FLBear5630 said:

---

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?

---

I get it. Yes, there are some pastors or churches I prefer and even some books of the Bible I like better than others. But I firmly believe ALL of it is valid and useful. I would never say that one writer or book is less believable or authoritative.

Christ said that any time two or more believers are together in worship He is with them. That does not mean His physical presence. It's a spiritual thing and a form of communion with God regardless of whether any food is ingested.

Christians don't need to eat or drink anything to have Christ's presence or receive His blessings.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You just described how symbolism and figurative language works. It's not literally His body & blood.

It was the same kind of metaphor when Jesus offered "living water" to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. He offered her a path to salvation that would provide spiritual strength and sustenance. No physical water is involved.

I didn't say he was less authoritative. I always, even as a kid, felt that Paul story was BS. Doesn't mean I don't go to Church for 60 years or disregard what he said. I just don't like him.

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

historian said:

---

Christ said that any time two or more believers are together in worship He is with them. That does not mean His physical presence. It's a spiritual thing and a form of communion with God regardless of whether any food is ingested.

Christians don't need to eat or drink anything to have Christ's presence or receive His blessings.

---

Have some gotten sick and died because they met together unworthily?

Have some gotten sick and died because they took communion unworthily?

Do you believe that communion is entirely optional? That if a Christian refuses to partake of it that this has no effect on Christ's presence of blessings?

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

I agree with this. The people closest to Christ time are the most accurate. That is why Augustine is so important. There are alot others.

Anything 1000 years later, well???

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

historian said:

---

Christ said that any time two or more believers are together in worship He is with them. That does not mean His physical presence. It's a spiritual thing and a form of communion with God regardless of whether any food is ingested.

Christians don't need to eat or drink anything to have Christ's presence or receive His blessings.

---

EXACTLY. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy say it a "real presence" (in the form of transubstantiation for Roman Catholicism) because they want the CHURCH to be control of who gets it and who doesn't. According to them, you need a priest/bishop to make the "Real Presence" work. You can't do it yourself. And they tell you you aren't saved if you don't take their Eucharist. So this way, people are dependent on the church and its authority structure for their salvation.

But this just isn't the truth. Jesus' communion is for ANY BELIEVER in the world, whether if its in a church building administered by a pastor/priest, or whether it's a just small group of Christians in a house somewhere in the world, who have to hide because of persecution. It's even for the single, lone Christian who has no church, who eats a meal and does it in commemoration of Jesus, remembering that Jesus is the true food. THIS is what Jesus wants from us. Jesus just wants us to practice it in the heart, in truth. RC and Orthodoxy miss the point of, well, almost everything, because they're trying to institutionally define Christianity as a wordly structure, when the true church of Jesus are those spiritually united with the same heart.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

Christ said that any time two or more believers are together in worship He is with them. That does not mean His physical presence. It's a spiritual thing and a form of communion with God regardless of whether any food is ingested.

Christians don't need to eat or drink anything to have Christ's presence or receive His blessings.

---

EXACTLY. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy say it a "real presence" (in the form of transubstantiation for Roman Catholicism) because they want the CHURCH to be control of who gets it and who doesn't. According to them, you need a priest/bishop to make the "Real Presence" work. You can't do it yourself. And they tell you you aren't saved if you don't take their Eucharist. So this way, people are dependent on the church and its authority structure for their salvation.

---

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it's the real issue underlying most if not all of your gripes against Catholicism. You deny Scripture and tradition, not because logic compels you, but because you cannot accept the authority of the church (even with a small "c"). This way leads inevitably to error, whether it be the error of liberal Christianity, the error of Christian nationalism, or some other heresy yet unknown.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

What part is missing from Jesus' body when the Eucharist is consumed? His fingers, toes, hair, etc.?

Nothing bodily is missing from Jesus; therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you to understand.

Ironically, your criticism of Catholics as cannibals actually proves that the Church from the VERY beginning believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a Roman rhetorician and tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius is one of the earliest recorded intellectuals to allege that Christian rites involved ritual murder and cannibalism.

