Communion of the Body of Christ

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:



1. If what Jesus so deliberately said.... and Paul by inspiration penned..... is but metaphor, that it is "OBVIOUSLY" symbolic according to the words. ... then why did not ONE Christian, not even one... in over 1500 years .... EVER notice or even theorize or speculate or even suggest such a thing? Not one. Not for over 1500 years. If it's just "OBVIOUS" by the WORDS ON THE PAGE.... "obvious"..... then why did it entirely, completely, wholly allude every single Christian who ever lived for over 1500 years? Did God or Satan universally and completely BLIND everyone to what is "OBVIOUS?" How can that be explained if it's "just obvious by the words?"



2. And why the stern warnings and the effects associated with this? See 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Read that. Consider that. IF there's no body to discern here because it's not there, then why the warning about not discerning it in the "cup and bread?" My point is not the content of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, it's the absurdity of the warning if we're dealing only with a metaphor. Well, maybe God was just kidding or being metaphoric there, too (hey, maybe John 3:16 is just metaphor). Why this punishment for not discerning something that isn't there? Now foot washing was a metaphor, a symbol.... but there's NO warning associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Passover Meal was symbolic, but there is never any warning associated with it or consequences associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 seems absurd, even evil and wrong, if Jesus didn't mean what He said, if it's "obvious by the words" that this is only a metaphor.



3. And, perhaps BECAUSE foot washing was universally, always seen as symbolic, it wasn't practiced much by the early church (it's just metaphor) but Communion was critical, a part of every worship service, often seen as the highlight of Christian worship, the Sacrament seen as very important (unlike anything regarded as metaphor or symbol). I'm curious..... if the words mean it's "clearly OBVIOUS" this is just metaphor, only a symbol (like foot washing), then why was/is it seen SO important unlike EVERY case of ANYTHING always seen as symbolic?



Oh, well..... just curious. I'm standing with what Jesus said and Paul penned.... what 100% of Christians for over 15 Centuries universally believed and treasured. I'm just not buying the whole apologetic of "It can't be true - so it's not." IMO, it's likely not one Christian for over 1500 years saw this as obviously metaphoric because it's not. And every Christian held this is very important and a treasured blessing because it is. The biblical warning makes sense because it's not a symbol, we are to discern something because there is something to discern, not nothing. If it was the equal of foot washing, then it would be universally and ALWAYS embraced as such.... not regarded as terribly important.... no warnings about it. Obviously, some have bought into Zwingli's doubts and reinvention and disagree.


Prove it.


Easy. Took me less than two seconds.


http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html



The Didache
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
St. Serapion of Antioch
St. Ephrem of Syria
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianzen
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan
Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine of Hippo
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo the Great
St. Caesarius of Arles
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe

Just a short list of those accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned, verbatim accepting Real Presence. Just in the first 400 years. There are many, many, many more.


Now, present your long list of Christians who insisted that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/pinned but instead meant just some metaphor. Let's compare lists.






.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
2. And why the stern warnings and the effects associated with this? See 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Read that. Consider that. IF there's no body to discern here because it's not there, then why the warning about not discerning it in the "cup and bread?" My point is not the content of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, it's the absurdity of the warning if we're dealing only with a metaphor. Well, maybe God was just kidding or being metaphoric there, too (hey, maybe John 3:16 is just metaphor). Why this punishment for not discerning something that isn't there? Now foot washing was a metaphor, a symbol.... but there's NO warning associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Passover Meal was symbolic, but there is never any warning associated with it or consequences associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 seems absurd, even evil and wrong, if Jesus didn't mean what He said, if it's "obvious by the words" that this is only a metaphor.

Does the blood of lambs and bulls required by the Old Covenant have the power to remove sin?
If it does have that power, then it was not necessary for Christ to die to remove the sin debt of men. Yet we know that the death of Christ was the only propitiation that had the power to remove sins. Therefore, the blood of lambs and bulls must have been a metaphor for the future sacrifice of Christ that was yet to come.

Was the sacrifice of lambs and bulls unnecessary for the people of the Old Covenant? Could they have said “It is only a metaphor, a symbol of what is to come, so we do not have to obey the command of God and do it”? No. They did not have that option. Such an act of disobedience would have indicated a heart that was far from God and brought righteous judgement down on them.

Does that mean that by offering the blood of lambs and bulls, as God required, that the blood of lambs and bulls MUST OBVIOUSLY had the power to remove sin in and of themselves? Of course not. Like the tree in the garden of Eden, the point is obedience, not magic.

The blood of lambs and bulls pointed forward to the only reality with the power to wash away our sins ... the body and blood of Jesus broken and shed on the cross. The bread and wine point backwards to the only reality with the power to wash away our sins ... the body and blood of Jesus broken and shed on the cross. For over 2000 years, each and every Christian has believed that the key to our salvation does not lay in lambs or goats or bread or wine ... salvation is found in the cross and in the blood of Jesus (the real and literal cross and blood and Jesus). EVERYTHING ELSE only points us to Jesus.

Try and find a Christian that disagrees with that!
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Easy. Took me less than two seconds.


http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html



The Didache
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
St. Serapion of Antioch
St. Ephrem of Syria
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianzen
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan
Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine of Hippo
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo the Great
St. Caesarius of Arles
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe

Just a short list of those accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned, verbatim accepting Real Presence. Just in the first 400 years. There are many, many, many more.


Now, present your long list of Christians who insisted that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/posted but instead meant some metaphor.

I'll wait for your proof.




.


That covers only 27 people. You said EVERYONE without exception. There have been more than 27 Christians in 1500 years.

That is why you felt the need to quote your ENTIRE post and IGNORE all but 2 words of mine. (Chalk that up to an epic fail.: 27 / 90 million = 0.00003% success). I posit that 1 out of the 99.99997% of all Christians living before 1500 that you have ignored, did not believe in the real, literal presence of the physical body and physical blood of Jesus in the bread and wine served at every communion.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
That covers only 27 people. You said EVERYONE without exception. There have been more than 27 Christians in 1500 years.

That is why you felt the need to quote your ENTIRE post and IGNORE all but 2 words of mine. (Chalk that up to an epic fail.: 27 / 90 million = 0.00003% success). I posit that 1 out of the 99.99997% of all Christians living before 1500 that you have ignored, did not believe in the real, literal presence of the physical body and physical blood of Jesus in the bread and wine served at every communion.

You need the names of 90,000,000 people??

Then the claim will be proven?

Without those names in the post, you will not be persuaded?

You win...

Congratulations...

I guess...


Arsenios
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You need the names of 90,000,000 people??

Then the claim will be proven?

Without those names in the post, you will not be persuaded?

You win...

Congratulations...

I guess...


Arsenios
A universal claim must be proved universally.
Not having looked at all the extant documents between 0 CE and 1500 CE, I cannot say that every extant document claims what you claim. Does every extant document agree with you, Arsenios?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You need the names of 90,000,000 people??

Then the claim will be proven?

Without those names in the post, you will not be persuaded?

You win...

Congratulations...

I guess...


Arsenios

I need more evidence than Josiah’s opinion that NO CHRISTIAN before 1500 believed anything except the real, physical body and blood of Jesus present in the “bread and wine”. The names of 27 people that believed that leaves us far short of his claim.

He is implying that my obvious reading of Jesus standing there holding a piece of bread and saying “this is my body” when it was obviously not literally his body, his body was his body and that was a piece of bread is something that NOBODY thought of until 1500.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:
atpollard said:
Josiah said:




1. If what Jesus so deliberately said.... and Paul by inspiration penned..... is but metaphor, that it is "OBVIOUSLY" symbolic according to the words. ... then why did not ONE Christian, not even one... in over 1500 years .... EVER notice or even theorize or speculate or even suggest such a thing? Not one. Not for over 1500 years. If it's just "OBVIOUS" by the WORDS ON THE PAGE.... "obvious"..... then why did it entirely, completely, wholly allude every single Christian who ever lived for over 1500 years? Did God or Satan universally and completely BLIND everyone to what is "OBVIOUS?" How can that be explained if it's "just obvious by the words?"



2. And why the stern warnings and the effects associated with this? See 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Read that. Consider that. IF there's no body to discern here because it's not there, then why the warning about not discerning it in the "cup and bread?" My point is not the content of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, it's the absurdity of the warning if we're dealing only with a metaphor. Well, maybe God was just kidding or being metaphoric there, too (hey, maybe John 3:16 is just metaphor). Why this punishment for not discerning something that isn't there? Now foot washing was a metaphor, a symbol.... but there's NO warning associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Passover Meal was symbolic, but there is never any warning associated with it or consequences associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 seems absurd, even evil and wrong, if Jesus didn't mean what He said, if it's "obvious by the words" that this is only a metaphor.



3. And, perhaps BECAUSE foot washing was universally, always seen as symbolic, it wasn't practiced much by the early church (it's just metaphor) but Communion was critical, a part of every worship service, often seen as the highlight of Christian worship, the Sacrament seen as very important (unlike anything regarded as metaphor or symbol). I'm curious..... if the words mean it's "clearly OBVIOUS" this is just metaphor, only a symbol (like foot washing), then why was/is it seen SO important unlike EVERY case of ANYTHING always seen as symbolic?



Oh, well..... just curious. I'm standing with what Jesus said and Paul penned.... what 100% of Christians for over 15 Centuries universally believed and treasured. I'm just not buying the whole apologetic of "It can't be true - so it's not." IMO, it's likely not one Christian for over 1500 years saw this as obviously metaphoric because it's not. And every Christian held this is very important and a treasured blessing because it is. The biblical warning makes sense because it's not a symbol, we are to discern something because there is something to discern, not nothing. If it was the equal of foot washing, then it would be universally and ALWAYS embraced as such.... not regarded as terribly important.... no warnings about it. Obviously, some have bought into Zwingli's doubts and reinvention and disagree.



.


Prove it.


http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html



The Didache
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
St. Serapion of Antioch
St. Ephrem of Syria
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianzen
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan
Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine of Hippo
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo the Great
St. Caesarius of Arles
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe

Just a short list of those accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned, verbatim accepting Real Presence. Just in the first 400 years. There are many, many, many more.


Now, present your long list of Christians who insisted that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/pinned but instead meant just some metaphor. LET'S COMPARE LISTS.





.

I need more evidence than Josiah’s opinion that NO CHRISTIAN before 1500 believed anything except the body and blood of Jesus present in the “bread and wine”. The names of 27 people that believed that leaves us far short of his claim.



.... and you listed, um, none.



Okay, I'll rephrase: " As far as can be documented, all Christians prior to the 16th Century held to Real Presence..." The post is balanced: I gave a long list of examples of influential Christians AND ASKED YOU TO GIVE YOUR LIST... you offered not one, not one person before the 16th Century. You complained - repeatedly - that I "ONLY offered 27 and then stopped". Okay. It should be noted you offered NONE. Now, how about addressing the points in the post?


I think the POINT I made stands.... and I think it clear you chose to pick on this simply to evade the points made. Again.



- Josiah





.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.... and you listed, um, none.
.
I never offered to name anyone because I never made any claims about what EVERYONE believed or what NO ONE believed.
You frequently make claims about what EVERYONE believed or what NO ONE believed, but never really come close to proving your claims.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Now, how about addressing the points in the post?
1. The claim is not proven and likely false.
2. Because it is important to do what God says ... just like repent AND be baptized.
3. One is a command and the other was an example to follow to teach a lesson.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
.... and you listed, um, none.



Okay, I'll rephrase: " As far as can be documented, all Christians prior to the 16th Century held to Real Presence..." The post is balanced: I gave a long list of examples of influential Christians AND ASKED YOU TO GIVE YOUR LIST... you offered not one, not one person before the 16th Century. You complained - repeatedly - that I "ONLY offered 27 and then stopped". Okay. It should be noted you offered NONE. Now, how about addressing the points in the post?


I think the POINT I made stands.... and I think it clear you chose to pick on this simply to evade the points made. Again.



- Josiah





.
So, you're saying the church at Rome and the Church at Moscow believed in real presence. Does that encompass all Christians everywhere? You are making universal claims, which you are obligated to prove, universally.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Easy. Took me less than two seconds.


http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html



The Didache
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
St. Serapion of Antioch
St. Ephrem of Syria
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianzen
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan
Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine of Hippo
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo the Great
St. Caesarius of Arles
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe

Just a short list of those accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned, verbatim accepting Real Presence. Just in the first 400 years. There are many, many, many more.


Now, present your long list of Christians who insisted that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/pinned but instead meant just some metaphor. Let's compare lists.






.

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.
"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."​
Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

Did you even BOTHER to read any of this?
You posted it as proof that St Clement believed in the real presence ... where does what he said even come close to talking about Communion being symbolic or physical? Instead all that he does is calls on the example of the OT Priests to contradict what Jesus taught ... Jesus told them, "In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called 'friends of the people.' But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves. [Luke 22:25-27]
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Do you see real presence in this early document?

There is a very early description of the correct way to celebrate the Eucharist (meaning in Greek “thanksgiving”) in the*Didache, a work cited by the Christian writers Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) and Athanasius (c. 293-373). Though known through those authors, the*Didache*in manuscript form had been lost for over 1,400 years until it was re-discovered in 1873 by a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan, Philotheos Bryennios, in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulcher in Istanbul.

Bryennios published the*Didache*in 1883. It was immediately recognized as one of the most important manuscripts (Latin manu meaning “by hand” and scriptus meaning “written”) of the Early Church because it was obviously written before church hierarchy was firmly in place and was very close to the Jewish Apostolic Age.

The*Didache*begins: “The teaching of the Lord through the twelve Apostles to the Gentiles ( meaning ‘nations’).”

According to the Teaching, this is how the Eucharist should be celebrated:

“And with respect to the thanksgiving meal, you shall give thanks as follows:*First with respect to the cup: ‘We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.’

And with respect to the fragment of bread: ‘We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.

As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered to become one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus Christ forever.’

But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said about this, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs.’

And when you have had enough to eat, you shall give thanks as follows:*‘We give you thanks, holy Father, for your holy name which you have made reside in our hearts, and for the knowledge, faith and immortality that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.

You, O Master Almighty, created all things for the sake of your name, and gave both food and drink to humans for their refreshment, that they might give you thanks. And you graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your child.

Above all we thank you because you are powerful. To you be the glory forever.*Remember your church, O Lord; save it from all evil, and perfect it in your love. And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom, which you prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever.

May grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha! (Come, Lord!) Amen. (So be it.)

But permit the prophets to give thanks (or: ‘hold the eucharist’) as often as they wish.’”*Didache 9. 10

https://earlychurchhistory.org/beliefs-2/communion-in-the-early-church/

It seems that "real presence" comes later.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
"Several centuries later the 4th century Gentile theologian Cyril of Jerusalem left a more detailed and ritualistic instruction for Communion"
https://earlychurchhistory.org/beliefs-2/communion-in-the-early-church/

This means that there are hundreds of years before Cyril, a person who knew nothing of Jewish culture, makes his claims.

It seems that any claims of "real presence" being the teaching of all Christians in the early church is unsubstantiated hyperbole.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married

Thank you for this very early confirmation of Real Presence.



From your link:




Yup. Affirming Real Presence. And the words "symbolize" "metaphor" never once even apear.

Yup.




.
You ignore the didache which doesn't declare real presence. Instead you quote a few hundred years later.
At what point will you admit you cannot claim real presence as a universal belief of the early church?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It occurs to me that billions of angels are probably screaming “’DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’ was the IMPORTANT part!
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It occurs to me that billions of angels are probably screaming “’DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’ was the IMPORTANT part!

Why would you assume that angels think the rest of what their Lord said is not worth anything?
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
So, you're saying the church at Rome and the Church at Moscow believed in real presence. Does that encompass all Christians everywhere? You are making universal claims, which you are obligated to prove, universally.

This is cheap rhetorical theatrics...

I mean, there was perhaps a guy in a prison cell in Barcelona in 1093 who did not believe in the Real Presence... How ya gonna prove there wasn't?

Sophomores have the wisdom to laugh at this argument...

When he writes that the Real Presence was believed by all, he means all of Christianity in that time frame - eg All the Churches believed in it, and when one did not, that does not refute his argument, because if that should happen, that Church would be corrected... Heck, ANY heresy would defeat the argument by your so-called refutation...

This sounds like an 11 year old's argument who just learned logic...

Or one who is learning the power of asking "Why?..." without caring what the answer is, because whatever it is, he will ask "Why?"... again and again...

Twisting an argument into cheap and easily dismissed logical theatrics is a shallow-hearted thing to do...

Excusable when being explored by a child, heartless when administered by an adult...

It is no more than adolescent logic chopping...


Arsenios
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
This is cheap rhetorical theatrics...

I mean, there was perhaps a guy in a prison cell in Barcelona in 1093 who did not believe in the Real Presence... How ya gonna prove there wasn't?

Sophomores have the wisdom to laugh at this argument...

When he writes that the Real Presence was believed by all, he means all of Christianity in that time frame - eg All the Churches believed in it, and when one did not, that does not refute his argument, because if that should happen, that Church would be corrected... Heck, ANY heresy would defeat the argument by your so-called refutation...

This sounds like an 11 year old's argument who just learned logic...

Or one who is learning the power of asking "Why?..." without caring what the answer is, because whatever it is, he will ask "Why?"... again and again...

Twisting an argument into cheap and easily dismissed logical theatrics is a shallow-hearted thing to do...

Excusable when being explored by a child, heartless when administered by an adult...


Arsenios
When he writes that real presence was believed by all he means...the State approved churches taught real presence and any dissent would have quickly been snuffed out. There are many martyrs at the hands of State sanctioned churches who were killed because they dissented. They were called heretics and were summarily executed.
So...the theatrics is the person claiming universal belief of real presence between 0 CE and 1500 CE.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You ignore the didache which doesn't declare real presence. Instead you quote a few hundred years later.


I think you are evading that EVEN THE SOLE THING YOU"VE NOTED says nothing whatsoever about anything at all being "symbolic" or a "metaphor."
Instead, it states (verbatim, literally, in black-and-white), "having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also the cup of His blood."


Yup. Thank you for that confirmation of my point.




.
 
Top Bottom