# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Eucharist is unbiblical

## Kevin007

* THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION.*         The R.C.C. believes and teaches that the priest has been given the  authority and power by the Lord to change the bread and wine of the  communion into the actual, physical body and blood of the Lord Jesus  Christ:


 _When  our Lord instituted the blessed Eucharist, He said: Do this for a  commemoration of me (Luke 22:19), and by these words He gave power and  commission to His apostles and their successors to do what He had done -  namely, to change bread and wine into His body and blood, and to  administer the same to others. It is in the Mass that this change is  made - it is made in the name and by the power of Christ. In His name,  the priest says: This is my body, this is my blood; and in the very  same instant in which these words are pronounced, the bread and wine  become, by virtue of a divine power, the body and blood of Christ. The  appearances, indeed, remain the same as before, but the substance is  changed. This is called transubstantiation._*(10)

*
_         If any one shall deny (states the Council of Trent) that the body and  blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and  therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really and substantially  contained in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be accursed  (Conc. Trid., Sess. 13, de Euchar, can. 1)_*(11)

*
_         The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ,  offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, to  commemorate and continue the sacrifice of the cross._*(12)

*
        Nowhere is this ever taught in the Bible. In fact, Jesus clearly stated that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine *only* *in remembrance of Him*  (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The bread and the wine are only symbolic of the body  of Christ that was broken for us and His blood that was shed on the  cross. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ *is not to be offered again* - that *He gave* *Himself once as a final and perfect offering on the cross*, after which He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven from where He will only return at His second coming (Acts 1:11).


 _Nor did He (Jesus) enter heaven to offer Himself again and again _ (Heb. 9:25).
_         Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties;  again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away  sins_ (This points to the Jewish Old Testament animal sacrifices)._ But when this Priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God _ (Heb. 10:11,12) [Explanations added].


_        Because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy_ (Heb. 10:14).

_        For Christ died for sins once for all  to bring you to God_ (1 Pet. 3:18).


         Not only does the Bible teach clearly that Jesus sacrifice on the  cross was final and complete, but the Word emphatically warns us not to  offer Jesus again:


 * to their loss they are crucifying (offering) the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace  (Heb. 6:6)*





http://www.uwitness.net/religion-art...atholic-church

Notice the bolded verses, which clearly teach that Jesus' sacrifice was a one time completed event. Jesus can not and will not come down from Heaven to be offered over and over again, which clearly contradicts Scripture. There is no need or reason to do this anyway- none.

----------


## Kevin007

In 1 Jn.4:2-3 it says “Every Spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has _come in the flesh_ is of God” this means only once he incarnated. John is writing after the resurrection In Greek this denotes a continuous action from the past continuing through to the future. In other words, the same body that Jesus took at the incarnation is the same body He resurrected in and dwells in forever. He does not *become* many little wafers or bodies, being called down from heaven by a priest to be ingested and come out the digestive track (I’m sorry to be so descriptive) He came in the flesh only once he rose in the flesh and continues in a flesh body throughout eternity. He doesn’t put His power or grace in inanimate objects. Grace comes from the person of the Father and Jesus Christ just as the scripture states. Catholics need to trust in God’s word to have the truth, not in their Catechism or traditions.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.letusreason.org/rc10.htm

----------


## erowe1

Why does anything in the OP mean that the eucharist is unbiblical though? Isn't the eucharist the same thing as the Lord's Supper, which Christians are told in the Bible to observe until He comes?

----------


## fisharmor

Hey Kevin, serious question.  How do you feel about homosexuality?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I have the OP on ignore, so all's I can see is the headline.  The simple answer is that it is an incorrect claim.  Jesus disagrees with the OP:




> And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them,  saying, *"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."* In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, *"This cup is  the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.**"*


IDK about y'all, but I say Jesus > Kevin any day.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why does anything in the OP mean that the eucharist is unbiblical though? *Isn't the eucharist the same thing as the Lord's Supper, which Christians are told in the Bible to observe until He comes?*


Yes. (though in the literal sense-body and blood, as He called it)

----------


## Crashland

> I have the OP on ignore, so all's I can see is the headline.  The simple answer is that it is an incorrect claim.  Jesus disagrees with the OP:
> 
> 
> IDK about y'all, but I say Jesus > Kevin any day.


I'm sure Jesus meant it literally, just like the passover charoset is totally actual brick and mortar

----------


## euphemia

Not all churches teach that view of Eucharist.  For many churches, the bread and cup _represent_ the body and blood of Christ.  They do not _become_ them.

----------


## Kevin007

> Not all churches teach that view of Eucharist.  For many churches, the bread and cup _represent_ the body and blood of Christ.  They do not _become_ them.


I realize that

----------


## lilymc

> I have the OP on ignore, so all's I can see is the headline.  The simple answer is that it is an incorrect claim.  Jesus disagrees with the OP:
> 
> 
> IDK about y'all, but I say Jesus > Kevin any day.


I don't want to speak for Kevin, but it seems to me he's talking specifically about transubstantiation....not simply about _communion_  as a remembrance of what Jesus did for us, which most churches do.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't want to speak for Kevin, but it seems to me he's talking specifically about transubstantiation....not simply about _communion_  as a remembrance of what Jesus did for us, which most churches do.


yep.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Not all churches teach that view of Eucharist.*  For many churches, the bread and cup _represent_ the body and blood of Christ.  They do not _become_ them.


Yup.  Only the EOC and RCC believe in Transubstantiation, AFAIK.

----------


## fr33

I'm pretty sure the bible will never accomplish "Peace Through Religion". Just look at how it's followers are always at each others' throats.

Anyways, it reminded me of a song.

----------


## amy31416

It's strange how someone criticizing my family's religion wants to make me embrace it more. This strategy doesn't work if you are looking to turn people away from Catholicism--and I'm agnostic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm pretty sure the bible will never accomplish "Peace Through Religion". Just look at how it's followers are always at each others' throats.
> 
> Anyways, it reminded me of a song.


Jesus didn't promise peace until his return.  Matthew 10:34-35, for one example.  He commanded people to be peaceful, but getting them to do it is a different thing altogether.

----------


## Kevin007

Nowhere is this ever taught in the Bible. In fact, Jesus clearly stated that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine *only* *in remembrance of Him*   (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The bread and the wine are only symbolic of the  body  of Christ that was broken for us and His blood that was shed on  the  cross. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ *is not to be offered again* - that *He gave* *Himself once as a final and perfect offering on the cross*, after which He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven from where He will only return at His second coming (Acts 1:11).

----------


## Kevin007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy_7haflaM

----------


## fisharmor

Kevin, I really would like an answer.

----------


## TER

> I don't want to speak for Kevin, but it seems to me he's talking specifically about transubstantiation....not simply about _communion_  as a remembrance of what Jesus did for us, which most churches do.


Except all the historical writings going down to the first century as well as the stated beliefs of the Church Fathers _also_ going down to the first century (not to forget what Christ Himself explicitly taught!) disagrees with you in this regard. 

 The fact is that the interpretation you have chosen with regards to the Eucharist as being only a 'symbol' did not come about until the Reformation.  The Eucharist (on the Lord's Day, meaning Sunday) was always the center of worship for the early Church and believed to be the real presence of Christ before them.  They also believed that by partaking of His Body and Blood (a very guarded event) was a mystical actualization of communion with Christ and partaking in the eschaton and Kingdom of Heaven.  The scholars of early Christian history all agree to this fact (of course, you will find some here and there who ignore all the available evidence and come up with theories in order to push their own presuppositions, but these are few).  If someone truly wished to learn the truth, then that fact should make them question themself.  Or, perhaps not!  Comfort and convenience sometime trumps the diligent searching for the truth unfortunately!  But for those who refuse to ignore history and the teachings which go back for 2000 years and attached to apostolic succession, who are earnest in learning the truth and give up everything for Christ to follow Him, and who humble themselves and realize that they alone are not the arbitrator of what is true nor are they some kind of pope.  These true honest and objective disciples know that the Church of baptized members in unity of faith as handed down by the apostles is the pillar and foundation of truth, just as described in the Scriptures and the history of the Church.  Our own individual interpretation of things against and apart from the apostolic Church leads us to heresy and delusion, even though we may fool ourselves and say it is the Holy Spirit which has revealed to us the truths.  But  the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion!  If our truths go against what the Church has faithfully and divinely passed down, then it is we who are in error when we go against the saints no matter how much blame we put on the Holy Spirit.) 

The simple truth is that to cast away as a mere symbol what Christ Himself established and taught was His Body and Blood, which His Apostles in turn also taught and passed down as well, and what the liturgical tradition for 2000 continuous years within the life of the Church has undeniably confirmed is a huge mistake which is on account of ignorance or pride.  Ignorance for the one who refuses to read and study the early Christian writers and learn the divinely led truths lest they see how far from communion they are with the saints, and pride for those who go to seminaries, read tons of pages, and still in their vanity of mind and pride cannot see the forest from the trees.  Many however are, by the grace of God,  seeking out in spirit and truth the Church of the New Testament and have come to find it is the Orthodox Church.  Many non-Orthodox are coming to this realization and are coming back to the faith of their spiritual forefathers.  Glory to God!  Perhaps this will indeed be the century of Orthodoxy in America now that the technology is available and the roots have been planted.  If America ever needed it, it is now.

----------


## presence

I am the bread and wine of my body.

----------


## fisharmor

> The fact is that the interpretation you have chosen with regards to the Eucharist as being only a 'symbol' did not come about until the Reformation.


"Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete."

----------


## TN_VOL

Kevin007 What version of the Bible are you reading where the word "only" is preceded by in remembrance of me in 1 Cor. 11:23-26? I have checked Biblehub.com and the word "only" does not appear in any of the 20 or so versions they provide.

----------


## fisharmor

> Kevin007 What version of the Bible are you reading where the word "only" is preceded by in remembrance of me in 1 Cor. 11:23-26? I have checked Biblehub.com and the word "only" does not appear in any of the 20 or so versions they provide.


There are plenty of Bible studies around that will refer back to the Greek and give you the expanded explanation for what it actually says.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Except all the historical writings going down to the first century as well as the stated beliefs of the Church Fathers _also_ going down to the first century (not to forget what Christ Himself explicitly taught!) disagrees with you in this regard. 
> 
>  The fact is that the interpretation you have chosen with regards to the Eucharist as being only a 'symbol' did not come about until the Reformation.  The Eucharist (on the Lord's Day, meaning Sunday) was always the center of worship for the early Church and believed to be the real presence of Christ before them.  They also believed that by partaking of His Body and Blood (a very guarded event) was a mystical actualization of communion with Christ and partaking in the eschaton and Kingdom of Heaven.  The scholars of early Christian history all agree to this fact (of course, you will find some here and there who ignore all the available evidence and come up with theories in order to push their own presuppositions, but these are few).  If someone truly wished to learn the truth, then that fact should make them question themself.  Or, perhaps not!  Comfort and convenience sometime trumps the diligent searching for the truth unfortunately!  But for those who refuse to ignore history and the teachings which go back for 2000 years and attached to apostolic succession, who are earnest in learning the truth and give up everything for Christ to follow Him, and who humble themselves and realize that they alone are not the arbitrator of what is true nor are they some kind of pope.  These true honest and objective disciples know that the Church of baptized members in unity of faith as handed down by the apostles is the pillar and foundation of truth, just as described in the Scriptures and the history of the Church.  Our own individual interpretation of things against and apart from the apostolic Church leads us to heresy and delusion, even though we may fool ourselves and say it is the Holy Spirit which has revealed to us the truths.  But  the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion!  If our truths go against what the Church has faithfully and divinely passed down, then it is we who are in error when we go against the saints no matter how much blame we put on the Holy Spirit.) 
> 
> The simple truth is that to cast away as a mere symbol what Christ Himself established and taught was His Body and Blood, which His Apostles in turn also taught and passed down as well, and what the liturgical tradition for 2000 continuous years within the life of the Church has undeniably confirmed is a huge mistake which is on account of ignorance or pride.  Ignorance for the one who refuses to read and study the early Christian writers and learn the divinely led truths lest they see how far from communion they are with the saints, and pride for those who go to seminaries, read tons of pages, and still in their vanity of mind and pride cannot see the forest from the trees.  Many however are, by the grace of God,  seeking out in spirit and truth the Church of the New Testament and have come to find it is the Orthodox Church.  Many non-Orthodox are coming to this realization and are coming back to the faith of their spiritual forefathers.  Glory to God!  Perhaps this will indeed be the century of Orthodoxy in America now that the technology is available and the roots have been planted.  If America ever needed it, it is now.


Amen!

----------


## jmdrake

_Full Definition of METAPHOR

1
:  a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly :  figurative language — compare simile
2
:  an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor :  symbol 2
— met·a·phor·ic  or met·a·phor·i·cal  adjective
— met·a·phor·i·cal·ly  adverb
 See metaphor defined for English-language learners »
See metaphor defined for kids »
Examples of METAPHOR

“He was drowning in paperwork” is a metaphor in which having to deal with a lot of paperwork is being compared to drowning in an ocean of water.
Her poems include many imaginative metaphors.
a poet admired for her use of metaphor
You see, menudo is our chicken soup for the body and soul, our metaphor for bread-and-butter issues. —Joe Rodriguez, San Jose Mercury News, 20 May 2003_

People can feel free to believe that Jesus had no idea what a metaphor meant or never used metaphors or whatever.  People can feel equally free to believe that Jesus was using a metaphor in this case just like He used a metaphor when He said the Pharisees were "whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones."  I believe the latter.  

I am curious though.  Supposedly the "miracle" of transubstantiation happens when a holy priest blesses the bread and wine right?  But what about when the priest isn't holy?  That to me is the real significance of the priest sex abuse scandal (besides the cover up by church officials).  Sure there are protestant pastors who are wicked themselves.  (One recently gave some of his congregation HIV).  But nobody believes that when a protestant pastor officiates a communion service it has any miracle necessarily happens anyway.

----------


## robert68

They say it looks and tastes like wine and bread. If it's wine and bread under a microscope, it's still wine and bread.

----------


## TN_VOL

Furthermore Paul affirms the Real Presence in 1 Corinthians 10:16. "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" And in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing  For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason why many among you are weak and sick , and a number sleep." In other words, if you're receiving Communion while you're not in right relationship with Jesus, you're poisoning your own soul, a sort of spiritual suicide caused by committing mortal sin. Secondly if the Lords body and blood are not present, how can a wrong be committed against them? Also keep in mind John 13:27 Then after he (Judas) had taken the morsel ( Holy Communion), Satan entered into him. (John 13:27)

----------


## Kevin007

> Hey Kevin, serious question.  How do you feel about homosexuality?


I feel it is wrong, a sin. Why do you ask?

----------


## TER

> People can feel free to believe that Jesus had no idea what a metaphor meant


This is why internet discussions often times go nowhere.  I would ask that we try to be more mature in our dialogue my friend.  I don't think anyone put forward the proposition that Jesus has no idea what a metaphor is. I think we can hVe fruitful discussions without going to extremes.




> ...or never used metaphors or whatever.  People can feel equally free to believe that Jesus was using a metaphor in this case just like He used a metaphor when He said the Pharisees were "whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones."  I believe the latter.


As does any rational human being.  Thank you for confirming it!  However, you have yet proved your positions that Christ was using metaphors and was not being literal when He said:




> "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me." (John 6)


In fact, the only evidence we have of the early Church, confirms undoubtedly the literalness of these teachings by the Church.   These are simply the facts. 




> I am curious though.  Supposedly the "miracle" of transubstantiation happens when a holy priest blesses the bread and wine right?  But what about when the priest isn't holy?


In the early 4th century, this actually came to debate.  At that time in North Africa there was a group of Christians in the so called Donatist movement, named after the Bishop of Carthage Donatus Magnus.  This movement occurred after the Diocletian persecutions when many baptized Christians apostacized because of imperial threats.   This movement of rigorists did not recognize the validity of the sacraments and spiritual authority of those clergy who handed over spiritual books to be burned during the persecution and believed that there is no forgiveness for such grave sin after baptizism because the Church should be a gathering of only holy saints, not sinners.  They also professed that any sacraments given by a clergy who had did such great sin would be invalid.  This group then separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and schismed and then forming their own heirarchy.  This happened in 311 AD.  They lingered until the fifth century.  More information can be found here.

This led to the one of the first great councils and indeed the first representative meeting of Christian hierarchs held in the western part of the Roman Empire in the year 313.

This council was the first one called by emperor Constantine, and below is quoted his letter to summon the meeting.  This one is addressed to the Bishop of Syracuse, but is the same letter sent to the Christian Bishops spread throughout the known world:




> (21) Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse.
> 
> When certain men began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and catholic doctrine [a reference to the Donatist schism], I wished to put an end to such disputes among them. So I commanded that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other should be summoned from Africa. In this way the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome [this was the Council of Rome in 313].
> 
> (22) But some of them, who seem to have forgotten both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to the most holy religion, have not yet brought the hostilities to an end. They are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed [at Rome in 313], and assert that not enough bishops were present to express their opinions and decisions. They assert that those [present at Rome] had been too hasty in giving judgment, before all the things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been examined. On this account it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other are shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give occasion to be ridiculed by those men whose souls are estranged from this most holy religion. Therefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been already given by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible, be brought to an end by the presence of a great number of bishops.
> 
> (23) Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to assemble in the city of Arles, before the 1st of August, we have thought proper to write to you also. You should secure from the most illustrious Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and you should choose two others of the second rank and take them with you. You should bring along three servants who may serve you on the way, and arrive to the above-mentioned place before the appointed day. It is disgraceful that shameful feuds have allowed this dispute to continue until the present time. Hopefully it can be resolved when all sides have been heard from, both those who are now at variance with one another, and those whom I have commanded to be present. By your firmness and the wise unanimity and harmony of other present, this division can be healed, in accordance with the faith, so that brotherly harmony may be restored, even if gradually.
> 
> (24) May the Almighty God preserve thee in health for many years.


In this Council, in deliberation, discussion, and above all prayer to God, the Bishops ruled against the re-baptism of heretics (that is, there requires confession and penance, but not a new baptism for those who lapsed).  The council also ruled that clergy who could be proven to have been persecuted and delivered sacred books to be burned should be deposed, _but their official acts were to be held valid._ The council also ruled that at least three bishops were required at the consecration of a bishop.

This is called the Council of Arles (southern Gaul) in the year 314.  So what was proclaimed to be the catholic orthodox faith of the Church of Christians was that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of the ordained clergy, since it is God Who sanctifies the mystery.  St. Augustine goes on to explain this.  In Latin it is called _ex opere operato_. Click here for more information.




> That to me is the real significance of the priest sex abuse scandal (besides the cover up by church officials).  Sure there are protestant pastors who are wicked themselves.  (One recently gave some of his congregation HIV).  *But nobody believes that when a protestant pastor officiates a communion service it has any miracle necessarily happens anyway.*


That is so sad, my friend, to hear you, a Christian, say, and in such a matter of fact way.  How much you are missing!  Your position regarding the Holy Eucharist puts you theologically (and maybe spiritually) at odds with _every_ baptized Christian for the first 1600 years of the history of Christianity.  And I am not exaggerating that.  I can only hope one day you will come to know.

One can only say 'Come and see!'

----------


## RJB

> One can only say 'Come and see!'


Agreed.  God changed my atheistic heart.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Agreed.  God changed my atheistic heart.


+1  (though I was never atheist...I went from non-denom>>baptist>>non-denom>>deist>>non-denom>>orthodox over the course of ~30 years)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They say it looks and tastes like wine and bread. If it's wine and bread under a microscope, it's still wine and bread.


Perhaps science will catch up one day.  Nobody believed in or understood cells or atoms till they were discovered.  It was all faith till then.  Read up on science history sometime.  Until the modern era, science and religion were extremely entwined in East and West alike.  (Mendel came up with the name "cell" because what he examined looked like monks' cells to him!)

----------


## jmdrake

> This is why internet discussions often times go nowhere.  I would ask that we try to be more mature in our dialogue my friend.  I don't think anyone put forward the proposition that Jesus has no idea what a metaphor is. I think we can hVe fruitful discussions without going to extremes.
> 
> As does any rational human being.  Thank you for confirming it!  However, you have yet proved your positions that Christ was using metaphors and was not being literal when He said:


TER, the *only* proof that you have that Jesus was not using a metaphor is if you take the position that He never used a metaphor.  Sorry if my pointing out the obvious offends you.  Yes Jesus said what you said He said.  He also said the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs.  It's interesting that the only way you can "rebut" my argument is to ignore the main point of it.  Everyone knows that Jesus used a metaphor when talking about the Pharisees.  Therefore logic bars you from using Jesus' words regarding His body and blood as being proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically.  




> That is so sad, my friend, to hear you, a Christian, say, and in such a matter of fact way.  How much you are missing!  Your position regarding the Holy Eucharist puts you theologically (and maybe spiritually) at odds with _every_ baptized Christian for the first 1600 years of the history of Christianity.  And I am not exaggerating that.  I can only hope one day you will come to know.
> 
> One can only say 'Come and see!'


No.  What's sad is that once again you didn't even address what I said.  I will repeat it.  In some cases the priests officiating over the Eucharist have been extremely wicked people that will most likely burn in hell.  I'm talking about child molesters and worse.  So...what becomes of the Eucharist when a wicket priest presides over it?  For the protestant that is not a problem.  For the RCC and EO Christian it is.....?  Do you think God let's the Holy Spirit pass through these unholy men to perform the miracle of the Eucharist anyway?  Do you think that in those cases no miracle actually happens?  I've brought this question up before and I don't recall you ever attempting to answer.  If you have my apologies for forgetting.

----------


## robert68

> This led to the one of the first great councils and indeed the first representative meeting of Christian hierarchs held in the western part of the Roman Empire in the year 313.
> 
> This council was the first one called by emperor Constantine, and below is quoted his letter to summon the meeting.
> ...


When the heavy hand of emperors and imperial politics decide things, you surely know the result will be the truth.  Thats why were all here after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism#Churches

----------


## heavenlyboy34

@jmdrake-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6.html



> Those Protestants who reject the real presence of Christ in the  Eucharist will often allege that the John 6:35-68 meaning of eating the  flesh and drinking blood actually is believing in Jesus Christ for  salvation.  As has been presented by these Protestants, that is the only  way one could interpret Jesus saying one must Eat the Flesh and Drink  the Blood.  Some will show a parallel of John 6:35 with John 6:54 which  at first glance, may seem to say that eating the flesh and believing are  the same thing. Let us see whether this is a plausible explanation of  Jesus, and eating flesh and drinking blood means believing: 
>  First, Jesus in John 6:35 and 6:39 says:
>                                  35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall  not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
> 39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing  of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. 
> 
>  Then he writes:
> 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 
> 
>  Since John 6:35 talks of bread, hunger and thirsting, and since Jesus  says that whoever believes (in v. 35) he will raise him up on the last  day, Protestants (those who reject the real presence in the Eucharist)  say the same language is used in reference to eating the flesh and  drinking of blood Jesus will raise on the last day as well.  Thus, the  Catholics supposedly ignore this clear parallel.  The fact that Jesus  let people go away without him explaining that eating flesh means  believing is supposedly OK, because he said some people's heart will be  hardened, and for those there was no need to explain the truth to them  (Mt. 13:13-15).
> ...

----------


## TER

> TER, the *only* proof that you have that Jesus was not using a metaphor is if you take the position that He never used a metaphor.  Sorry if my pointing out the obvious offends you.


This is an incorrect statement.  I never said that Christ never used a metaphor.  I am not offended but merely perplexed on how you came up with that.  Just because Christ used metaphors (in fact, the parables themselves were filled with metaphors!) does not mean He was using a metaphor when He said certain other things.   We are in agreement, that Christ at times uses metaphors and other times He does not.  You have yet, however, proved anything to support your position and your interpretation with regards to the Holy Eucharist.




> Yes Jesus said what you said He said.  He also said the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs.  It's interesting that the only way you can "rebut" my argument is to ignore the main point of it.  Everyone knows that Jesus used a metaphor when talking about the Pharisees.  Therefore logic bars you from using Jesus' words regarding His body and blood as being proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically.


My proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically in John 6 is not only based on the very Scriptures (which I am sure you will allude to as well as your own individual proof), but more objectively and more historically concretely (in other words, realistically) by the universal teachings of the early Church, and in their worship and common belief with regards to the nature of the Eucharist.  My proof starts with the Scriptures and then can further demonstrate as proof the unanimous and continuous confession of the Church from the beginning all the way until now.  It is you, rather, who have no proof at all other than your interpretation of the Scriptures, an interpretation which is in honest fact a distorted innovation apart from the Christian faith of the early Church.   

The fact which it seems _you_ do not want to face is that your interpretation regarding the Holy Eucharist is found literally NOWHERE in the history of Christian writings, nor in the witness or _kerygma_ of the baptized in Christ (until it was invented after the Reformation came).  If you want to make the claim that they (meaning all the Christians of the first 16 centuries) all had it wrong, you can try and make that claim.  ( a bold claim to make indeed!)  I would of course disagree that it is not they who were all universally wrong, but that it is you rather who have adopted a much later innovative interpretation apart from the faith handed down by the Apostles.

It is you, my friend, who have no proof to support your position within the  first 16 centuries of Christianity.  All you have is an ahistorical, unsubstantiated, and innovative interpretation of Scriptures from these later times apart from New Testament Church.




