Exactly. God chose Paul for very real reasons and He chose very well.
Pope Leo is one of the Catholic Church's biggest problems
21,498 Views |
553 Replies |
Last: 53 min ago by FLBear5630
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:J.R. said:
This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.
That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.
Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."
As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.
Augustine never wrote that.
What an absolute shock you think that.
Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?
I have no idea. Just stating the facts.
The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.
Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.
Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest
Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.
Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.
Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".
And where's your Augustine quote?
There are four in the post I quoted.
Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:J.R. said:
This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.
That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.
Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."
As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.
Augustine never wrote that.
What an absolute shock you think that.
Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?
I have no idea. Just stating the facts.
The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.
Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.
Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest
Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.
Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.
Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".
And where's your Augustine quote?
There are four in the post I quoted.
Name the one you think you have the strongest argument about. Go ahead.
He strongly believed in real presence.
Try:
Sermons (specifically 227, 234, 272) and Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos, especially Ps. 33 and 99)
Here is a very good article to help you understand better
https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/st-augustines-belief-in-the-real-presence/
Glad to see you are interested in learning.
Try:
Sermons (specifically 227, 234, 272) and Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos, especially Ps. 33 and 99)
Here is a very good article to help you understand better
https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/st-augustines-belief-in-the-real-presence/
Glad to see you are interested in learning.
Just not my favorite. Didnt like his super-apostle approach.
You guys never have parts of your religion you like better or dislike more? Never have a writer, pastor or Church father that resonated with you more or less than others?
You like it all the same?
You guys never have parts of your religion you like better or dislike more? Never have a writer, pastor or Church father that resonated with you more or less than others?
You like it all the same?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:J.R. said:
This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.
That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.
Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."
As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.
Augustine never wrote that.
What an absolute shock you think that.
Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?
I have no idea. Just stating the facts.
The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.
Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.
Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest
Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.
Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.
Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".
And where's your Augustine quote?
There are four in the post I quoted.
Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16
See the excellent link from FLBear above. I'll just add these:
Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.
Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:J.R. said:
This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.
That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.
Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."
As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.
Augustine never wrote that.
What an absolute shock you think that.
Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?
I have no idea. Just stating the facts.
The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.
Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.
Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest
Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.
Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.
Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".
And where's your Augustine quote?
There are four in the post I quoted.
Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16
See the excellent link from FLBear above. I'll just add these:
Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.
Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.
NOTHING there is saying that it's literal. And he literally said that "eating his flesh" was purely figurative. So how can he be meaning that the bread that they were to eat was eating his literal body?
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:J.R. said:
This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.
That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.
Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."
As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.
Augustine never wrote that.
What an absolute shock you think that.
Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?
I have no idea. Just stating the facts.
The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.
Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.
Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest
Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.
Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.
Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".
And where's your Augustine quote?
There are four in the post I quoted.
Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16
See the excellent link from FLBear above. I'll just add these:
Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.
Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.
NOTHING there is saying that it's literal. And he literally said that "eating his flesh" was purely figurative. So how can he be meaning that the bread that they were to eat was eating his literal body?
He literally said it was a figure. "Purely figurative" is your interpretation. Augustine understood it as both a sign and a reality.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Sam LowryThere are four in the post I quoted. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16
See the excellent link from FLBear above. I'll just add these:
Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.
Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.
NOTHING there is saying that it's literal. And he literally said that "eating his flesh" was purely figurative. So how can he be meaning that the bread that they were to eat was eating his literal body?
He literally said it was a figure. "Purely figurative" is your interpretation. Augustine understood it as both a sign and a reality.
He also literally said it was "figurative" too, right?
You're trying semantic games to get out of a hole. You would do better for you, and for your representation of Roman Catholicism, to just admit when you're wrong.
You have not provided anything where Augustine said it was literal. I've provided where he said it was only figurative. That's pretty much saying that he believed it to be purely figurative. The only way out of this is for you to engage in your usual dishonesty. Go ahead. It only shows how Roman Catholicism can only be defended in that way.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
2. The Church anathematized the denial of transubstantiation.
3. Incorrect, because Augustine affirmed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
And Sam, you DO acknowledge that it's pure double talk to say that eating the transubstantiated bread and wine is NOT cannibalism, don't you? You can't have the bread and wine be the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus, but eating it would not be cannibalism. If you're saying it's not cannibalism, then you are specifically denying the bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't have it one way, but not the other if you want to be logically and doctrinally consistent.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
2. The Church anathematized the denial of transubstantiation.
3. Incorrect, because Augustine affirmed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist.
Augustine never affirmed transubstantiation. He clearly denied the eating of Jesus flesh and blood was literal, and there is NO quote where he states that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus. All you have are quotes where he merely repeats the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in (which Augustine clearly indicated was figurative).
