Can I compare Protestants to Gnostics seeing how both (i think) deny the real presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
susanlo said:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the **Spirit of God **was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…
*All 3 were present at creation

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
&*
John* 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."
*3 distinct entities working for the same purpose

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 8 “58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
***John ***18:6 “When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.”
*Jesus claimed to be God

There are many more examples of both of these concepts in the Bible.
Click to expand...
And we can give you all the Bible verses that support the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, made manifest through transubstantiation.

“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52)

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

And here is the OT foreshadowing of the Eucharist
(source:therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html)

Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.
 
PRmerger said:
Huh?

Aren’t you the one who is stating that the Roman Catholic Church did to the original Church what Luther did to the Roman Catholic Church regarding transubstantiation and the filioque?

That means you have to show where the Roman Catholic Church changed her teaching.
Click to expand...
Go back and read what I wrote. Consider that Lutherans, too, use the Filioque.
Go back and read it. I wasn’t talking about Lutherans

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Go back and read what I wrote. Consider that Lutherans, too, use the Filioque.
Go back and read it. I wasn’t talking about Lutherans

Jon
Click to expand...
Here’s how I understand how our conversation went:

I proposed that Protestants who disagree with the Lutheran view on [fill in the blank]
are doing exactly what Luther did to Catholicism.

You countered that Roman Catholics did this to the Original Christian Church.

I asked for examples of this.

You gave the filioque and transubstantiation.

So, in order for your examples to fit, you need to give examples of the “Original Christian Church” teaching one thing, and then the RCC teaching something else on the filioque and transubstantiation.
 
Darryl_B said:
For further St Augustine (apologies couldn’t resist putting quote in quotes in quotes)

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num30.htm
Click to expand...
I cut and pasted the quotes from the website. I am getting tired, but I think I found many of the original sources for the quotes. I included a little additional text for some, but reading the whole context makes a difference in understanding the quote much of the time.

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
  1. “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, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html
This is similar to Sermon 272
  1. “The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
I can’t find this one online
  1. “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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
This one is a repeat from earlier
  1. “How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm
““And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” Matthew 26:26 “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith.”
  1. “Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
This is a repeat from earlier
  1. “Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)
newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm
  1. “By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
I can’t find this one online
  1. “Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
  1. “But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)
I can’t find this online

10, “…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm
The end of the chapter (although I recommend the whole chapter) - “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
 
susanlo said:
I cut and pasted the quotes from the website. I am getting tired, but I think I found many of the original sources for the quotes. I included a little additional text for some, but reading the whole context makes a difference in understanding the quote much of the time.

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
  1. “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, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html
This is similar to Sermon 272
  1. “The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
I can’t find this one online
  1. “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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
This one is a repeat from earlier
  1. “How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm
““And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” Matthew 26:26 “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith.”
  1. “Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
This is a repeat from earlier
  1. “Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)
newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm
  1. “Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
  1. “But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)
I can’t find this online

10, “…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm
The end of the chapter (although I recommend the whole chapter) - “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
Click to expand...
Again, everything here is very Catholic. 👍

The Eucharist is spiritual. It is symbolic. It is a sign.

It’s just not only all of that. It is also actually His Body, and His Blood. And His Soul. And His Divinity. Actually. And substantially so.

It is all of those things.
 
PRmerger said:
Here’s how I understand how our conversation went:

I proposed that Protestants who disagree with the Lutheran view on [fill in the blank]
are doing exactly what Luther did to Catholicism.

You countered that Roman Catholics did this to the Original Christian Church.

I asked for examples of this.

You gave the filioque and transubstantiation.

So, in order for your examples to fit, you need to give examples of the “Original Christian Church” teaching one thing, and then the RCC teaching something else on the filioque and transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
On the Filoque
Filioque is a Latin word meaning “and the Son” which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. This was the position of St Maximus the Confessor. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (aition) of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Orthodox Church consider this latter reading to be a heresy.
Click to expand...
orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

Jon
 
PRmerger said:
Again, everything here is very Catholic. 👍

The Eucharist is spiritual. It is symbolic. It is a sign.

It’s just not only all of that. It is also actually His Body, and His Blood. And His Soul. And His Divinity. Actually. And substantially so.

It is all of those things.
Click to expand...
Was the teaching of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, also in line with modern-day Roman Catholic understanding of the elements of the Eucharist?
He has a writing in dialogue form where he is “Orthodoxos” and debating “Eranistes.” As I understand it, he was refuting the idea that Christ only had one nature and wasn’t both God and man. He mentions the Eucharist as an example in his discussion.

newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm
"Orth.— But our Saviour changed the names, and to His body gave the name of the symbol and to the symbol that of his body. So, after calling himself a vine, he spoke of the symbol as blood.

Eran.— True. But I am desirous of knowing the reason of the change of names.

