Fruit of the Vine

[Randy_Carson]

Christ almost always taught using metaphor, simile, hyperbole, figures, and stories.

Our Lord was more than happy to let people walk away. He never chased after anyone in unbelief.

Could you please provide another example from scripture when people abandoned Jesus en masse because of something he said in a teaching?

Thanks in advance.

Mat 13:11 “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them”
He admitted that one of His uses of parables was to hide His teachings from certain folks:

Mat 13:13 “This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’”

And then He goes on to explain his meaning clearly to the disciples privately.

So, Atemi, where in scripture does Jesus explain privately to the disciples the symbolism and metaphaphorical meanings behind his teaching in John 6.

Hmmm?

Sorry if you did not have the Eucharist elsewhere.

We Catholics share your sorrow.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We can start with the Didache.

No literalism at all.

No talk of any flesh or blood.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

What devout Catholic would write about the Eucharist and never mention a single word about Christ’s presence or any flesh and blood?

Not any I know.

So the absence of a teaching specifically against the literal presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist is just as good as the presence of the same?



Sorry…sorry…I’ll pull…myself together.

Whew!

Atemi, you do recall that these early Christians were being persecuted, hunted down and thrown into coliseums to be eaten by wild animals? You do understand that they were being accused of cannibalism, right?

So, this would have been the perfect time to deny the Real Presence if such denial was going to be made.

So you can cite ECFs calling the Eucharist flesh and blood, and that is accurate, but citing ECFs calling the Eucharist bread and wine is not?

That is not how it works.

Well, duh. Does it still look like bread, taste like wine? What do you expect…that they should use words like “transubtantiation” and “confect” and “species” from day one? Under that logic, Paul was guilty of incredible neglect for not speaking of the “trinity” in any of his letters. (Come to think of it, he NEVER used the phrase “faith alone”, either. )

I refer to the Eucharist all the time as Christ’s flesh and blood, and I am not a literalist. Many churches and Christians do the same. To say the ECFs never did so is a great mistake, IMV.

Please, the quotes, Atemi, the quotes.

A non-quote from the Didache is a non-argument.

Just like in modern-day Protestantism, such thinking was orthodox. One is not a “heretic” merely because they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist.

You’ve been drinking too much kool-aid…er…grape juice, my friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t need to provide any such citation to support my position.

Oh?

That is what you do not understand.

I cannot cite any father explicitly denying that purple hats are to be worn on Easter either.

In which case wearing purple hats or using contraception must be okay, correct?

You dodged that argument earlier, but it IS relevant.

Irrelevant.

Only when things aren’t going your way…

My position is based mainly on what the early believers did teach, not what they taught against.

…

But you cannot prove they they did not teach it…you can only assume that. However, the writings of the Fathers provided repeatedly bear witness against you.

Atemi, it might be time for some real soul searching…the facts of the scriptures and church history do NOT support the doctrines you have adopted for yourself.

A reasonable man might do as Hahn, Akin, Ray, Howard, Staples, Sungenis, Newman, and SO many others have done before you…search the scriptures, the fathers and the pages of history to find your way back home.

Good luck and God speed on your journey.

 

[Atemi]

The Didache doesn’t mention the divinity of Christ either, so I guess the Early Church didn’t teach that either. What Catholic would avoid that when speaking about Christ?

The Didache does not speak on Christ’s divinity at all, but it does address the Eucharist.

 

[VociMike]

The Didache does not speak on Christ’s divinity at all, but it does address the Eucharist.

That’s my point. It speaks of Christ but it doesn’t mention His divinity. Same situation as speaking of the Eucharist and not mentioning the Real Presence. But even so, there’s that line about “the holy vine”…

 

[El_camino]

Atemi, Most of your answers are still the same childish responses. What is funny is that YOU are accusing me of DODGING the responses…

Anyway, I will only touch on a few of your responses that seem to deserve response.

Atemi:

Really?

You assume what is not in the plain text.

PS - since so many Christians deferred their baptisms until later in life, and some even on their deathbed, are we to assume that they did not partake of the Eucharist all that time?

No.

WHAT on earth are YOU TALKING about??? Have you READ the didache??? It is funny because it is the very same scripture that you are appealing to at the moment … The DIDACHE itself clearly says that ONLY the baptized are allowed to partake of the EUCHARIST. READ IT!!!

" But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” (The Didache 9)

Again, if for the writer(s) of the Didache the Eucharist was merely bread and wine, who cares if the unbaptized believers (i.e., the catechumens) partake of it. Obviously, the reason is because for the writer(s) of the Didache the Eucharist WAS NOT merely symbolic!!!

Touche!

Atemi:

PS - you don’t know what I believe. More assumptions. LOL.

Isn’t that SAD!!! We Christians should believe all ONE thing and be united in one mind and in one judgment (1 Cor 1:10). At least some of this unity exist among most Christians (1 billion Catholics)

Atemi:

This is not just about prayers. It is practice and doctrine.

The didache is a LITURGICAL book (in fact the oldest liturgical book in existence). It tells you how to do things in celebrate the different rites within the church. It is not a theological book.

Atemi:

As would you.

Do you think [Ignatius] believed everything you do?

Ignatius was a Catholic, whether you like it or not. He lived in a time where certain doctrines have not been unambiguosly defined yet, but HE might have not had a broad understanding of certain doctrines but HE DID BELIEVE in them. He did believe in everything I DO!!!

Now, here we are specifically talking about the Eucharist, he believed like I DO.

Please cite any doctrine maintained by Ignatius that was NOT the same as Catholics maintain today.

Please do not pull another DIDACHE on me, saying that because Ignatius did not talk about it he did not believe in this or that.

Atemi:

I don’t need to provide any such citation to support my position.

JUST AS I THOUGHT, you have no such citation, but you are too proud to admit it. Again your claim that the ECFs are closer to the protestants than the Catholics is a MOOT POINT!! You are not being honest to yourself and you seem to be in self denial in this regard.

Atemi:

That is what you do not understand.

I cannot cite any father explicitly denying that purple hats are to be worn on Easter either.

Irrelevant.

Why are you trying to DODGE the question!!! who is talking about PURPLE HATS???

It was YOU who claimed that the ECFs were not literalists regarding the EUCHARIST, thus it is up to you to provide proof for such claim. There are many father that CLEARLY teach the REAL PRESENCE (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch), however you yourself have atested that there is NONE that deny it, as you have not been able to provide such quote.

Atemi:

My position is based mainly on what the early believers did teach, not what they taught against.

…

Then you MUST admit that MOST FATHERS did TEACH the EUCHARIST was LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ, because some of them, such as Ignatius clearly CALLED heretics to those who did not “confess that the eucharist was the body of Christ”

THIS THEY TAUGHT!!! What you believe you cannot show that any of them clearly believed.

I am telling you, you seem to be in self-denial, because on one hand you say that you are interested in what the ECF did TEACH, and on the other you cling to this belief that they DID NOT teach.

Anyway, I will be praying for you,

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Oblaidon]

Christ almost always taught using metaphor, simile, hyperbole, figures, and stories.

Our Lord was more than happy to let people walk away. He never chased after anyone in unbelief.

Mat 13:11 “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them”

He admitted that one of His uses of parables was to hide His teachings from certain folks:

Mat 13:13 “This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’”

Sorry if you did not have the Eucharist elsewhere.

…

Atemi,

I guess we will have to just agree that we disagree. I receive the real presense of Christ from the Eucharist brought to me by the new covenant, while you receive a figurative symbol as part of a parable.

To whom else should I turn to for the consecrated bread and wine of the Holy Communion (the Eucharist)?

The most important thing is that we follow Christ’s example and love one another. There are more subjects we agree on as Christians than not. I would like to discuss those subjects with you sometime.

May God bless you, and may He grant us peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He’s in denial.

Having abandoned the true Church, he has made a HUGE emotional investment in his new “faith community”.

It has to be right…it just HAS to be!

Remember, his friends consult him on the evils of Catholicism…he’s viewed as an expert.

He’s proud to tell one and all about how he was delivered from the Roman system.

He loses all this “status” and all these friends if he begins to think too deeply.

This is not about facts at all. That’s why they are “irrelevant”.

It is a spiritual battle for a soul.

 

[El_camino]

Atemi,

I guess we will have to just agree that we disagree. I receive the real presense of Christ from the Eucharist brought to me by the new covenant, while you receive a figurative symbol as part of a parable.

To whom else should I turn to for the consecrated bread and wine of the Holy Communion (the Eucharist)?

The most important thing is that we follow Christ’s example and love one another. There are more subjects we agree on as Christians than not. I would like to discuss those subjects with you sometime.

May God bless you, and may He grant us peace.

Something important to note is that Christ spoke in parables and hyperboles ONLY when he was preaching and teaching something. In the upper room, when the last supper was celebrated, Christ was NOT teaching anything, he was asking them to DO “THIS IN REMEMBRANCE (anamnesis) of me” (Luke 22:19). That word anamnesis is key, as this is used to refer to the offering of sacrifices for remembrance of sins.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

He’s in denial.

Having abandoned the true Church, he has made a HUGE emotional investment in his new “faith community”.

It has to be right…it just HAS to be!

Remember, his friends consult him on the evils of Catholicism…he’s viewed as an expert.

He’s proud to tell one and all about how he was delivered from the Roman system.

He loses all this “status” and all these friends if he begins to think too deeply.

This is not about facts at all. That’s why they are “irrelevant”.

It is a spiritual battle for a soul.

Atemi, maybe these exchanges here with us are not constructive for you. Maybe what you need is prayer, a lot of prayer.

I want you to know I will be praying for you.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

last post

 

[teachccd]

Here is the historian Schaff’s record of early church positions on the Eucharist:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

…

This food is called with us the *eucharist, *of which none can partake, but the believing and baptized, who live according to the commands of Christ. For we use these not as common bread and common drink; but like as Jesus Christ our Redeemer was made flesh through the word of God, and took upon him flesh and blood for our redemption; so we are taught, that the nourishment blessed by the word of prayer, by which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation (assimilation), is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus."

The above was a quote from your above reference…teachccd

 

[Odell]

Exactly.

Except one man “sells” Jesus Christ and another “sells” Roman Catholicism.

I find this offensive for Catholicism has been selling Jesus long before Billy Grahm ever came along.

And If Billy sells Jesus then you must believe all Billy teaches right?

1)Billy Graham believes the killing of unborn babies is sometimes ok. In The Billy Graham Christian Worker’s Handbook (copyright 1997 edition

sonds like something Jesus would say wwjd

1. GRAHAM BELIEVES MEN CAN BE SAVED APART FROM NAME OF CHRIST

I bet you dont believe all he teaches I could go on and on and I bet you would not agree with half of his teachings

Irrelevant.

My position is based mainly on what the early believers did teach, not what they taught against.

…

Actually your belives are based on whatever is the oposite of what the church teaches.

The problem is Protestants teach against the body and blood because there is a Church that teaches it. That same Church tought it 2000 years ago. Do you not think that people would protest against this so called false teaching back then as you do now?

that is a bad question because ofcourse you do. But do you have the proof?

(2 Thess 3:6) “We instruct you brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”

(1 Timothy 1:3) “Instuct certain people not to teach false doctrines”

according to you our teachings are false. Paul Instructs the leaders of the Church to instruct people like us who have false teachings.

So where is the leaders of your Church that should of been telling us this is wrong? Oh yeah your church didnt excist. But ours did and we instructed the people who belived as you.

We have the proof of your false doctrine do you have proof of our supposed false doctrine?

WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is the historian Schaff’s record of early church positions on the Eucharist:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

…

From the article you cited:

Justin Martyr, at the close of his larger Apology,368 describes the public worship more particularly, as it was conducted about the year 140. After giving a full account of baptism and the holy Supper, to which we shall refer again, he continues:
“On Sunday369 a meeting of all, who live in the cities and villages, is held, and a section from the Memoirs of the Apostles (the Gospels) and the writings of the Prophets (the Old Testament) is read, as long as the time permits.370 When the reader has finished, the president,371 in a discourse, gives all exhortation372 to the imitation of these noble things. After this we all rise in common prayer.373 At the close of the prayer, as we have before described,374 bread and wine with water are brought. The president offers prayer and thanks for them, according to the power given him,375 and the congregation responds the Amen. Then the consecrated elements are distributed to each one, and partaken, and are carried by the deacons to the houses of the absent. The wealthy and the willing then give contributions according to their free will, and this collection is deposited with the president, who therewith supplies orphans and widows, poor and needy, prisoners and strangers, and takes care of all who are in want. We assemble in common on Sunday because this is the first day, on which God created the world and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples.”
Here, reading of the Scriptures, preaching (and that as an episcopal function), prayer, and communion, plainly appear as the regular parts of the Sunday worship; all descending, no doubt, from the apostolic age. Song is not expressly mentioned here, but elsewhere.376 The communion is not yet clearly separated from the other parts of worship. But this was done towards the end of the second century.
The same parts of worship are mentioned in different places by Tertullian.377

