New Covenant only for Jews?

[BreadOfLife]

That is all nonsense of epic proportions. The bread symbolically represented His body and the wine symbolically represented His blood. Simple as that. It's insane to think that He was being literal there.

Sooooooo, I presented a solid Scriptural, linguistic and historical argument for the realty of the Eucharist in the Church – and ALL you can come back with is more denial??

Can you explain WHERE Jesus stated it was merely “symbolic”??

Can you explain WHY so many disciples left Him that day and NEVER followed Him again??

Can you explain WHY the Romans and Jews accused the Early Church of being “Cannibals”??

Do you have ANY evidence - Scriptural or oitheerwise for your position??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Go pray to your Queen Mother Mary and worship your supposedly infallible Pope and leave us alone.

Now, there's an "intelligent "response for someone who has NO credible evidence . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I was admitting that you are boring me with your ridiculous nonsense.

Nice dodge . . .

Face it - you don't have any answers because you put ALL of your trust in mere MEN instead of God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sooooooo, I presented a solid Scriptural, linguistic and historical argument for the realty of the Eucharist in the Church – and ALL you can come back with is more denial??

You think you did that, but I don't find your arguments to be convincing whatsoever. You have too high of an opinion of yourself.

Can you explain WHERE Jesus stated it was merely “symbolic”??

Why would He need to spell that out? Only someone completely lacking in discernment would think that somehow the bread was His actual body and the wine was His actual blood.

Can you explain WHY so many disciples left Him that day and NEVER followed Him again??

If it was because they thought He was being literal about eating His body and drinking His blood, then that's their fault for lacking discernment.

Can you explain WHY the Romans and Jews accused the Early Church of being “Cannibals”??

Do you understand that false doctrine has been around from the beginning? The Early Church believed a lot of different things just as we still do now. It's not as if they all believed the same. So, using this type of argument doesn't work with me.

Do you have ANY evidence - Scriptural or oitheerwise for your position??

Yes. It's clearly ridiculous to think that Jesus would want anyone to literally eat His body and literally drink His blood. That concept is utterly ludicrous and insane. If you can't see that, then I don't know what you can discern. Why do you need everything to be spoon fed to you in order to understand it? Some things have to be spiritually discerned in terms of determining whether something is literal or symbolic. In this case, it shouldn't be hard, but for some reason people have decided to believe this utter nonsense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nice dodge . . .

Face it - you don't have any answers because you put ALL of your trust in mere MEN instead of God.

You clearly haven't read the scripture that says not to judge others or you will be judged with the same measure you are judging others. You are judging me here even though you DON'T KNOW ME AT ALL. You are not in a position to tell me who I am putting my trust in. I absolutely put all of my trust in God alone and you cannot say otherwise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now, there's an "intelligent "response for someone who has NO credible evidence . . .

Do you deny that you believe that Mary is the Queen of heaven? Do you deny that you believe that the pope is infallible?

 

[Brakelite]

This isn’t Rocket Science . . .

KJV Acts 10:34-45
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You’ve obviously been reading WAAAYYYYY too much of your foundresses (Ellen Whites) anti-Catholic fairy tales.

There were many many more historians, most of them contemporaries or descendants of those persecuted, who were witnesses and who testified to the atrocities of over 1200 years of papal rule. None knows how many. The inquisitions of Spain and India and France and Italy were but a small portion of the overall devastation. Consider the numerous wars throughout Europe over that time. Consider just one instant pot 20,000 Bible students in Bangor Wales.

I would ask you to furnish the DOCUMENTS to this effect.

I thought a man of your status would have read the writings of Augustine and 'doctor' Thomas Aquinas whose philosophies and ideas formulated Catholic dogma to this day.

 

[covenantee]

Can you explain WHY the Romans and Jews accused the Early Church of being “Cannibals”??

Who in the post-apostolic church before the 10th century espoused transubstantiation? Link to verbatim quote, please.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who in the post-apostolic church before the 10th century espoused transubstantiation? Link to verbatim quote, please.

For starters – FIRST CENTURY Bishop, Ignatius of Antioch – who was a LIFELONG DISCIPLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN – wrote the following on his was to martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 THAT FATHER, IN HIS GOODNESS, RAISED UP AGAIN. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).


Augustine – like ALL of the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence as well:

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, iIS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

 

[BreadOfLife]

There were many many more historians, most of them contemporaries or descendants of those persecuted, who were witnesses and who testified to the atrocities of over 1200 years of papal rule. None knows how many. The inquisitions of Spain and India and France and Italy were but a small portion of the overall devastation. Consider the numerous wars throughout Europe over that time. Consider just one instant pot 20,000 Bible students in Bangor Wales.

Speaking from a position of almost complete ignorance on Church and World history – your argument is only convincing to those who are equally-ignorant as YOU.
Using idiotic generalizations like “numerous wars” and 1200 years of Papal rule”.

You don’t have a CLUE about the Inquisitions or the fact that MANY people who were killed for centuries were largely matters of STATE. Even the Spanish Inquisition had more to do with the Spanish trying to banish Muslims from their land after centuries of Muslim It was promulgated by King Ferdinand.
The Moors invaded Spain in the 8th century – Ferdinand was king in the 15th century.

I’ve been told by MANY anti-Catholic morons that “10-50 MILLION” people died as a result of this Inquisition. Not only is this yet another “E.G. White-type” LIE – the number is closer to FOUR THOUSAND (4000).

EIGHTEEN TIMES that number of Catholics (72, 000) were murdered or starved to death by Henry VII and his equally-bloodthirsty daughter, Elizabeth I.
So – there was PLENTY of blood on EVERYONE’s hands.

As for the many heretics that were killed during these centuries – these were ALSO largely matters of STATE.
To the various kingdoms - public heresy was simply bad for commerce because it created dissention.

Finally – to blame ever death in every war for 12200 years on the Catholic Church is REALLY stupid – even for YOU . . .

I thought a man of your status would have read the writings of Augustine and 'doctor' Thomas Aquinas whose philosophies and ideas formulated Catholic dogma to this day.

Just as I thought – I ask for evidence and YOU provide SQUAT.

You’re NO different than any of the other ignorant anti-Catholic revisionists here whom I have ALSO asked for evidence from for their idiotic claims.

Thanks for proving not only our complete failure to provide PROOF for your LIE – but for exposing the fact that you lied.
So, UNTIL you are able to have an honest and intelligent discussion – don’t waste my time . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

Protestantism isn't a denomination. It's a mindset. Being a Bible believing fundamentalis, an advocate for religious liberty, and protesting on behalf of truth is the essence of protestantism. Which is precisely what I observe Amigo doing.

Me is not protestant as many are . But it is true that i am FUNDAMENTAL JESUS ONLY BIBLE ONLY .
That is true . I had rather die than to sell out Christ for some of these denominations who have done so .
As far as religous liberty . In this world ye shall be persecuted , hated . I expect no govt , no man
no nothing to protect me . GOD will be with the lambs and no matter what we suffer
they cannot silence the truth . They cannot bind the WORD of GOD . they can bind me , put me in prison
but GOD will always have lambs to speak truth . This world cannot silence the truth , no matter what it throws at us .
I shun the Doctrines of the RCC to hades and will not sit under it nor have unity with it nor any who have unity with her .
I will simply speak the truth no matter the cost to me . Cause i do love the peoples and desire only good for them .
This new religous liberty thing they signed in , mAY as well been wrote by POPE francis . ITS A SELL OUT .
And it wont protect the true lambs . ONLY THE SOLD OUT christains WILL IT PROTECT .
TRUTH Is , this new law will allow for only MORE PERSECUTION against the true lambs . FOLKS got sold a bill of rotted
goods . But they ran so fast to it . They scared my friend . they fear man , they fear to suffer
and all they want is the BEST LIFE NOW . I will have no part of this sold out conspiracy . GIVE ME JESUS
and if that entails suffering and even my death , THEN I DIE HAPPY .

 

[covenantee]

For starters – FIRST CENTURY Bishop, Ignatius of Antioch – who was a LIFELONG DISCIPLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN – wrote the following on his was to martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 THAT FATHER, IN HIS GOODNESS, RAISED UP AGAIN. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).


Augustine – like ALL of the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence as well:

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, iIS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Ignatius was notable for his use of extensive metaphorization in his writing. In his Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7, he wrote:

"My passionate love has been crucified and there is no fire of material longing within me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’"

Was his love literally crucified?

Was there literal fire within him?

Was there literal water literally living and literally speaking within him?

Certainly not.

So why would he not similarly refer to Christ's flesh and blood metaphorically?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ignatius was notable for his use of extensive metaphorization in his writing. In his Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7, he wrote:

"My passionate love has been crucified and there is no fire of material longing within me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’"
Was his love literally crucified?
Was there literal fire within him?
Was there literal water literally living and literally speaking within him?
Certainly not.

So why would he not similarly refer to Christ's flesh and blood metaphorically?