> No.  What's sad is that once again you didn't even address what I said.  I will repeat it.  In some cases the priests officiating over the Eucharist have been extremely wicked people that will most likely burn in hell.  I'm talking about child molesters and worse.  So...what becomes of the Eucharist when a wicket priest presides over it?  For the protestant that is not a problem.  For the RCC and EO Christian it is.....?  Do you think God let's the Holy Spirit pass through these unholy men to perform the miracle of the Eucharist anyway?  Do you think that in those cases no miracle actually happens?  I've brought this question up before and I don't recall you ever attempting to answer.  If you have my apologies for forgetting.


I don't recall you ever asking me this question and I am happy to repeat what I wrote in the post above, namely that the grace of God in the Holy Mysteries such as in Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are not dependent on the holiness of the ordained clergy whose work it is to prepare and administer these charisms and spiritual gifts to the faithful which God empowers and manifests.  In the year 314, the catholic orthodox and apostolic faith of the Church was proclaimed once and for all time the answer to this question when it sprung up for debate on account of a fringe merciless group from North Africa who were threatening the unity and peace of the Church. I am sorry you oppose this orthodox and apostolic confession.  You cannot understand how a sinful priest can provide holy gifts to the people of God because (I suspect) you have a poor understanding of the sacraments and how it is all by the Grace of God whereby we receive and participate in the divine nature and transformative powers of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Mysteries.  The sins of the priest do not in any way limit God.

----------


## Kevin007

> This is why internet discussions often times go nowhere.  I would ask that we try to be more mature in our dialogue my friend.  I don't think anyone put forward the proposition that Jesus has no idea what a metaphor is. I think we can hVe fruitful discussions without going to extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> As does any rational human being.  Thank you for confirming it!  However, you have yet proved your positions that Christ was using metaphors and was not being literal when He said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the only evidence we have of the early Church, confirms undoubtedly the literalness of these teachings by the Church.   These are simply the facts. 
> ...


this is totally untrue. What are you talking about? 


*C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:*

  Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
  Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.

*1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):*
  Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ: 
  "Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
*2. Irenaeus (180 AD):* 

  Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!  "Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
*3. Tertullian (200 AD):*

  Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:  "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
*4. Cyprian (200 AD):* 

  Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:  ""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)  The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
*4. Hippolytus (200 AD):*

  Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:  "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)  For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-tr...tantiation.htm

----------


## Kevin007

*The   Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence**
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of   "transubstantiation".
*Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic   theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what   they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the   Bible pattern)
*Introduction:*
  The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ. 
*A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:*

No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof      texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most      naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the      body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to      strain the text as much as our mind.Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is      not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood"      and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the      vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as      both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then      Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but      rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat      & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the      Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor      11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves      transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread"      after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was      supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf      "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was:      Literal Flesh.In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the      "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that      is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the      covenant or is the cup the blood?In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the      cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would      not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a      part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually      taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place      is unthinkable.Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus      instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He      spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it      was a symbol.The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,      Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox      churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church      viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical      hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should      be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic      statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I      am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9),      "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the      world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the      salt, (Matthew 5:14)The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in      the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer      drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to      Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are      "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23      it says "He gave _it_ to them, and they all drank from it."      The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by      using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just      as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both      Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by      using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by      using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some      wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the      bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy      communion".We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will      grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and      the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the      full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes      away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are      immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes      sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence",      is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!
*B. Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent history:*
  Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper. 
  "The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)Orthodox writers misrepresent history, but correctly identify the Lord's Supper as a battle ground between Christians and Gnostics.
  "In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 173)The historically accurate way of saying this would be:
  "In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed. By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view. It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation."Some Gnostics groups refused to break bread altogether. The only churches today that do not break bread at all, like the Gnostics, are groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army. But even still, the 2nd century Gnostics and the church both viewed the elements of the Lord's Supper as symbolic. Transubstantiation was never the issue at this time.
  But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.
  "How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)Amazingly the language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church:
  "they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)In truth, however, this literalistic language was typical of how everyone talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. But we want to note that the Orthodox statement is quite wrong when they say the Gnostics distinguished between transubstantiation and the symbolic view, for they in fact used the same identical literalistic language as the church. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox historians to be consistent, they would need to admit, that if the literalistic language of "this is my body" proves transubstantiation, then they are forced to admit that the Gnostics at the time of Irenaeus in 180 AD, also believed in transubstantiation. Of course the truth is that both the church and Gnostics taught the symbolic view, while employing the same literalistic language.
  In fact, the logic employed by early church leaders like Irenaeus to defeat Gnosticism, were specifically based upon a symbolic, non-transubstantiation view of communion. In other words, Irenaeus' whole argument would have been defeated, if he believed in Transubstantiation. The very logic of Irenaeus' argument is that the Lord's supper is composed of natural elements of common juice and bread.
  "He (the Gnostic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be. Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!
  "Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics. 
  The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:
  "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)This is the kind of historical information that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep from their people. Both the early church and the Gnostics rejected transubstantiation and took the symbolic view.
*C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:*
  Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
  Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.
*1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):*
  Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ: 
  "Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)*2. Irenaeus (180 AD):* 
  Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!
  "Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)*3. Tertullian (200 AD):*
  Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
  "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)*4. Cyprian (200 AD):* 
  Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
  ""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)  The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)*4. Hippolytus (200 AD):*
  Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:
  "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)  For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)*D. The Devil's Plan:*
  The devil wanted to get the church to go into apostasy. So he started with the Gnostics who argued Jesus only appeared to have literal flesh and blood, but in fact he did not. After 200 years of anti-Gnostic battling, the church, finally adopted a remarkably similar view! Transubstantiation teaches that, although the elements of the Lord's Supper appear to be literal grape juice and bread, they are not what they appear. They are in fact different than what the 5 human senses tell us they really are: the literal blood and flesh of Christ. Our senses are deceiving us!
  At first (100-200 AD) the church merely began to emphasize to the Gnostics, that the symbols of the Lord's Supper were based upon a literal flesh of Christ. In time, however, between 225 and 300 AD, the church began to counter the Gnostic theology in a new way. Whereas before, they had argued that the symbols of the bread and juice must be based upon a literal body, they suddenly began to emphasizing the literalistic language Jesus: "this is my body" against the Gnostics. Although this new line of reasoning that began no sooner than 225 AD, was successful, it required an abandonment of the orthodox arguments used the century before, which were all directly based upon the symbolic view. But now the Devil had succeeded in getting the church to use one false doctrine (Transubstantiation) to defeat another: Gnosticism. Refuting one false doctrine with another is quite common in theological debates and the reader needs to be aware of this. For example, Seventh-day Adventists convert all kinds of Catholics to Saturday worship because Catholics mistakenly call Sunday the Sabbath. The Adventist correctly points out that the 7th day Sabbath is Saturday, but completely overlooks the fact that the Sabbath law itself was abolished. Thus Adventist false doctrine merely converts the Catholic from one false doctrine to another. In like manner, the church between 225 - 300 AD defeated the Gnostic false doctrine with the false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
*E. Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnosticism:*
  While the Gnostics claimed the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ on the cross was different than what it appeared to be, so too the church began to claim that the bread and juice were not what they appeared to be. Transubstantiation, therefore, is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear". 
*F. The case of transubstantiation proves that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches reliance on "church tradition" is invalid:*
  When the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation, they are teaching something quite "unorthodox and uncatholic". Christ, the apostolic tradition and the early church up to 200 AD universally taught the symbolic view. But even if we accept their claim that transubstantiation is the view that church tradition verifies, we ask, "Then why do you disagree with each other?"
  Remember, communion is a most basic and fundamental ordinance. In fact, since the earliest Christians gathered together for the express purpose of "breaking bread" (Acts 20:7) it obviously proves transubstantiation a non-biblical doctrine, because had it been taught by the apostles, the fourth century fight over the liturgy of the Lord's Supper would never have occurred. 
  "No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)The western church (which later developed into the Roman Catholic church, headed out of Rome) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was when the words "This is my body ... This is my blood" were spoken.
  The eastern church (which later developed into the Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was in the prayer of thanksgiving.
  Obviously then, "church tradition" does not lead to unity because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are irrevocably and bitterly divided over the Eucharist. Using the scriptures alone is the only way to settle all doctrinal matters.

----------


## TER

Kevin, using poorly translated quotes out of context from the Church Fathers does not support your position.  But that you are using them is a good start. You should do more of that.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, using poorly translated quotes out of context from the Church Fathers does not support your position.  But that you are using them is a good start. You should do more of that.


 want to refute them? or the 12 points? No you don't; because you cannot.

----------


## TER

> want to refute them?


Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear!  I rather move on to other discussions.

----------


## Kevin007

> Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear!  I rather move on to other discussions.


lol. Ask me a question, I'm here....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear!  I rather move on to other discussions.


Wise move, brother.  ~hugs~

----------


## RJB

> lol. Ask me a question, I'm here....


Here is a question:   Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?

----------


## Kevin007

> Here is a question:   Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?


its a memoriam. It's not trolling- its called fighting the good fight against false teachings.

----------


## Kevin007

> Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear!  I rather move on to other discussions.


actually all you do is dump hundreds of pro eo website articles on this board.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> actually all you do is dump hundreds of pro eo website articles on this board.


I've watched the debates.  This is false.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> its a memoriam. It's not trolling- its called fighting the good fight against false teachings.


There are no false teachings in the EOC.  That's why you can't address anything directly, and never have.  You just have baseless accusations and claims you can't prove. (and some outright lies)  I noticed that before I put you on ignore you didn't even understand the basics of EO teachings, and I still don't see it (on the occasions I have the patience to watch).

----------


## Kevin007

> There are no false teachings in the EOC.  That's why you can't address anything directly, and never have.  You just have baseless accusations and claims you can't prove. (and some outright lies)


plenty of false teachings..... you wouldn't admit to them if it hit you in the face.

----------


## RJB

> I've watched the debates.  This is false.


In some ways it's true.  I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can.  

Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.

He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches.  It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing.  Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.

----------


## Kevin007

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.ca/201...of-harlot.html

----------


## RJB

> http://galatiansfour.blogspot.ca/201...of-harlot.html


Your instincts for gathering research material resembles that of a dung beetle.

----------


## Kevin007

as usual, personal attacks I welcome them. It means the truth is getting out there. The wicked hate the truth.

----------


## Kevin007

> In some ways it's true.  I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can.  
> 
> Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.
> 
> He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches.  It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing.  Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.


lol, don't feel pity on me. I feel pity on you following false idols, icons and men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *In some ways it's true.  I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can. * 
> 
> Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.
> 
> He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches.  It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing.  Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.


Fair enough.  I'll concede that.

----------


## specsaregood

> as usual, personal attacks


I thought it was a compliment.  Dung beetles are fascinating insects that take a waste resource and improve the planet using it.  They are natural born recyclers, why the hate?   Not only that, they are the only insect to use the stars to navigate.   You should be thankful for the comparison, we should all hope to be so productive.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I thought it was a compliment.  Dung beetles are fascinating insects that take a waste resource and improve the planet using it.  They are natural born recyclers, why the hate?   Not only that, they are the only insect to use the stars to navigate.   You should be thankful for the comparison, we should all hope to be so productive.


That^^ and attacking debate skill is not a personal attack.

----------


## Kevin007

still never answered the problems with the eucharist (literal presence) not being biblical. Jesus also said He was the door. Is He a literal door?

----------


## RJB

> as usual, personal attacks I welcome them. It means the truth is getting out there. The wicked hate the truth.


Personal attacks?  Just about everything you post about my faith is a lie, a misrepresentation or severe misunderstanding.  When you post nothing that's true and ignore TER's response, there really isn't more to say than to point out that what CUT AND PASTE about my faith is crap.

----------


## Kevin007

> Personal attacks?  Just about everything you post about my faith is a lie, a misrepresentation or severe misunderstanding.  When you post nothing that's true and ignore TER's response, there really isn't more to say than to point out that what CUT AND PASTE about my faith is crap.


of course you think its a lie because you are so steeped in it.

----------


## Terry1

LOL

----------


## RJB

> of course you think its a lie because you are so steeped in it.


*IT'S A LIE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE MOST OF THE CRAP YOU ACCUSE ME OF BELIEVING!!!*

----------


## amy31416

This thread sucks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This thread sucks.


Yes indeedy, ma'am. ~hugs~

----------


## acptulsa

> "There is no argument in the world carries the hatred that a religious belief does.  The more learned a man is the less consideration he has for another man's belief."--_Will Rogers 1924_


Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter?  Really?

Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--_possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die_--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).

So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, _what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?_

Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other.  Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.

Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent.  Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?

----------


## jmdrake

> This is an incorrect statement.  I never said that Christ never used a metaphor.  I am not offended but merely perplexed on how you came up with that.  Just because Christ used metaphors (in fact, the parables themselves were filled with metaphors!) does not mean He was using a metaphor when He said certain other things.   We are in agreement, that Christ at times uses metaphors and other times He does not.  You have yet, however, proved anything to support your position and your interpretation with regards to the Holy Eucharist.


I didn't say you said that.  But your "proof" that Jesus was speaking literally was merely you again quoting Jesus where He could have very well have been speaking metaphorically.  The only way to reach the conclusion you did is either to provide clarification from Jesus where He said (not one of your church father said) "I'm really speaking literally" or to assume that Jesus never used metaphors.  You have not done either so your point fails.  Actually Jesus gave indication that He was speaking metaphorically when He said:

_John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life._

He had just said in verse 53:

_John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you._

The most obvious way to reconcile this apparent contradiction (flesh gives life....flesh profits nothing) is if Jesus was speaking metaphorically in verse 53 and then "clearing up the confusion" in verse 63.  It's like when Jesus said "Lazarus is sleeping" and His disciples came back with "That's good.  It means He's getting better."  And Jesus cleared up the confusion by saying "Lazaus is dead".




> My proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically in John 6 is not only based on the very Scriptures (which I am sure you will allude to as well as your own individual proof), but more objectively and more historically concretely (in other words, realistically) by the universal teachings of the early Church, and in their worship and common belief with regards to the nature of the Eucharist.


I understand that.  But you misspoke when you said this:




> Except all the historical writings going down to the first century as well as the stated beliefs of the Church Fathers also going down to the first century (*not to forget what Christ Himself explicitly taught!*) disagrees with you in this regard.


Here is my point.  *Nowhere did Christ explicitly teach what you claim He explicitly taught*!  Sorry for shouting, but I'm not sure what I have to do to get through to you on this point.  Jesus gave a teaching that could be taken two different ways.  The clarification given in John 6:63 implies that He didn't mean that teaching to be taken the way you are taking it.  You, and the church fathers you are quoting, took it literally.  That's fine.  But to say "Jesus explicitly taught X" when Jesus did *not* explicitly teach X is the problem. 




> I don't recall you ever asking me this question and I am happy to repeat what I wrote in the post above, namely that the grace of God in the Holy Mysteries such as in Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are not dependent on the holiness of the ordained clergy whose work it is to prepare and administer these charisms and spiritual gifts to the faithful which God empowers and manifests.  In the year 314, the catholic orthodox and apostolic faith of the Church was proclaimed once and for all time the answer to this question when it sprung up for debate on account of a fringe merciless group from North Africa who were threatening the unity and peace of the Church. I am sorry you oppose this orthodox and apostolic confession.  You cannot understand how a sinful priest can provide holy gifts to the people of God because (I suspect) you have a poor understanding of the sacraments and how it is all by the Grace of God whereby we receive and participate in the divine nature and transformative powers of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Mysteries.  The sins of the priest do not in any way limit God.


I oppose it because it's not true.  I'm sorry that bothers you.  It bothers me to see claims being made that Jesus "explicitly taught" something He didn't explicitly teach.  As for as the sins of the priest not limiting God, I agree.  But that's because I depend on the High Priest who lives in Heaven.  (Hebrews 4:15).  Because of that I can come "boldly before the throne of grace" without needing a human intercessor.  (Hebrews 4:16).  Imagine the young man sexually abused by the priest at the one RCC or EO church in his area.  If his receiving grace is dependent upon going back to this wicked priest, and he can't bring himself to do that, then he's out of luck.  But 1 Timothy 2:5 teaches that there is "one intercessor between God and man" and that is Jesus.  The one thing you have said that is correct is that God is not limited.  Indeed He is not.  The Eucharist teaching places an unnecessary limitation on God.

----------


## jmdrake

It's only important as a control mechanism.  If you believe that you must receive the sacraments to receive grace then you are bound to a particular group of men that are the ones "entrusted" to administer it, whether they are actually trustworthy or not.




> Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter?  Really?
> 
> Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--_possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die_--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).
> 
> So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, _what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?_
> 
> Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other.  Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.
> 
> Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent.  Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?

----------


## jmdrake

> Here is a question:   Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?


I know this question was to Kevin, but I find it confusing.  I believe there is a form of Christ's presence, through the Holy Spirit, everywhere.

_Psalms 139:8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there._

_Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them._

----------


## fisharmor

> I feel it is wrong, a sin. Why do you ask?


Surely you must be aware that there are interpretations of the Scriptures that mention homosexuality that argue that it is not a sin.
For instance, the men who wanted to have sex with the angels visiting Lot were trying to rape, and rape someone under Lot's hospitality.  Therefore it's not homosexuality which is the problem, but rape and abuse of guests.
Then there's the fact that the Hebrew word for "abomination" used to describe homosexual acts has strong connotations of idolatry.  So it's not the homosexual act which is wrong: it's the turning it into idolatry which is wrong.

Like it or not, there is technical wiggle room on this issue within Scripture.

So my follow-up questions are
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

----------


## jmdrake

> Surely you must be aware that there are interpretations of the Scriptures that mention homosexuality that argue that it is not a sin.
> For instance, the men who wanted to have sex with the angels visiting Lot were trying to rape, and rape someone under Lot's hospitality.  Therefore it's not homosexuality which is the problem, but rape and abuse of guests.
> Then there's the fact that the Hebrew word for "abomination" used to describe homosexual acts has strong connotations of idolatry.  So it's not the homosexual act which is wrong: it's the turning it into idolatry which is wrong.
> 
> Like it or not, there is technical wiggle room on this issue within Scripture.
> 
> So my follow-up questions are
> 1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?


And the alternative interpretation for Lev 18:22 is?

_Lev 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable._

How about Romans 1:27?

_Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error._

The gay Christian friends that I have don't have an "alternative interpretation" for that.  They just take the view that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.

Edit: And I'm confused as to why you brought that up in this thread.  Seems more appropriate for the "sola scriptura" threads.

----------


## fisharmor

> And the alternative interpretation for Lev 18:22 is?
> 
> _Lev 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable._
> 
> How about Romans 1:27?
> 
> _Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error._
> 
> The gay Christian friends that I have don't have an "alternative interpretation" for that.  They just take the view that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.
> ...


The whole point of the thread is that the Eucharist is unbibilical.
I'm bringing into the argument the fact - this is a fact, not my opinion, for I am certainly not championing this view - that there are Bible scholars out there who have weaseled around all of these verses.

But to answer your main question directly, it's quite easy.  *All of those verses are metaphor, and I'm surprised you wouldn't believe Paul and Moses capable of employing metaphors.*

So the follow-up questions I asked are, still,

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

----------


## jmdrake

> The whole point of the thread is that the Eucharist is unbibilical.
> I'm bringing into the argument the fact - this is a fact, not my opinion, for I am certainly not championing this view - that there are Bible scholars out there who have weaseled around all of these verses.
> 
> But to answer your main question directly, it's quite easy.  *All of those verses are metaphor, and I'm surprised you wouldn't believe Paul and Moses capable of employing metaphors.*
> 
> So the follow-up questions I asked are, still,
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?


Okay.  Silly argument.  But I'll play along.  What do you believe "man lying with man" is a metaphor for?  In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious.  The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood.  And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent.  By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women.  It happens all the time.  So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter?  Really?
> 
> Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--_possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die_--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).
> 
> So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, _what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?_
> 
> Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other.  Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.
> 
> Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent.  Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?


It's somewhat like fillioquism, only significantly more serious.  (this is a rather simplistic explanation, but I would like to K.I.S.S. for now)  The Church keeps the eucharist "closed" (that is, not given to those not members of the Church) precisely because of the grave seriousness of it handed down to us through tradition.  Christ being equally God and Man makes partaking in His body/blood a big deal.  It is not a "parlor trick".  A priest has apostolic succession, and thus the same authority to provide the eucharist as the apostles themselves-who also believed in and taught the literalness of the sacrament.  Again, a pretty big deal.  

Hope this is a sufficient reply.  If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay.  Silly argument.  But I'll play along.  What do you believe* "man lying with man"* is a metaphor for?  In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious.  The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood.  And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent.  By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women.  It happens all the time.  So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.


That's a euphamism, not metaphor.  It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick

----------


## jmdrake

> That's a euphamism, not metaphor.  It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick


Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism".  /nitpick

----------


## jmdrake

> That's a euphamism, not metaphor.  It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick


Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism".  /nitpick

----------


## fisharmor

> Okay.  Silly argument.


I agree.  That's why I stopped making it about four years ago.  And why I try to convince others it's silly.




> But I'll play along.  What do you believe "man lying with man" is a metaphor for?  In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious.  The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood.  And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent.  By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women.  It happens all the time.  So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.


The point you're not addressing is that it doesn't matter what I say it is!  I've stated I don't believe any of this stuff.  I'm not championing this position: I'm only pointing out that this position exists.  Whether or not you and I agree on this issue is also immaterial.  There is an argument in favor of homosexuality which is functionally identical to the argument that the Eucharist is only a remembrance.  I am asking you and Kevin to reconcile the fact that you do not believe this argument despite its being functionally identical to the one you're making.

So again, on the issue of homosexuality,
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism".  /nitpick


ok.  n/m.  I should've aimed at fish.  Sorry for fragging you. ~hugs~

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree.  That's why I stopped making it about four years ago.  And why I try to convince others it's silly.
> 
> 
> 
> The point you're not addressing is that it doesn't matter what I say it is!  I've stated I don't believe any of this stuff.  I'm not championing this position: I'm only pointing out that this position exists.  Whether or not you and I agree on this issue is also immaterial.  There is an argument in favor of homosexuality which is functionally identical to the argument that the Eucharist is only a remembrance.  I am asking you and Kevin to reconcile the fact that you do not believe this argument despite its being functionally identical to the one you're making.
> 
> So again, on the issue of homosexuality,
> 1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?


Okay.  So you are playing a game of make believe and only pretending to make an argument.  Again the argument you have proposed is not functionally equivalent to the argument being proposed about the Eucharist.  It's one thing to say here is another alternative interpretation.  It's another thing to say an alternative interpretation *might* exist.

----------


## acptulsa

> Hope this is a sufficient reply.  If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.


But that's not what I don't understand.  What I don't understand is, how can someone believe it's a bad thing to give any one person legitimacy to administer the worldly affairs of man by voting for him or her, but insists on entrusting mere mortals with the sole authority to do things that God clearly can handle Himself, and seems to prefer to handle Himself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But that's not what I don't understand.  What I don't understand is, how can someone believe it's a bad thing to give any one person legitimacy to administer the worldly affairs of man by voting for him or her, but insists on entrusting mere mortals with the sole authority to do things that God clearly can handle Himself, and seems to prefer to handle Himself.


You are talking about the sacraments vs politics, yes?  Governments/States are satanic institutions of this fallen world and have nothing to do with God.  State regimes will be destroyed when He returns.

On the other hand, sacramental traditions were instituted by God for our benefit.

----------


## Terry1

Calling HB!  You need to clear out your inbox.  I'm out of reps so this is the only way I could tell you because your inbox is full baby. LMAO here 

Okay--sorry for the interruption--carry on then and thanks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Calling HB!  You need to clear out your inbox.  I'm out of reps so this is the only way I could tell you because your inbox is full baby. LMAO here 
> 
> Okay--sorry for the interruption--carry on then and thanks.


okay, I cleared some inbox space.   xoxoxo  I'm pretty popular, ya know.

----------


## fisharmor

> Okay.  So you are playing a game of make believe and only pretending to make an argument.  Again the argument you have proposed is not functionally equivalent to the argument being proposed about the Eucharist.  It's one thing to say here is another alternative interpretation.  It's another thing to say an alternative interpretation *might* exist.


Well, on the first page of hits on a google search of "homosexuality is biblical", I found this *actually existing argument* which lines up exactly with what I was reporting, because it's an actually existing argument that actually exists, because when I stated earlier that it's an actually existing argument I actually was trying to convey that it actually exists.
https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

It is functionally equivalent to the anti-Eucharist argument, even down to decrying those who adhere to it as merely traditionalists.

So, the questions, *again*, are

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the actually existing ones which normalize homosexuality?

----------


## acptulsa

> You are talking about the sacraments vs politics, yes?  Governments/States are satanic institutions of this fallen world and have nothing to do with God.  State regimes will be destroyed when He returns.
> 
> On the other hand, sacramental traditions were instituted by God for our benefit.


Entrust unto Caesar what is of God, and entrust unto God what God has left to Caesar.

Got it.  I think...

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, on the first page of hits on a google search of "homosexuality is biblical", I found this *actually existing argument* which lines up exactly with what I was reporting, because it's an actually existing argument that actually exists, because when I stated earlier that it's an actually existing argument I actually was trying to convey that it actually exists.
> https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
> 
> It is functionally equivalent to the anti-Eucharist argument, even down to decrying those who adhere to it as merely traditionalists.
> 
> So, the questions, *again*, are
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the actually existing ones which normalize homosexuality?


