Rapture= false teaching

[Lauren]

to put it bluntly, God never said He replaced Israel with the Church... ever.
Neither does the Word say that God deals differently with people, for if God did, that would be showing favoritism. Note that it were dispensationalists who came up with the term "replacement theology" to demean and degrade the doctrine of Covenant Theology.

I'll say this again: we don't replace Israel... we are Israel. Scripture tells us that over and over again in the New Testament and hints at it in the old Testament, and that's what was taught throughout history...

Hmm, I do admit to needing to read more about this. You know though, just look at Israel today - how can anyone deny all the prophecy that is come to pass and is coming to pass currently that fits the nation of Israel to a "t". Hey, don't even look at prophecy, just look at the fact that this tiny, tiny little nation, the size of like Rhode Island or something, has fended off much larger nations for many years now, can whoop anyone who comes near them, has this army that other nations envy, has gone from a dessert to great prosperity in less than a hundred years, has a disproportionate amount of brilliant scientists and Nobel prize winners, and the list goes on and on. Sure looks like God's protection to me.

 

[walt2000]

Wouldn't it be funny if the end of the world came in
2012
and I was wrong
walt2000​

 

[walt2000]

Give It a chance It"s not for everyone.Blessed is he that See's and understands.I have not been proved wrong yet.
not in the whole world.Now IT'S Your TURN.
Rev.22/18-19
walt2000

 

[Zilla64007]

Hmm, I do admit to needing to read more about this. You know though, just look at Israel today - how can anyone deny all the prophecy that is come to pass and is coming to pass currently that fits the nation of Israel to a "t". Hey, don't even look at prophecy, just look at the fact that this tiny, tiny little nation, the size of like Rhode Island or something, has fended off much larger nations for many years now, can whoop anyone who comes near them, has this army that other nations envy, has gone from a dessert to great prosperity in less than a hundred years, has a disproportionate amount of brilliant scientists and Nobel prize winners, and the list goes on and on. Sure looks like God's protection to me.

just so that we're clear, I'm not saying Israel is not involved in end times... what I'm saying is that end times theology has been misconstrued because of the view pointws of dispensationalism and zionism

 

[Zilla64007]

1. Longevity of belief proves nothing. Just look at the catholic church's claim that they are the one true church and have been from the very beginning
all catholic dogma can be rebuked not only with scripture, but with church teaching... church teaching were first started to center around paganistic influences, however, eschatology and ecclesiology remained the same until the 4th century when Augustine introduced a more spiritualized interpretation of eschatology and chiliasm was labeled as heretical

2. Lack of written proof also proves nothing. Again, just look at the catholic church. They claim that everyone held catholic beliefs from the beginning through the ages, and yet we know that's not true either, that God has always maintained a remnant, His Church, through the ages
true... you can look at the belief of transubstantiation, the belief that the bread literally becomes thebody of Christ and the wine literally becomes the blood of Christ, and yet it is found within MANY early church writings that they believed in the spiritual remembrance of the passover... not a physical transference of the physical attributes of Christ

3. Even if it wasn't taught until the 1800's that means nothing either. Certainly man's understanding of the Bible has changed over the years. John wrote Revelation, and until current times, the things written in it seemed unreal. It's only now where we can see the possibility of a 200m man army and such.
WRONG. it proves something E#NTIRELY...

IF GOD WANTED SOMETHING SOOOOO IMPORTANT AS THIS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CHURCH, HE WOULD NOT OF HID IT FOR 1800 YEARS... GOD DOES NOT HIDE ANYTHING FROM HIS CHURCH.

Matthew 24:25
See, I have told you beforehand

Mark 13:23
But take ye heed; behold, I have foretold you all things


and thats the problem: man's interpretation of the Bible has changed.
you're talking about symbolism within the Bible, and yes that has changed BECAUSE OF MAN'S OWN PRIVATE OPINIONS... truth be told, in the freaking first century, they believed in a literal Antichrist that would reign over the earth.. they believed in a literal thousand year reign with Christ... it's called historical premillennialism

Polycarp was one of the Apostle John's disciples... Irenaeus was one of Polycarp's students... he was taught by the man who talked DIRECTLY with the very same Apostle who WROTE the Book of Revelation. It's called word of mouth, Lauren... something NONE of us today have claim over.

Historical accuracy is important... if you say such and such a thing was taught by Christ, you better have the early church teaching from the apostles' students to PROVE that it was taught by Christ, otherwise, you're spouting modern popular dogma

 

[Lauren]

Thanks Zilla for your response. I am probably speaking on things that I don't know enough about yet, so I think I need to go pray and read to understand more. When I was saved 13 or so years ago, I was much less interested in theology and just interested in going where God would have me. Then I fell by the wayside (soft way of putting it) and only recently am returning to the Master's foot, but this time with more of a sense of wanting to better understand the framework of God's plan.

Praise the Lord, there will be no theology or eschatology per se in Heaven; all of God's plans will be known to us with no limitations of memory or intellect!