What “power” was given to the president? The power to consecrate?

And “consecrated elements”? Doesn’t sound like crackers and grape juice to me…

There’s more :

“This food is called with us the *eucharist, *of which none can partake, but the believing and baptized, who live according to the commands of Christ. For we use these not as common bread and common drink; but like as Jesus Christ our Redeemer was made flesh through the word of God, and took upon him flesh and blood for our redemption; so we are taught, that the nourishment blessed by the word of prayer, by which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation (assimilation), is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.”

So, Schaff quotes your boy Justin Martyr at length. What do you think of what Justin has to say about the Eucharist, Atemi?

I think I’ll bookmark this site for future reference.

Many thanks. :tiphat:

 

[teachccd]

From the article you cited:

What “power” was given to the president? The power to consecrate?

And “consecrated elements”? Doesn’t sound like crackers and grape juice to me…

There’s more :

So, Schaff quotes your boy Justin Martyr at length. What do you think of what Justin has to say about the Eucharist, Atemi?

I think I’ll bookmark this site for future reference.

Many thanks. :tiphat:

Isn’t it absolutely amazing how someone would provide quotes that totally destroy their own position. That is really the work of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth. Atemi, you just proved the 2000 year old teaching of the Catholic Church referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I, too, will bookmark this reference and utilize its contents when someone like Atemi tries to dismantle the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again thank you Atemi for allowing so many to see the holes in protestant theology…God Bless…teachccd

 

[Atemi]

From the article you cited:

What “power” was given to the president?

Authority as head and elder.

No magic.

When you are at my house, I have “powers” as well.

The power to consecrate?

Everyone has such “power.”

To consecrate is to bless and make sacred.

Whenever you say “Grace,” you are consecrating.

I bless my food all the time.

And “consecrated elements”? Doesn’t sound like crackers and grape juice to me…

Yet what are we left with?

So, Schaff quotes your boy Justin Martyr at length. What do you think of what Justin has to say about the Eucharist, Atemi?

I do not agree with him.

I think I’ll bookmark this site for future reference.

Good idea.

…

 

[Atemi]

Isn’t it absolutely amazing how someone would provide quotes that totally destroy their own position.

Actually I did not.

Sigh.

That is really the work of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth. Atemi, you just proved the 2000 year old teaching of the Catholic Church referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Justin’s position proves no such thing.

I, too, will bookmark this reference and utilize its contents when someone like Atemi tries to dismantle the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yeah, yeah.

Again thank you Atemi for allowing so many to see the holes in protestant theology…God Bless…

So I suppose you ignore the teachings of those ECFs that you disagree with. You don’t seem to embrace those as proof of anything at all.

You have nothing to brag about here.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t have to have Justin Martyr, though it does affirm that he believed the same thing that the New Testament teaches.

Posts 1, 2, 4, & 20 on The Eucharist IS Scriptural certainly make the case for me.

Justin is good, but even earlier still is Ignatius of Antioch who writes.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. (LINK)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.and then also

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.Between the New Testament and the early church, I have no doubts whatever concerning the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[CatholismRox]

Jesus is the vine and we are the branches…He is the fruit of the vine!!!

 

[teachccd]

Actually I did not.

Sigh.

Justin’s position proves no such thing.

Yeah, yeah.

So I suppose you ignore the teachings of those ECFs that you disagree with. You don’t seem to embrace those as proof of anything at all.

You have nothing to brag about here.

…

DID YOU READ YOUR REFERENCE?? :banghead: