How do non-Catholics interpret the following regarding, the Eucharist...

[joe370]

How do non-Catholics interpret the following, regarding the Eucharist:

*"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord* eats and drinks judgment on himself."

 

[flyonthewall]

Joe, I can tell this subject is near and dear to your heart.
Here is how I see it:
The Eucharist(or Sacrament) is an ordinance to bring to rememberance the Atonement of Christ. It is also a renewing of covenants made at baptism.
The Atonement is offered to those that repent and are baptised.
To partake of the Sacrament(or Eucharist) unworthily would be like trying to partake of the Atonement without repenting…it would be like John 10: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”
Instead of edifying, it would condemn.

Our Sacrament prayer outlines the conenant we make while partaking of the Sacrament:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

We covenant to: take upon us the name of Christ, always remember Him, and keep His commandments…and in return we may always have His spirit to be with us.

 

[joe370]

Hey Fly… I am surprised that no one (other than you) - is responding to this thread…

=flyonthewall;7235802]Joe, I can tell this subject is near and dear to your heart.
Here is how I see it:
The Eucharist(or Sacrament) is an ordinance to bring to rememberance the Atonement of Christ. It is also a renewing of covenants made at baptism.
The Atonement is offered to those that repent and are baptised.
To partake of the Sacrament(or Eucharist) unworthily would be like trying to partake of the Atonement without repenting…it would be like John 10: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”
Instead of edifying, it would condemn.

I understand, but, Jesus said, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.’ He doesn’t say, So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of partaking of the Atonement without repenting.

Paul is specifically talking about the partaking of the bread and the partaking of the cup, as opposed to the partaking of the atonement without repenting, in an unworthy manner.

How do you interpret the following Fly:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord…For anyone who eats{{the bread} and drinks{the cup} - without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

 

[JonNC]

How do non-Catholics interpret the following, regarding the Eucharist:

*"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord* eats and drinks judgment on himself."

It is what it says, Joe.

Jon

 

[The_Sentry]

It is what it says, Joe.

Jon

I second that

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey Fly… I am surprised that no one (other than you) - is responding to this thread…

I understand, but, Jesus said, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.’ He doesn’t say, So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of partaking of the Atonement without repenting.

Paul is specifically talking about the partaking of the bread and the partaking of the cup, as opposed to the partaking of the atonement without repenting, in an unworthy manner.

How do you interpret the following Fly:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord…For anyone who eats{{the bread} and drinks{the cup} - without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

The body and cup(blood) are representatitve of the Atonement. Just like now days when some one refers to the American flag, instead of the United States of America. The flag represents the country so the flag can be used interchangably with the country.
The body and cup(blood) are a description of the elements of the sacrifice Jesus made, and is used in representation of His sacrifice.
“Atonement” is not found in the scriptures, but is a term later assigned to His sacrifice. Why do you use the term “atonement” when you are really referring to His sacrifice. It is representative and communicates the same thing.

I notice that “blood” has been replaced by “cup”. If it was literally supposed to be “blood” then why the change in language to “cup”? The “cup” or “cup of trembling” was used by Isaiah to represent the sacrifice and the suffering that went along with it. It conveys more than direct language can.
The language used is poetic/representative/figurative/symbolic.

Anyway that is my :twocents:

 

[Mark77]

The body and cup(blood) are representatitve of the Atonement. Just like now days when some one refers to the American flag, instead of the United States of America. The flag represents the country so the flag can be used interchangably with the country.
The body and cup(blood) are a description of the elements of the sacrifice Jesus made, and is used in representation of His sacrifice.
“Atonement” is not found in the scriptures, but is a term later assigned to His sacrifice. Why do you use the term “atonement” when you are really referring to His sacrifice. It is representative and communicates the same thing.

I notice that “blood” has been replaced by “cup”. If it was literally supposed to be “blood” then why the change in language to “cup”? The “cup” or “cup of trembling” was used by Isaiah to represent the sacrifice and the suffering that went along with it. It conveys more than direct language can.
The language used is poetic/representative/figurative/symbolic.

Anyway that is my :twocents:

**
There is clearly no “representation” here. Do not be confused by the false teachings of mere men.

Jesus says in John 6:35 & 48 “I am the bread of life.”, not I represent the bread of life.

Jesus goes on to say; " 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." (JN 6:51)

By your logic, Jesus didn’t really die on the Cross for our sins, He just “symbolically represents” salvation?

Later in John 6:66, we see the only time in all of Sacred Scripture where Jesus’ Disciples leave. “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”

If he were speaking about the Eucharist symbolically, or only as a representation, Jesus surely would have explained this so these Disciples would not have left.

If one honestly reads Sacred Scripture, especially John 6, & reads what the earliest Apostles, Disciples & their successors who are the Bishops of the Catholic Church have taught consistently for 2000 years, they all confirm the “Real Presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist!

"Martin Luther himself confirms that the early Church unanimously taught the Real Presence:

'of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side" Luther’s Works (St Louis Mo: Concordia Publishing 1961), vol 37, 54.**

Fr Frank Chacon & Jim Burnam, Beginning Apologetics 1, p. 9,

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[flyonthewall]

**
There is clearly no “representation” here. Do not be confused by the false teachings of mere men.

Jesus says in John 6:35 & 48 “I am the bread of life.”, not I represent the bread of life.**

Jesus goes on to say; " 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." (JN 6:51) So by your logic, Jesus was a loaf of bread? I don’t believe you believe that. Jesus uses poetic/symbolic language because if conveys more meaning than direct specific languange.

By your logic, Jesus didn’t really die on the Cross for our sins, He just “symbolically represents” salvation?

A simple search on the internet comes up with St. Augustine saying: "Jesus is present in the Eucharist “per modum symboli”! "
Jesus Christ stated that the Apostles should do this in rememberance of my body and blood. If it was literally to be His body and blood, then it would not be a rememberance.
Even by the admission of the those that claim the real presence, there is no physical change - it still looks like bread, smells like bread, tastes like bread and has the texture of bread. If there is not a physical change then it is symbolic…however to say such would go against the teaching of the literal presence.
It reminds me of the story The Emperor’s New Clothes. I happen to be the little boy that just doesn’t see what everyone else claims.(not meant to be offensive, but it paints a better picture than I could describe)

 

[joe370]

It is what it says, Joe.

Jon

Jon, Flyonthewall, as you can see, and many other protestants, do not agree with you. Jon do you believe that Jesus left the world with a way to know, with certainty, (today in the 21st century) - the truth regarding this teaching? If so then how can you and Fly know, with certainty, the truth, considering the fact that both of you clearly do not agree…?

 

[joe370]

Fly, I understand that you believe that the immediate successors of the apostles started teaching something differently regarding the Eucharist, (which seriously makes me start to doubt the authenticity of the bible) - so if I cannot trust that the successors of the apostles got it right about the Eucharist, as well as the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible, then how do you know you are right vis-a-vis your interpretation of the Eucharist? I know one thing: I don’t trust my own interpretation in a world where there is so much division regarding this particular Eucharistic teaching; I was not entrusted with the authority to say one way or the other. I simply do as Paul commanded; I defer to the authority of the church in the end. Most people do the same, but they defer to different churches. The way I see it - Jesus said: I will build my church; he didn’t say: I will build my churches. Perhaps the key is locating the church in the world today that was not founded by a mere man in the 16th, 17th…21st century? Yes, no, maybe???

In the following, clearly, from a logical stand point, wine is in the cup:

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my wine of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

What is is in the cup in the following:

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So by your logic, Jesus was a loaf of bread? I don’t believe you believe that. Jesus uses poetic/symbolic language because if conveys more meaning than direct specific languange.

That is a conclusion you draw, not one I make.

I have gone through this in another thread about the Eucharist. I pointed out that He did try to explain…see verses 29 & 35, and he gives them the key to understanding His words in verse 63.

I have read Sacred Scripture, and John 6 many times, and each time I read them it is clear to me that it was not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically. I also have stated before that I believe the literal meaning was erroneously assigned to the symbolic language later on, after the apostles had died, and was projected backwards as always being there.

A simple search on the internet comes up with St. Augustine saying: "Jesus is present in the Eucharist “per modum symboli”! "
Jesus Christ stated that the Apostles should do this in rememberance of my body and blood. If it was literally to be His body and blood, then it would not be a rememberance.
Even by the admission of the those that claim the real presence, there is no physical change - it still looks like bread, smells like bread, tastes like bread and has the texture of bread. If there is not a physical change then it is symbolic…however to say such would go against the teaching of the literal presence.
It reminds me of the story The Emperor’s New Clothes. I happen to be the little boy that just doesn’t see what everyone else claims.(not meant to be offensive, but it paints a better picture than I could describe)

 

[JonNC]

Jon, Flyonthewall, as you can see, and many other protestants, do not agree with you. Jon do you believe that Jesus left the world with a way to know, with certainty, (today in the 21st century) - the truth regarding this teaching? If so then how can you and Fly know, with certainty, the truth, considering the fact that both of you clearly do not agree…?

Hi Joe,
Mark77’s quote from Luther resolves it for me:
'of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side"

And further, Melanchthon references scripture first, then the whole of the Church, east and west, and finally, as Luther does, the ECF’s in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. While I do not question Fly’s faith or his integrity as a Christian, I find no scriptural or historic support for his position. Christ’s words are clear, “this is my body”.

originally posted by flyonthewall
So by your logic, Jesus was a loaf of bread? I don’t believe you believe that. Jesus uses poetic/symbolic language because if conveys more meaning than direct specific languange.