Origin writes of Celsus, Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity who spread reports that Christians sacrificed infants and consumed their flesh.

I'm glad to see that you accept what the early Church has always believed in the Real Presence. You can disagree with them, but at least you acknowledge that this is what was always believed.

We're getting somewhere now!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EXACTLY. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy say it a "real presence" (in the form of transubstantiation for Roman Catholicism) because they want the CHURCH to be control of who gets it and who doesn't. According to them, you need a priest/bishop to make the "Real Presence" work. You can't do it yourself. And they tell you you aren't saved if you don't take their Eucharist. So this way, people are dependent on the church and its authority structure for their salvation.

---

You are still confusing the Real Presence with Transubstantiation. They are related, but distinct.

Real Presence describes what happens.
Transubstantiation describes how it happens.

The reason why a bishop or priest is needed to confect the Eucharist is because that's how God decided and Jesus authorized it at the Last Supper. He waited for the 12 apostles (who became the first bishops) to be ordained by him at the meal. The Last Supper was a sacrifice. Just like today, when a bishop or priest says the mass/divine liturgy, it is a representation of the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago. Who offered the sacrifices? It was always the priests that offered the sacrifice was the priesthood was established.

No one is saved by the Church or authority. Everyone is saved By Christ and his grace. But Christ established the Church as His Body and declared that salvation ordinarily comes through the church, not around it. This is not oppressive it is merciful God doesn't leave us orphaned or without a sure path.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But this just isn't the truth. Jesus' communion is for ANY BELIEVER in the world, whether if its in a church building administered by a pastor/priest, or whether it's a just small group of Christians in a house somewhere in the world, who have to hide because of persecution. It's even for the single, lone Christian who has no church, who eats a meal and does it in commemoration of Jesus, remembering that Jesus is the true food. THIS is what Jesus wants from us. Jesus just wants us to practice it in the heart, in truth. RC and Orthodoxy miss the point of, well, almost everything, because they're trying to institutionally define Christianity as a wordly structure, when the true church of Jesus are those spiritually united with the same heart.

---

Your view of the Church is VERY distorted. The Church doesn't want "to be control of who gets it and who doesn't." The Church is try to protect those that are not in a state of grace as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

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.

The Didache also speaks about, WHO should be allowed to receive the Eucharist

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Justin Martyr states who should be permitted to receive:

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and has thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

You are kidding right? From the guy that all sins are saved through grace? How? Faith. Trinity, how do you explain it? Mystery, but have faith. Why is the Bible right? Holy Spirit came down (or up or appeared?) and made sure that only the correct stuff was included. How? Have faith...

The whole thing is stuff that makes no sense, but we believe because we have faith. So, the Eucharist is the bridge too far?????

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

---

Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

Christ said that any time two or more believers are together in worship He is with them. That does not mean His physical presence. It's a spiritual thing and a form of communion with God regardless of whether any food is ingested.

Christians don't need to eat or drink anything to have Christ's presence or receive His blessings.

---

EXACTLY. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy say it a "real presence" (in the form of transubstantiation for Roman Catholicism) because they want the CHURCH to be control of who gets it and who doesn't. According to them, you need a priest/bishop to make the "Real Presence" work. You can't do it yourself. And they tell you you aren't saved if you don't take their Eucharist. So this way, people are dependent on the church and its authority structure for their salvation.

---

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it's the real issue underlying most if not all of your gripes against Catholicism. You deny Scripture and tradition, not because logic compels you, but because you cannot accept the authority of the church (even with a small "c"). This way leads inevitably to error, whether it be the error of liberal Christianity, the error of Christian nationalism, or some other heresy yet unknown.

---

A lot of mind reading here that completely defies the history of this forum, and all I've argued. As usual, you are completely wrong. It's laughable to assert that I have not argued my positions with logic, reason, facts, history, and Scripture. I understand, though, why it is you have to dismiss all of it in the only way you can, by ad hominem. So you think it's all coming from a simple "gripe" - as if ALL the facts, logic, and reason I've provided that clearly demonstrate the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church just completely disappeared!! You're right, man, I just made all of them up! Laughable.

What you guys continually refuse to grasp is that the Roman Catholic "authority" that you've submitted to is no less corrupted than the Protestant mechanism leading to liberal Christianity which you denounce. It is shocking how you can't see the log in your own eye. The huge difference, though, is that while in Protestantism there is the ability to divide in truth, while in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy there is only unity in unquestioned, fatal error. And "unity" is even a stretch. RC can elect a pope that opens their Church to homosexual couples, yet they STILL argue their church can not err. All while griping about liberal Protestant Christianity, no less! It's absolutely amazing to behold.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

What part is missing from Jesus' body when the Eucharist is consumed? His fingers, toes, hair, etc.?

Nothing bodily is missing from Jesus; therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you to understand.

Ironically, your criticism of Catholics as cannibals actually proves that the Church from the VERY beginning believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a Roman rhetorician and tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius is one of the earliest recorded intellectuals to allege that Christian rites involved ritual murder and cannibalism.

Origin writes of Celsus, Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity who spread reports that Christians sacrificed infants and consumed their flesh.

I'm glad to see that you accept what the early Church has always believed in the Real Presence. You can disagree with them, but at least you acknowledge that this is what was always believed.

We're getting somewhere now!

---

As usual, your comprehension is sorely lacking. I've already explained that if the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, and then eaten, then THAT part that is newly "made" from the bread and wine is what goes missing. If NONE of Jesus' body goes "missing" from his person, then you didn't really eat his actual body. By denying that any flesh of Jesus goes missing, you're actually denying that you're eating his real flesh! You've defeated your own theology!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

Ironically, your criticism of Catholics as cannibals actually proves that the Church from the VERY beginning believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a Roman rhetorician and tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius is one of the earliest recorded intellectuals to allege that Christian rites involved ritual murder and cannibalism.

Origin writes of Celsus, Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity who spread reports that Christians sacrificed infants and consumed their flesh.

I'm glad to see that you accept what the early Church has always believed in the Real Presence. You can disagree with them, but at least you acknowledge that this is what was always believed.

We're getting somewhere now!

---

What you dishonest/dense Roman Catholics just can't seem to grasp is that the "Real Presence" believed by the church fathers did not all mean "transubstantiation". Never have I argued that the "Real Presence" was not always believed by the church. Rather, I've argued against YOUR Church's argument that transubstantiation was always believed.

Once again, you are wrong.

Pope is infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. Last time was 1950.

So the homosexual situation you discuss was not spoken Ex Cathedra.

Augustine didn't believe in real presence in the eucharist.

Geez.



Why don't you stick to the Protestants?

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

---

Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

---

Who said that Augustine rejected the "Real Presence"? He clearly did not believe in "transubstantiation". Which interestingly, would mean he is anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, the very church that canonized him as a saint!

Your post is the perfect example of what I said earlier - Roman Catholics play the motte-and-bailey game with the Eucharist. They insist "transubstantiation' is involved, and then when pressed, they go to the less controversial and more easily defended "but the church had always believed in the Real Presence!" argument.

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of the Roman Catholic position.

And what do you make of the quotes I provided, where Augustine CLEARLY says that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John chapter 6, and not literally? It's obvious you guys simply want to avoid this fact, and resort to "asinine" name calling.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

What part is missing from Jesus' body when the Eucharist is consumed? His fingers, toes, hair, etc.?

Nothing bodily is missing from Jesus; therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you to understand.

Ironically, your criticism of Catholics as cannibals actually proves that the Church from the VERY beginning believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a Roman rhetorician and tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius is one of the earliest recorded intellectuals to allege that Christian rites involved ritual murder and cannibalism.

Origin writes of Celsus, Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity who spread reports that Christians sacrificed infants and consumed their flesh.

I'm glad to see that you accept what the early Church has always believed in the Real Presence. You can disagree with them, but at least you acknowledge that this is what was always believed.

We're getting somewhere now!

---

Eating human flesh is eating human flesh. Sinful for Jews, so transubstantiation did not happen.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

---

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

---

What part is missing from Jesus' body when the Eucharist is consumed? His fingers, toes, hair, etc.?

Nothing bodily is missing from Jesus; therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you to understand.

Ironically, your criticism of Catholics as cannibals actually proves that the Church from the VERY beginning believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a Roman rhetorician and tutor to Emperor Marcus Aurelius is one of the earliest recorded intellectuals to allege that Christian rites involved ritual murder and cannibalism.

Origin writes of Celsus, Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity who spread reports that Christians sacrificed infants and consumed their flesh.

I'm glad to see that you accept what the early Church has always believed in the Real Presence. You can disagree with them, but at least you acknowledge that this is what was always believed.

We're getting somewhere now!

---

Eating human flesh is eating human flesh. Sinful for Jews, so transubstantiation did not happen.

---

I'd also add that the apostles obviously did not believe they were eating and drinking Jesus' actual flesh and blood by what they decided in the "Jerusalem council" in Acts 15, where they commanded that Gentile Christians abstaiin from eating blood. You would think that if they believed that communion involved Jesus' actual blood, and that one must literally drink it in order to be saved, that they would have certainly mentioned this pretty important exception.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Once again, you are wrong.

Pope is infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. Last time was 1950.

So the homosexual situation you discuss was not spoken Ex Cathedra.

Augustine didn't believe in real presence in the eucharist.

Geez.



Why don't you stick to the Protestants?

---

I wasn't arguing whether Francis was speaking "ex cathedra" (a completely useless doctrine/dogma) or not. Pay attention. The point was that if Roman Catholics can elect an antichrist pope to their highest position of authority, as their "Vicar of Christ", the highest person in their magisterium, then it's astounding how they can argue that this same magisterium is immune from error in their teaching and in their councils.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

---

Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

---

Who said that Augustine rejected the "Real Presence"? He clearly did not believe in "transubstantiation". Which interestingly, would mean he is anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, the very church that canonized him as a saint!

Your post is the perfect example of what I said earlier - Roman Catholics play the motte-and-bailey game with the Eucharist. They insist "transubstantiation' is involved, and then when pressed, they go to the less controversial and more easily defended "but the church had always believed in the Real Presence!" argument.

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of the Roman Catholic position.

And what do you make of the quotes I provided, where Augustine CLEARLY says that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John chapter 6, and not literally? It's obvious you guys simply want to avoid this fact, and resort to "asinine" name calling.

---

St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years…

However, I never mentioned Transubstantiation in the first place, I only mentioned "real presence", which is the base line of Transubstantiation. Augustine believed that Christ is the Eucharist.

"For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body".

He didn't believe it was a mere figure of speech like modern day Protestants.

FLBear5630 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.

---

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.

---

They used different terms for it. I usually avoid the term "real presence" because, as we're seeing now, it can mean almost anything. The main point is that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist itself, not just wherever two are gathered.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

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.

---

They used different terms for it. I usually avoid the term "real presence" because, as we're seeing now, it can mean almost anything. The main point is that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist itself, not just wherever two are gathered.

---

I agree. Just didnt want to use a term that didnt exist when he lived.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

---

Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

---

Who said that Augustine rejected the "Real Presence"? He clearly did not believe in "transubstantiation". Which interestingly, would mean he is anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, the very church that canonized him as a saint!

Your post is the perfect example of what I said earlier - Roman Catholics play the motte-and-bailey game with the Eucharist. They insist "transubstantiation' is involved, and then when pressed, they go to the less controversial and more easily defended "but the church had always believed in the Real Presence!" argument.

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of the Roman Catholic position.

And what do you make of the quotes I provided, where Augustine CLEARLY says that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John chapter 6, and not literally? It's obvious you guys simply want to avoid this fact, and resort to "asinine" name calling.

---

St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years…

However, I never mentioned Transubstantiation in the first place, I only mentioned "real presence", which is the base line of Transubstantiation. Augustine believed that Christ is the Eucharist.

"For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body".

He didn't believe it was a mere figure of speech like modern day Protestants.

---

"St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years".

Thank you for acknowledging that Roman Catholicism is therefore NOT the "original, unchanged faith since the beginning".