 

[Lauren]

just so that we're clear, I'm not saying Israel is not involved in end times... what I'm saying is that end times theology has been misconstrued because of the view pointws of dispensationalism and zionism

And thank you for this because I think I am mingling theological views with eschatological views and not understanding which theologies can / do hold which eschatological views and I need to search that out more.

 

[Zilla64007]

when it comes to theology itself, there was a specific theology that the apostles taught... it was passed down from them by word of mouth to their students, and so on and so forth..

eschatology is part of theology, and there are many theologies within the Word... what it comes down to with theology and doctrine is hermeneutics, properly studying the Word, and seeing if it lines up with the rest of the Word, and historical accuracy plays a part in how you study either theology or eschatology... the reason i brought up dispensationalism within this particular thread is because these two teachings are and were taught side by side only 200+ years ago... the pre-trib rapture interpretation was and is a sort of "Bible candy"... it sweetens up dispensationalism and makes it more appealing, because it gives Christians and non Christians a false promise of not enduring tribulation or persecution... it distorts the biblical definition of tribulation, and replaces it with God's Wrath... the thing is, we were promised tribulation. Just because the word "great" is in front of "tribulation" of it does not change John 16:33, Acts 14:22, James 1:2-4, Peter 1:6-7, James 1:12, 1 Peter 4:12-17, or any other Bible verse, or the biblical definition of "thlipsis / tribulation"

 

[Zilla64007]

it all comes down to studying, praying, research, more studying, more praying, and more research, guidance, discernment, dropping EVERYTHING you have ever learned about the Word from any pastor, parent, teacher, or scholar and letting God's Word and the Holy Spirit guide you

 

[VW]

when it comes to theology itself, there was a specific theology that the apostles taught... it was passed down from them by word of mouth to their students, and so on and so forth..

eschatology is part of theology, and there are many theologies within the Word... what it comes down to with theology and doctrine is hermeneutics, properly studying the Word, and seeing if it lines up with the rest of the Word, and historical accuracy plays a part in how you study either theology or eschatology... the reason i brought up dispensationalism within this particular thread is because these two teachings are and were taught side by side only 200+ years ago... the pre-trib rapture interpretation was and is a sort of "Bible candy"... it sweetens up dispensationalism and makes it more appealing, because it gives Christians and non Christians a false promise of not enduring tribulation or persecution... it distorts the biblical definition of tribulation, and replaces it with God's Wrath... the thing is, we were promised tribulation. Just because the word "great" is in front of "tribulation" of it does not change John 16:33, Acts 14:22, James 1:2-4, Peter 1:6-7, James 1:12, 1 Peter 4:12-17, or any other Bible verse, or the biblical definition of "thlipsis / tribulation"

And what does this say about the wrath of God, poured out from heaven, in 7 bowls?

What is the place of the bride of Christ during this?

 

[Zilla64007]

1.) the seven bowls of wrath are not the final wrath of God... 1 Thess. 5:9 & 1:10 speak of "orge" wrath, not "thumos" wrath. In both Revelation 15 and 16, the word "wrath" that is used us translated as "thumos"; the word "wrath" used in 1 Thessalonians is defined as "orge". Two different kinds of wrath.. "thumos" is an emotional wrath... "orge" is a judgmental wrath. the time we see "orge" played out is when God judges all of mankind by their deeds, and those who have rejected Christ will suffer that wrath, the second death... but those who have repented from their ways, and accepted Christ, they are no longer appointed to that wrath, the second death. That is what "orge" is defined as...

2.) one does not necessarily have to be raptured in order to be protected... look at the Israelites in the days of Egypt when the Jews were oppressed by slavery, and God sent Moses to rescue them. God sent 10 plagues on Egypt while the Jews were still there, on the earth... the Egyptians were the ones that suffered... they lost their cattle, frogs, flies, locusts, boils and scars, darkness, blood for water... and all in the meantime, the Jews were kept IN Egypt, and yet at the same time were protected from God's wrath. The Israelites stood as proof that God can protect His own during His wrath while they live in the midst of those who are appointed to wrath.

also note that the bowls of wrath are only on those who have received the Mark of the Beast... it is not appointed to those who believe in Christ. That being said, God doesn't have to remove us to protect us... He didn't with the Israelites, and nowhere does it say that He will when those bowls are poured.
the way of thinking is still trying to cling to that "Bible candy" that was started in the 19th century

 

[Cleante]

2. Lack of written proof also proves nothing. Again, just look at the catholic church. They claim that everyone held catholic beliefs from the beginning through the ages, and yet we know that's not true either, that God has always maintained a remnant, His Church, through the ages
true... you can look at the belief of transubstantiation, the belief that the bread literally becomes thebody of Christ and the wine literally becomes the blood of Christ, and yet it is found within MANY early church writings that they believed in the spiritual remembrance of the passover... not a physical transference of the physical attributes of Christ

Are you sure about your statement? Denying Transubstantiation, a term I do not use I use μετουσιοσις, is kind of affirming the belief of many Gnostics, which claims that Jesus was an immaterial spiritual being.

Combating this heresy, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote around 106AD that, "Let us stand aloof from Heretics... they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Justin the Martyr around 150AD wrote, "Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Around 220AD Tertullian wrote, "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."