Orth.— To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace. For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as grain and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine,** dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace**.

Eran.— The mysteries are spoken of in mystic language, and there is a clear declaration of that which is not known to all."

newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm
"Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord."
 
PRmerger said:
No, friend.

You said that the RCC did to the Original Christian Church what Luther did to the RCC.

An example you gave was the filioque.

So please give an example from the Magisterium (NOT Wiki) that showed the original teaching on the Trinity.
Click to expand...
Go back and read it again. I said, “some would say”. That link reflects exactly this, that we in the western Church have changed what the Early Church wrote and confessed.
Do you have documentation that the Orthodox are wrong?

Jon
 
susanlo said:
Was the teaching of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, also in line with modern-day Roman Catholic understanding of the elements of the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Before I address this, would you mind addressing the question I posed earlier?

I’ll re-present it for you, given the context of the above question: Was the teaching of the author of Hebrews also in line with your understanding of the Trinity?

If so, could you please limn where the inspired author professes an understanding of the Trinity?
 
JonNC said:
Go back and read it again. I said, “some would say”. That link reflects exactly this, that we in the western Church have changed what the Early Church wrote and confessed.
Click to expand...
No, Jon.

You are changing your argument now.

You need to offer where the Original Catholic Church professed one teaching on the filioque, and then where the Roman Catholic Church usurped this teaching and provided something different.

That’s what Luther did to some of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
Do you have documentation that the Orthodox are wrong?
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
I think the the Orthodox and the Catholic view are one and the same essentially regarding the Filioque.
 
PRmerger said:
No, Jon.

You are changing your argument now.

You need to offer where the Original Catholic Church professed one teaching on the filioque, and then where the Roman Catholic Church usurped this teaching and provided something different.

That’s what Luther did to some of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

I think the the Orthodox and the Catholic view are one and the same essentially regarding the Filioque.
Click to expand...
Really? That’s what you got from the article? Lutherans and Catholics certainly do, but…

I haven’t changed anything. Check what I wrote

Jon
 
susanlo said:
Was the teaching of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, also in line with modern-day Roman Catholic understanding of the elements of the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes it is. Can you explain in your own words what you think Theodoret is saying? It might help in understanding where the “confusion” is?
 
Darryl_B said:
Yes. Yes it is. Can you explain in your own words what you think Theodoret is saying? It might help in understanding where the “confusion” is?
Click to expand...
He is saying that the elements of the Eucharist do not change in substance.
 
susanlo said:
“They remain in their former substance figure and form.”
Click to expand...
Susan, would you mind addressing the question I posed regarding the author of Hebrews not professing the Trinity as we understand it?
 
PRmerger said:
Susan, would you mind addressing the question I posed regarding the author of Hebrews not professing the Trinity as we understand it?
Click to expand...
I am not sure how that is relevant to the topic, but…
Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? I understand it may have been Paul, some say that it wasn’t and the author is unknown.

Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
*The son is separate from God.

Hebrews 1:8 “But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.”
*The son is God.

Hebrews 2:3 “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
*The Holy Spirit is separate and God works through it.

Hebrews 9:14 “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!”
*Christ, eternal Spirit and God are part of atonement.

Hebrews 10:29 “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
*Another example of 3 working together.

Is that what you are looking for? I don’t see that he denies the Trinity. His speaking of the 3 in no way contrasts the definition of the Trinity as far as I know.
 
susanlo said:
I am not sure how that is relevant to the topic, but…
Click to expand...
It is a parallel to your model which asserts “This Christian writer did not articulate this particular Christian teaching, therefore this Christian teaching is a novelty”.
Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? I understand it may have been Paul, some say that it wasn’t and the author is unknown.
Click to expand...
The Scriptures do not say who wrote it.

You would need to rely on the testimony of men, not the Bible, to claim to know who is the inspired author.
I don’t see that he denies the Trinity
Click to expand...
Wait–so you are asserting that the Christian write DENIES a particular Christian teaching?

Ok.

If that’s your assertion, where does St. Augustine DENY transubstantiation?
 
PRmerger said:
It is a parallel to your model which asserts “This Christian writer did not articulate this particular Christian teaching, therefore this Christian teaching is a novelty”.

The Scriptures do not say who wrote it.

You would need to rely on the testimony of men, not the Bible, to claim to know who is the inspired author.

Wait–so you are asserting that the Christian write DENIES a particular Christian teaching?

Ok.

If that’s your assertion, where does St. Augustine DENY transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
I said that the author of the book of Hebrews does NOT deny the trinity.

Apparently we see the writings of Augustine in a different light. I see him saying that John 6:53 is figurative. He says repeatedly in his writings that the elements are a “mere physical likeness” and “resemblance.” There was no doctrine of transubstantiation for him to agree or disagree with and theologians were allowed to form their own instruction on how it occurred.

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top