WOW – you’re REALLY reaching here . . .
Ignatius ISN'T using metaphors here.
He goes out of his way to explain just WHAT he means by the "Body" if Christ:
"They 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Soory - you'll HAVE to do better than that . . .

EVERYBODY uses metaphors –
“It’s raining cats and dogs”
“I have a TON of work to do”
“My head is about to explode”
“I’m so hungry I could eat a HORSE”

Does that mean that NOBODY speaks reality?

Augustine echoed Ignatius’s sentiments about the Real Presence some 200 years LAYER.
And if you say that HE was also speaking in “metaphors” – then you need to realize that you are in MAJOR denial . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Gee, @covenantee - it's awful QUIET over there . . .

 

[Brakelite]

Speaking from a position of almost complete ignorance on Church and World history – your argument is only convincing to those who are equally-ignorant as YOU.
Using idiotic generalizations like “numerous wars” and 1200 years of Papal rule”.

You don’t have a CLUE about the Inquisitions or the fact that MANY people who were killed for centuries were largely matters of STATE. Even the Spanish Inquisition had more to do with the Spanish trying to banish Muslims from their land after centuries of Muslim It was promulgated by King Ferdinand.
The Moors invaded Spain in the 8th century – Ferdinand was king in the 15th century.

I’ve been told by MANY anti-Catholic morons that “10-50 MILLION” people died as a result of this Inquisition. Not only is this yet another “E.G. White-type” LIE – the number is closer to FOUR THOUSAND (4000).

EIGHTEEN TIMES that number of Catholics (72, 000) were murdered or starved to death by Henry VII and his equally-bloodthirsty daughter, Elizabeth I.
So – there was PLENTY of blood on EVERYONE’s hands.

As for the many heretics that were killed during these centuries – these were ALSO largely matters of STATE.
To the various kingdoms - public heresy was simply bad for commerce because it created dissention.

Finally – to blame ever death in every war for 12200 years on the Catholic Church is REALLY stupid – even for YOU . . .


Just as I thought – I ask for evidence and YOU provide SQUAT.

You’re NO different than any of the other ignorant anti-Catholic revisionists here whom I have ALSO asked for evidence from for their idiotic claims.

Thanks for proving not only our complete failure to provide PROOF for your LIE – but for exposing the fact that you lied.
So, UNTIL you are able to have an honest and intelligent discussion – don’t waste my time . . .

As I suspected your response would be, nothing but ad hominem, denial, and bluster. I told you not to blame your church's crimes on the state, but you did anyway. "The devil made us do it" would have been just as evasive, but more honest. And you speak of my ignorance, yet expose your own when I mentioned Thomas Aquinas. The very fact that he was the first advocate for the two sword theory which the church adopted, which everyone it seems except you understands the sword of the state was always under the authority of Rome and whatever they did was with the full support, including financial on many cases, encouragement, and direction of the Papacy. I'm sure you don't want me to go into detail do you? Some verifiable historical cases?
The point being, in forming a union with the state power as per Aquinas writings which you know I am correct on, the church abandoned God. The Papacy trusted state armies to strengthen and empower the church, and therefore the gates of hell won a resounding victory. Clovis would be my first example, I believe he was hailed as the first pagan son of the church, or words to that effect? There were many more of course. Charlemagne. Numerous kind and queens and minor dukes and princes throughout European history in all European countries who washed war against any who refused to submit to papal authority. Lies BoL? Now have some integrity and stop behaving like a child in the playground caught exposing himself to the little girls. Your Knight of Columbus agenda is not doing you any favors. You defend your church at the cost of truth.
BTW. I don't deny protestant persecution. It was just as egregious as Catholic. And Revelation depicts a future where such will rise again. Apostate protestantism in your own country is now joining the state to empower the church. And your church is standing by cheering them on and in some cases joining in. Your Jesuit cousins are loving every minute of the current debacle they have created.

 

[covenantee]

Gee, @covenantee - it's awful QUIET over there . . .

At what point in the digestive process do the bread and wine become flesh and blood?

With supporting medical evidence.

You're not merely quiet.

You're deafeningly silent.

 

[covenantee]

EVERYBODY uses metaphors –
“It’s raining cats and dogs”
“I have a TON of work to do”
“My head is about to explode”
“I’m so hungry I could eat a HORSE”

Thanks for confirming the point. Of course everybody uses metaphors.

Ignatius was one of "everybody", and he used the metaphors I cited e.g. fire and water.

And bread, flesh, wine, and blood.

 

[Illuminator]

Thanks for confirming the point. Of course everybody uses metaphors.

Ignatius was one of "everybody", and he used the metaphors I cited e.g. fire and water.

