Posted on 11/30/2016 2:41:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Here ya go; on another thread.
Church history reveals that it was not until three hundred years after the birth of Christianity that the doctrine of the Bianity (325 C.E.)...
And Rome is like the liberal media and Google, etc, which exalt themselves as the supreme judges of what is true versus fake.
Indeed. And as said, if literal they would have believed that "my body which is broken for you," "blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.." meant they would be consuming the actual manifestly bloody flesh of Christ, not a crucified body of Christ which looked, tasted, smelled, and would scientifically test as a mere inanimate object. That would be no more real than that of some Gnostics versus the Christ whom "we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)
The transubstatiationist overlays this entire passage, and particularly verses 53 through 58, with a pseudo-Aristotilian theory that would not appear until over 800 years later in the teaching of Radbertus.
But while it can and is argued that a basic belief in transubstantiation is evidenced much earlier, yet Rome requires such precise belief in her theory than it makes professors of theories heretics. Such was the case with John of Paris
This was a Dominican theological whom the Catholic Encyclopedia says was "endowed with great ability, was the most subtle dialectician of the age, possessed great literary and linguistic attainments, and was considered one of the best theologians of the university." However, in treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, in which he tentatively advanced the propositions that "the Body of Christ is, or might be, present by assumption (I. e. by the body of Christ assuming the bread and wine), and that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not of faith." resulted in him being "deprived him of the offices of lecturing, preaching, and hearing confessions." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm
That the original hearers of the words at issue on the "real presence" would not have naturally assumed that, if literal, the Lord was speaking of giving them some of His actual manifestly bloody flesh to eat, but that they instead held to orthodox transubstantiation theology is absurd.
And of course, the Elephant in the Room is that the record and teachings of NT church in Scripture simply does not evidence that it held the Lord's supper as the central exalted formal liturgical priestly sacrifice for sins, which is consumed in order to obtain spiritual life and nourishment, as the Catholic Eucharist. But instead, the word of God is presented as this, and the preaching of it being the primary active function of pastors.
Quoting vast blocks of Scripture and proclaiming Aha! doesn't constitute an argument.
Indeed, but which question-begging arguments by assertion is typical of many Catholics.
The combination of these two is effectively an argument from silence, according to the following syllogism: : Premise 1: If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, he had a duty to correct them. Premise 2: They understood him in the Catholic way of understanding, and He did not correct them, Conclusion: Therefore the Catholic way of understanding this passage must be correct.
And yet what the Lord did explain that they flesh profits nothing, as indeed nowhere does Scripture teach that literally physically eating anything provides spiritual nourishment, which the word of God does. And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh, which corrected basic misunderstanding that the Lord was going to give them some of His body to eat, as in endocannibalism, which people consumed some of the deceased body of a beloved person in order to obtain spiritual properties.
I will tell God I believed and defended the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, the Epistles of Paul, and the foreshadowing in the Old Testament.
And fought against the heresies of those who would twist the clear meaning of Scripture.
Yes, This fella:
13 Jesus then stepped forward, took the bread and gave it to them, and the same with the fish.
14 This was the third time that Jesus revealed himself to the disciples after rising from the dead.
15 When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
16 A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He replied, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Look after my sheep.’
17 Then he said to him a third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and said, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.
18 In all truth I tell you, when you were young you put on your own belt and walked where you liked; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and somebody else will put a belt round you and take you where you would rather not go.’
19 In these words he indicated the kind of death by which Peter would give glory to God. After this he said, ‘Follow me.’
Retro-nothing:
It has been contiguous:
St. Augustine (354-430) writes: That which is seen on the table of the Lord is bread and wine; but this bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes the Body and Blood of the Logos.
St. Cyril writes: As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be wine is not wine, but Christs Blood.
St. Basil (331-379) prays in these words of his liturgy, Make this bread into the Precious Body of our Lord and God and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this chalice into the Blood of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world.
I have provided refutations, yet you choose to ignore them.
As for volume, I have dozens of books on the subject of the Eucharist alone.
Would you like a list?
The understanding of the Jews is not in the least “controversial”, as those who refused to believe left, and those who believed stayed.
You have to invent the controversy to misunderstand this point.
Hmmm. No controversy? Did I write this?
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
(John 6:52)
Now you can split hairs and say a quarrel isn’t a controversy. I won’t take that as a serious response. No reasonable person would. So while we were not there and do not know all the details of the controversy, we can be certain there was one, if we trust the words of Scripture.
Peace,
SR
Thanks!
Now go finish reading 6:53 through 6:68 and you’ll have your answer as to how Christ addressed their confusion.
So let me understand this. You are thanking me for disproving your premise that the Jews understood what Jesus meant? Ok then. You’re welcome! :)
Peace,
SR
Circular logic again
I would ask you this: Prior to the life of Jesus, was it the clear command from God to the Jews not drink the blood or eat the flesh of fellow humans?
SR, that principle reminds me of a Catholic/Protestant (I am not a Protestant) thread, maybe two years ago now. I specifically remember you and MM responding to it, but I think others did too. Anyway, I asked one guy, why he didn't have a priest with him, to interpret the Bible for him. He said he didn't interpret scripture, he just read it, and told me what it said. I guess that's like saying a quarrel is not a controversy, but I was over 8,000 miles away, and I could hear the laughter reverberating through my WiFi connection. It brought the house down.
Which is a blatant lie. Show me one "refutation" to me that has been ignored, while i will show you the spurious nature of what you imagine to be refutations, again and again quoting the very words which are in contention, or quotes by mere men parroting the same bare assertions, and which require us to see how the NT manifestly understood them, which simply does not and never will support your selective literalist carnal apprehension of them.
Now either provide the evidence required by my 5 simple statements or stop engaging in mere argument by assertion.
As for volume, I have dozens of books on the subject of the Eucharist alone. Would you like a list?
And what will that prove? Mormons have volumes also, and which simply does not translate into Truth, while not matter if you have more volumes than the world can hold you still will not find what you so desperately need to show in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) as per my 5 requirements.
Now you’re going to site the Jews rejection of New Testament teachings as your excuse?
How much the NT do Jews accept?
You’ve “disproved” nothing.
You simply reject the plain meaning of John 6 and use other misrepresented Scripture as your excuse.
LOL! As you wish, FRiend. Like my dad used to say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. No hard feelings. :D
Peace,
SR
I remember that too. Amazing. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.