And so if the Church is saying that not believing in transubstantiation means one is not saved, they are saying that a person can hear the gospel, believe, but still go to Hell if they don't believe in transubstantiation, right? If so, then how does water baptism save? Salvation would be fully contigent upon belief in transubstantiation regardless if one is water baptized or not, correct?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
What happens to the Christian who is deprived of this grace? They go to Hell?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?
Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?
Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.
So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
And Sam, you DO acknowledge that it's pure double talk to say that eating the transubstantiated bread and wine is NOT cannibalism, don't you? You can't have the bread and wine be the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus, but eating it would not be cannibalism. If you're saying it's not cannibalism, then you are specifically denying the bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't have it one way, but not the other if you want to be logically and doctrinally consistent.
I mean it's not cannibalism because it's bread and wine. It's not like you're consuming a dead corpse. You're partaking in the bread of life, which is Christ, who is not damaged or diminished, for the nourishment of your spirit.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
And Sam, you DO acknowledge that it's pure double talk to say that eating the transubstantiated bread and wine is NOT cannibalism, don't you? You can't have the bread and wine be the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus, but eating it would not be cannibalism. If you're saying it's not cannibalism, then you are specifically denying the bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't have it one way, but not the other if you want to be logically and doctrinally consistent.
I mean it's not cannibalism because it's bread and wine. It's not like you're consuming a dead corpse. You're partaking in the bread of life, which is Christ, who is not damaged or diminished, for the nourishment of your spirit.
If it's not cannibalism, then you are NOT eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't get around this. You can't have it both ways. You're in a quandary here, it's best just to admit it.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
2. The Church anathematized the denial of transubstantiation.
3. Incorrect, because Augustine affirmed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist.
Augustine never affirmed transubstantiation. He clearly denied the eating of Jesus flesh and blood was literal, and there is NO quote where he states that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus. All you have are quotes where he merely repeats the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in (which Augustine clearly indicated was figurative).
And so if the Church is saying that not believing in transubstantiation means one is not saved, they are saying that a person can hear the gospel, believe, but still go to Hell if they don't believe in transubstantiation, right? If so, then how does water baptism save? Salvation would be fully contigent upon belief in transubstantiation regardless if one is water baptized or not, correct?
Augustine's reference to a "figure" means the physical appearance of the bread and wine. It's not a denial of the real presence.
To understand the meaning of baptism and communion, you have to understand that salvation is a goal, not a possession (1 Corinthians 9:23-27). Baptism, communion, and all the sacraments are means to that end.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?
Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.
So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?
Not in a crude molecular sense, no.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
And Sam, you DO acknowledge that it's pure double talk to say that eating the transubstantiated bread and wine is NOT cannibalism, don't you? You can't have the bread and wine be the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus, but eating it would not be cannibalism. If you're saying it's not cannibalism, then you are specifically denying the bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't have it one way, but not the other if you want to be logically and doctrinally consistent.
I mean it's not cannibalism because it's bread and wine. It's not like you're consuming a dead corpse. You're partaking in the bread of life, which is Christ, who is not damaged or diminished, for the nourishment of your spirit.
If it's not cannibalism, then you are NOT eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't get around this. You can't have it both ways. You're in a quandary here, it's best just to admit it.
Jesus' body ascended into heaven long ago. Yet we believe he is present in the physical elements of the Eucharist. If God is spiritually omnipresent, why can he not also manifest himself physically when and where he chooses?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
2. The Church anathematized the denial of transubstantiation.
3. Incorrect, because Augustine affirmed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist.
Augustine never affirmed transubstantiation. He clearly denied the eating of Jesus flesh and blood was literal, and there is NO quote where he states that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus. All you have are quotes where he merely repeats the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in (which Augustine clearly indicated was figurative).
And so if the Church is saying that not believing in transubstantiation means one is not saved, they are saying that a person can hear the gospel, believe, but still go to Hell if they don't believe in transubstantiation, right? If so, then how does water baptism save? Salvation would be fully contigent upon belief in transubstantiation regardless if one is water baptized or not, correct?
Augustine's reference to a "figure" means the physical appearance of the bread and wine. It's not a denial of the real presence.
To understand the meaning of baptism and communion, you have to understand that salvation is a goal, not a possession (1 Corinthians 9:23-27). Baptism, communion, and all the sacraments are means to that end.
Laughable. He literally says Jesus was being "figurative", meaning it is metaphorical rather than literal. Both "figurative" and "a figure" are saying the same thing. That's what those words, his words, mean. Augustine wasn't introducing a whole new concept in his time where a "figure" of something is where "it LOOKS like something, but it physically really is something else". This is a laughable anachronistic insertion into the head of Augustine of an idea that was dreamed up centuries later by the Roman Catholic Church.