And bread, flesh, wine, and blood.

The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholic (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters.

In other words, the fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church.

How Do We Know Ignatius’ Letters are Genuine? – Shameless Popery

 

[Illuminator]

As I suspected your response would be, nothing but ad hominem, denial, and bluster. I told you not to blame your church's crimes on the state, but you did anyway. "The devil made us do it" would have been just as evasive, but more honest. And you speak of my ignorance, yet expose your own when I mentioned Thomas Aquinas. The very fact that he was the first advocate for the two sword theory which the church adopted, which everyone it seems except you understands the sword of the state was always under the authority of Rome and whatever they did was with the full support, including financial on many cases, encouragement, and direction of the Papacy. I'm sure you don't want me to go into detail do you? Some verifiable historical cases?
The point being, in forming a union with the state power as per Aquinas writings which you know I am correct on, the church abandoned God.

You make up lies about Aquinas and too much of a coward to quote Aquinas directly.

Texts

Links to On-line Texts of St. Thomas Aquinas. (Incomplete – To suggest additions, please comment below) Opera Omina – The Complete Works of St. Thomas Aquinas in Latin Corpus Thomi…

aquinasonline.com

The Papacy trusted state armies to strengthen and empower the church, and therefore the gates of hell won a resounding victory.

Then Jesus lied when he said the gates of hell would not prevail.

Clovis would be my first example, I believe he was hailed as the first pagan son of the church, or words to that effect? There were many more of course. Charlemagne. Numerous kind and queens and minor dukes and princes throughout European history in all European countries who washed war against any who refused to submit to papal authority. Lies BoL? Now have some integrity and stop behaving like a child in the playground caught exposing himself to the little girls. Your Knight of Columbus agenda is not doing you any favors. You defend your church at the cost of truth.
BTW. I don't deny protestant persecution. It was just as egregious as Catholic. And Revelation depicts a future where such will rise again. Apostate protestantism in your own country is now joining the state to empower the church. And your church is standing by cheering them on and in some cases joining in. Your Jesuit cousins are loving every minute of the current debacle they have created.

History according to occultist Ellen G. White.

Answering Seventh Day Adventism – Shameless Popery

 

[BreadOfLife]

At what point in the digestive process do the bread and wine become flesh and blood?
With supporting medical evidence.
You're not merely quiet.
You're deafeningly silent.

Thanks for confirming the point. Of course everybody uses metaphors.

Ignatius was one of "everybody", and he used the metaphors I cited e.g. fire and water.

And bread, flesh, wine, and blood.

Sooooo, YOU will ONLY believe in the thingsd of God if there is “medical evidence”??
You are EXACTLY who Jesus was talking about in John 6. Pay CLOSE attention to the underlined text”
John 6:61-66
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES TURNED BACK AND NO LONGER FOLLOWED HIM.

Conclusion:
You CANNOT understand the things of God unless you have the LIFE of the Holy Spirit in you.
YOU obviously don’t,

Soooooo, I will give you medical proof that the Eucharist is flesh and blood – just as soon as YOU give me medical proof for the Holy Spirit, my faithless friend,

As for the rest of your nonsense - that you can actually say y this with a straight face is ASTIOUNDING.

Let’s review:
- I presented the Early Church’s belief in the Real Presence (the Eucharist)

- YOU challenged me to show a SINGLE, early, post-Apostolic Father who wrote about this.

- I provided you with TWO explicit examples (Ignatius and Augustine)

- YOU proclaimed that Ignatius COULDM’T have been serious because he used metaphors in SOME of his writings.

- I informed you that EVERYBODY uses metaphors – even YOU. So, are YOU disqualified as well?

- And, NOW your claim is that NONODY speaks in truths or reality because they ALL use members once in a while??

And you DON’T understand how incredibly stupid this is??
How old are you?

Jesus t sometimes spoke in metaphors:
He told Peter to “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, and “Feed my sheep”.
Was He talking about His Church - are a herd of animals?

He spoke REALITY as well:
Mark 16:16
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.“

Sooooo, was that just a joke on Hi part? Was it a “metaphor”??
OR, was conveying the TRUTH with a dire warning??

You can continue paying your idiotic games here – but YOU asked for post-Apostolic proof – and I delivered. So, don’t say you weren’t warned when you’re being judged.
For now – you’re simply wasting my time, because you don’t have any valid counter-arguments.
Consider yourself, historically, linguistically and Scripturally SPANKED in public . . .

Any intelligent arguments out there – or should we just proclaim the Catholic position as the CORRECT position, Biblically, historically and linguistically?. . .