They ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread!
Your words .... Depends entirely on what you mean by flesh of Jesus. The modern Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist was certainly not universal, or even identical ANYWHERE, to the view held in the early church. Ignatius certainly doesn't offer a developed theory of the Eucharist, and most of what he DOES say is in response to Docetists who don't believe Jesus came to earth in bodily form at all.
I reply: The Church Jesus established had BISHOPS with the AUTHORITY to TEACH!! Thus the idea of "Scriptures ALONE" is a LIE! Martin Luther introduced the idea of "We do not need church, all we need is the scriptures" sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus! These man made churches introduced the idea of symbolic communion!
Your words .... Depends entirely on what you mean by flesh of Jesus. The modern Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist was certainly not universal, or even identical ANYWHERE, to the view held in the early church. Ignatius certainly doesn't offer a developed theory of the Eucharist, and most of what he DOES say is in response to Docetists who don't believe Jesus came to earth in bodily form at all.
I reply: The Church Jesus established had BISHOPS with the AUTHORITY to TEACH!! Thus the idea of "Scriptures ALONE" is a LIE! Martin Luther introduced the idea of "We do not need church, all we need is the scriptures" sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus! These man made churches introduced the idea of symbolic communion!
Sorry, what does you answer have at all to do with what I said? You're repeatedly doing this - ignoring the substance of what I write, and then circling back to reassert things I've already replied to. You're not proving anything.
Nick01
The Church Jesus established ATE the flesh of Jesus. You do NOT!!! Scriptures tell you; the early Church believed Jesus!
Scripture... So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Nick01 You are again forced to twist the scriptures to say different!!! You cannot "Sin Against A Symbol"!
FACT: The Jews Jesus taught knew exactly what Jesus said..
52Then the Jews AND Nick01 began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Scripture... So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Nick01 You are again forced to twist the scriptures to say different!!! You cannot "Sin Against A Symbol"!
FACT: The Jews Jesus taught knew exactly what Jesus said..
52Then the Jews AND Nick01 began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
I'm assuming you're arguing for transubstantiation here. First of all, I don't believe Communion is 'merely' symbolic, but neither do I believe the elements are transformed in any way, nor do I believe the act itself is a means of grace. Neither of the passages you have quoted go anywhere near proving these two things - the fact that the Jews apparently though he was speaking literally is not any different to when the disciples hear Jesus talk about the yeast of the Pharisees and mistakenly think he's criticising them for forgetting to bring bread. The biggest problem I usually see with the RCC interpretation of this verse in order to prove their view of the Eucharist is that they have to ignore all the other times various people (usually the disciples themselves) interpret things literalistically and get it wrong, and so have to assume that not only is that interpretation correct this one time, but that it is the Phariseees of all people who got it right.
Also, to take that interpretation actually reverses the tenor of the language Jesus uses. Jesus whole point is that Moses gave manna to the people, but that Jesus is the true bread. HE is the bread of life. To argue that the chief point of the passage is in fact that the Mass is the true bread because it becomes the flesh of Jesus is kind of the reverse of the metaphor - the whole fact of him saying that he is a bread with whom one will never get hungry becomes a little nonsensical if we conclude he is talking about transubstantive Eucharistic elements - should we concluce you have not been hungry since your first Eucharist?
Your words... Again, in so far as it taught what the Lord Jesus taught. As I said, you would be hard pressed to find a single church father who makes any argument of substance that does not find its foundation in the Scriptures. They didn't have a separate authority, but the same authority - that coming from the apostles who were taught by Christ. The Scriptures very quickly became the authority on the basis that they were the more immediate access to that tradition, particularly after several generations passed, moving ito the Nicene era.
I reply: Scriptures prove you WRONG.... "Go and TEACH all nations" & "I am with you ALWAYS"!
Jesus is ALWAYS with his CHURCH! His Church has BISHOPS, Jesus' Church eats the flesh of Jesus! His Church has AUTHORITY to TEACH all Nations!
I reply: Scriptures prove you WRONG.... "Go and TEACH all nations" & "I am with you ALWAYS"!
Jesus is ALWAYS with his CHURCH! His Church has BISHOPS, Jesus' Church eats the flesh of Jesus! His Church has AUTHORITY to TEACH all Nations!
AGAIN: The church fathers universally relied on Scripture to substantiate their point, and rarely will you find any teaching of significance that they rely TOTALLY on oral authority for without reference to the Scriptures. You have yet to address this AT ALL.
Nick01
History proves you WRONG! You believe in "Scriptures ALONE!" Those Protesters trusting in the scriptures "Scriptures ALONE" MUST trust in themselves ALONE!!!!
THINK.. Use your head>>> "The TEACHING of Scriptures ALONE" forces >>YOU<< to become the scholar, if you trust ANYONE for information other then the scriptures, then you MUST reject the teaching of Scriptures ALONE is all you need for salvation!! Whack-Whack-Whack OH!
THINK.. Use your head>>> "The TEACHING of Scriptures ALONE" forces >>YOU<< to become the scholar, if you trust ANYONE for information other then the scriptures, then you MUST reject the teaching of Scriptures ALONE is all you need for salvation!! Whack-Whack-Whack OH!
You clearly do not understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not teach that you can never refer to any idea outside the Scripture. If you had ever bothered to read anything of Calvin or Luther (you clearly haven't), you would know this.
Here, for example, is a part of Calvin's view of the relationship of Scripture and the church. I'll quote it at length, basically because people like your self strawman what the Reformers argue like this all the time, and frankly I'm over it:
"I am not arguing here either that all councils are to be condemned or the acts of all to be rescinded, and (as the saying goes) to be canceled at one stroke. But, you will say, you degrade everything so that every man has the right to accept or reject what the councils decide. Not at all! But whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I should like men first of all diligently to ponder at what time it was held, on what issue, and with what intention, what sort of men were present; then to examine by the standard of Scripture what it dealt with - and to do this in such a way that the definition of the council may have its weight and be like a provisional judgement, yet not hinder the examination I have mention…
"Thus, councils would come to have the majesty that is their due; yet in the meantime Scripture would stand out in the higher place, with everything subject to its standard. In this way we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors in so far as they relate to the teachings of the faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen." [Calvin, J., 'The Institutes of the Christian Religion', IV, ix, 8]
Jesus established his CHURCH.
He gave the Keys to Peter! Jesus' church will never fail the gates of hell will never win out!
The ONLY Church Jesus established cannot have root back to the "De-Formation".
IMPOSSIBLE for any man made church trying to RESTORE Jesus' body back to Jesus can be Jesus' Church! Jesus is ALWAYS WITH HIS CHURCH: Jesus' Church does NOT need to be restored! The Holy Spirit is FOREVER with Jesus' established Church, His church did not fail!
The ONLY Church Jesus established cannot have root back to the "De-Formation".
IMPOSSIBLE for any man made church trying to RESTORE Jesus' body back to Jesus can be Jesus' Church! Jesus is ALWAYS WITH HIS CHURCH: Jesus' Church does NOT need to be restored! The Holy Spirit is FOREVER with Jesus' established Church, His church did not fail!
Last edited: