Did Tertullian deny the real presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesus_Is_God_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jesus_Is_God_1

Guest
A protestant showed me a quote by Tertullian saying he denied the real presence,

“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 quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

How do I respond?
 
In the 5th Century, the churches in Egypt and Syria broke communion with Rome and Constantinople over the question of the two natures/one person of Jesus Christ, and formed the “Oriental Orthodox” communion.

In the 11th Century, Constantinople broke communion with Rome and formed the “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

All of these churches - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople - trace their origins back to the Apostles themselves.

All of these churches teach the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

How is that all of these Apostolic churches, who split apart as early as the 5th Century, believe in the Real Presence, and yet the truth was supposedly discovered by some post-Renaissance western European intellectuals over a thousand years later?
 
Jesus_Is_God said:
A protestant showed me a quote by Tertullian saying he denied the real presence,

“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 quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

How do I respond?
Click to expand...
Tell him hogwash…and ask him to provide the whole context of the article…

Then ask him…of all the early councils of the Church…in the first 1000 yrs, no council was ever convened regarding the a heresy concerning the Real Presence…tell him to account for one Church council to tackle a heresy concerning the Real Presence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top