Okay.  You just wasted my time.  The link that you sent me to did not claim that the prohibitions against homosexuality were "metaphors" for anything.  Quite the opposite.  The argument regarding Leviticus was "Well that only applied to the Jews".  But he doesn't say it's talking about something other than men lying with men.  Nice try though.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's somewhat like fillioquism, only significantly more serious.  (this is a rather simplistic explanation, but I would like to K.I.S.S. for now)  The Church keeps the eucharist "closed" (that is, not given to those not members of the Church) precisely because of the grave seriousness of it handed down to us through tradition.  Christ being equally God and Man makes partaking in His body/blood a big deal.  It is not a "parlor trick".  A priest has apostolic succession, and thus the same authority to provide the eucharist as the apostles themselves-who also believed in and taught the literalness of the sacrament.  Again, a pretty big deal.  
> 
> Hope this is a sufficient reply.  If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.


Yep.  It's a control thing.  The priest, even if the ones who's lifestyle shows they are not worthy to be priests, are "entrusted" because of "apostolic succession".  So it doesn't matter if the only priest is utterly wicked.  He's been "blessed" through "apostolic succession".

----------


## fisharmor

> Okay.  You just wasted my time.  The link that you sent me to did not claim that the prohibitions against homosexuality were "metaphors" for anything.  Quite the opposite.  The argument regarding Leviticus was "Well that only applied to the Jews".  But he doesn't say it's talking about something other than men lying with men.  Nice try though.


Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?
Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?
That is the point of dragging homosexuality into this.  The exact same arguments used against the Eucharist are used in favor of homosexuality.
Do you genuinely not understand that I'm not making the pro-homosexuality argument at all?
Given that I'm asking these questions for the fifth time now, I can't help but think you're not making any attempt to read what I write.

I'll try a fifth time, though:
*
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?*

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?


Except you failed to actually do that.  You claimed to use a metaphor argument but you never actually made one.  Then you linked to a website that didn't make a metaphor argument either.




> Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?


Failing?  Yes.  I see that's what you have been doing.  Now what is your point?

----------


## TER

> Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?
> Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?
> That is the point of dragging homosexuality into this.  The exact same arguments used against the Eucharist are used in favor of homosexuality.
> Do you genuinely not understand that I'm not making the pro-homosexuality argument at all?
> Given that I'm asking these questions for the fifth time now, I can't help but think you're not making any attempt to read what I write.
> 
> I'll try a fifth time, though:
> *
> 1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
> ...


Jmdrake, can you answer his questions?

----------


## RJB

> It's only important as a control mechanism.  If you believe that you must receive the sacraments to receive grace then you are bound to a particular group of men that are the ones "entrusted" to administer it, whether they are actually trustworthy or not.


You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy.  Not as bad as Kevin's but a visit to the Liturgy could clear things up.  Experience trumps an internet discussion.

It's not a control mechanism, but rather, it is community involvement.  In Orthodoxy, the prayer of the priest is worthless without the congregation stating "Amen."  The priest is on the receiving end of grace as well.  He is not the distributer.

Grace is not limited to the 7 major sacraments.  Grace is a free gift from God that is received through the sacraments of course, but it is also received with private prayer, fasting, just believing, etc.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, can you answer his questions?


I never saw him ask a relevant one.  But I will try to answer for your sake.  It's quite obvious to anyone not playing games that when Leviticus was talking about "men having sex with men" that's what it was talking about.  You can actually see that happening if you want to.  Don't take my word for it TER.  Turn "safe search" off on Google and type in "men having sex with men" if you really are unsure if that was metaphor or not.  By contrast have you ever been to a communion service where it was clear to anyone who didn't believe that you were really eating human flesh and drinking human blood?  Ever?  Just once?  There are two possibilities.  Either there is something metaphysical that "only believers" can perceive, or Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  Even your fellow Eastern Orthodox believer heavenlyboy realized that fishamor isn't using the term "metaphor" correctly.  So, if you want to rephrase his question into an intelligent one, I'll try to answer it.

Edit: TER I'll go further.  I actually did answer his question already by pointing out that the link he gave didn't attempt to deny that Leviticus was speaking literally against men sleeping with men.  Rather his link claimed that this didn't matter because that was only a law for the Jews.  Then his link claimed, with flimsy evidence, that the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality should be limited because they either involved idolatry (he ignores the fact that idolatry involved both heterosexual and homosexual prostitution and Paul only singled out the homosexual acts as "unnatural") and a claim *based only on extrabiblical tradition* that the other acts of homosexuality proscribed in the New Testament really only applied to married men sleeping with boys.  I put that part in bold because the argument fishamor linked to only kind of works if you go away from sola scriptura.  Finally fishamors link admitted that it really didn't have a strong argument, but fished with the cultural "Well we don't tell women to cover their heads or keep quiet in church".

So, like I already told fishamor, his link didn't make the arguments he apparently thought it did.  Nor were his links anything "new".  I engaged fishamor in discussion because I have had discussions with gay friends and family, had never heard a "It's just a metaphor" argument, and I was sincerely wondering if fishamor had an argument that I hadn't heard before.  Sadly I was disappointed.

So no.  There is no comparison between the arguments over the Eucharist and the arguments over homosexuality.  Those who don't believe the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus are not saying "Well we believe it once was the literal body and blood of Jesus, but due to cultural change we no longer think that is applicable" or "Well it's the body and blood of Jesus when He was a little boy but not when He was an adult" or any other argument similar to the ones fishamor's link gave.

----------


## jmdrake

> You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy.  Not as bad as Kevin's but a visit to the Liturgy could clear things up.  Experience trumps an internet discussion.
> 
> It's not a control mechanism, but rather, it is community involvement.  In Orthodoxy, the prayer of the priest is worthless without the congregation stating "Amen."  The priest is on the receiving end of grace as well.  He is not the distributer.
> 
> Grace is not limited to the 7 major sacraments.  Grace is a free gift from God that is received through the sacraments of course, but it is also received with private prayer, fasting, just believing, etc.


My understanding of Orthrodoxy is from people like you and TER.  So just for clarification.  Someone who decides "Because my local priest is evil I will no longer the local church and simply pray by myself or start my own church" has just as much access to grace as the person who still goes to the priest with the apostolic succession?  Because that's not what I got from what TER said.

----------


## RJB

> My understanding of Orthrodoxy is from people like you and TER.  So just for clarification.  Someone who decides "Because my local priest is evil I will no longer the local church and simply pray by myself or start my own church" has just as much access to grace as the person who still goes to the priest with the apostolic succession?  Because that's not what I got from what TER said.


It's not the priest.  They aren't God.  All of them are sinners; some much worse than others.  It's the Christian community and yes the priest is a part of it.   

From my own experience, when I told myself I'd pray on my own without attending church, I didn't.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's not the priest.  They aren't God.  All of them are sinners; some much worse than others.  It's the Christian community and yes the priest is a part of it.   
> 
> From my own experience, when I told myself I'd pray on my own without attending church, I didn't.


Okay.  I'll rephrase my question.  You have to churches, only two, in your town.  One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession.  The other makes no such claim.  One church the priest is an active child molester.  The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God.  Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?

----------


## TER

jmdrake, thank you for the replies, but it doesn't seem to me that you have yet answered fisharmor's question.  It seems from your earlier post that you referenced Google.  Are you presenting Google to be the pillar and foundation for the truth?

But perhaps I can try to reword while we wait to see if fisharmor drops in.  (Forgive me fisharmor if I do a poor job of it.)

The question fisharmor is asking is:

*
1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?*

----------


## TER

> Okay.  I'll rephrase my question.  You have to churches, only two, in your town.  One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession.  The other makes no such claim.  One church the priest is an active child molester.  The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God.  Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?


These exceptional cases do not necessarily give the answer to the general way a believer in Christ should seek Christ.  In your example above, of course it would be understandable for someone who does not have the correct orthodox understanding of the mysteries of the faith to choose the 'non-demoninational' parish, and that molesting priest will have to answer for that.  If I can understand that, and I can forgive the lost parishoner on account of their lack of knowledge of the treasures of the Church, then I image God Who is much more merciful and loving than I can if He desires so.  No one is limiting God here.

But we should not allow the extreme cases fear us into complacency or allow us to relativize or minimize the fundamental apostolic declarations of the faith.

----------


## RJB

> Okay.  I'll rephrase my question.  You have to churches, only two, in your town.  One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession.  The other makes no such claim.  One church the priest is an active child molester.  The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God.  Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?


I can't answer for anyone else, but before I left the Roman Catholic Church, I let my kids go with their friends from the homeschool group to the local Baptist Church school on Wednesday nights instead of the Catholic education that same night because the Baptist actually taught the importance of Jesus in their lives a lot better than the Catholic program.  The Catholic Church I was at was mostly teaching how to be a good person--  which you can learn at the YMCA, public school (sometimes) or where ever.  If I teach my children anything, it will to be to have Christ first in their lives.

For worship, I do find services quite empty without the Eucharist.  If the local Orthodox Church was that bad, I'd go to one out of town.

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake, thank you for the replies, but it doesn't seem to me that you have yet answered fisharmor's question.  It seems from your earlier post that you referenced Google.  Are you presenting Google to be the pillar and foundation for the truth?
> 
> But perhaps I can try to reword while we wait to see if fisharmor drops in.  (Forgive me fisharmor if I do a poor job of it.)
> 
> The question fisharmor is asking is:
> 
> *
> 1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?*


I referenced Google tongue in cheek to prove to you that there really are men who have sex with men in case you were unaware of that fact.  Again, in the verses in question it was not an issue of a different interpretation but rather cultural relevance.  Fishamors source grudgingly admitted that both the Old Testament and the New Testament were against same sex relations but that it doesn't matter because of changing culture or because of extra biblical tradition.  In other words, fishamor's source was using the type of arguments I've seen you make against sola scripture (extra biblical tradition) or the argument the Catholic church seems to be making now with regards to homosexuality (new cultural relevance).  If I don't agree with you on the Eucharist, why would I agree with such a line of reasoning with regards to homosexuality?  Now if you want to find an argument where someone actually *is* making a different interpretation of the verses themselves, rather than going outside of the Bible through "tradition" or through cultural relevance, maybe you should do a little Googling and get back with me.

----------


## jmdrake

> These exceptional cases do not necessarily give the answer to the general way a believer in Christ should seek Christ.  In your example above, of course it would be understandable for *someone who does not have the correct orthodox understanding of the mysteries of the faith* to choose the 'non-demoninational' parish, and that molesting priest will have to answer for that.  If I can understand that, and I can forgive the lost parishoner on account of their lack of knowledge of the treasures of the Church, then I image God Who is much more merciful and loving than I can if He desires so.  No one is limiting God here.
> 
> But we should not allow the extreme cases fear us into complacency or allow us to relativize or minimize the fundamental apostolic declarations of the faith.


Pay attention to what I put in bold.  I'm not talking about someone who "does not have the correct orthodox understanding".  This person could have been raised Orthodox all his life.  Should *that* person go to the church where he knows the priest is molesting little boys?  This isn't a hypothetical.  It happened at least in the RCC context.  And I'm not even asking what someone should ultimately do.  I'm asking if you believe someone is missing out on grace, even a little bit, for deciding that taking communion from a child molester priest is just too much.  It's an easy yes or no question.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can't answer for anyone else, but before I left the Roman Catholic Church, I let my kids go with their friends from the homeschool group to the local Baptist Church school on Wednesday nights instead of the Catholic education that same night because the Baptist actually taught the importance of Jesus in their lives a lot better than the Catholic program.  The Catholic Church I was at was mostly teaching how to be a good person--  which you can learn at the YMCA, public school (sometimes) or where ever.  If I teach my children anything, it will to be to have Christ first in their lives.
> 
> For worship, I do find services quite empty without the Eucharist.  If the local Orthodox Church was that bad, I'd go to one out of town.


I'm glad you are open minded.  And I'm glad you enjoy the services you attend including the Eucharist.  But I feel like I'm pulling hens teeth here.  I'll rephrase the question.  Forget the child molesters.  Let's say as a psychological experiment, an Orthodox Church you attended allowed a Baptist minister to dress up as an Orthodox priest and give the communion.  I know that would *never* happen.  But let's say that it did.  The ceremony happened exactly the way you were expecting it to happen.  The only difference is the person officiating had not actually received apostolic succession.  Do you believe you would have missed out on even a little bit of grace?

----------


## RJB

> I'm glad you are open minded.  And I'm glad you enjoy the services you attend including the Eucharist.  But I feel like I'm pulling hens teeth here.


 Relax.



> I'll rephrase the question.  Forget the child molesters.  Let's say as a psychological experiment, an Orthodox Church you attended allowed a Baptist minister to dress up as an Orthodox priest and give the communion.  I know that would *never* happen.  But let's say that it did.  The ceremony happened exactly the way you were expecting it to happen.  The only difference is the person officiating had not actually received apostolic succession.  Do you believe you would have missed out on even a little bit of grace?


  I really don't know how to answer that hypothetical.  The Liturgy is not a dress up or a performance.  It's the purest form of worship.  Not just the priest, but the congregation have to be on the same page.  It's the whole Church, including the worshippers who is Apostolic.

I honestly don't know if I would get less grace--  That's God's gift, not the priest's.  If my heart was sincere and I didn't know the difference-- probably the same.  I don't know how to quantify Grace.  If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.

----------


## TER

> Pay attention to what I put in bold.  I'm not talking about someone who "does not have the correct orthodox understanding".  This person could have been raised Orthodox all his life.  Should *that* person go to the church where he knows the priest is molesting little boys?  This isn't a hypothetical.  It happened at least in the RCC context.  And I'm not even asking what someone should ultimately do.  I'm asking if you believe someone is missing out on grace, even a little bit, for deciding that taking communion from a child molester priest is just too much.  It's an easy yes or no question.


That parishoner should call the police, that's what they should do.  You are still stuck in the rare and extreme circumstance.  But the answer to your question again is that they should contact the police and contact the bishop.  That is the way the Church has handled criminal and serious evil behaviors of priests.

With regards to the example before, I think the difficulty is getting you to understand the basis premise which fisharmor and I are trying to explain to you, which is why I reworded the questions. 

1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?

----------


## RJB

> That parishoner should call the police,


No kidding!

----------


## TER

> I referenced Google tongue in cheek to prove to you that there really are men who have sex with men in case you were unaware of that fact.


As you are a friend to me, can I ask you to treat me with an ounce of respect (not a lot, just a little) so that you do not have the urge to post sentences like that and accuse me of being a fool?  These things may work in depositions, but between friends, it only leads to hurt feelings.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yep.  It's a control thing.  The priest, even if the ones who's lifestyle shows they are not worthy to be priests, are "entrusted" because of "apostolic succession".  So it doesn't matter if the only priest is utterly wicked.  He's been "blessed" through "apostolic succession".


It actually does matter if the priest is wicked.  When this is so, it is the duty of the laity to contact the appropriate authorities and deal with it.  It is incorrect to put scare quotes around (entrusted) and (apostolic succession).  You really need to talk to a local priest.  He can explain to you how the sacraments work and show you documentation of his apostolic succession.  I could write a wall of text about the eucharist, but I doubt you'd read it-so it would be a poor investment of my time and energy.  If you'd like some literature, I can recommend some to you (others here probably can as well).

----------


## jmdrake

> As you are a friend to me, can I ask you to treat me with an ounce of respect (not a lot, just a little) so that you do not have the urge to post sentences like that and accuse me of being a fool?  These things may work in depositions, but between friends, it only leads to hurt feelings.


Ok.  My apologies if that sentence was too harsh.  Here is the non-harsh translation.  Nobody is making the argument that when the Bible is talking about homosexuality it is speaking metaphorically.  Nobody with the possible exception of fishamor.  But even he isn't making that argument.  I know you are intelligent so I'm surprised you latched onto that argument when even fishamor admitted it was silly.  So if you want to make an argument about metaphors why don't we pick a different topic?  How about creation?  Some people actually believe the creation week is metaphor.  I believe it's literal.  What say you?

----------


## TER

> If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.


And because of the corruption on this world, which ordained priest too are susceptible to as imperfect vessels of God's grace, there comes times when a person must leave a fellowship of believers because of the poor shepherding or heretical teachings of the local presbyter.  If those acts are illegal and dangerous to others (or the Church in general), then the local police authorities should be contacted.  This is how the Church purges itself of wayward and dangerous teachers to keep pure and undefiled the teachings handed down not by the Church.  

The Church depends on no single man then Jesus Christ Who is the God-Man and the Head of the Church, and when evil men assume positions of leadership and prominence and begin to teach _heresy_ because of their own false interpretations apart from the unity of faith of the believers (the ekklesia), that is, to the teachings handed down to them (_paradosis_, as St. Paul would say), then the process is to _excommunicate_ them to keep pure the faith, the unity of the brethren, and the holy offering on the altar which is the Holy Eucharist.   And also to protect the very heretical teacher lest by communing of the very Body and Blood of Christ they pass greater judgment on themselves.

----------


## jmdrake

> That parishoner should call the police, that's what they should do.  You are still stuck in the rare and extreme circumstance.  But the answer to your question again is that they should contact the police and contact the bishop.  That is the way the Church has handled criminal and serious evil behaviors of priests.


Except this isn't a "rare" circumstance.  It's one ripped from all too real headlines.  And there are less extreme circumstances that are still pretty bad.  I knew a RCC lady that told me her priest took another woman's husband.  He was eventually removed but not immediately.  No way to call the police on that one as the action was not illegal.  The reason the abuse scandal became a scandal is the church *didn't* handle it.  Again, that's RCC and not EO.  I don't know if EO had any of the same problems.  If you didn't, great.  But I was making a general point about apostolic succession and the Eucharist.  Both RCC and EO claim both.




> With regards to the example before, I think the difficulty is getting you to understand the basis premise which fisharmor and I are trying to explain to you, which is why I reworded the questions. 
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
> and
> 2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?


Okay.  I have a question "as a friend".  Since you were getting offended at the way I responded to you on this, why are you sticking with this same silly line of questions?  And from a "deposition" point of view I've already answered this question multiple times now so it's rude of you to keep asking it.

Edit: And once again I addressed fishamor not as an attack on you or your church but rather a sincere question as to if he had a different point of view of the Bible and homosexuality than what I had heard.  He didn't.  You are making something out of nothing.

----------


## jmdrake

> It actually does matter if the priest is wicked.  When this is so, it is the duty of the laity to contact the appropriate authorities and deal with it.  It is incorrect to put scare quotes around (entrusted) and (apostolic succession).  You really need to talk to a local priest.  He can explain to you how the sacraments work and show you documentation of his apostolic succession.  I could write a wall of text about the eucharist, but I doubt you'd read it-so it would be a poor investment of my time and energy.  If you'd like some literature, I can recommend some to you (others here probably can as well).


HB, has there been a time when you posted something to me that I didn't read it?  I don't think so.  No I'm not going to take the time to go and talk to a priest about this because frankly the subject isn't that important.  But I don't make a habit of ignoring anything anyone directs to me.  I've even answered TER's repetitive questions based on fishamor's admitted silliness multiple times now.

----------


## TER

> Ok.  My apologies if that sentence was too harsh.  Here is the non-harsh translation.  Nobody is making the argument that when the Bible is talking about homosexuality it is speaking metaphorically.  Nobody with the possible exception of fishamor.  But even he isn't making that argument.  I know you are intelligent so I'm surprised you latched onto that argument when even fishamor admitted it was silly.  So if you want to make an argument about metaphors why don't we pick a different topic?  How about creation?  Some people actually believe the creation week is metaphor.  I believe it's literal.  What say you?


I would rather we stick with the Holy Eucharist since this (as a Christian) is a much more important topic then whether God made the cosmos in seven days or in billions.

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

----------


## RJB

> why are you sticking with this same silly line of questions?


"...like pulling hens teeth."  is the line you used earlier when the situation was reversed.

----------


## jmdrake

> Relax.


I'm not tense.  I just don't see what the question seems so hard for some.




> I really don't know how to answer that hypothetical.  The Liturgy is not a dress up or a performance.  It's the purest form of worship.  Not just the priest, but the congregation have to be on the same page.  It's the whole Church, including the worshippers who is Apostolic.
> 
> I honestly don't know if I would get less grace--  That's God's gift, not the priest's.  If my heart was sincere and I didn't know the difference-- probably the same.  I don't know how to quantify Grace.  If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.


Okay.  That's an answer.  If grace is dependent only on God and the sincerity of your heart then maybe, just maybe, this whole Eucharist thing doesn't really mean anything.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  It think it doesn't.  For those who believe the emblems are representative of Christ, they are blessed.  For those who believe it's really the body and blood of Christ, they are blessed.  For those who want the assurance that the person officiating can trace his lineage back to the apostles, they are blessed.  For those who are happy knowing merely that the person officiating is a professed Christian, they are blessed.  Anything beyond that is a control mechanism.

----------


## RJB

> No I'm not going to take the time to go and talk to a priest about this because frankly the subject isn't that important.


It must be important to you on some level to have invested as much time as you have to this thread.

----------


## jmdrake

> "...like pulling hens teeth."  is the line you used earlier when the situation was reversed.


Except I answered the question.    The questions posed to me weren't simple "yes or no" questions.  They were essays.  I gave several essays.  I'm not sure how many TER wants.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would rather we stick with the Holy Eucharist since this (as a Christian) is a much more important topic then whether God made the cosmos in seven days or in billions.
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
> and
> 2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?


Really?  I answered that question before fishamor posed his.  This is getting tiresome and redundant.  Before I answer this *yet again* I will ask you a question.  Recently you debated my position that the original church fathers, the apostles, longed for us each to have the Holy Spirit on an individual basis.  On what authority do you base *that* belief?

----------


## TER

> Except I answered the question.    The questions posed to me weren't simple "yes or no" questions.  They were essays.  I gave several essays.  I'm not sure how many TER wants.


Just a simple answer to this, since these remained unanswered and was the main point of fisharmor a from the beginning though you missed it:

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

----------


## jmdrake

> It must be important to you on some level to have invested as much time as you have to this thread.


You could only come to that conclusion by cutting out most of my response to HB.  I told him that I don't make a practice of ignoring posts directed at me.  Are you wishing I would start that?

----------


## TER

> Really?  I answered that question before fishamor posed his.  This is getting tiresome and redundant.  Before I answer this *yet again* I will ask you a question.  Recently you debated my position that the original church fathers, the apostles, longed for us each to have the Holy Spirit on an individual basis.  On what authority do you base *that* belief?


By their writings and their witness.  

Where do you get your interpretation that Christ is speaking in metaphors with regard to the versus in John 6?

----------


## jmdrake

> Just a simple answer to this, since these remained unanswered and was the main point of fisharmor a from the beginning though you missed it:
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
> and
> 2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?


Really? I answered that question before fishamor posed his. This is getting tiresome and redundant. Before I answer this yet again I will ask you a question. Recently you debated my position that the original church fathers, the apostles, longed for us each to have the Holy Spirit on an individual basis. On what authority do you base that belief?

Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26.  That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason.  You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.  But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally".  In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing.  My words are Spirit and are life."  Why do you think Jesus said that?  I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture.  There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.

----------


## TER

I admit I may have missed your answer to the questions:

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

Could you give me the post number which you answered them?

----------


## jmdrake

> I admit I may have missed your answer to the questions:
> 
> 1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
> and
> 2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?
> 
> Could you give me the post number which you answered them?


You must have responded while I was editing my last post.

Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26. That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason. You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally". In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and are life." Why do you think Jesus said that? I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## RJB

> I'm not tense.  I just don't see what the question seems so hard for some.


  I wasn't dodging the question.  As I said, I don't know how to quantify Grace. 






> Okay.  That's an answer.  If grace is dependent only on God and the sincerity of your heart then maybe, just maybe, this whole Eucharist thing doesn't really mean anything.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  It think it doesn't.


 You are asking questions to quantify a spiritual experience.  The internet holds much knowledge but it doesn't give the experience the Divine Liturgy does...

It's like an atheist can read the bible and theorize what it's like to be a Christian, but he doesn't know what it feels like to repent and feel an almost physical removal of the weight of sins from his shoulders.  He doesn't know what the peace and the feeling of the Holy Spirit in his chest feel like.  The same is with someone understanding the Eucharist over the internet.  As I said before, It's not dress up, pretend, or a performance.  It's the purist form of worship and must be experienced with a heart open to God to be fully understood.




> For those who believe the emblems are representative of Christ, they are blessed. For those who believe it's really the body and blood of Christ, they are blessed. For those who want the assurance that the person officiating can trace his lineage back to the apostles, they are blessed. For those who are happy knowing merely that the person officiating is a professed Christian, they are blessed. Anything beyond that is a control mechanism.


  Maybe, but somewhere there is a "pillar and foundation of the Truth" that is unshakable.  As I said earlier, Liturgy is not a performance.  It's serious worship.

----------


## TER

> You must have responded while I was editing my last post.
> 
> Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26. That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason. You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally". In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and are life." Why do you think Jesus said that? I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.


Can you find can me ANY post apostolic first century Christian, or second century, or third, or fourth, or (you get the idea) which disagrees about the literalness regarding the Holy Eucharist being the Lord's very Body and very Blood?

Have you ever read ANY Church Fathers exegesis regarding the words of Christ that 'the flesh profits nothing' which uses the verse in the way you do?

Why is your interpretation more correct or authoritative than ALL the Christian teachers and writers of the first 1600 years?

----------


## acptulsa

> 1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?


He _could_ be using his own...




> 2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?


Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any _less_ authoritative.  It's an argument he can't really make.  But I can, so excuse me butting in.  Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time.  If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.