Around 380 AD the Apostolic Constitutions were compiled which were essentially a treatise on Early Christian theology and Liturgy. It said, "Let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receiveth say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen."

St. Ambrose of Milan wrote, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" ... Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. ... For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? ... Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks."

St. John Chrysostom in his Homily on the betrayal of Judas used the word μεταρρύθμησις to describe what occurs during the Eucharist. It means transformation.

In ΙΕΣΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ

ΙΟΑΝΝΗΣ

 

[VW]

also note that the bowls of wrath are only on those who have received the Mark of the Beast... it is not appointed to those who believe in Christ. That being said, God doesn't have to remove us to protect us... He didn't with the Israelites, and nowhere does it say that He will when those bowls are poured.
the way of thinking is still trying to cling to that "Bible candy" that was started in the 19th century

Only the first bowl of wrath is for those who have taken the mark of the beast. Only the first.

And to think that this wrath is somehow less than that when God remakes the world is to have a very short understanding of who and what God is. This wrath is against the world, and is poured out into the world. Wrath in and of itself is burning, consuming anger. And as we read 16:5 when the third bowl is poured out, and the rivers and springs became blood, the angel says that God is righteous because He did judge these things, because they poured out the blood of the saints and the prophets, it is just that they be given blood to drink.

This is not bible candy, but the wrath of God.

There are those who will come out of the tribulation, who will see these things and will accept God, will ask Him for forgiveness, and be slain for His testimony. We who are in Christ now will be tested for a time, will see the antichrist and the beginning of his time on the world as ruler. Some will fall to him by sword and by flame and by captivity and by plunder, but in order to refine and to purge and to make them pure, until the end time.

 

[Zilla64007]

so where in Rev. 16 does it say bowls 2-6 come upon Christians?...
and when does orge and thumos become the same thing, because according to the Bible, while it is anger, they are different

you still havent explained how thlipsis and thumos/orge are the same thing, because according to the Bible, THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.

IF TRIBULATION WERE WRATH, JOHN 16:33 WOULD BE A LIE.
YOU ARE CALLING CHRIST A LIAR WITH YOUR MAN-MADE DOCTRINE.

wake up.

 

[Zilla64007]

yeah, I am sure about that statement, cleante...


Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

if Ignatius here is talking about the literal blood and body, then Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 would be in contradiction to this...

Tertullian rejected transubstantiation:
"Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?" (To His Wife, 2:5)
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Against Marcion, 4:40)

that's just a few of them... there were many others that denied transubstantiation, like Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc... the problem is, your religion cuts and pastes like crazy when it comes to scripture and early church writings... go read them in their entirety at ccel.org

 

[Zilla64007]

im not here to discuss catholicism with you, cleante... the protestant reformers did that well enough.
it's your church that refuses to believe the truth... you want to discuss it, make a thread for it.

this thread is about the non-existent pre-trib rapture

 

[Cleante]

,

yeah, I am sure about that statement, cleante...


Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

if Ignatius here is talking about the literal blood and body, then Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 would be in contradiction to this...

Tertullian rejected transubstantiation:
"Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?" (To His Wife, 2:5)
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Against Marcion, 4:40)

that's just a few of them... there were many others that denied transubstantiation, like Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc... the problem is, your religion cuts and pastes like crazy when it comes to scripture and early church writings... go read them in their entirety at ccel.org

I will respectfully disagree with your claim that the Greek Orthodox Church "cuts and pastes like crazy." I also take offense of your allegation that I have not studied Patristic Theology.

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)


Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)


They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)


But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)


If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)


He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)


But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)


If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.


When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body...
He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)


Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured...The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)


If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)

Enjoy the reading from my Patristic Theology notes. In your claim that Ignatius' epistle to the Romans would contradict his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans chapter 6 I will post it. He is condemning those that reject the Mystery of the Eucharist.

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

In ΙΕΣΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,

ΙΟΑΝΝΗΣ

 

[Zilla64007]

i really dont care if you take offense or not... you wanna follow your "CINO" cult, thats fine with me
this thread is about eschatology, not protestantism vs catholicism

 

[Cleante]

i really dont care if you take offense or not... you wanna follow your "CINO" cult, thats fine with me
this thread is about eschatology, not protestantism vs catholicism

I understand that this thread is about eschatology. Perhaps you should remind yourself of that as well as I was merely responding to your post about μετουσίωσις. By the way, Eastern Orthodoxy, specifically in this case Greek Orthodox, is not the same as Catholicism. This will be my last post in this thread seeing as how you will not comment on any of the excerpts from the Apostolic Fathers I posted. Your attack on Orthodoxy was uncalled for and blatantly rude. Have a blessed day,

In ΙΕΣΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,

ΙΟΑΝΝΗΣ

 

[dscherck]

i really dont care if you take offense or not... you wanna follow your "CINO" cult, thats fine with me
this thread is about eschatology, not protestantism vs catholicism

Cleante isn't Catholic. He's Greek Orthodox. They split from us Catholics almost a millennium ago.