Funny also how he never even mentioned this explanation anywhere in his writings. If he did, you'd been able to come up with a quote from him by now where he directly affirmed transubstantion and where he appliese this Greek philosophy of "accidents vs. substance" to Jesus'' words, instead of quotes where he was merely repeating the same figurative language used by Jesus.
You just won't be honest with the text or with language. You CAN'T, if you want to defend the RC position. And that pretty much says it all.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?
Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.
So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?
Not in a crude molecular sense, no.
Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Double talk!
How many is that for you RC's?
And Sam, you DO acknowledge that it's pure double talk to say that eating the transubstantiated bread and wine is NOT cannibalism, don't you? You can't have the bread and wine be the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus, but eating it would not be cannibalism. If you're saying it's not cannibalism, then you are specifically denying the bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't have it one way, but not the other if you want to be logically and doctrinally consistent.
I mean it's not cannibalism because it's bread and wine. It's not like you're consuming a dead corpse. You're partaking in the bread of life, which is Christ, who is not damaged or diminished, for the nourishment of your spirit.
If it's not cannibalism, then you are NOT eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You can't get around this. You can't have it both ways. You're in a quandary here, it's best just to admit it.
Jesus' body ascended into heaven long ago. Yet we believe he is present in the physical elements of the Eucharist. If God is spiritually omnipresent, why can he not also manifest himself physically when and where he chooses?
Just because God CAN do something, it doesn't mean he did.
If you're denying it's cannibalism, then you're denying it really is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You're trying the same kind of "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism, and which serves as a constant testament to her false teaching. Satan is the god of confusion.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?
Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.
Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?
I believe Jesus is spiritually "present" when Christians take communion, in the same way he is "present" when two or more gather in his name:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Jesus, in Matthew 18:20
I do not believe Jesus is "present" inside the bread and wine. I believe Jesus when he said it is a "memory" of him. Jesus "presence" with Christians during communion is no different than when he is present with them when they gather in his name.
Now here's my questions for you:
1) Why does Jesus need to be physically present in the bread and wine? What happens to the Christian who doesn't believe that?
2) Did Roman Catholicism anathematize the failure to believe in the "Real Presence", or did they anathematize the failure to believe in Transubstantiation?
3) Since Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, it means he is anathema by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
1. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a means of grace to bring us closer to him, strengthen us in our walk with him, and help us avoid sin. Christians who don't believe in it deprive themselves of a source of grace.
2. The Church anathematized the denial of transubstantiation.
3. Incorrect, because Augustine affirmed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist.
Augustine never affirmed transubstantiation. He clearly denied the eating of Jesus flesh and blood was literal, and there is NO quote where he states that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus. All you have are quotes where he merely repeats the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in (which Augustine clearly indicated was figurative).
And so if the Church is saying that not believing in transubstantiation means one is not saved, they are saying that a person can hear the gospel, believe, but still go to Hell if they don't believe in transubstantiation, right? If so, then how does water baptism save? Salvation would be fully contigent upon belief in transubstantiation regardless if one is water baptized or not, correct?
To understand the meaning of baptism and communion, you have to understand that salvation is a goal, not a possession (1 Corinthians 9:23-27). Baptism, communion, and all the sacraments are means to that end.
So, to be clear, according to Roman Catholicism, the house of Cornelius, who heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them, and then they were water baptized.... they still weren't saved, correct?
Because if Jesus is taken literally, in John 6 he clearly says that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you are NOT saved. According to the text, the house of Cornelius had not done that. It would also mean that "water baptism now saves you" spoken by Peter is wrong, because according to the literal interpretation of Jesus' words, one's salvation is completely contingent upon literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which Roman Catholics believe takes place in the Eucharist, NOT on water baptism.
Also, if "salvation is a goal" rather than a possession, then Jesus is wrong when he says that a person who eats his flesh and drinks his blood "HAS eternal life" and that Jesus "WILL raise him on the last day" (John 6:54). Sure sounds like a possession that was gained instantly. If you're saying that you "have" eternal life, then lose it, then it means you never had eternal life to begin with, because losing it would mean it wasn't eternal.
Sam Lowry said:
We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.
Sam, this is the Lutheran position of consubstantiation: "The idea is that in the communion the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine coexist in union with each other."
This is similar to the Orthodox position which says Christ is in the elements as stated in John's Gospel, but it is a mystery beyond our understanding as to how this happens.
The Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation denotes the idea that during the ceremony of the Mass, the bread and wine are changed in substance into the flesh and blood of Christ, which is very much a matter of alchemy not faith.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.
Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.
I would say a better term would be "real presence". I thought the same, but transubstantiation didn't come around until 1250 AD or so. Up to that point, it was "real presence" then someone asked "how" and the whole transubstantiation came about.
So, I will give Busy some credit there. Thanks, I didn't know that until this conversation made me research it.