Indulgences went publicly unquestioned during that period, too, but I doubt you'll use that as an argument in their favor.

I believe a good clergy can do good things.  But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil.  We are not perfect.  Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier.  Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?

I'm not criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy.  I have considerable respect for it, if only because I respect your opinion.  But I hope you can understand what hb seems to have trouble with--to understand it and respect it is _not_ to automatically find it to be perfect for oneself.

We sup on the bread and drink of the cup in remembrance of Him.  Is that insufficient?  Hasn't He done enough for us without continually growing new flesh and carving it off for us every time we have Communion?  Could it possibly be important for Him to do so?

You are being a bit redundant, my friend.  Why would Mr. Drake, myself and others believe Jesus was being rhetorical on that day?  Because it does _not_ say in the gospels that He miraculously transformed the bread into meat or the wine into blood.  And it does not say He tapped Himself or carved Himself up before supper.

He gave up his earthly form, left it to rot for three days, and moved back into it anyway.  He sacrificed enough flesh for our benefit, in my opinion.  I don't need a miracle every third Sunday to maintain faith, and kissing 'relics' comes too close to idolatry for my tastes.  I'm trying not to make a statement of my preferences sound like criticism.  I guess I'm just doing what you, TER, were doing after jmdrake (and not disrespectfully, imo) used a standard rhetorical device on you.  I'm just looking for a little respect.

For me _and_ Mr. Drake.  I am unlikely to discount his very intelligent and sensible discourse just because some rustic from back before the Dark Ages expressed an opinion which was canonized into dogma.  Sorry.  I do appreciate tradition.  I do.  But not if I feel it's coming between my Creator and myself.  I understand that you don't consider this tradition an impediment to faith.  But, my friend, if God had made us all the same, it would be a mighty boring world.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you find can me ANY post apostolic first century Christian, or second century, or third, or fourth, or (you get the idea) which disagrees about the literalness regarding the Holy Eucharist being the Lord's very Body and very Blood?
> 
> Have you ever read ANY Church Fathers exegesis regarding the words of Christ that 'the flesh profits nothing' which uses the verse in the way you do?
> 
> Why is your interpretation more correct or authoritative than ALL the Christian teachers and writers of the first 1600 years?


Are you going to continue to ignore my questions to you after I have answered your questions?  That's rude.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> He _could_ be using his own...
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any _less_ authoritative.  It's an argument he can't really make.  But I can, so excuse me butting in.  Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time.  If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.
> 
> Indulgences went publicly unquestioned during that period, too, but I doubt you'll use that as an argument in their favor.
> 
> I believe a good clergy can do good things.  But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil.  We are not perfect.  Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier.  Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?
> ...


This is a common misunderstanding.  It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it.  I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

ttyl, brother. ~hugs~

----------


## jmdrake

TER, just for you I did some research and found this:

http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/

Now I doubt this will sway you.  That's not even my intent.  But even going back to the church fathers you revere, one can find ammunition to refute transubstantiation.  But again, feel free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe.  I'm not Kevin.  I'm not condemning you for your beliefs.  I just disagree with them.

_Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

 [COLOR="#0000CD"]   “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.

 “But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (ibid) 

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

Giving a little context to the quote presented on Catholic websites, however, does little or nothing to sway a devout Catholic. When I presented the added context to one Catholic, he reacted with, “I admit I am completely bewildered by the Clement of Alexandria quotes you present I do not understand them and they seem to be very figurative, but they are not denying the real presence there either.” (Emphasis mine) Well, yes they do. If the doctrine hinges on Jesus’ words, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” being literal, then Clement is indeed denying the real presence doctrine.

From a Catholic apologist at “StayCatholic.com” I received this:

    “It looks like he is saying that he believes in the “Real Presence” but that he can also see some symbolism in it as well. Remember he said: “Hear it ALSO in the following way.” The word also obviously includes both views. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a contradiction. Even in Scripture we have passages that have meanings on a number of levels.” (Emphasis his) 

Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language. I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors. And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

 “But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid) 

Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

 “’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) 

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid) 

Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.

 “For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2) 

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10) 

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.

The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer. He said, “The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that.”

Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the Catholic Church does have a problem with him. From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

From Schaff’s introductory note to Clement of Alexandria – After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

    “Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass) 

In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.” And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14) 

And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail:

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’” (ibid) 

There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine. However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies. Unable to rely on the homilies for the topic of real presence in the eucharist, it’s no wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia decided to pass over Clement and Origen._

----------


## acptulsa

> Are you going to continue to ignore my questions to you after I have answered your questions?  That's rude.


You know what our problem is, my friend?  We protest too much.  Thank God we came along in a time when we could get away with it.




> This is a common misunderstanding.  It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it.  I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols
> 
> ttyl, brother. ~hugs~


I remember the thread.  I thought I was careful not to make any accusations, but merely to comment upon my own tastes.  If I didn't make that crystal clear, I apologize.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is a common misunderstanding.  It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it.  I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols
> 
> ttyl, brother. ~hugs~


Note he didn't say icons were idolatry.  He said they "come to close to idolatry".  I hope you understand the difference.  In one of these threads I mentioned that a Catholic friend jokingly offered to bury a statue of St. Jude in our back yard when we were having trouble selling our house.  I believe you when you say that *you* are not falling into idolatry through images or statues, but some people do.  You can say it's their fault, but without the images and statues being used in worship the temptation wouldn't be there.  I recall Paul saying there were some things he thought were okay but wouldn't do because it might cause someone else to stumble.

----------


## TER

Thank you for answering my questions.  




> He _could_ be using his own...


I would say you are correct on the first part, though he might use someone else's interpretation as an authority.  I just don't whose yet because he hasn't answered.




> Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any _less_ authoritative.  It's an argument he can't really make.  But I can, so excuse me butting in.


Then please do.  Why is your interpretation more authoritative then a first century Christian?




> Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time.  If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.


Of course you are rcorrect.  The history of the Church is filled with moments of crisis when certain factions developed regarding someone's interpretation over another.  Debates have occured from the beginning of the life of the Church, for example we see such an instance in the Acts of the Apostles when the first Council was held in Jerusalem regarding circumcision.  This is the biblical, apostolic way in which disagreements and different interpretations were to be approached and handled.  This synodical process has not ceased for 2000 years.  At times, it even led to schism, which is what was necessary in order to keep pure the apostolic teachings.




> I believe a good clergy can do good things.  But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil.  We are not perfect.  Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier.  Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?


Why don't we stop judging the Church's history from our limited knowledge and understanding and for once let the Church's history judge us?

God established a real Church in this world.  His Body in the world.  Sanctified by the Holy Spirit and lived through the communion of the faithful baptized in Christ.  God knew what He was doing, and the fruits of it are that 2000 years later, the Name of Christ is glorified across the globe, in all hours of the day.  We are not Arians because of the Church God entrusted with His Spirit.  We are not Marcionists because God has established a human-divine organism to protect from heretical teachings.  God had a very good reason to establish a Church to be the 'pillar and foundation' for the truth, and it has served quite well in spite if the sinfulness of men within and without it.




> I'm not criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy.  I have considerable respect for it, if only because I respect your opinion.  But I hope you can  what hb seems to have trouble with--to understand it and respect it is _not_ to automatically find it to be perfect for oneself.


The faith of the Church is perfect for all who humble themselves and have faith.




> We sup on the bread and drink of the cup in remembrance of Him.  Is that insufficient?  Hasn't He done enough for us without continually growing new flesh and carving it off for us every time we have Communion?  Could it possibly be important for Him to do so?


Apparently it was important, which is why He didn't say to the disciples who left on the day John 6 happened "hey, you don't have to really believe Me.  It's not really my Body and Blood I command you to eat.  Of course I am only being metaphorical.  Instead, the all loving, all merciful, yet all righteous Lord let them leave and become seperated from Him.  So apparently, it must have a decent amount of significance for the One Who sat with sinners to allow these doubting disciples to leave Him.




> You are being a bit redundant, my friend.  Why would Mr. Drake, myself and others believe Jesus was being rhetorical on that day?  Because it does _not_ say in the gospels that He miraculously transformed the bread into meat or the wine into blood.  And it does not say He tapped Himself or carved Himself up before supper.
> 
> He gave up his earthly form, left it to rot for three days, and moved back into it anyway.  He sacrificed enough flesh for our benefit, in my opinion.  I don't need a miracle every third Sunday to maintain faith, and kissing 'relics' comes too close to idolatry for my tastes.  I'm trying not to make a statement of my preferences sound like criticism.  I guess I'm just doing what you, TER, were doing after jmdrake (and not disrespectfully, imo) used a standard rhetorical device on you.  I'm just looking for a little respect.
> 
> For me _and_ Mr. Drake.  I am unlikely to discount his very intelligent and sensible discourse just because some rustic from back before the Dark Ages expressed an opinion which was canonized into dogma.  Sorry.  I do appreciate tradition.  I do.  But not if I feel it's coming between my Creator and myself.  I understand that you don't consider this tradition an impediment to faith.  But, my friend, if God had made us all the same, it would be a mighty boring world.


I would like to answer more but I must go to bed as I have a very important and busy day tomorrow.  I will get back to your other points.  With regards to the Holy Eucharist, I will leave you with the words of Christ when He spoke to St. Thomas who doubted Christ being bodily resurrected from the dead : "Do not be unbelieving, but be believing.'  Good night my friend.

----------


## jmdrake

> Apparently it was important, which is why He didn't say to the disciples who left on the day John 6 happened "hey, you don't have to really believe Me.  It's not really my Body and Blood I command you to eat.  Of course I am only being metaphorical.  Instead, the all loving, all merciful, yet all righteous Lord let them leave and become seperated from Him.  So apparently, it must have a decent amount of significance for the One Who sat with sinners to allow these doubting disciples to leave Him.


He came back and said "The flesh profits nothing.  My words are Spirit and they are life".  I've pointed that out and asked you what you thought of that.  If you answered that question, I haven't seen your answer.  When Jesus told the disciples "Lazarus is sleeping" then clarified by saying "Lazarus is dead" most people took that to mean that Jesus used sleep as a metaphor.

----------


## acptulsa

> Then please do.  Why is your interpretation more authoritative then a first century Christian?


It isn't.




> "Do not be unbelieving, but be believing.'


Am I a non-believer because when I 'do this in remembrance' of Him, the bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like Welch's grape juice...?

----------


## TER

> He came back and said "The flesh profits nothing.  My words are Spirit and they are life".  I've pointed that out and asked you what you thought of that.  If you answered that question, I haven't seen your answer.  When Jesus told the disciples "Lazarus is sleeping" then clarified by saying "Lazarus is dead" most people took that to mean that Jesus used sleep as a metaphor.


Good night jmdrake.  Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well.  With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic theology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow.  I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved.  In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Good night jmdrake.  Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well.  With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic tautology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow.  I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved.  In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.


Good night.  But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did.  And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.

Edit: And you still didn't answer the simple question of why did Jesus clarify His statement in John 6 with "The flesh profits nothing."

----------


## TER

> It isn't.


That is a very good position to take and shows that you are capable of learning from the saints.  God bless you my friend.




> Am I a non-believer because when I 'do this in remembrance' of Him, the bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like Welch's grape juice...?


No, the disbelief is that because you taste bread and grape juice, it cannot be His Body and His Blood.  How was it that the Manna which descended in the deserts of Sinai tasted differently for each person, according to their faith?  But Christ is the True Bread and the True Manna and by His Holy Spirit fills all of creation, and if the Creator of the world says that the bread and the wine is now His Body and His Blood and that we should eat of it in order to find life, we should take it just as serious as the Apostles and every Christian did for the centuries following it.

----------


## TER

> Good night.  But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did.  And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.


Please, share more of this support which you believe is enough.  I don't think you will find any and the ones you think you will will not, which is why pretty much every scholar of early Christianity affirms that the universal and apostolic belief according to the historical evidence available is that the Holy Eucharist was considered to be the Real Presence (the _parousia_) of Christ.

But I am encouraged that you are using the writings of the Church Fathers to see how the early Church interpreted the Lord's teachings.  This is very good.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is a very good position to take and shows that you are capable of learning from the saints.  God bless you my friend.


I don't know of anyone who takes the position that his interpretation is more authoritative than the 1st century Christians.  I don't take my interpretation over that of Richard Dawkins.  I just don't agree with anything he says with regards to religion.  There seems to be this zero sum game going on here.  Either someone accepts your interpretation of what early post apostolic Christians believed as the best interpretation, or that person somehow things he's smarter than early 1st century Christians.

----------


## jmdrake

> Please, share more of this support which you belief is enough.  I don't think you will find any and the ones you think you will not, which is why pretty much every scholar of early Christianity affirms that the universal and apostolic belief according to the historical evidence available is that the Holy Eucharist was considered to be the Real Presence (the _parousia_) of Christ.


I thought you were going to bed.    Digest and respond to what I've already given you before making demands for more.  And answer the question of what Jesus meant by "The flesh profits nothing" and why you don't see that as a clarification of Jesus the same way Jesus' statement that "Lazarus is dead" was clarification of His metaphor that "Lazarus is sleeping."  You say you don't want this to be like a deposition but you keep acting like a lawyer.  (Asking questions and never answering those posed to you.)

----------


## TER

> I thought you were going to bed.    Digest and respond to what I've already given you before making demands for more.  And answer the question of what Jesus meant by "The flesh profits nothing" and why you don't see that as a clarification of Jesus the same way Jesus' statement that "Lazarus is dead" was clarification of His metaphor that "Lazarus is sleeping."  You say you don't want this to be like a deposition but you keep acting like a lawyer.  (Asking questions and never answering those posed to you.)


I want to go to sleep but you are making it difficult!  Ignore me already! 

How bout this, tonight I will digest the things you wrote about and you go search the writings of the Church Fathers, including the first century Apostolic Fathers, to see how they regarded the nature and importance of the Holy Eucharist.  Tomorrow we can share what we learned!  

But seriously now, I have to go to bed.  Good night my friends.  May our good and loving Lord grant us peaceful rest and bless us tomorrow and all the days of our lives.

----------


## Kevin007

> You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy.  Not as bad as Kevin's but a visit to the Liturgy could clear things up.  Experience trumps an internet discussion.
> 
> It's not a control mechanism, but rather, it is community involvement.  In Orthodoxy, the prayer of the priest is worthless without the congregation stating "Amen."  The priest is on the receiving end of grace as well.  He is not the distributer.
> 
> Grace is not limited to the 7 major sacraments.  *Grace is a free gift from God* that is received through the sacraments of course, but it is also received with private prayer, fasting, just believing, etc.


you are right about that. Can you show me in the NT where Jesus or anyone said you recieve grace through these sacraments?

----------


## Kevin007

All the grace we will ever need is received  the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The  saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only  saving grace Gods Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received  by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are  good things to do, when they are understood in a biblical context, the  concept of the seven sacraments as conferring sanctifying grace is  completely unbiblical.
Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/seven-Ca...#ixzz3GwG6BIJk

----------


## Kevin007

*Practice from Tradition*
 *Orthodox*
 *Catholic*

 disown   the devil before baptism
 yes

 no


 thrice   immersed
 yes

 no


 Drink   milk and honey after baptism
 no

 no


 don't   bath for a week after baptism
 no

 no


 kneeling   in worship is forbidden
 yes

 no







*SCORE*   What percentage of the oral   tradition in 200 AD do Orthodox and Catholic keep today? Worse still, the   traditions of Orthodox and Catholic today contradict each other!
 *50%*
 *0%



*




As you can see from the chart above, neither Orthodox or Catholic keep the oral tradition of the 2nd century AD. Catholics keep none of it and Orthodox keep 50% of it! Worse still, both these church fight with protestants that you must use their oral tradition but the Orthodox and Catholic oral traditions DIFFER WITH EACH OTHER!!! ·         IF ORAL TRADITION IS AUTHORATIVE, HOW ARE OUTSIDERS SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH OF THESE TWO ORAL TRADITIONS IS CORRECT? The solution is that oral tradition is worthless and what we are left with is the BIBLE ALONE.



Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions      that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch      3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of      these practices that "without any written      instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone".      These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized      a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from      taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the      sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing      Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority      of the written law". 


Why does the Catholic church not immerse      thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox      churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice      immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have      knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic      tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do      both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of      the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be      followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice      all of these things?


http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good night.  But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did.  *And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.*
> 
> Edit: And you still didn't answer the simple question of why did Jesus clarify His statement in John 6 with "The flesh profits nothing."


I haven't read the whole thread yet, so pardon me if I don't understand you correctly.  The RCC is schismatic.  How the RCC regards the EO eucharist is considered irrelevant to the EOC.

----------


## Kevin007

> I can't answer for anyone else, but before I left the Roman Catholic Church, *I let my kids go with their friends from the homeschool group to the local Baptist Church school on Wednesday nights instead of the Catholic education that same night because the Baptist actually taught the importance of Jesus in their lives a lot better than the Catholic program.*  The Catholic Church I was at was mostly teaching how to be a good person--  which you can learn at the YMCA, public school (sometimes) or where ever.  If I teach my children anything, it will to be to have Christ first in their lives.
> 
> For worship, I do find services quite empty without the Eucharist.  If the local Orthodox Church was that bad, I'd go to one out of town.

----------


## jmdrake

> I haven't read the whole thread yet, so pardon me if I don't understand you correctly.  The RCC is schismatic.  How the RCC regards the EO eucharist is considered irrelevant to the EOC.


The point that TER was making is that it's "obvious" that Clement supported transubstantiation.  But the RCC, which agrees with EO on transubstantiation, seems to question Clement's adherence to it.  So my point is that people who agree with TER's ultimate position disagree apparently with his conclusion with regards to Clement.  In other words its not just protestants saying that some early Christians may not have been 100% on board with transubstantiation.  So the schism is irrelevant to this point.

----------


## robert68

> This thread sucks.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Yes indeedy, ma'am. ~hugs~


If others here were like you and at least one of your OC comrades in this forum, they’d post of huge picture of a crying baby in response to that, but that's beneath them.

----------


## robert68

> From your rep: "run along, child. This thread is over your head."


You project well. 45,000 posts of cheerleading, rep announcements, speaking foul, and hugging. My goodness.

I happen to know some members of the EOC.  They're decent, clean mouthed, and respectful to others. We get along great and have for years. They're not like you and 2 certain other OC's at RPF's. You would embarrass them.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> Respect is earned.  Behave like a respectable person, and I will respect you.


LOL. I'm not interested having your respect. I would first have to respect you to care.  




> P.S.-posting PMs as you did is considered low class, especially the way you did it.  If you wanted to chat about my comment, the classy and grown-up way to do it is PM me.


Don't make an insulting PM if you don't want to risk it being posted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> LOL. I'm not interested having your respect. I would first have to respect you to care.


Yet you waste time and bandwidth on me.  Sounds like you respect me enough to want my attention so as to feel better about yourself.  I call BS.  People who truly don't respect me put me on ignore.  

See also the forum rules:



> *2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.*
> • No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
> • No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
> • Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
> • Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
> • See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.





> Don't make an insulting PM if you don't want to risk it being posted.


  Ah, at least you're consistently low-class.  I'll keep you on ignore for both our benefit now. ~hugs~

----------


## Terry1



----------


## robert68

> Yet you waste time and bandwidth on me.  Sounds like you respect me enough to want my attention so as to feel better about yourself.  I call BS.


You don’t know what respect is. You’ve made over 45,000 posts, and I haven’t repped you a single time. That should tell you something. And this is a forum, posts receive the attention of people besides you. 




> People who truly don't respect me put me on ignore.


LOL, like you could know that. I’ve never put anyone on ignore. It’s easy to skip over posts and parts of posts one doesn’t want to read or see. 




> See also the forum rules:
> 
> 2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
> ...


You're amazing. Hypocrisy must be a virtue in your world.

----------


## Kevin007

> Good night jmdrake.  Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well.  With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic theology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow.  I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved.  In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.



 Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

 “’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is  to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which,  similarly with milk, represents *figuratively* the will of God.  Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called  catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus  to *Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us  infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself  is food*. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) 
And Clement concludes the chapter with this: 
 “Thus in many ways* the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk*.  The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on  Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood  is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively  represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His  robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck  the body of the Word; as certainly* by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.*” (ibid) 
Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist. 
 “For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with  water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord  is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are  redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are  anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the  Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the  Word, as blood is of flesh.  Accordingly, as wine is blended with water,  so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water,  nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to  immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is  called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith  partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine  mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit  and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is  inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh,  to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2) 
Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood.  One aspect  being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of  sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive  Christ as our nourishment.  To partake of the eucharist is far more than  receiving communion.  To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit.   The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to  be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are  partakers of Christ’s immortality. 

  Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well.  One  example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10: 

 “If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, *milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction* — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And *meat is the mystic contemplation*; for *this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence.* “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. *For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.*” (Stramata 5:10) 
Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine,  and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction.  Clement  explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said  “eat My flesh and drink My blood.”  Jesus told His disciples, “_I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work._”  Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and  source for well-being and growth. 

 Clement wonderfully instructs those  younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and  His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp. 
  The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer.  He said, “_The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that._” 

  Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the  Catholic Church does have a problem with him.  From the time the  Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until  the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint.  But Pope Clement  VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of  Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius.  

Later in the 18th  century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act  emerged.  But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the  martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and  some of his doctrines were erroneous. 

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-...real-presence/

----------


## Kevin007

> TER, just for you I did some research and found this:
> 
> http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/
> 
> Now I doubt this will sway you.  That's not even my intent.  But even going back to the church fathers you revere, one can find ammunition to refute transubstantiation.  But again, feel free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe.  I'm not Kevin.  I'm not condemning you for your beliefs.  I just disagree with them.
> 
> _Clement of Alexandria
> 
> Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his stramata (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.
> ...



beat me to it

----------


## jmdrake

I'm just noting that the original sources for what Kevin and I posted can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101611.htm

----------


## Terry1

> I'm just noting that the original sources for what Kevin and I posted can be found here:
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101611.htm


You believing that Holy Communion is any less spiritual than the baptism or the regeneration in the belief that Jesus resides in the bread and wine as His own blood and body is the same as saying that our spiritual regeneration is a "metaphor" as well.  If punishment follows improper discernment--then you're not understanding what the church fathers were saying at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> You believing that Holy Communion is any less spiritual than the baptism or the regeneration in the belief that Jesus resides in the bread and wine as His own blood and body is the same as saying that our spiritual regeneration is a "metaphor" as well.  If punishment follows improper discernment--then you're not understanding what the church fathers were saying at all.


It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *It's hilarious* that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.


You have an unusual sense of humor...

----------


## jmdrake

> You have an unusual sense of humor...


Unusual to you maybe.  I think others might find it funny.  That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Unusual to you maybe.  I think others find it funny.  *That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?*


What do I get if I do?  I'm not a non-profit org.  AFAICT, it's not a wise investment of my time.

----------


## RJB

> Unusual to you maybe.  I think others find it funny.  That said, are you going to attempt to address why it was that St. Clement said the Eucharist was a metaphor?


Sigh.  If some of you guys would be a small fraction as critical with your own beliefs as you are of others, you'd be Orthodox.  There seems to be quite an inferiority complex among many posters in the religious forum when you can't describe your own faith without referencing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

For me I see a far greater perponderence of evidence, both scripturally and traditionally for the Eucharist, as well as experientially with the Spirit of God, than against.  I've seen debates on Clement's writings on other forums and I just don't have the desire to enter into a endless internet debate about Clement, nor do I really feel like reading all of Clement's writings to take it in context, at this time.  My faith isn't hinged on Clement's statement as your lack of faith seems to be.  

Right now, I'm spending my time reading the Bible along with the Philokalia, with an occasional visit here.  If some of you would work on your relationship with our Lord rather than worrying about the specks in other's eyes, the world would be a much better place

----------


## jmdrake

> Sigh.  If some of you guys would be a small fraction as critical with your own beliefs as you are of others, you'd be Orthodox.  There seems to be quite an inferiority complex among many posters in the religious forum when you can't describe your own faith without referencing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.


That's the way you see it I suppose.  I think if you were held yourself to that same standard you wouldn't be Orthodox.    The fact here is simple.  I'm not the one that started with the criticism.  I said early on in this thread that you are free to believe what you want but that it's just as reasonable to believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor as to believe He was speaking literally.  TER *insisted* at first that Jesus said He was being literal (He didn't) and then that there as *no* support from any church fathers that He was being metaphorical.  I've proven those ideas now both to be false.  That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong with your ultimate conclusions.  It does mean that the claims TER was making simply don't hold water.  Or if they do you have some 'splaining to do.  But again.  In the end believe what you want to believe.  Just realize that's what you're doing.  We all evaluate the evidence and come to our own conclusion.  This "I'm taking the interpretation of all of the saints and you're putting yourself above all historical Christians" argument that I've been hearing is nonsense.

----------


## jmdrake

> What do I get if I do?  I'm not a non-profit org.  AFAICT, it's not a wise investment of my time.


The praise of TER.  After all he started this particular part of this thread.  I was happy to go with "You interpret was Jesus said in John 6 one way and I interpret it another way."  He's the one that asked me the same question about 6 different times (at least).  Once I finally did some research and found out that there actually were church fathers that came to the same "metaphor" conclusion that I came to, I expected him or you or somebody to come up with an actual refutation.  Instead you just linked to where Clement said what I quoted him as saying.  But if you want to leave this Eucharist thing where I started it, which is you have your belief and I have mine and neither is unreasonable, I'm happy to leave it at that.

----------


## RJB

> That's the way you see it I suppose.


I enjoy conversations with you.  On another day I might have gone in a deeper conversation, but on this forum it seems like you try to have an intelligent conversation with some good people, while a few others are nipping at your ankles like enraged Chihuahuas.  A lot of what I wrote was addressed at them.

I very rarely quote the early church fathers.  I respect them, but TER, Erowe1 and others know them far better than I.  I've read into them a little, but Erowe1 once asked someone if they actually read the writings or cut and paste some quotations from a google search.  If I comment on scripture or any writing for that matter, it's because I've usually read the writings in detail, not just because I found a quick quote.  I know on this thread you were mainly addressing one person in particular, but I've seen you imply at least two others were avoiding answering in other threads.  I guess I wrote the above mostly to say, I'm not hiding or avoiding, I'm just not interested, nor knowledgeable enough at this time.

There is much I do not know.

----------


## Terry1

> It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.


What's even more hilarious is Ellen White--the leader and founder of your faith endorsed a false prophecy by William Miller that Christ would return, first in 1843 and then 1844.  I'm sure they had their bags packed and ready to go too. lol

You may have found one word that St. Clement used to support your misunderstanding of what the church fathers taught--but at least they weren't false prophetesses who also thought if we eat meat, we take on the nature of the beast. 


You shouldn't be gloating over something that's more your misunderstanding than the fault of any church father.  Mind your own faith--you have your hands full believing other crap as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> What's even more hilarious is Ellen White--the leader and founder of your faith endorsed a false prophecy by William Miller that Christ would return, first in 1843 and then 1844.  I'm sure they had their bags packed and ready to go too. lol
> 
> You may have found one word that St. Clement used to support your misunderstanding of what the church fathers taught--but at least they weren't false prophetesses who also thought if we eat meat, we take on the nature of the beast. 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't be gloating over something that's more your misunderstanding than the fault of any church father.  Mind your own faith--you have your hands full believing other crap as well.


Right.  More ad homenems.  You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger.  It's okay.  I'm used to it.  Ellen White was neither the leader nor the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  As a woman she couldn't be because the church didn't (and still doesn't) ordain women pastors.  But I don't expect you to know that.  Anyway, like I said, the only reason we're even having this discussion is because your side insisted on it.  I was happy to leave it at "You interpret John 6 as being literal.  I interpret it as being metaphorical."  But it was *your side* that [b]insisted[b] that I find support for my position among the church fathers.  Well....I did.  And now your side seems unable or unwilling to just deal with it.  If St. Clement didn't really use the word "metaphor" when talking about the Lord's supper (He did and that's irrefutable) or if you have some other explanation for why he used the word metaphor than please give it.  If your explanation is "Well the church fathers weren't infallible" great!  That's my position as well!  I don't think they should be ignored, but I don't consider them infallible or in the same category as Old Testament and Apostolic scripture.

----------


## jmdrake

> I enjoy conversations with you.  On another day I might have gone in a deeper conversation, but on this forum it seems like you try to have an intelligent conversation with some good people, while a few others are nipping at your ankles like enraged Chihuahuas.  A lot of what I wrote was addressed at them.
> 
> I very rarely quote the early church fathers.  I respect them, but TER, Erowe1 and others know them far better than I.  I've read into them a little, but Erowe1 once asked someone if they actually read the writings or cut and paste some quotations from a google search.  If I comment on scripture or any writing for that matter, it's because I've usually read the writings in detail, not just because I found a quick quote.  I know on this thread you were mainly addressing one person in particular, but I've seen you imply at least two others were avoiding answering in other threads.  I guess I wrote the above mostly to say, I'm not hiding or avoiding, I'm just not interested, nor knowledgeable enough at this time.
> 
> There is much I do not know.


Okay.  That's a fair statement.  And I accept it.  There's a lot that I don't know either.  And there's a lot that I do know that can be interpreted multiple ways.  We all have our own spiritual journeys to go on.

----------


## Terry1

> Right.  More ad homenems.  You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger.  It's okay.  I'm used to it.  Ellen White was neither the leader nor the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  As a woman she couldn't be because the church didn't (and still doesn't) ordain women pastors.  But I don't expect you to be informed about that when you seem so ill informed about your own church fathers.    Anyway, like I said, the only reason we're even having this discussion is because your side insisted on it.  I was happy to leave it at "You interpret John 6 as being literal.  I interpret it as being metaphorical.  I'm willing to leave it at that."  But it was *your side* that [b]insisted[b] that I find support for my position among the church fathers.  Well....I did.  And now your side seems unable or unwilling to just deal with that like adults.  At the end of the day though, you're free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.


Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit.  You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.

Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching.  After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol  Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.

----------


## Kevin007

> Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit.  *You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.*
> 
> Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching.  After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol  Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.


there are several church fathers who believed that the eucharist was only symbolic and a memoriam and NOT the real presence.

----------


## Terry1

> Okay.  That's a fair statement.  And I accept it.  There's a lot that I don't know either.  And there's a lot that I do know that can be interpreted multiple ways.  We all have our own spiritual journeys to go on.


Now comes the clean-up eh?  It's too late.

----------


## Terry1

> there are several church fathers who believed that the eucharist was only symbolic and a memoriam and NOT the real presence.


Well do the Holy Communion your way and see what happens.  I doubt that you even take communion and if you do is probably why you're subscribing to OSAS instead of believing in the true Gospel of Christ.  I guess condemnation and judgment can come in many forms.

Why don't you and your new buddy there start another Catholic bashing thread and just be yourselves instead of playing the part of a rational intelligent exegete.

----------


## Kevin007

> Well do the Holy Communion your way and see what happens.  I doubt that you even take communion and if you do is probably why you're subscribing to OSAS instead of believing in the true Gospel of Christ.  I guess condemnation and judgment can come in many forms.
> 
> Why don't you and your new buddy there start another Catholic bashing thread and just be yourselves instead of playing the part of a rational intelligent exegete.


I do it as a memoriam, which is exactly the way it was intended.

----------


## jmdrake

> Now comes the clean-up eh?  It's too late.


Too late for what?  My position has been consistent all along.  It's you who's been all over the map.  Again, believe what you want.  But the idea that Jesus said the Eucharist was literally His body and blood or that the church fathers 100% agreed on that is laughable.

----------


## TER

> It's hilarious that you think you can say I don't understand what the church fathers are saying without you ever even making a tiny attempt to explain what St. Clement meant by calling the bread and wine a metaphor.


  St. Clement did not call the bread and wine a metaphor.  Your misunderstanding is because you fail to see how the Holy Eucharist can be a symbol as well as a reality.

In the traditional Jewish linear liturgy of time, the Kingdom of God is apart from it.  There is an understanding of the seasons, and of the cycles of the sun and the moon and the keeping of God's will within the turning of time, however the Almighty is understood to be apart from time, without time, outside of time.  And this too is found within the worship of the Hebrews.

 In the traditional Passover meal, there are symbols used in order to 're-enact' the exodus from Egypt and the 40 years in the desert until arrival to the Promised Land.  The participants use _symbols_ in order to 're-live' this event.   However, they are not just doing so in remembrance, they do this to share in the journey, to leave the time and become actual participants in it.  So while the passover of the Jews with Moses leading them happened once in time, in the seder dinner ritual they mystically walk with those Jews from those thousands of years ago, they eat with them the bitter herbs found in the desert, they suffer in the journey and become compatriots upon the journey.  That it happened once in time, it is forever within the memory and reality of God's presence, thus they find mystical communion as one Israel making the journey towards the Promised Land.

You see jmdrake, you misunderstand what symbols are because you are approaching it from a Western scholastic approach.  For the Jews (as well as for the Greeks), while some symbols may be mere symbols, other symbols are much more than that.  They are figures of a reality which transcends time and human comprehension.  This is the same with the Holy Eucharist.  

Take for example the bread and the wine given by the High Priest of Jerusalem Melchezedek to Abraham.  This was a symbol of the Holy Eucharist.  It was a foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist.  But while in time (at that time) it is thought of a symbol of a future event, to God Who is not restrained to time, it is the very Body and Blood of Christ being offered to Abraham.  For while in time the death and resurrection of Christ had not yet come, outside of time, the pre-eternal Word of God offers this Body and Blood to Abraham as He offered it to His Apostles on the night before He died.

I find it slightly amusing that you would fixate on a few verses of a Church Father or two taken out of context because you have little knowledge about the idea of what symbols and figures mean within the mind of the Jew or Greek or early Christian, but because you think you found proof you ignore the overwhelming clear cut undisputable evidence from the Church Fathers regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  

But since you ignore the very words of Christ regarding what the Bread and Blood to be His Body and Blood, and you ignore the teachings of St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers which overwhelmingly confirm the Eucharist to be the very Body and Blood of Christ, perhaps some non-Orthodox scholars can help you learn some history which you refuse to seriously consider.

As you are a child of Protestantism, and the urge is to protest what the mind refuses to accept, listen to these Protestant scholars (well respected and honored for their knowledge of the Church Fathers and history of the early Church, that is, much more knowledgable than you) and see what they have said regarding the early Church and the Holy Eucharist:

*William Webster*, in his book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, p. 117 says:



> From the beginning of the Church the Fathers, generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice


lets consider some more...


1) *Otto W. Heick*, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:




> The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.


2) *Williston Walker*, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:




> By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread


3) *Philip Schaff*, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:




> The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . . In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim.
> 
>     On p. 96: The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question.


4) *J.D. Douglas*, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:




> The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.


5) *F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone*, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:




> *That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . .* . Even where the elements were spoken of as symbols or antitypes there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christs Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .
> 
>     It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, covenant, memorial, poured out, all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . .
> 
>     From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.


6) *Jaroslav Pelikan*, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:




> By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term sacrifice to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the pure offering commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .
> 
>     The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .
> 
>     . . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .
> 
>     Yet it does seem express and clear that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .
> 
>     The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .
> ...


7) *J.N.D. Kelly*, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 440:




> Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviors body and blood.


 


> On pg 196: [T]he Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier.


8) *Carl Volz*, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:




> Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.


9) *Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar*, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173:




> Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful.


Jmdrake, these are Protestant scholars.  

In the next few days, as I have time, we can start discussing the patristic proofs to further back up their claims above.  

Did you know that your Protestant forefathers believed in the Real Presence as well before they threw that out the window along with many other apostolic traditions?

And when we finish this topic, we can then start dissecting why you put St. Clement as an authority (well, I know why, because you think he is teaching your position though he is not), yet when it comes to the clerical hierarchy and ecclesiological doctrines he espouses, I think you would consider him to be not so much an authority.  This is what is commonly called these days as cafeteria Christianity.  Or Burger King Christianity.  Have it your way!  Well, unfortunately, that is not what it has ever meant to be a member of the Body of Christ.  It requires a little more humility and obedience.  

I dont know how much time I will have to walk you through the first few centuries of the writings of the saints because of personal commitments.  You would help this along much better if you stopped pretending to know how the early Church worshiped and what the teachings of the Church Fathers were, and actually spent more time reading them to learn.  Or perhaps you don't want to face certain real historical truths?  Don't be scared my friend.  The truths cannot hurt you.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh please, you're gloating like a child who tossed a handful of rocks at someone and one of them actually hit.  You use one word to discredit an entire history and thousands of years of ancient church teaching by the Apostles and church fathers and you believe you have some sort of victory here--now that is hilarious.
> 
> Ellen White knows better than thousands of years worth of ancient church teaching.  After all--she did endorse the prophecy that Jesus would return in her own time now didn't she. lol  Needless to say--you disappoint me jmd.


Except all of the church fathers didn't believe the Eucharist was literal.  Also Ellen White wasn't the founder of the SDA church.  When she believed William Miller's interpretation of Daniel 9 she had not had a single vision at that point.  And none of that has anything to do with this thread.  If I "disappoint you" then that's fine.  You treat everyone that disagrees with you as an enemy.  You treated me as an enemy before.  Then you were happy to cheer me on when I disagree with Lily or Kevin.  Now you're back to the "jmd is an enemy" camp.  That's fine.  You are consistent in your inconsistency.

Again, the reason I don't take the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Jesus is because in John 6:63 Jesus seems to be making the point that He was talking in metaphor.  "The flesh profits nothing.  My words are Spirit and they are Life".  St. Clement read that pretty much the same way I did.  When I took *your sides advice* and researched to see if there were any church fathers that agreed with me, surprise surprise I found some.  Why are you mad at me for doing what *your side* of the argument asked me to do?  If I hadn't done the research I would have heard "You don't care about what the church fathers think".  Make up your mind.

----------


## Kevin007

IT cannot be both literal and symbolic.

----------


## jmdrake

> St. Clement did not call the bread and wine a metaphor.  Your misunderstanding is because you fail to see how the Holy Eucharist can be a symbol as well as a reality.


I gave you the quote where he did.  I'm not misunderstanding anything.  And if I am then your reply here isn't helpful.  You haven't addressed what he said.  Instead you've dug up other references that agree with you.  I'm not surprised.  I'm sure on a lot of subjects one can find someone that agrees with them.  But your argument wasn't whether or not all church fathers agreed with the metaphor interpretation or even if most did.  I only needed to find one.  I did.  Sorry that bothers you.

----------


## TER

The only thing that bothers me is your stubbornness and your unwillingness to learn. And that is because I care for you. But you approach this topic as a lawyer trying to instill reasonable doubt. Approach this as a child and as a servant of Christ and do not pit yourself against Him and His saints.

----------


## jmdrake

> The only thing that bothers me is your stubbornness and your unwillingness to learn. And that is because I care for you. But you approach this topic as a lawyer trying to instill reasonable doubt. Approach this as a child and as a servant of Christ and do not pit yourself against Him and His saints.


But I did learn.  I learned what St. Clement had to say about the Eucharist.  It's metaphorical.  If by learning you mean agreeing with you, then maybe you need to learn about learning.  Maybe you might learn something.

----------


## TER

> IT cannot be both literal and symbolic.


Of course it can. This is not unique to Christian understanding, but it comes from Judaism from which it bloomed from. It is also the belief of a multitude of other philosophies and religious thinking. This is natural when divinity is considered and professed to be set apart from time, that is, when God is considered eternal.

----------


## TER

> But I did learn.  I learned what St. Clement had to say about the Eucharist.  It's metaphorical.  If by learning you mean agreeing with you, then maybe you need to learn about learning.  Maybe you might learn something.


Don't agree with me, my friend. Agree with the Church and the holy ones in the Church. I merely repeat what greater men then me have proclaimed to be the truth. 2000 years of them. So not my opinion, but their opinion.

----------


## Terry1

> Except all of the church fathers didn't believe the Eucharist was literal.  Also Ellen White wasn't the founder of the SDA church.  When she believed William Miller's interpretation of Daniel 9 she had not had a single vision at that point.  And none of that has anything to do with this thread.  If I "disappoint you" then that's fine.  You treat everyone that disagrees with you as an enemy.  You treated me as an enemy before.  Then you were happy to cheer me on when I disagree with Lily or Kevin.  Now you're back to the "jmd is an enemy" camp.  That's fine.  You are consistent in your inconsistency.
> 
> Again, the reason I don't take the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Jesus is because in John 6:63 Jesus seems to be making the point that He was talking in metaphor.  "The flesh profits nothing.  My words are Spirit and they are Life".  St. Clement read that pretty much the same way I did.  When I took *your sides advice* and researched to see if there were any church fathers that agreed with me, surprise surprise I found some.  Why are you mad at me for doing what *your side* of the argument asked me to do?  If I hadn't done the research I would have heard "You don't care about what the church fathers think".  Make up your mind.


If I were you, I wouldn't keep pounding my chest thinking that you're Mr.Congeniality either.  You seem to think more highly of yourself than anyone else does from what I can tell.  

You and Kevin were on a mission in this thread and then because you *thought you'd found the dirt you were looking for, you gloated--"laughing hilariously" as if you actually won a case here or something.  I was embarrassed for you.  As it turns out--you are still wrong--how about them apples.  Nothing like your own sword falling back down upon your own head is there.

BTW, I'm respectful to people who are the same to me.  Unfortunately--I still have flaws and fail to suck it up in humility like I should many times.  It's something I've struggled with for a very long time.

----------


## Kevin007

> Of course it can. This is not unique to Christian understanding, but it comes from Judaism from which it bloomed from. It is also the belief of a multitude of other philosophies and religious thinking. This is natural when divinity is considered and professed to be set apart from time, that is, when God is considered eternal.



Matthew 26:29 ►

New International Version
I tell you, I will not drink from this *fruit of the vine* from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

----------


## Kevin007

> If I were you, I wouldn't keep pounding my chest thinking that you're Mr.Congeniality either.  You seem to think more highly of yourself than anyone else does from what I can tell.  
> 
> You and Kevin were on a mission in this thread and then because you *thought you'd found the dirt you were looking for, you gloated--"laughing hilariously" as if you actually won a case here or something.  I was embarrassed for you.  As it turns out--you are still wrong--how about them apples.  Nothing like your own sword falling back down upon your own head is there.
> 
> BTW, I'm respectful to people who are the same to me.  Unfortunately--I still have flaws and fail to suck it up in humility like I should many times.  It's something I've struggled with for a very long time.



there are many reasons why the real presence is unscriptural, not just a quote from a church father.


Matthew 26:29 ►

New International Version
I tell you, I will not drink from this *fruit of the vine* from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." 					

Jesus had not died yet, He could not have been speaking literal. Dozens of reasons to not take that passage out of context (literally). Jesus gave Himself ONCE and for all time. There are passages that speak to this;

◄ Hebrews 7:27 ►


New International Version
Unlike  the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after  day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He  sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

----------


## Kevin007

> Don't agree with me, my friend. Agree with the Church and the holy ones in the Church. I merely repeat what greater men then me have proclaimed to be the truth. 2000 years of them. So not my opinion, but their opinion.


the Holy Spirit is our teacher in ALL TRUTH.   John 16:13

New International Version

But  when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the  truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears,  and he will tell you what is yet to come.

----------


## TER

> the Holy Spirit is our teacher in ALL TRUTH.   John 16:13
> 
> New International Version
> 
> But  when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the  truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears,  and he will tell you what is yet to come.


Kevin, do you believe every thought that pops up in your head is from the Holy Spirit?

----------


## Terry1

> there are many reasons why the real presence is unscriptural, not just a quote from a church father.
> 
> 
> Matthew 26:29 ►
> 
> New International Version
> I tell you, I will not drink from this *fruit of the vine* from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." 					
> 
> Jesus had not died yet, He could not have been speaking literal. Dozens of reasons to not take that passage out of context (literally). Jesus gave Himself ONCE and for all time. There are passages that speak to this;
> ...


Do you believe in the real presence of Christ at regeneration?  Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in the baptism?  Do you believe in the real presence of the Holy Spirit?  If you answer yes to any one of these,  then why wouldn't you believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Communion?

Why do you think that you're warned not to do this without properly discerning the blood and body of Christ?  The word tells you that there are dire consequences for doing this.

----------


## Kevin007

> Do you believe in the real presence of Christ at regeneration?  Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in the baptism?  Do you believe in the real presence of the Holy Spirit?  If you answer yes to any one of these,  then why wouldn't you believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Communion?
> 
> *Why do you think that you're warned not to do this without properly discerning the blood and body of Christ?  The word tells you that there are dire consequences for doing this.*




this has nothing to do with what you think it does....

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> 
> this has nothing to do with what you think it does....


Well then, kindly explain yourself if you will.

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't agree with me, my friend. Agree with the Church and the holy ones in the Church. I merely repeat what greater men then me have proclaimed to be the truth. 2000 years of them. So not my opinion, but their opinion.


Well I don't agree with you that all of the church fathers agreed with you.  So my opinion is that your opinion isn't universally their opinion.  So far you've provided no evidence that my interpretation of Clement is incorrect.  So no.  You are not "merely repeating" what men said 2000 years ago.  If you wish to actually address what Clement said then by all means to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> If I were you, I wouldn't keep pounding my chest thinking that you're Mr.Congeniality either.  You seem to think more highly of yourself than anyone else does from what I can tell.  
> 
> You and Kevin were on a mission in this thread and then because you *thought you'd found the dirt you were looking for, you gloated--"laughing hilariously" as if you actually won a case here or something.  I was embarrassed for you.  As it turns out--you are still wrong--how about them apples.  Nothing like your own sword falling back down upon your own head is there.
> 
> BTW, I'm respectful to people who are the same to me.  Unfortunately--I still have flaws and fail to suck it up in humility like I should many times.  It's something I've struggled with for a very long time.


I never called myself "Mr. Congenialiy".  But you are Ms. Tempermental.  And it's got nothing to do with people being respectful to you and everything to do with people disagreeing with you.  I'm the same jmdrake that I always am.  When I'm disagreeing with Kevin or Lily you like me.  When I'm disagreeing with you, you don't.  So no, I'm not worried about your opinion of me because it's too flighty.  As for Kevin and I being on a "mission" don't make me laugh!  Kevin's slammed my religion much harder than your attempt in this thread.  And my "mission" in this thread has merely been to give my honest opinion.  And honestly I believe it's much to do about nothing.  I don't think those who believe in transubstantiation are "unbiblical" in the sense that a rational person could take the words of Jesus that way.  By the same token I don't think a person who believes transubstantiation is false is "unbiblical" because a rational person could take the words of Jesus as metaphorical.  And *THE ONLY REASON I LOOKED UP ST CLEMENT IS BECAUSE TER DEMANDED I DO SO!*  Sorry to shout, but you are being irrational to pretend I did that as a part of some "mission".  If TER had been willing to just accept the fact that I don't believe as he did, then I wouldn't have even looked more deeply into the subject and found more evidence to refute his (and by extension your) position.

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course it can. This is not unique to Christian understanding, but it comes from Judaism from which it bloomed from. It is also the belief of a multitude of other philosophies and religious thinking. This is natural when divinity is considered and professed to be set apart from time, that is, when God is considered eternal.


Fine.  Then take your pick.  One can choose A) symbolic only B) literal only or C) symbolic and literal and be true to the Bible and be a Christian.  Earlier you asked me to find some church father that thought it was symbolic.  I did.  Beyond that this is really a non issue.

----------


## Terry1

> I never called myself "Mr. Congenialiy".  But you are Ms. Tempermental.  And it's got nothing to do with people being respectful to you and everything to do with people disagreeing with you.  I'm the same jmdrake that I always am.  When I'm disagreeing with Kevin or Lily you like me.  When I'm disagreeing with you, you don't.  So no, I'm not worried about your opinion of me because it's too flighty.  As for Kevin and I being on a "mission" don't make me laugh!  Kevin's slammed my religion much harder than your attempt in this thread.  And my "mission" in this thread has merely been to give my honest opinion.  And honestly I believe it's much to do about nothing.  I don't think those who believe in transubstantiation are "unbiblical" in the sense that a rational person could take the words of Jesus that way.  By the same token I don't think a person who believes transubstantiation is false is "unbiblical" because a rational person could take the words of Jesus as metaphorical.  And *THE ONLY REASON I LOOKED UP ST CLEMENT IS BECAUSE TER DEMANDED I DO SO!*  Sorry to shout, but you are being irrational to pretend I did that as a part of some "mission".  If TER had been willing to just accept the fact that I don't believe as he did, then I wouldn't have even looked more deeply into the subject and found more evidence to refute his (and by extension your) position.


"Irrational" is attempting to use *one word by one man you misunderstood* in attempts to discredit thousands of years worth of church history and teaching.  I doubt that St. Clement himself would agree with your interpretation of what he said in light of simply nothing more than who he was and what he stood for.  

Now that my friend is what I call--"irrational".

----------


## jmdrake

> "Irrational" is attempting to use *one word by one man you misunderstood* in attempts to discredit thousands of years worth of church history and teaching.  I doubt that St. Clement himself would agree with your interpretation of what he said in light of simply nothing more than who he was and what he stood for.  
> 
> Now that my friend is what I call--"irrational".


What you are doing is called a "strawman".  Again, TER asked me to find one person that agreed with my interpretation that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  I did that.  In fact I found several from that one link.  From a straight Biblical standpoint there is good reason to believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  If you want to stick with your belief that He was speaking literally, by all means go right ahead.  But for you to pretend that my answering TER was somehow part of some "mission" that I joined in with Kevin on is just plain silly.  Hey, but maybe TER is a part of the conspiracy?  After all he set up the pitch with his open ended question.

----------


## Terry1

> What you are doing is called a "strawman".  Again, TER asked me to find one person that agreed with my interpretation that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  I did that.  In fact I found several from that one link.  From a straight Biblical standpoint there is good reason to believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  If you want to stick with your belief that He was speaking literally, by all means go right ahead.  But for you to pretend that my answering TER was somehow part of some "mission" that I joined in with Kevin on is just plain silly.  Hey, but maybe TER is a part of the conspiracy?  After all he set up the pitch with his open ended question.


All of this is because you're not understanding the Eucharist at all.  The bread and the wine are nothing until they've been blessed and entered the body and become the literal flesh and blood of Christ--through our faith.  So metaphorically speaking--the bread and wine only symbolize the blood and body of Christ until they have been blessed and entered the body and through our faith, they become the blood and the body of Christ.

The bread isn't the body of Christ while it's being baked in the oven before it's used by the church.  The wine isn't the blood of Christ before it reaches the church.  What literally transforms these elements are the blessings by the church and through our faith when they enter our bodies--literally become the blood and body of Christ.

