have meant it was BOTH a symbol and the real thing if the concept didn't even exist. That's why I asked you where these early church fathers who called it a "symbol" said ANYTHING about accidents vs substance, or anything even related to it. You couldn't, so your argument fails.

---

Accidents and substances are philosophical terms rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, which were later adopted by Catholic theologians.

Maybe they didn't study in an Aristotelian school? It doesn't matter. The same Church has believed and practiced the same belief for nearly 2000 years.