Many Protestants today believe there is a spiritual presence with the communion. So there is no problem with the "Real Presence" in that sense. But like Protestants today, Augustine clearly viewed that the "eating of Jesus flesh and drinking his blood" in John chapter 6 as being NOT in the literal sense (transubstantiation in the Eucharist in Roman Catholicism) but rather in the figurative sense. You're just completely ignoring his words. "It is figurative". Here are his words again for the easily-forgetful:

"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:

---

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.

---

It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

---

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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:

---

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.

---

It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

---

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

---

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

Transubstantiation was simply describing how it happened, it did not change real presence. Just the process. You really are off base, cherry picking info will do that. Look at the passage you put up, rather than looking at the whole in context you highlight little phrases and words. Anyone can play gotcha.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

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.

---

They used different terms for it. I usually avoid the term "real presence" because, as we're seeing now, it can mean almost anything. The main point is that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist itself, not just wherever two are gathered.

---

... and that "presence" in the Eucharist is in the form of his actual flesh and blood, i.e. transubstantiation, which if denied the RC Church says you are condemned to Hell.

NONE of which Augustine or the early church believed, or what Jesus and his apostles taught.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

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.

---

They used different terms for it. I usually avoid the term "real presence" because, as we're seeing now, it can mean almost anything. The main point is that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist itself, not just wherever two are gathered.

---

... and that "presence" in the Eucharist is in the form of his actual flesh and blood, i.e. transubstantiation, which if denied the RC Church says you are condemned to Hell.

NONE of which Augustine or the early church believed, or what Jesus and his apostles taught.

---

The Church doesn't say you are condemned to hell.

The Eucharist is one of the Christian mysteries, like the Trinity itself. The idea of three persons in one God is paradoxical, but it's what we believe. It's the same with Christ's presence in the Eucharist, to which Scripture and the earliest tradition all bear witness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

---

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.

---

Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

---

Who said that Augustine rejected the "Real Presence"? He clearly did not believe in "transubstantiation". Which interestingly, would mean he is anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, the very church that canonized him as a saint!

Your post is the perfect example of what I said earlier - Roman Catholics play the motte-and-bailey game with the Eucharist. They insist "transubstantiation' is involved, and then when pressed, they go to the less controversial and more easily defended "but the church had always believed in the Real Presence!" argument.

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of the Roman Catholic position.

And what do you make of the quotes I provided, where Augustine CLEARLY says that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John chapter 6, and not literally? It's obvious you guys simply want to avoid this fact, and resort to "asinine" name calling.

---

St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years…

However, I never mentioned Transubstantiation in the first place, I only mentioned "real presence", which is the base line of Transubstantiation. Augustine believed that Christ is the Eucharist.

"For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body".

He didn't believe it was a mere figure of speech like modern day Protestants.

---

"St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years".

Thank you for acknowledging that Roman Catholicism is therefore NOT the "original, unchanged faith since the beginning".

Many Protestants today believe there is a spiritual presence with the communion. So there is no problem with the "Real Presence" in that sense. But like Protestants today, Augustine clearly viewed that the "eating of Jesus flesh and drinking his blood" in John chapter 6 as being NOT in the literal sense (transubstantiation in the Eucharist in Roman Catholicism) but rather in the figurative sense. You're just completely ignoring his words. "It is figurative". Here are his words again for the easily-forgetful:

"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).

---

The idea of Transubstantiation being developed 800 years after Augustine does not mean Roman Catholicism began at the same time? You make no sense.

You keep using this term "Roman Catholic", are you suggesting that Augustine was not a Roman Catholic? Constantine legalized Christianity in the ROMAN empire in 313 AD, it was made the state religion only a few decades later. These events happened before and during Augustine's life. He was aligned politically and culturally with Rome.

Real Presence is a broad term, like Sam said. If you don't believe Augustine believed Christ is the bread and wine then you're completely lost. The Augustine Order says he does, I'm going with them. But I'm sure the random Sicem365 poster knows more about Augustine than the order that has followed his teachings for 800+ years.