Otherwise--you wouldn't be eating and drinking condemnation and judgment unto yourself not properly discerning these elements.  There's actual punishment here for this offense--because after it's blessed by the church--it is the blood and body of Christ.  Which is no less than Christ being literal in our regeneration and baptism process--He's there--literally.

----------


## Kevin007

> All of this is because you're not understanding the Eucharist at all. * The bread and the wine are nothing until they've been blessed* and entered the body and become the literal flesh and blood of Christ--through our faith.  So metaphorically speaking--the bread and wine only symbolize the blood and body of Christ until they have been blessed and entered the body and through our faith, they become the blood and the body of Christ.
> 
> The bread isn't the body of Christ while it's being baked in the oven before it's used by the church.  The wine isn't the blood of Christ before it reaches the church.  What literally transforms these elements are the blessings by the church and through our faith when they enter our bodies--literally become the blood and body of Christ.
> 
> Otherwise--you wouldn't be eating and drinking condemnation and judgment unto yourself not properly discerning these elements.  There's actual punishment here for this offense--because after it's blessed by the church--it is the blood and body of Christ.  Which is no less than Christ being literal in our regeneration and baptism process--He's there--literally.


SO a sinful man (Priest) can do this, eh? How and where in the Bible does it mention this? Acts 1:11-Para

New International Version

"Men  of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?  This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back  in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

There is no need for Jesus to "come down" and be resacrificed again and again....


"...Jesus [also] became the guarantee of an [even] better covenant...He  has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day,  first for His own sins and then for those of the people; He did that *once for all* when He offered Himself". (Hebrews 7:22.


To have Priests call down Jesus (they cannot) shows that they do not believe enough in Jesus' one time, perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

----------


## jmdrake

> All of this is because you're not understanding the Eucharist at all.  The bread and the wine are nothing until they've been blessed and entered the body and become the literal flesh and blood of Christ--through our faith.  So metaphorically speaking--the bread and wine only symbolize the blood and body of Christ until they have been blessed and entered the body and through our faith, they become the blood and the body of Christ.
> 
> The bread isn't the body of Christ while it's being baked in the oven before it's used by the church.  The wine isn't the blood of Christ before it reaches the church.  What literally transforms these elements are the blessings by the church and through our faith when they enter our bodies--literally become the blood and body of Christ.
> 
> Otherwise--you wouldn't be eating and drinking condemnation and judgment unto yourself not properly discerning these elements.  There's actual punishment here for this offense--because after it's blessed by the church--it is the blood and body of Christ.  Which is no less than Christ being literal in our regeneration and baptism process--He's there--literally.


Oh I understand it fine.  I just don't agree.  It's amazing how quickly you grasped onto TER's "It's both metaphorical and literal" argument when that wasn't what you were saying at first.  You were willing to go with a "Well the church fathers weren't 100% right" argument until TER gave you something else to go with.  This wasn't what TER was saying at first either.  Nobody said anything about it being both metaphorical and literal until TER challenged me to find some church father saying that it was metaphorical and I responded to the challenge and found a church father making that exact point.  And so far nobody has provided any evidence of St. Clement saying it was literal.  Anyway, believe what you want to believe.

----------


## Kevin007

> Oh I understand it fine.  I just don't agree.  It's amazing how quickly you grasped onto TER's "It's both metaphorical and literal" argument when that wasn't what you were saying at first.  You were willing to go with a "Well the church fathers were 100% right" argument until TER gave you something else to go with.  This wasn't what TER was saying at first either.  Nobody said anything about it being both metaphorical and literal until TER challenged me to find some church father saying that it was metaphorical and I responded to the challenge and found a church father making that exact point.  And so far nobody has provided any evidence of St. Clement saying it was literal.  Anyway, believe what you want to believe.


exactly.

----------


## Terry1

> Oh I understand it fine.  I just don't agree.  It's amazing how quickly you grasped onto TER's "It's both metaphorical and literal" argument when that wasn't what you were saying at first.  You were willing to go with a "Well the church fathers weren't 100% right" argument until TER gave you something else to go with.  This wasn't what TER was saying at first either.  Nobody said anything about it being both metaphorical and literal until TER challenged me to find some church father saying that it was metaphorical and I responded to the challenge and found a church father making that exact point.  And so far nobody has provided any evidence of St. Clement saying it was literal.  Anyway, believe what you want to believe.



You certainly like to accuse others of strawman arguments don't you.  Most of what you just said is a fabrication of add-on's and subtractions to what was actually said.

Well, you've really made a fool of yourself dissing one of the most beloved and long-time respected members of this forum to support your little buddy Kevin there whose done nothing but bash the Catholics and EO's since the day he subscribed here.  I must say that it's true--like you and Kevin--water does seek it's own level doesn't it.  How foolish of you.  I'm done here.

----------


## Kevin007

lol at Terry thinking me and jm are in cahoots- too funny. I haven't even spoken to him.

----------


## Terry1

> lol at Terry thinking me and jm are in cahoots- too funny. I haven't even spoken to him.


As if you need to speak with anyone in the forum to be "in cahoots" with them.  


Remember if you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, cheer up, you can still be the thickest tree in the forest.  Thank God we all have hope because if it wasn't for believing God--I'd never see it some people.

----------


## Kevin007

SO a sinful man (Priest) can do this, eh? How and where in the Bible does it mention this? Acts 1:11-Para

New International Version

"Men  of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the  sky?  This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will  come back  in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

There is no need for Jesus to "come down" and be resacrificed again and again....


"...Jesus [also] became the guarantee of an [even] better covenant...He   has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day,   first for His own sins and then for those of the people; He did that *once for all* when He offered Himself". (Hebrews 7:22.


To have Priests call down Jesus (they cannot) shows that they do not  believe enough in Jesus' one time, perfect sacrifice to end all  sacrifices.

----------


## Kevin007

Terry its too bad you have more faith in yourself than Jesus.

----------


## jmdrake

> You certainly like to accuse others of strawman arguments don't you.  Most of what you just said is a fabrication of add-on's and subtractions to what was actually said.


Only when it's true.  And in this case it is.  I've not said anything about throwing away "1,000 years of Orthodoxy".  TER asked me if I could find any church father that agreed with the metaphor interpretation and I did.  End of story.




> Well, you've really made a fool of yourself dissing one of the most beloved and long-time respected members of this forum to support your little buddy Kevin there whose done nothing but bash the Catholics and EO's since the day he subscribed here.  I must say that it's true--like you and Kevin--water does seek it's own level doesn't it.  How foolish of you.  I'm done here.


The one going around calling others "fools" is typically the biggest fool.  I haven't "dissed" TER.  If you think so that's your problem.  Kevin isn't my "buddy".  He's not my enemy either.  Neither are you though you've decided to set yourself that way.  I'm interested in the truth.  And the truth is that the church fathers weren't as united on the "It's literal not a metaphor" position on the Eucharist as you seem to think.  Or if they were, the evidence of that has not been put forward in this thread.  I would say sorry for offending you, but you take offense so easily that I think such an apology would be pointless.

----------


## jmdrake

> lol at Terry thinking me and jm are in cahoots- too funny. I haven't even spoken to him.


Terry has an "us versus them" mentality that I don't have.  The fact that I can argue with you means that it's somehow "wrong" if you and I end up on the same side of an argument.  If Terry had been paying attention she would know that I've argued with and against SF, FF, TER, HB and just about everyone else.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry has an "us versus them" mentality that I don't have.  The fact that I can argue with you means that it's somehow "wrong" if you and I end up on the same side of an argument.  If Terry had been paying attention she would know that I've argued with and against SF, FF, TER, HB and just about everyone else.


Kevin started this thread "The Eucharist is unbiblical".  Yet another one of his attack threads on the Catholics and the EOC.  You joined forces with him in attempts to support him in this thread with full understanding of what Kevin has done since the day he subscribed to this forum, which wasn't all that long ago.   

How many peaceful, loving threads has TER started that were hijacked and trashed by Kevin--along with his friends.  I would think that with the length of time you've spent in this same forum with people like TER and other good faithful members with good intentions towards peace--you'd understand what Kevin's agenda and participation in this forum was all about.  Yet--you team up with Kevin--to argue against the Eucharist.  

My point is here that whether or not you agree with the Eucharist--choosing to team up with the likes as someone as Kevin against good, faithful peace loving long time members who have contributed more towards peace, love, the kingdom of heaven and this forum as well---I thought would have been beneath you understanding the length of time you've been here, but it seems it wasn't.  You were more than willing to sink the same level as Kevin to support his agenda and efforts.  That is the issue that I had with you and not your disagreement with the Eucharist at all.

This to me spoke volumes with regard to your character and integrity.  This is why I said that water seeks it's own level.  There are all kinds of lawyers out there suing doctors for malpractice and getting rich doing it--while there are still a few that retain some level of integrity with regard to how low they will go for a pay check.

----------


## acptulsa

> Kevin started this thread "The Eucharist is unbiblical".  Yet another one of his attack threads on the Catholics and the EOC.  You joined forces with him in attempts to support him in this thread with full understanding of what Kevin has done since the day he subscribed to this forum, which wasn't all that long ago.   
> 
> How many peaceful, loving threads has TER started that were hijacked and trashed by Kevin--along with his friends.  I would think that with the length of time you've spent in this same forum with people like TER and other good faithful members with good intentions towards peace--you'd understand what Kevin's agenda and participation in this forum was all about.  Yet--you team up with Kevin--to argue against the Eucharist.  
> 
> My point is here that whether or not you agree with the Eucharist--choosing to team up with the likes as someone as Kevin against good, faithful peace loving long time members who have contributed more towards peace, love, the kingdom of heaven and this forum as well---I thought would have been beneath you understanding the length of time you've been here, but it seems it wasn't.  You were more than willing to sink the same level as Kevin to support his agenda and efforts.  That is the issue that I had with you and not your disagreement with the Eucharist at all.


If you can't attack the message attack the messenger.  If you can't attack the messenger, attack anyone who is agreeing with the messenger at the moment--and accuse them of collusion for nefarious purposes.  If you can't understand the message, agree with whomever you like more, or just laugh it off.

I've been enjoying Mr. Drake's posts here for years, and he will defend what he feels is right, period.  There's nothing political about his efforts.  As far as he's concerned, as anyone with clear vision can see, right is right and that is that.  Regardless of who else takes that position and how he might feel about them.  He, in short, has integrity.

And there is one thing I feel he is absolutely right about--to understand something is not necessarily to agree with it.  As in this case...

----------


## Terry1

> If you can't attack the message attack the messenger.  If you can't attack the messenger, attack anyone who is agreeing with the messenger at the moment--and accuse them of collusion for nefarious purposes.  If you can't understand the message, agree with whomever you like more, or just laugh it off.
> 
> I've been enjoying Mr. Drake's posts here for years, and he will defend what he feels is right, period.  There's nothing political about his efforts.  As far as he's concerned, as anyone with clear vision can see, right is right and that is that.  Regardless of who else takes that position and how he might feel about them.
> 
> And there is one thing I feel he is absolutely right about--to understand something is not necessarily to agree with it.  As in this case...


That's all fine and well, but don't try to misrepresent what I actually said to support your friends.   That was my point as well.  We can disagree on anything which is fine, but don't accuse me of saying something that I clearly did not say in effort to support your friends argument.  The truth stands on it's own and needs no defense.

----------


## acptulsa

> The truth stands on it's own and needs no defense.


If only that were always true, none of us would be here trying to drain the swamp of corruption that has engulfed Washington, D.C.  But in this case, I think it true.  I'm satisfied that I've set the record straight enough for anyone who has eyes and uses them.

----------


## Terry1

> If only that were always true, none of us would be here trying to drain the swamp of corruption that has engulfed Washington, D.C.  But in this case, I think it true.  I'm satisfied that I've set the record straight enough for anyone who has eyes and uses them.


This is the issue here.  You are coming after me claiming that I have attacked the messenger, but what has jmd done?  He's also attacked the messenger.  In light of this truth--you're doing nothing more here than defending a friend who has done the very same thing that you're accusing me of doing.    This is all silly and childish behavior coming from people who should know better.

----------


## acptulsa

But of course, it's obvious that the difference between a true offense and the 'best defense' is who fires the first shot.  And I don't expect anyone to take someone's word for that, when all they have to do is look.

----------


## Terry1

> But of course, it's obvious that the difference between a true offense and the 'best defense' is who fires the first shot.  And I don't expect anyone to take someone's word for that, when all they have to do is look.


You're saying it's okay to shoot back then, unless that shot is taken at one of your friends--then that's a real offense there. LOL  

Yeah, well--I need to take a break here and pray to God that He can restore in me the same hope he has for mankind.  In my human frailness--I tend to be discouraged to the point of giving up on people because of their willingness to be arrogant and ignorant.  Yes--I need more humility, compassion and love and I have no excuse for being anything other than that.  I find the Apostle Paul's words to be so true when he said that what he wants to do in the spirit--his flesh fights to do just the opposite.  I stand accountable and I'm well aware of this.  

Mankind is in a very sad state of ignorance and corruptness and choices are hard because they involve sacrifice on our part when we're made aware.  Sometimes having spiritual discernment can become more of a curse than a blessing because we see things and circumstances that give us the opportunity to either rise to Christ or fall to our own flesh and emotions.  For this--I need to pray and make some sacrifices.  

Maybe you'll see me again and then maybe you won't.  Peace

----------


## Miss Annie

> Kevin started this thread "The Eucharist is unbiblical".  Yet another one of his attack threads on the Catholics and the EOC.  You joined forces with him in attempts to support him in this thread with full understanding of what Kevin has done since the day he subscribed to this forum, which wasn't all that long ago.   
> 
> How many peaceful, loving threads has TER started that were hijacked and trashed by Kevin--along with his friends.  I would think that with the length of time you've spent in this same forum with people like TER and other good faithful members *with good intentions towards peace*--you'd understand what Kevin's agenda and participation in this forum was all about.  Yet--you team up with Kevin--to argue against the Eucharist.  
> 
> My point is here that whether or not you agree with the Eucharist--choosing to team up with the likes as someone as Kevin *against good, faithful peace loving long time members* who have *contributed more towards peace, love*, the kingdom of heaven and this forum as well---I thought would have been beneath you understanding the length of time you've been here, but it seems it wasn't.  You were more than willing to sink the same level as Kevin to support his agenda and efforts.  That is the issue that I had with you and not your disagreement with the Eucharist at all.
> 
> This to me spoke volumes with regard to your character and integrity.  This is why I said that water seeks it's own level.  There are all kinds of lawyers out there suing doctors for malpractice and getting rich doing it--while there are still a few that retain some level of integrity with regard to how low they will go for a pay check.


That's an interesting post Terry - because every time I try to post something about peace and love you call  it "kumbuya" crap.

----------


## Terry1

> That's an interesting post Terry - because every time I try to post something about peace and love you call  it "kumbuya" crap.


Well is helps not to call people crack heads in the same thread you created titled "I Am A Christian" as well.  See how that works?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Well is helps not to call people crack heads in the same thread you created titled "I Am A Christian" as well.  See how that works?


Terry, people used to debate here - and disagree until the cows came home.  But there was never this level of hatred and disdain.  Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they hate you - or that you need to hate them.  It is just that simple.  Disagreement does not necessarily mean disrespect or dislike.  If people can separate the sin from the sinner - surely we can separate the belief from the believer.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, people used to debate here - and disagree until the cows came home.  But there was never this level of hatred and disdain.  Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they hate you - or that you need to hate them.  It is just that simple.  Disagreement does not necessarily mean disrespect or dislike.  If people can separate the sin from the sinner - surely we can separate the belief from the believer.


Really?  So there was no hatred when Sola, Nang, FF and you were all on the same page and they were calling people sluts, witches, unsaved heathens and worse?  Then *you* at the same time, defending and plus repping these very same people--have since created your own "I Am A Christian" thread with an OP talking about how we should practice our Christian love for one another--then you as well and so much like your friends end up calling me a crack head for disagreeing with you in that very same thread.

Seems to me Annie that you should join me in my sabbatical to question our motives--fast and pray in repentance for the strength to overcome our differences in love instead of the hate you only accuse me of having here.  

This will be my last post for a while--peace.

----------


## jmdrake

And TER had just started several anti Protestant threads (The "sola scriptura" threads).  So what?  That's his right.  I didn't take it personally.  TER hasn't taken my disagreement with the Eucharist belief in this thread personally.  I'm not supporting Kevin.  I'm supporting the truth.  Failing to win on that ground you have decided to make this an ad hominem issue.  You don't like Kevin or SF.  But you act just like them on their worst days.  And I told you that before in a thread I was *agreeing* with you on.




> Kevin started this thread "The Eucharist is unbiblical".  Yet another one of his attack threads on the Catholics and the EOC.  You joined forces with him in attempts to support him in this thread with full understanding of what Kevin has done since the day he subscribed to this forum, which wasn't all that long ago.   
> 
> How many peaceful, loving threads has TER started that were hijacked and trashed by Kevin--along with his friends.  I would think that with the length of time you've spent in this same forum with people like TER and other good faithful members with good intentions towards peace--you'd understand what Kevin's agenda and participation in this forum was all about.  Yet--you team up with Kevin--to argue against the Eucharist.  
> 
> My point is here that whether or not you agree with the Eucharist--choosing to team up with the likes as someone as Kevin against good, faithful peace loving long time members who have contributed more towards peace, love, the kingdom of heaven and this forum as well---I thought would have been beneath you understanding the length of time you've been here, but it seems it wasn't.  You were more than willing to sink the same level as Kevin to support his agenda and efforts.  That is the issue that I had with you and not your disagreement with the Eucharist at all.
> 
> This to me spoke volumes with regard to your character and integrity.  This is why I said that water seeks it's own level.  There are all kinds of lawyers out there suing doctors for malpractice and getting rich doing it--while there are still a few that retain some level of integrity with regard to how low they will go for a pay check.

----------


## Kevin007

> Really?  So there was no hatred when Sola, Nang, FF and you were all on the same page and they were calling people sluts, witches, unsaved heathens and worse?  Then *you* at the same time, defending and plus repping these very same people--have since created your own "I Am A Christian" thread with an OP talking about how we should practice our Christian love for one another--then you as well and so much like your friends end up calling me a crack head for disagreeing with you in that very same thread.
> 
> Seems to me Annie that you should join me in my sabbatical to question our motives--fast and pray in repentance for the strength to overcome our differences in love instead of the hate you only accuse me of having here.  
> 
> This will be my last post for a while--peace.


your such a hypocrite- I have never called you or anyone else that, yet you lump me in with them.

----------


## Kevin007

> And TER had just started several anti Protestant threads (The "sola scriptura" threads).  So what?  That's his right.  I didn't take it personally.  TER hasn't taken my disagreement with the Eucharist belief in this thread personally.  I'm not supporting Kevin.  I'm supporting the truth.  Failing to win on that ground you have decided to make this an ad hominem issue.  You don't like Kevin or SF.  But you act just like them on their worst days.  And I told you that before in a thread I was *agreeing* with you on.


thank you sir. We can argue and disagree all day, I'm far from perfect- we all know that- but my delivery can be rough and in your face; but I mean well. Terry attacks my character on the daily. I disagree with her almost all the time, but imo I have never attacked her like some of those banned posters. I never will.

----------


## Kevin007

> You're saying it's okay to shoot back then, unless that shot is taken at one of your friends--then that's a real offense there. LOL  
> 
> Yeah, well--I need to take a break here and pray to God that He can restore in me the same hope he has for mankind.  In my human frailness--I tend to be discouraged to the point of giving up on people because of their willingness to be arrogant and ignorant.  Yes--I need more humility, compassion and love and I have no excuse for being anything other than that.  I find the Apostle Paul's words to be so true when he said that what he wants to do in the spirit--his flesh fights to do just the opposite.  I stand accountable and I'm well aware of this.  
> 
> Mankind is i*n a very sad state of ignorance and corruptness and choices are hard because they involve sacrifice on our part when we're made aware.  Sometimes having spiritual discernment can become more of a curse than a blessing because we see things and circumstances that give us the opportunity to either rise to Christ or fall to our own flesh and emotions.*  For this--I need to pray and make some sacrifices.  
> 
> Maybe you'll see me again and then maybe you won't.  Peace


oh please! This is the kind of self centered arrogant crap we are talking about. Did you even read before submitting? Look at it from another person. What is wrong with your post? The talking down like we are children, etc.. and btw your fav. ploy is to act like you know more than "us" on the "milk" still. lol. Well- I think the exact same about you but I don't go there. I hold my tongue against you as I am sure many others here. Spiritual discernment- lol- like we don't? Give me a break- and yes, you do need a break here.

----------


## Jamesiv1

I'm thinking a lot of what big, powerful religions do is propagate an aura of mystery and power around themselves. Your average Joe parishioner can't do things like change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God Almighty.

or can he?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm thinking a lot of what big, powerful religions do is propagate an aura of mystery and power around themselves. Your average Joe parishioner can't do things like change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God Almighty.
> *
> or can he?*


No.  Google "transubstantiation".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And TER had just started several anti Protestant threads (The "sola scriptura" threads).  So what?  That's his right.  I didn't take it personally.  TER hasn't taken my disagreement with the Eucharist belief in this thread personally.  I'm not supporting Kevin.  I'm supporting the truth.  Failing to win on that ground you have decided to make this an ad hominem issue.  You don't like Kevin or SF.  But you act just like them on their worst days.  And I told you that before in a thread I was *agreeing* with you on.


Anti-Sola scriptura (or the other solas) is not "anti-protestant" any more than "anti-undeclared war" is "anti-defense".  Attacking an opponent's *idea* is legitimate, purposeful, constructive debate.  There were no attacks against people in TER's post about protestantism.

This is a better example of an "anti-" thread.

----------


## Kevin007

> Anti-Sola scriptura (or the other solas) is not "anti-protestant" any more than "anti-undeclared war" is "anti-defense".  Attacking an opponent's *idea* is legitimate, purposeful, constructive debate.  There were no attacks against people in TER's post about protestantism.
> 
> *This is a better example of an "anti-" thread.*


I agree- because it is a false teaching.

----------


## jmdrake

> Anti-Sola scriptura (or the other solas) is not "anti-protestant" any more than "anti-undeclared war" is "anti-defense".  Attacking an opponent's *idea* is legitimate, purposeful, constructive debate.  There were no attacks against people in TER's post about protestantism.
> 
> This is a better example of an "anti-" thread.


HB, have you forgotten the thread title " Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura" by TER?  Sorry, but that was an attack on Protestantism.  Using your own definitions, this current thread by Kevin isn't an "attack" thread since it attacked one idea held by EO Christians and it is not an idea unique to them and EO Christians aren't called out in the thread title the way protestants were in TER's thread.  Mind you I wasn't offended by TER's thread.  I just thought (and still think) he was wrong.  Same thing in this thread.  There is no "personal attack" in saying that the Eucharist is unbiblical.  I would put the "Protestants and a Churchless tradition" and "EO read the Bible" threads on the same level as both threads not only attacked an idea but called out a particular religious group in the thread title.  I would put this thread and the "There is no Bible in Bible" (TER) threads on the same level.  Both attack an idea held by another religious group without calling out the group.  Occasionally there are that call out particular members.  None of the recent threads have done that.  Yes personal attacks rise up in the threads but that happens in threads about Rand Paul or 9/11 or anything else one can think of.  Occasionally there are threads that call out a particular member.  I've had my name in more than one attack thread by Sola_Fide and I have responded in kind.  Every SDA thread *feels* like I'm being personally called out, but that's because I'm the only SDA I know of that regularly posts here.  I try to deal with them as long as they are reasonable.  (Posting multiple attack threads at once with multiple can and paste attack posts in each thread and never responding to anything that I write in response is not reasonable IMO.)  

Anyway, looking back at the recent thread titles, there were similar threads that never gained any traction.  For example "Penance is unbiblical" had 0 responses and only 125 views.  "10 reasons to believe in Jesus rather than church tradition/religion" only had 3 responses (2 from Kevin and one from RJB) and only 154 views.  RJB's response wasn't argumentative (soft answer turns away wrath?)  The thread petered out.  On the surface saying "Penance is unbiblical" is no worse than saying "the Eucharist is unbiblical".  Both are beliefs held by identifiable religious groups.  (I believe both are held by EO and RCC, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.)  One caused no uproar at all.  The other is at over 200 responses and climbing.  I can only hazard a guess that it has nothing to do with one being an "attack" and the other not, but rather to do with the Eucharist belief touching more of a raw nerve.  That our it was the proverbial straw on the camel's back.

Anyway, the day I don't say what I really believe in a thread out of some kind of misplaced loyalty is the day I should delete my account.  I don't want to offend, and I already apologized to TER from something he found offensive.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to "go along to get along."  If I did I wouldn't be jmdrake.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm thinking a lot of what big, powerful religions do is propagate an aura of mystery and power around themselves. Your average Joe parishioner can't do things like change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God Almighty.
> 
> or can he?


True.  Only the priest can effect the mystery.  And only a priest that can claim apostolic succession.  Which means that if you have this belief, regardless of what other way you might disagree with your church, you're not going anywhere.

----------


## Terry1

> HB, have you forgotten the thread title " Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: Sola vs. Solo Scriptura" by TER?  Sorry, but that was an attack on Protestantism.  Using your own definitions, this current thread by Kevin isn't an "attack" thread since it attacked one idea held by EO Christians and it is not an idea unique to them and EO Christians aren't called out in the thread title the way protestants were in TER's thread.  Mind you I wasn't offended by TER's thread.  I just thought (and still think) he was wrong.  Same thing in this thread.  There is no "personal attack" in saying that the Eucharist is unbiblical.  I would put the "Protestants and a Churchless tradition" and "EO read the Bible" threads on the same level as both threads not only attacked an idea but called out a particular religious group in the thread title.  I would put this thread and the "There is no Bible in Bible" (TER) threads on the same level.  Both attack an idea held by another religious group without calling out the group.  Occasionally there are that call out particular members.  None of the recent threads have done that.  Yes personal attacks rise up in the threads but that happens in threads about Rand Paul or 9/11 or anything else one can think of.  Occasionally there are threads that call out a particular member.  I've had my name in more than one attack thread by Sola_Fide and I have responded in kind.  Every SDA thread *feels* like I'm being personally called out, but that's because I'm the only SDA I know of that regularly posts here.  I try to deal with them as long as they are reasonable.  (Posting multiple attack threads at once with multiple can and paste attack posts in each thread and never responding to anything that I write in response is not reasonable IMO.)  
> 
> Anyway, looking back at the recent thread titles, there were similar threads that never gained any traction.  For example "Penance is unbiblical" had 0 responses and only 125 views.  "10 reasons to believe in Jesus rather than church tradition/religion" only had 3 responses (2 from Kevin and one from RJB) and only 154 views.  RJB's response wasn't argumentative (soft answer turns away wrath?)  The thread petered out.  On the surface saying "Penance is unbiblical" is no worse than saying "the Eucharist is unbiblical".  Both are beliefs held by identifiable religious groups.  (I believe both are held by EO and RCC, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.)  One caused no uproar at all.  The other is at over 200 responses and climbing.  I can only hazard a guess that it has nothing to do with one being an "attack" and the other not, but rather to do with the Eucharist belief touching more of a raw nerve.  That our it was the proverbial straw on the camel's back.
> 
> Anyway, the day I don't say what I really believe in a thread out of some kind of misplaced loyalty is the day I should delete my account.  I don't want to offend, and I already apologized to TER from something he found offensive.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to "go along to get along."  If I did I wouldn't be jmdrake.


And I wouldn't be Terry1 if I didn't refute false teaching either, but it's the *way* and *how many times it was done improperly* by the Calvinists.  Look at how TER has presented his opinions and how Kevin, Sola, Nang, FF, and Lily and those you defend have presented theirs.  If you can sit there and say that it doesn't make a difference--at this point it wouldn't surprise me either.  

The fact that I have to enlighten you to this is a glaring indication that you don't understand the difference.  In fact when I spoke about the difference between the protestants and the Catholics with regard to the difference in doctrines, you were the one who hopped into the threads like some heroin for the protestant cause and started defending people instead of the doctrines themselves, as if this were an attack on their person instead of their beliefs.  

People seem to run in packs around here defending each other instead of defending the message or refuting it.  It's nice to make friends, but when you support them even in their misgivings and false teaching is where one needs to step back and reevaluate the reasons why they're refuting anything at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> And I wouldn't be Terry1 if I didn't refute false teaching either, but it's the *way* and *how many times it was done improperly* by the Calvinists.  Look at how TER has presented his opinions and how Kevin, Sola, Nang, FF, and Lily and those you defend have presented theirs.  If you can sit there and say that it doesn't make a difference--at this point it wouldn't surprise me either.


Yes.  *YOU* look at the way TER presents his opinions.  I have told *YOU* to do that a long time ago!  You use the same tactics as those you claim to disagree with.  And your main beef with me is that I at times agree with people who are at times rude?  Well by that same token shouldn't I disagree with *YOU*?  

There are times that I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich over Dennis Kucinich.  I genuinely like DK much better than Newt.  But when Newt is right he's right.  When DK is wrong he's wrong.  

Really, claiming I am "defending" Kevin or Lily or Ms. Anne for any wrong they have done to you real or imagined because I disagree with transubstantiation is without merit.  Nowhere have I ever said "Terry, you really are a crackhead."  (I missed that insult against you, but nobody has denied that so I assume it happened.)  Nor have I ever said "Well it's okay to call Terry names."  I haven't called you any names.  I haven't called TER any names.  I haven't called HB any names.  But your conflating my agreeing with a position that Kevin has happened to take (and I only halfway agree as I haven't said it's wrong for you to have that belief but rather there is strong evidence for those who don't have it) is immature and petty.  If you want to talk about forum etiquette you need to work on the plank in your own eye before trying to get what you perceive to be the speck out of mine.

----------


## Terry1

> oh please! This is the kind of self centered arrogant crap we are talking about. Did you even read before submitting? Look at it from another person. What is wrong with your post? The talking down like we are children, etc.. and btw your fav. ploy is to act like you know more than "us" on the "milk" still. lol. Well- I think the exact same about you but I don't go there. I hold my tongue against you as I am sure many others here. Spiritual discernment- lol- like we don't? Give me a break- and yes, you do need a break here.


Kevin, you are the evidence of your own ignorance of scripture.  I don't have to prove anything.  What I have tried to do is give you scripture along with explanations in attempts to witness the truth to you.  

In the other thread, you just shot down and dismissed Paul's teaching in Romans 2 on the law of faith as something that's "not possible".  What Christian in their right spiritual mind would do something like that instead of trying to reconcile your false belief with what the word of God is actually teaching?  For this reason--I don't have to or need to prove that you're ignorant of the word of God because you choose to remain that way.  The only person you can possibly point a finger at is yourself.

----------


## moostraks

> People seem to run in packs around here defending each other instead of defending the message or refuting it.  It's nice to make friends, but when you support them even in their misgivings and false teaching is where one needs to step back and reevaluate the reasons why they're refuting anything at all.


This is your erroneous perception of arguments that go against your position. If they travel "in packs" at all it is likely because when you ascribe to to a certain creed then you uphold similar teachings. You falsely accused me in the 10 reasons thread of loyalty based discussion as well, when it was based upon my experience that I attempted to try and reason with you on what I felt was a mis-perception. No one should be told to uphold a belief they don't agree with due to friendly associations, and yet it appears as though that is what you expect from some of us here even if the poster believes it to be an untenable position, because they are crossing over some arbitrary line in the sand put upon them by another fallible human. Not all of us are Orthodox and even if we may agree to a lesser or greater extent with the positions put forth by your banner, it does not mean we need to stand up for all the Orthodox teachings.

----------


## Terry1

> This is your erroneous perception of arguments that go against your position. If they travel "in packs" at all it is likely because when you ascribe to to a certain creed then you uphold similar teachings. You falsely accused me in the 10 reasons thread of loyalty based discussion as well, when it was based upon my experience that I attempted to try and reason with you on what I felt was a mis-perception. No one should be told to uphold a belief they don't agree with due to friendly associations, and yet it appears as though that is what you expect from some of us here even if the poster believes it to be an untenable position, because they are crossing over some arbitrary line in the sand put upon them by another fallible human. Not all of us are Orthodox and even if we may agree to a lesser or greater extent with the positions put forth by your banner, it does not mean we need to stand up for all the Orthodox teachings.


Let me know if I'm correct in assuming that your Quaker belief also subscribes to sola scripture and that might have something to do with the fact that you made the statement that "you have nothing against sola scripture per-say".  Which to me seemed like a subtle way of supporting it without actually coming right out and saying it--because you were quoting Orthodox beliefs to support your character assassination against me at that time.

By you continuously quoting Orthodox teaching in attempts to attack my character in the other thread instead of your own belief to support jmd, seemed rather odd and contradictory to your stated beliefs.  You either believe in Orthodoxy or you believe in your Quaker faith that supports sola scripture.  Which is it then moos?  Orthodoxy and sola scripture are like oil and water--they simply don't mix.

----------


## acptulsa

> People seem to run in packs around here defending each other instead of defending the message or refuting it.  It's nice to make friends, but when you support them even in their misgivings and false teaching is where one needs to step back and reevaluate the reasons why they're refuting anything at all.


And when we get to accusing people who have sided with us in the past of running in 'the pack that opposes us'--for example, you and I have been on the same side of arguments in the past--one might consider if all of our beliefs are equally sound.  Or, at the very least, we might consider that two humans can agree on point A, and disagree on point B, without getting all paranoid about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Let me know if I'm correct in assuming that your Quaker belief also subscribes to sola scripture and that might have something to do with the fact that you made the statement that "you have nothing against sola scripture per-say".  Which to me seemed like a subtle way of supporting it without actually coming right out and saying it--because you were quoting Orthodox beliefs to support your character assassination against me at that time.
> 
> By you continuously quoting Orthodox teaching in attempts to attack my character in the other thread instead of your own belief to support jmd, seemed rather odd and contradictory to your stated beliefs.  You either believe in Orthodoxy or you believe in your Quaker faith that supports sola scripture.  Which is it then moos?  Orthodoxy and sola scripture are like oil and water--they simply don't mix.


Except in this case Terry, your belief is neither Orthodox nor scriptural.  You made it up.  You have given know reference scriptural or through church tradition to back up your claim that there is no wisdom in the Bible and that the sum total of God is knowledge and wisdom.

----------


## Terry1

> Except in this case Terry, your belief is neither Orthodox nor scriptural.  You made it up.  You have given know reference scriptural or through church tradition to back up your claim that there is no wisdom in the Bible and that the sum total of God is knowledge and wisdom.


As if you actually understand what the Orthodox faith believes.  Please--spare me.

----------


## jmdrake

> As if you actually understand what the Orthodox faith believes.  Please--spare me.


I understand that so far you have not provided any evidence to back up your twin beliefs that the Bible contains no wisdom or that God is nothing more than knowledge and wisdom.  No Biblical evidence or church tradition.  You made it up.

----------


## Terry1

> Except in this case Terry, your belief is neither Orthodox nor scriptural.  You made it up.  You have given know reference scriptural or through church tradition to back up your claim that there is no wisdom in the Bible and that the sum total of God is knowledge and wisdom.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Wisdom

Holy Wisdom, also called Divine Wisdom (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, Hagia Sophia) is the theological idea that perfect Wisdom is to be found in God alone. 

The word and concept of Sophia ("wisdom") is expressed in both the Old Testament, as notably in the Septuagint version, and of the New Testament. 

In the New Testament wisdom is presented in three meanings: 
##In the usual broad meaning of wisdom as understanding: “‘‘Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and grace’‘“ (Luke 2:52); “‘‘But wisdom is justified of all her children’‘“ (Luke 7:35). 
##In the meaning of the wise economy of God expressed in the creation of the world, in His Providence over the world, and in the salvation of the world from sin: “‘‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counselor?’‘“ (Romans 11:33-34). “‘‘We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory’‘“ (1 Cor. 2:7). 
##In relation to the Son of God as the Hypostatic Wisdom of God: "‘‘But we preach Christ crucified ... Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God’‘" (1 Cor. 1:23-24); "*‘‘Who of God is made unto us wisdom’‘"* (1 Cor. 1:30). 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And if Christ "*is the wisdom of God"--then who and what is God?  Now that you and moos both have held my feet to fire to prove this to you--what will you do with it?

----------


## jmdrake

That's nice.  But where on your link does it say "There is no wisdom in the Bible"?  Where does it say "Wisdom and knowledge is the sum total of God"?  It doesn't.  In fact this from your own source refutes your own belief.

*This was the basis of the theological development of Fr. Bulgakov, and also his fundamental error: for he sought to see in the energy of Wisdom (Sophia), which he identified with the essence, the very principle of the Godhead. In fact, God is not determined by any of his attributes: all determinations are inferior to Him, logically posterior to His being in itself, in its essence. pgs 80-81 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)*

God is not determined by any of His attributes.  That includes Wisdom and Knowledge.  





> http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Wisdom
> 
> Holy Wisdom, also called Divine Wisdom (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, Hagia Sophia) is the theological idea that perfect Wisdom is to be found in God alone. 
> 
> The word and concept of Sophia ("wisdom") is expressed in both the Old Testament, as notably in the Septuagint version, and of the New Testament. 
> 
> In the New Testament wisdom is presented in three meanings: 
> ##In the usual broad meaning of wisdom as understanding: “‘‘Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and grace’‘“ (Luke 2:52); “‘‘But wisdom is justified of all her children’‘“ (Luke 7:35). 
> ##In the meaning of the wise economy of God expressed in the creation of the world, in His Providence over the world, and in the salvation of the world from sin: “‘‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counselor?’‘“ (Romans 11:33-34). “‘‘We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory’‘“ (1 Cor. 2:7). 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

Terry, here is more direct refutation of your false "God is wisdom and knowledge" belief.

_Lossky states that Wisdom as an energy of God (just as love, faith, and grace are also energies of God) is not to be ascribed to be the true essence of God, to do so is to deny the apophatic and incomprehensibility of God as God's essence.[1] Sophiology is contrary to the official view of the Orthodox Church, and Bulgakov's work was denounced by the Russian Orthodox authorities as heretical.[2]_

Note that "love" and "faith" are also described as "energies of God" the same as wisdom is an "energy of God".  One is not put above the other the way you have placed wisdom above everything.  The "God is just wisdom" belief has been denounced by the Russian Orthodox church as heresy.  Again, thank you for the source.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, here is more direct refutation of your false "God is wisdom and knowledge" belief.
> 
> _Lossky states that Wisdom as an energy of God (just as love, faith, and grace are also energies of God) is not to be ascribed to be the true essence of God, to do so is to deny the apophatic and incomprehensibility of God as God's essence.[1] Sophiology is contrary to the official view of the Orthodox Church, and Bulgakov's work was denounced by the Russian Orthodox authorities as heretical.[2]_
> 
> Note that "love" and "faith" are also described as "energies of God" the same as wisdom is an "energy of God".  One is not put above the other the way you have placed wisdom above everything.  The "God is just wisdom" belief has been denounced by the Russian Orthodox church as heresy.  Again, thank you for the source.


Never mind--I see you obtained this from the same link I gave you.  I will reply after further study of what you're quoting.

----------


## jmdrake

> Link?


*DID YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN LINK!*

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Wisdom#cite_ref-0

----------


## Terry1

[QUOTE=jmdrake;5684416]*DID YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN LINK!*

[url]http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Wisdom#cite_ref

Yes, but after further reading--it seems that this not a belief that the Greek Orthodox share with the Russian Orthodox.  I'll have to read further to see what the controversy is about, but the Russian Orthodox seems to have a difference of opinion with the Greek Orthodox.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, but after further reading--it seems that this not a belief that the Greek Orthodox share with the Russian Orthodox.  I'll have to read further to see what the controversy is about, but the Russian Orthodox seems to have a difference of opinion with the Greek Orthodox.


Fair enough.  I tend to link GO and RO under the same EO umbrella.  I'll be interested to see what you find.

----------


## moostraks

> Let me know if I'm correct in assuming that your Quaker belief also subscribes to sola scripture and that might have something to do with the fact that you made the statement that "you have nothing against sola scripture per-say".  Which to me seemed like a subtle way of supporting it without actually coming right out and saying it--because you were quoting Orthodox beliefs to support your character assassination against me at that time.
> 
> By you continuously quoting Orthodox teaching in attempts to attack my character in the other thread instead of your own belief to support jmd, seemed rather odd and contradictory to your stated beliefs.  You either believe in Orthodoxy or you believe in your Quaker faith that supports sola scripture.  Which is it then moos?  Orthodoxy and sola scripture are like oil and water--they simply don't mix.


I am not a Quaker either, although they are closest to my beliefs than most other groups. Quakers believe in the light within all and most Quakers I have associated with have no problem appreciating the wisdom of other faiths so even if I were a Quaker, there would not be a problem with me appreciating His Light in others, or I would never chose to be a Quaker on that basis. Your attitude of hyper criticism based upon one's affiliation is very much why I won't be Orthodox because in my experience there is typically too much arrogance within those who are not ascetic Orthodox.  So, again, I still am not offended by sola scriptura as long as it isn't being forced upon me as a means of defining my path and experience and I am not going to fight your battle on it. The  per say was not to be taken as some subtle attempt to support it but just the opposite as it was meant to clarify I don't want it forced upon me.

Also, enough with the histrionics over my supposedly attacking your character. It is as accurate as your belief that I merely attempted to prove my loyalty to jmdrake by discussing the Holy Spirit with you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I am not a Quaker either, although they are closest to my beliefs than most other groups. Quakers believe in the light within all and most Quakers I have associated with have no problem appreciating the wisdom of other faiths so even if I were a Quaker, there would not be a problem with me appreciating His Light in others, or I would never chose to be a Quaker on that basis. *Your attitude of hyper criticism based upon one's affiliation is very much why I won't be Orthodox because in my experience there is typically too much arrogance within those who are not ascetic Orthodox.*  So, again, I still am not offended by sola scriptura as long as it isn't being forced upon me as a means of defining my path and experience and I am not going to fight your battle on it. The  per say was not to be taken as some subtle attempt to support it but just the opposite as it was meant to clarify I don't want it forced upon me.
> 
> Also, enough with the histrionics over my supposedly attacking your character. It is as accurate as your belief that I merely attempted to prove my loyalty to jmdrake by discussing the Holy Spirit with you.


Unfortunately, that happens.  But that's not an accurate representation of orthodox people generally.  Dr. Steven Damick, for example, goes to great pains in his comparative religion writing to point out what heterodox religions/denominations get right (that is, commonalities with orthodoxy) as well as differences.  Also, what you perceive as arrogance is more likely a sort of pride-somewhat like that of orthodox jews.  It tends to come across as arrogance for a number of reasons-such as lack of good communication skill.  

Keep in mind that Orthodoxy is still relatively new in the West, and there is plenty of acclimation yet to go.  Even among different patriarchates you'll find a bit of "cliquishness" (though that's not quite the right word) because of ethnic and cultural differences.

----------


## moostraks

> Unfortunately, that happens.  But that's not an accurate representation of orthodox people generally.  Dr. Steven Damick, for example, goes to great pains in his comparative religion writing to point out what heterodox religions/denominations get right (that is, commonalities with orthodoxy) as well as differences.  Also, what you perceive as arrogance is more likely a sort of pride-somewhat like that of orthodox jews.  It tends to come across as arrogance for a number of reasons-such as lack of good communication skill.  
> 
> Keep in mind that Orthodoxy is still relatively new in the West, and there is plenty of acclimation yet to go.  Even among different patriarchates you'll find a bit of "cliquishness" (though that's not quite the right word) because of ethnic and cultural differences.


When you are a target for them it matters little why they are so rude. I can only relay my internet experiences and say that I do not want to associate with such people and as such they do a great disservice to Orthodoxy when the ascetics have so much to offer.

----------


## acptulsa

> Also, what you perceive as arrogance is more likely a sort of pride...


Well, that's a theory.  But it has been my experience that what gets perceived as arrogance is often deep-seated insecurity.  Not that I've known enough Eastern Orthodox people in my time to say whether this applies to them; I suppose I have the most experience with Pentacostal types.  But it has been my experience that such 'arrogance' is often serious doubt about whether God will ultimately say that their adherance to their dogma has overcome their terrible karma.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, that's a theory.  But it has been my experience that what gets perceived as arrogance is often deep-seated insecurity.  Not that I've known enough Eastern Orthodox people in my time to say whether this applies to them; I suppose I have the most experience with Pentacostal types.  But it has been my experience that such 'arrogance' is often serious doubt about whether God will ultimately say that their adherance to their dogma has overcome their terrible karma.


Interesting.  I've never met a Pentacostalist, so I'll take your word for it for the time being.  However, I doubt either of us will get beyond reasoning from parts to whole because there are just too many people out there and insufficient time to speak with them in a meaningful way.  ~sigh~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *When you are a target for them it matters little why they are so rude.* I can only relay my internet experiences and say that I do not want to associate with such people and as such they do a great disservice to Orthodoxy when the ascetics have so much to offer.


How often are you (or anyone) a target?  The forums dedicated strictly to orthodoxy I've seen don't even have debate subforums.  AFAIK, no religion or denomination has a monopoly on criticizing the others. /shrugs

----------


## moostraks

> How often are you (or anyone) a target?  The forums dedicated strictly to orthodoxy I've seen don't even have debate subforums.  AFAIK, no religion or denomination has a monopoly on criticizing the others. /shrugs


I was in some seeker lists and Orthodox lists before RPFs. They were through yahoo iirc? Then many of them petered out because the moderation was a hassle from what I understood and yahoo changed formats or something. I don't recall the exact reason for sure as this was years back but a number of them were being run by the same circle of folks then and I was always under the impression they were just done with it because of the theatrics. It was well known then that those who continued after the harsh attitude of the internet hazing became Orthodox despite the internet. I never made it that far because rude is rude and I will not spend my time irl supporting such behavior, and I have some serious misgivings on a few major issues.

No, Orthodox have a special claim for superiority than what is put forth by many others (other than RCC) as to dispute them is to argue with the one true church and this was always a favorite as to dispute their claims is equivalent to arguing with the Creator, Himself. Ascetics know humility, the average Orthodox person, not so much, because they have found the one true church and submitted so all other people are outsiders and in my experience worthy of special contempt if one knows of them and does not become one of them.

ETA-when the lists petered out I did not join any new ones because I went as far as I was interested on that path for now and from what I have seen here I saved myself years of grief. I was mostly a lurker on those lists but I saw more than a fair share of people humiliated and mistreated in the time I was seeking that path.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was in some seeker lists and Orthodox lists before RPFs. They were through yahoo iirc? Then many of them petered out because the moderation was a hassle from what I understood and yahoo changed formats or something. I don't recall the exact reason for sure as this was years back but a number of them were being run by the same circle of folks then and I was always under the impression they were just done with it because of the theatrics. It was well known then that those who continued after the harsh attitude of the internet hazing became Orthodox despite the internet. I never made it that far because rude is rude and I will not spend my time irl supporting such behavior, and I have some serious misgivings on a few major issues.
> 
> No, Orthodox have a special claim for superiority than what is put forth by many others (other than RCC) as to dispute them is to argue with the one true church and this was always a favorite as to dispute their claims is equivalent to arguing with the Creator, Himself. Ascetics know humility, the average Orthodox person, not so much, because they have found the one true church and submitted so all other people are outsiders and in my experience worthy of special contempt if one knows of them and does not become one of them.
> 
> ETA-when the lists petered out I did not join any new ones because I went as far as I was interested on that path for now and from what I have seen here I saved myself years of grief. I was mostly a lurker on those lists but I saw more than a fair share of people humiliated and mistreated in the time I was seeking that path.


Unfortunate to hear that was your experience.   That's definitely NOT the traditional Orthodox Way (for the laity, ascetics, and everyone else).  I didn't have your experience at all when I first attended a parish.  

As far as "superiority", that's subjective.  The EOC (and RCC) has a legitimate, demonstrable apostolic lineage.  This _should_ be humbling, but as you say, it can lead some to pride and a sense of superiority.  :/  To me the lineage (among other things) makes the EOC superior.  But your subjective value set may lead you to a different conclusion.  I'm okay with that.  ~hugs~

----------


## Terry1

> Fair enough.  I tend to link GO and RO under the same EO umbrella.  I'll be interested to see what you find.


This link better explains the church position on wisdom.  http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodo...irtues/wisdom1


The orthodox wiki link on Holy Wisdom was associated with Sophiology, which was the deification of what is noted in the bible as being the female part of God which is wisdom.  Wisdom is referred to as "she" in the word of God and the word "Sophia" meaning wisdom in the Greek.  This practice of deifying the female part of God is not recognized by the church any longer. That much you were correct on, but still incorrect that God and Jesus are not wisdom.  

The link I have provided still says that "In the New Testament, divine wisdom is found in Jesus Christ, who is Himself, “the wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:24)".    I provided that same scripture many posts ago within our same discussion here. 

I don't know how much closer than this scriptural truth you'd need to be to understand that Jesus Christ and God are both wisdom.  What one is--so is the other, so if Jesus Himself is called "Wisdom"--then it must follow that so is the Father in heaven.  This is what the church teaches and is also scriptural.

----------


## Terry1

> I was in some seeker lists and Orthodox lists before RPFs. They were through yahoo iirc? Then many of them petered out because the moderation was a hassle from what I understood and yahoo changed formats or something. I don't recall the exact reason for sure as this was years back but a number of them were being run by the same circle of folks then and I was always under the impression they were just done with it because of the theatrics. It was well known then that those who continued after the harsh attitude of the internet hazing became Orthodox despite the internet. I never made it that far because rude is rude and I will not spend my time irl supporting such behavior, and I have some serious misgivings on a few major issues.
> 
> No, Orthodox have a special claim for superiority than what is put forth by many others (other than RCC) as to dispute them is to argue with the one true church and this was always a favorite as to dispute their claims is equivalent to arguing with the Creator, Himself. Ascetics know humility, the average Orthodox person, not so much, because they have found the one true church and submitted so all other people are outsiders and in my experience worthy of special contempt if one knows of them and does not become one of them.
> 
> ETA-when the lists petered out I did not join any new ones because I went as far as I was interested on that path for now and from what I have seen here I saved myself years of grief. I was mostly a lurker on those lists but I saw more than a fair share of people humiliated and mistreated in the time I was seeking that path.



Is this why you accused me of acting superior?  It seems to me that rather than others acting superior to you, that you have quite an inferior complex.  Did you ever think of it in those terms instead of accusing others and broad-brushing an entire church org?

I mean WTF!  If we don't believe we're right, why be there?

----------


## moostraks

> Is this why you accused me of acting superior?  It seems to me that rather than others acting superior to you, that you have quite an inferior complex.  Did you ever think of it in those terms instead of accusing others and broad-brushing an entire church org?
> 
> I mean WTF!  If we don't believe we're right, why be there?


No, your attitude towards others through the words you use to ridicule and belittle people and to ascribe false motives for their responses is why I see you behavior is arrogant. How spiritually enlightened of you to say I have an inferiority complex. Your behavior is like others I have known who are just toxic. I try to limit my exposure to toxic people because it is of no benefit to be their whipping post. Toxic people smell out weaknesses in others and make irrational claims and try to inflict pain to feed their egos. They seem to be in constant conflict with everyone. 

It wasn't _me_ broad brushing, it was me seeing an attitude that others were confirming is present in keyboard Orthodox. Some still moved forward with becoming Orthodox but I chose not to in part as I know that people with an inflated ego will use the claim of one, true church to inflate themselves by claiming spiritual enlightenment by association and I don't need that negativity. Funny you should complain about broad brushing when you go after Calvinist in the collective with no problem complaining about their personality.

----------


## Terry1

> How spiritually enlightened of you to say I have an inferiority complex. .


Well--if the shoe fits.

----------


## moostraks

> Well--if the shoe fits.


 Feel better now after trying to humiliate me with this? It isn't working but sure is showing what level you will stoop to with folks. Bark up another tree and maybe you can find the zinger you are looking for so you can make me lash out?

----------


## acptulsa

> Is this why you accused me of acting superior?





> Well--if the shoe fits.


LOL

Not a very convincing act, is it...?

----------


## Terry1

> Feel better now after trying to humiliate me with this? It isn't working but sure is showing what level you will stoop to with folks. Bark up another tree and maybe you can find the zinger you are looking for so you can make me lash out?


Too late to close the barn door now--that horse has already bolted.  Don't blame me because you won't stop--I've begged you to stop long before now, but you're like the ever-ready bunny.  I guess I just won't reply you any more until you get this out of your system.  Hope you feel better soon.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, your attitude towards others through the words you use to ridicule and belittle people and to ascribe false motives for their responses is why I see you behavior is arrogant. How spiritually enlightened of you to say I have an inferiority complex. Your behavior is like others I have known who are just toxic. I try to limit my exposure to toxic people because it is of no benefit to be their whipping post. Toxic people smell out weaknesses in others and make irrational claims and try to inflict pain to feed their egos. They seem to be in constant conflict with everyone. 
> 
> It wasn't _me_ broad brushing,* it was me seeing an attitude that others were confirming is present in keyboard Orthodox. Some still moved forward with becoming Orthodox but I chose not to in part as I know that people with an inflated ego will use the claim of one, true church to inflate themselves by claiming spiritual enlightenment by association and I don't need that negativity*. Funny you should complain about broad brushing when you go after Calvinist in the collective with no problem complaining about their personality.


Not to get involved in y'all's pissing match, but all denominations and apostolic Churches claim to be members of the one, true church (AFAIK).  The difference is that the heterodox use the phrase figuratively, while EO and RC use it literally and back the claim with documented apostolic lineage.

----------


## Terry1

> LOL
> 
> Not a very convincing act, is it...?


Well--there are times when I feel superior, but all those are too personal to talk about.  Otherwise--I'm pretty much like everyone else most of the time. 

I have no problem admitting when you're wrong.  


Ah--jes kiddin wit ya.

----------


## moostraks

> Not to get involved in y'all's pissing match, but all denominations and apostolic Churches claim to be members of the one, true church (AFAIK).  The difference is that the heterodox use the phrase figuratively, while EO and RC use it literally and back the claim with documented apostolic lineage.


Yeah, agreed, which is seems to give extra umpf to the haughty attitude. Many folks leave Christianity altogether because of the lack of Love due to the arrogance. It isn't the Creators fault but still happens...

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, you are the evidence of your own ignorance of scripture.  I don't have to prove anything.  What I have tried to do is give you scripture along with explanations in attempts to witness the truth to you.  
> 
> In the other thread, *you just shot down and dismissed Paul's teaching in Romans 2 on the law of faith as something that's "not possible".*  What Christian in their right spiritual mind would do something like that instead of trying to reconcile your false belief with what the word of God is actually teaching?  For this reason--I don't have to or need to prove that you're ignorant of the word of God because you choose to remain that way.  The only person you can possibly point a finger at is yourself.


I shot down YOUR interpretation of it.

----------


## jmdrake

On the very page that you linked to an Eastern Orthodox *theologian* said that God is more than wisdom and love and faith put together.  If *he* can take that position, then certainly so can I.  From my own research on Sophiology, it traces back to Hellenism as the Greeks practically worshiped wisdom.  So it only makes sense that Greek Orthodox Christians have a particular affinity for that.  In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul pointed out that the "Jews look for a sign" and "the Greeks look for wisdom" but that Christ was *both* the power (sign for the Jews) and wisdom (for the Greeks) of God.

_. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength._

I'm not saying that Christ is not wisdom.  But the Bible and at least some Eastern Orthodox theologians say that God is much more than just wisdom.




> This link better explains the church position on wisdom.  http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodo...irtues/wisdom1
> 
> 
> The orthodox wiki link on Holy Wisdom was associated with Sophiology, which was the deification of what is noted in the bible as being the female part of God which is wisdom.  Wisdom is referred to as "she" in the word of God and the word "Sophia" meaning wisdom in the Greek.  This practice of deifying the female part of God is not recognized by the church any longer. That much you were correct on, but still incorrect that God and Jesus are not wisdom.  
> 
> The link I have provided still says that "In the New Testament, divine wisdom is found in Jesus Christ, who is Himself, “the wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:24)".    I provided that same scripture many posts ago within our same discussion here. 
> 
> I don't know how much closer than this scriptural truth you'd need to be to understand that Jesus Christ and God are both wisdom.  What one is--so is the other, so if Jesus Himself is called "Wisdom"--then it must follow that so is the Father in heaven.  This is what the church teaches and is also scriptural.

----------


## Terry1

> I was in some seeker lists and Orthodox lists before RPFs. They were through yahoo iirc? Then many of them petered out because the moderation was a hassle from what I understood and yahoo changed formats or something. I don't recall the exact reason for sure as this was years back but a number of them were being run by the same circle of folks then and I was always under the impression they were just done with it because of the theatrics. It was well known then that those who continued after the harsh attitude of the internet hazing became Orthodox despite the internet. I never made it that far because rude is rude and I will not spend my time irl supporting such behavior, and I have some serious misgivings on a few major issues.
> 
> *No, Orthodox have a special claim for superiority than what is put forth by many others (other than RCC) as to dispute them is to argue with the one true church and this was always a favorite as to dispute their claims is equivalent to arguing with the Creator, Himself.* Ascetics know humility, the average Orthodox person, not so much, because they have found the one true church and submitted so all other people are outsiders and in my experience worthy of special contempt if one knows of them and does not become one of them.
> 
> ETA-when the lists petered out I did not join any new ones because I went as far as I was interested on that path for now and from what I have seen here I saved myself years of grief. I was mostly a lurker on those lists but I saw more than a fair share of people humiliated and mistreated in the time I was seeking that path.


So you're problem isn't actually with me or anyone in particular--it's actually with the church itself.  Strange that you call the whole of Orthodoxy "them", but then you single me out as if I represent the church as a whole.

Then you go on to say this:




> First point of clarification I'd like to make to the Orthodox here, my experience with the church on those lists-I was mostly a lurker, so what I saw was acts perpetrated upon others and the statements of how they became Orthodox despite what hazing they suffered. My first smack down has been here courtesy of Terry who is witnessing in your church's name and it displays exactly what I was referring to on those lists regarding arrogance and misplaced pride. Whether it be for culture or church identity, it is irrelevant when the effect is to assuming authority even if your argument is unproven.


You seem to have an ongoing disdain for the very church itself and any person that doesn't meet your standard of excellence (as some Orthodox should be in your own mind) is then considered one to have a superior attitude towards others.

Could this also apply to any one of any faith?  Why attack the church itself or just Orthodox believers as "them" and as a whole?  Because I can sit here and name off some protestant churches that also believe they're the "one true church" and that satan has entered all others as well.  Then sit and point fingers at those who subscribe to them thinking they're superior to all others in that same attitude.  

In light of this truth, I find your argument against the Orthodox church  and any members not only without merit, but also without justification.  Also you holding any EO member hostage to standards of conduct or behavior that claims or implies that yours is more superior to theirs in your frail judgment of them.

----------


## moostraks

> So you're problem isn't actually with me or anyone in particular--it's actually with the church itself.  Strange that you call the whole of Orthodoxy "them", but then you single me out as if I represent the church as a whole.
> 
> Then you go on to say this:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have an ongoing disdain for the very church itself and any person that doesn't meet your standard of excellence (as some Orthodox should be in your own mind) is then considered one to have a superior attitude towards others.
> 
> Could this also apply to any one of any faith?  Why attack the church itself or just Orthodox believers as "them" and as a whole?  Because I can sit here and name off some protestant churches that also believe they're the "one true church" and that satan has entered all others as well.  Then sit and point fingers at those who subscribe to them thinking they're superior to all others in that same attitude.  
> ...


Lol! You really do like to try to draw some absurd conclusions from very specific statements don't you? I cannot believe how much you try to read into things to find something to complain about and accuse people of doing. This is such ridiculousness it is mind numbing. No longer surprising though...

Puh-lease, if you are trying to come up with allegations maybe you should think about what type of posting history and measure I have gone to for the Orthodox church on this subforum. Just 'cause it doesn't work for me doesn't mean I don't promote it for what I have found of value from the treasures within the teachings from the ascetics. 

You cannot just sweep away my experiences as though they are trivial and invalid, or inaccurate, because I am not going through every denomination and making the same statements. I am relaying my experiences. Your behavior is a pretty good example of what I am referring to about superiority by association and not by accuracy. I have given my fair share of grief to the Calvinist position because I was up close and intimate with those problems so don't act as though I have not shared my experiences about other churches. I don't have any ax to grind with the Orthodox church or I wouldn't promote it at all. I singled you out for your witness as a person identifying under their banner. TER is also a representative, and conducts himself much more appropriately due to the seriousness of speaking for the beliefs. It is a rudimentary concept really. Parents train their children to be respectful as they represent not just themselves but their family, and interactions with others depend on the proper testimony of one's true character. Church members represent the church. If you claim the banner then your behavior represents the church's values.

Oh, and how convenient of you to drop the second paragraph of that response of mine where I said:



> I don't have to suffer personally to learn a lesson but watching others be mistreated was enough to see what lies underneath those snarky comments and sideways glances. Yep, every church has its problems. This is one I saw, admitted ,and also witnessed by Orthodox converts. This only came up in conversation because of a video someone posted and another person says that behavior was not typical and so I contributed what I, myself, have witnessed and have heard. I want to be clear why and how this subject was brought up recently since someone wants to make an issue of victim mentality. I was not the one being mistreated then. Again I detest confrontation so after seeing people get chewed up I just mostly watched the conversations. I was not even attending an Orthodox Church. Do you know how well that would have gone over? Lol!


Would it be because you know it directly contradicts your claim I have an ongoing disdain for the Orthodox church, because it shows why I even bothered to bring the experience up in the first place? I've been posting on here for years and never brought that up before iirc. The lies you are cooking up about my motivations are just desperate and pathetic.

And to make a production out of the word them? Really? Must be desperate for some dirt there to turn them into a dirty word. It means them as in not my church, faith, denomination, etc...So guess I am looking at another dozen posts to clarify the term them now. Smh...

~~~peace on your path

----------


## erowe1

> Dr. Steven Damick, for example, goes to great pains in his comparative religion writing to point out what heterodox religions/denominations get right (that is, commonalities with orthodoxy) as well as differences.


Does he also point out what things so-called "orthodoxy" gets wrong?

----------


## erowe1

> Not to get involved in y'all's pissing match, but all denominations and apostolic Churches claim to be members of the one, true church (AFAIK).  The difference is that the heterodox use the phrase figuratively, while EO and RC use it literally and back the claim with documented apostolic lineage.


I use the term literally and back it up with the actual writings of the apostles themselves.

----------


## TER

> I use the term literally and back it up with *my interpretation* of the actual writings of the apostles themselves *even though they go against the teachings of the saints of the first few centuries because I think I am smarter, more informed, and more spiritually illuminated than all the Christian writers from the end of the first century until the Reformation.*


FIFY

----------


## Terry1

> Lol! You really do like to try to draw some absurd conclusions from very specific statements don't you? I cannot believe how much you try to read into things to find something to complain about and accuse people of doing. This is such ridiculousness it is mind numbing. No longer surprising though...


"Drawing what conclusions?"  I posted your words--so are you denying what I just quoted you saying about the Orthodox church as a whole and it's members?  You also included the RCC as well--but never one mention of any protestant church who claim the very same thing.




> Puh-lease, if you are trying to come up with allegations maybe you should think about what type of posting history and measure I have gone to for the Orthodox church on this subforum. Just 'cause it doesn't work for me doesn't mean I don't promote it for what I have found of value from the treasures within the teachings from the ascetics.


You certainly seem to have a lot of disdain for a church you claim to support.  Seeing that your major beef was that the church claims it's the one true church and it's members have an attitude of superiority.  You failed to include all of those protestant churches that make the very same claim though.  I wonder how that happened. 





> You cannot just sweep away my experiences as though they are trivial and invalid, or inaccurate, because I am not going through every denomination and making the same statements. I am relaying my experiences. Your behavior is a pretty good example of what I am referring to about superiority by association and not by accuracy. I have given my fair share of grief to the Calvinist position because I was up close and intimate with those problems so don't act as though I have not shared my experiences about other churches. I don't have any ax to grind with the Orthodox church or I wouldn't promote it at all. I singled you out for your witness as a person identifying under their banner. TER is also a representative, and conducts himself much more appropriately due to the seriousness of speaking for the beliefs. It is a rudimentary concept really. Parents train their children to be respectful as they represent not just themselves but their family, and interactions with others depend on the proper testimony of one's true character. Church members represent the church. If you claim the banner then your behavior represents the church's values.


 I came from a family of Greek Orthodox.  My roots are in this church and come from the Island of Tinos, Greece.  I am Greek yes, but no one has to be Greek or Russian to be a member.  If my beliefs don't quite line up according to your understanding of Greek Orthodox teaching, I really can't help what you believe now can I.  Seeing that you don't like the church, it's doctrine, members or want to subscribe to the church--I can't see where anything you think or believe about me or the Orthodox church carry any weight at all.  

So you're also saying that I have to act exactly like TER in order for you to accept me in my own faith that you don't like or want to subscribe to?--(laughing here).  Well gee whiz there moos--you haven't actually been a wealth of inspiration, moral love, and humility either. 




> Oh, and how convenient of you to drop the second paragraph of that response of mine where I said:
> 
> 
> Would it be because you know it directly contradicts your claim I have an ongoing disdain for the Orthodox church, because it shows why I even bothered to bring the experience up in the first place? I've been posting on here for years and never brought that up before iirc. The lies you are cooking up about my motivations are just desperate and pathetic.
> 
> And to make a production out of the word them? Really? Must be desperate for some dirt there to turn them into a dirty word. It means them as in not my church, faith, denomination, etc...So guess I am looking at another dozen posts to clarify the term them now. Smh...
> 
> ~~~peace on your path


I haven't "cooked up" any lies moos.  All I did was quote your own words back to you with regard to what you said about the Orthodox church as a whole and it's members.  It's kind of hard to lie about something that's staring you in the face that says "moos wrote" with your own statements under it clearly dissing the church and it's members. You have a habit of back-peddling when you're caught. 

Please allow me to refresh your short memory here::




> Originally Posted by *moostraks*
> *No, Orthodox have a special claim for superiority than what is put forth by many others (other than RCC) as to dispute them is to argue with the one true church and this was always a favorite as to dispute their claims is equivalent to arguing with the Creator, Himself.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I use the term literally and back it up with the actual writings of the apostles themselves.


Got a quote from them that you don't have to parse to make it mean what you want it to mean?

----------


## moostraks

> "Drawing what conclusions?"  I posted your words--so are you denying what I just quoted you saying about the Orthodox church as a whole and it's members?  You also included the RCC as well--but never one mention of any protestant church who claim the very same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly seem to have a lot of disdain for a church you claim to support.  Seeing that your major beef was that the church claims it's the one true church and it's members have an attitude of superiority.  You failed to include all of those protestant churches that make the very same claim though.  I wonder how that happened. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have a need to draw unnecessary conclusions and are misrepresenting my positions for some angry vendetta of an erroneous perceived ill will on my part that never existed. Trying to have a conversation in which you talk at people is like being in a house of mirrors.

 One true church from a historical purpose, henceforth why the inclusion of the RCC reference. Anyone who wasn't on some bender for said aforementioned vendetta would have enough integrity to realize by what manner I was referring to the claim. Carry on with your scene now. Far be it from me to ruin such a creative display of arrogance and hatred for one's neighbor. Just remember those feathers you are spreading...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You have a need to draw unnecessary conclusions and are misrepresenting my positions for some angry vendetta of an erroneous perceived ill will on my part that never existed. Trying to have a conversation in which you talk at people is like being in a house of mirrors.
> 
>  One true church from a historical purpose, henceforth why the inclusion of the RCC reference.* Anyone who wasn't on some bender for said aforementioned vendetta would have enough integrity to realize by what manner I was referring to the claim.* Carry on with your scene now. Far be it from me to ruin such a creative display of arrogance and hatred for one's neighbor. Just remember those feathers you are spreading...


Not necessarily.  It's easy to misconstrue what people mean on teh interwebz.  I see it on RPFs and elsewhere all the time.  When all we have is print, we lose ~99% of communication that happens in "natural" language. (I say "natural' because writing is just loosely representative of speech-linguists consider writing an "artifice".  It didn't exist for the first several thousand years of human history.)

IMO, y'all ought to cool down and be more thoughtful in your discussion style.

----------


## Terry1

..

----------


## Terry1

> Not necessarily.  It's easy to misconstrue what people mean on teh interwebz.  I see it on RPFs and elsewhere all the time.  When all we have is print, we lose ~99% of communication that happens in "natural" language. (I say "natural' because writing is just loosely representative of speech-linguists consider writing an "artifice".  It didn't exist for the first several thousand years of human history.)
> 
> IMO, y'all ought to cool down and be more thoughtful in your discussion style.


Wasn't it Socretes that said pretty much the same thing about the "written word"? 

_"But there is something yet to be said of propriety and impropriety of writing."_

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wasn't it Socretes that said pretty much the same thing about the "written word"? 
> 
> _"But there is something yet to be said of propriety and impropriety of writing."_


I seem to recall Plato very much disliking writing-he viewed it as causing lazy memory faculties.  I could be thinking of Aristotle, though.  It's been a while since I took a rhetoric class.

----------


## Terry1

> I seem to recall Plato very much disliking writing-he viewed it as causing lazy memory faculties.  I could be thinking of Aristotle, though.  It's been a while since I took a rhetoric class.


I remember studying Socrates and Plato about the same time I was Chaucer in lit.  It was actually pretty interesting.

----------


## TER

Was it not Christ Who said:

'*Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.*

 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. *For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.*

 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: *for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh*.'

----------


## Terry1

> Was it not Christ Who said:
> 
> '*Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.*
> 
>  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. *For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.*
> 
>  And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
> 
>  The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
> ...


You're right TER, it is like beating a dead horse and it's past time for forgiveness--as hard as that can be sometimes to just suck it up and move on.  We have to remember who we are in Christ and rise above the fray of temptation giving us the opportunity to overcome this world and those who serve it and reside in it.

----------


## Terry1

Oh look--here's yet another great opportunity and right after I mentioned it!  Amazing!

----------


## moostraks

> Not necessarily.  It's easy to misconstrue what people mean on teh interwebz.  I see it on RPFs and elsewhere all the time.  When all we have is print, we lose ~99% of communication that happens in "natural" language. (I say "natural' because writing is just loosely representative of speech-linguists consider writing an "artifice".  It didn't exist for the first several thousand years of human history.)
> 
> IMO, y'all ought to cool down and be more thoughtful in your discussion style.


Lol! Not necessarily...yep, duly noted. The past couple of days had nothing to do with this particular argument what so ever here.

Thanks for the advice. The past several days have been very enlightening for me regarding separating the wheat from the chaff.

----------


## Terry1

> Lol! Not necessarily...yep, duly noted. The past couple of days had nothing to do with this particular argument what so ever here.


It hasn't?  




> Thanks for the advice. The past several days have been very enlightening for me regarding separating the wheat from the chaff.


I'd hoped that you've learned a lesson in misrepresenting others on purpose to perpetrate an act of revenge on someone.  The wheat speaks for itself by your own actions and deeds against someone else.

While jmd and I were talking about wisdom and the attributes of God--you went off on some gnostic sophiology binge and accusing me of it, because you found a link within that same teaching that actually explained the difference and that had nothing to do with the actual discussion between me and jmd.  While jmd and I were able to bridge our differences and come together--you on the other hand kept implying that I was "turning Orthodox faith into gnosticism--which was a flat out lie.  I have your own quote here.  I believe all of this has come back to you bite you in the arse and deservedly so.




> moos wrote:
> I don't have to do anything you think you can command of me just because you want to turn Orthodox sermons into gnostic beliefs.


How many pages did it take for you to try to convince everyone else that isn't what you actually meant either?  Same as your hateful comment about the Orthodox Church and it's members.  It's sad to see someone live in so much denial of their own hateful nastiness and blame everyone else around them at the same time while never once admitting that you did the slightest thing wrong.  

Everyone else has misunderstood poor moos from the very start and you never had anything but good intentions.  I guess if one gets to the point where they believe their own lies--they will inevitably also believe that they're a victim that's simply misunderstood by everyone else no matter what you say or do to them out of pure hatred.

The irony here---you're as much the "chaff" as you believe I'm the "wheat".  More irony--that you think hb actually is in agreement with you.  You've hoisted yourself on your own petard and turned yourself into an embarrassment instead of someone who's actually enlightened and has a real clue.

So go ahead and take another stab at me and see where that gets you.  TER is right--I should ingore you and forgive you, but sometimes I feel like evil crap needs to be exposed so it will flee.

----------


## moostraks

> It hasn't?  
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hoped that you've learned a lesson in misrepresenting others on purpose to perpetrate an act of revenge on someone.  The wheat speaks for itself by your own actions and deeds against someone else.
> 
> While jmd and I were talking about wisdom and the attributes of God--you went off on some gnostic sophiology binge and accusing me of it, because you found a link within that same teaching that actually explained the difference and that had nothing to do with the actual discussion between me and jmd.  While jmd and I were able to bridge our differences and come together--you on the other hand kept implying that I was "turning Orthodox faith into gnosticism--which was a flat out lie.  I have your own quote here.  I believe all of this has come back to you bite you in the arse and deservedly so.
> 
> 
> ...


TLDR-no longer entertaining hate filled, erroneous screeds...

Saw last line though, chuckled, irony: that statement had nothing to do with you and because you fail so miserably in making any affirmative statement in regards to me you will likely never perceive what I meant. 

Proverbs 26:11Like a dog that returns to its vomit   Is a fool who repeats his folly.

So I am going to heed:

Proverbs 26: 4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.

That has been my gravest error.

~~~peace on your path

----------


## Terry1

> TLDR-no longer entertaining hate filled, erroneous screeds...
> 
> Saw last line though, chuckled, irony: that statement had nothing to do with you and because you fail so miserably in making any affirmative statement in regards to me you will likely never perceive what I meant.


And you're so much in denial of your own hatefulness towards others that you actually can't see what it is that you did say in that quote and apologize to me for saying it in repentance of it.  Now this tells the reader that something's very wrong with your thinking. 




> Proverbs 26:11Like a dog that returns to its vomit   Is a fool who repeats his folly.
> 
> So I am going to heed:
> 
> Proverbs 26: 4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
> Or you will also be like him.
> 
> That has been my gravest error.
> 
> ~~~peace on your path


You do that then and keep believing your own lies that will serve nothing but the devils agenda and not Gods.  Until you can see yourself as God and everyone else does--you'll just keep on believing all of those lies as well.

Read it moos--study it and tell yourself the truth here---what did you actually say in this quote that you're attempting to convince everyone else that you didn't actually say.  If you ever stop denying it--I'll be waiting for that apology--until then--you'll get no respect from me.




> Originally Posted by *moostraks* 
>  you will likely never perceive what I meant.





> moos wrote:
> I don't have to do anything you think you can command of me just because you want to turn Orthodox sermons into gnostic beliefs.

----------


## moostraks

> And you're so much in denial of your own hatefulness towards others that you actually can't see what it is that you did say in that quote and apologize to me for saying it in repentance of it.  Now this tells the reader that something's very wrong with your thinking. 
> 
> 
> 
> You do that then and keep believing your own lies that will serve nothing but the devils agenda and not Gods.  Until you can see yourself as God and everyone else does--you'll just keep on believing all of those lies as well.
> 
> Read it moos--study it and tell yourself the truth here---what did you actually say in this quote that you're attempting to convince everyone else that you didn't actually say.  If you ever stop denying it--I'll be waiting for that apology--until then--you'll get no respect from me.


no longer entertaining hate filled screeds...

Proverbs 26:11Like a dog that returns to its vomit   Is a fool who repeats his folly.

So I am going to heed:

Proverbs 26: 4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.

That has been my gravest error.

~~~peace on your path

----------


## erowe1

> Got a quote from them that you don't have to parse to make it mean what you want it to mean?


Sure. Here's what Paul said the Gospel was in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11:



> Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
> 
> 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
> 
> 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

----------