Actually the language is the opposite. Christ doesn’t say, “I am this bread”. He says “this [the bread] is my body”. If He had said “I am the bread” at the Last Supper, as He did at other times, your argument would be reasonable. But He is literal at the Last Supper, “This IS my body.” This is why the Last Supper accounts, including Paul’s, are so much better for understanding the truth of the Real Presence than John 6.

Jon

 

[flyonthewall]

Fly, I understand that you believe that the immediate successors of the apostles started teaching something differently regarding the Eucharist, so if I cannot trust that the successors of the apostles got it right, how do you know you are right? I know one thing: I don’t trust my own interpretation; I was not entrusted with the authority to say one way or the other. I simply do as Paul suggested; I defer to the authority of the church in the end. Most people do the same, but they defer to different churches. The way I see it, Jesus said: I will build my church; he didn’t say: I will build my churches. Perhaps the key is locating the church in the world today that was not founded by a mere man in the 16th, 17th…21st century? Yes, no, maybe???

I would expect you to defer to the authority of your church for clarification on matters of your faith. Hopefully you have sought out your own confirmation of this matter as the Holy Spirit can testify of the truthfulness of all things. If you have already received a confirmation of your faith, then go with it and be true to it.

In the following, clearly, from a logical stand point, wine is in the cup:

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my wine of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

What is is in the cup in the following:

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Right, the cup is another way to say the wine in the cup…more representational language. The cup is what Jesus did not want to drink from if there was any other way possible, but only if the Father willed it. The cup is what was to come, the suffering and the sacrifice…the atonement. The cup represents more than just a container of liquid.

 

[joe370]

Hey Fly, you said:

I would expect you to defer to the authority of your church for clarification on matters of your faith. Hopefully you have sought out your own confirmation of this matter as the Holy Spirit can testify of the truthfulness of all things. If you have already received a confirmation of your faith, then go with it and be true to it.

Well, that certainly seems like the best answer anyone has ever given me. I guess that is really all any Christian can do when faced with doubt regarding doctrinal truth. We are of the same mind brother!

One thing troubles me though: Jesus said: I will build my church, as in one church, and yet you belong to one church and I belong to a second church…a completely different church. The teachings (regarding the Eucharist) - of your church and my church cannot both be correct - can they? Clearly one of these churches is teaching erroneously. How can we know which church is teaching truth and which church is teaching erroneously?

Right, the cup is another way to say the wine in the cup…more representational language. The cup is what Jesus did not want to drink from if there was any other way possible, but only if the Father willed it. The cup is what was to come, the suffering and the sacrifice…the atonement. The cup represents more than just a container of liquid.

Very true Fly. However the following passage regarding the cup (that Jesus did not want to drink from, if there was any other way possible) - has nothing to do with the Eucharistic doctrine:

"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

The grumblers, arguing sharply amongst themselves said the following, after Jesus said, I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”:

• “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Forgive me if you have already delineated this point, but I am still in the dark: Why didn’t Jesus simply explain to the grumblers that His words were symbolic, instead of saying the following, which simply served to reinforce the very thing that was troubling the grumblers to begin with, and eventually caused them to walk away:

*Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
*

JonNC provided the following quote by Martin Luther regarding the ECF’s of the CC:

“…of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side”

Fly, in your opinion, were all these early church leaders wrong???

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey Fly, you said:

Well, that certainly seems like the best answer anyone has ever given me. I guess that is really all any Christian can do when faced with doubt regarding doctrinal truth. We are of the same mind brother!

One thing troubles me though: Jesus said: I will build my church, as in one church, and yet you belong to one church and I belong to a second church…a completely different church. The teachings (regarding the Eucharist) - of your church and my church cannot both be correct - can they? Clearly one of these churches is teaching erroneously. How can we know which church is teaching truth and which church is teaching erroneously?

To be honest, even though our beliefs differ on the presence in the bread and wine, both our beliefs serve to bring to the forefront of our minds the great sacrifice made by Jesus. From my point of view, believing in the real presence as you do, does not detract from the purpose of the Eucharist/Sacrament.

Very true Fly. However the following passage regarding the cup (that Jesus did not want to drink from, if there was any other way possible) - has nothing to do with the Eucharistic doctrine:

"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

The grumblers, arguing sharply amongst themselves said the following, after Jesus said, I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”:

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Forgive me if you have already delineated this point, but I am still in the dark: Why didn’t Jesus simply explain to the grumblers that His words were symbolic, instead of saying the following, which simply served to reinforce the very thing that was troubling the grumblers to begin with, and eventually caused them to walk away:

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

As He stated before, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

JonNC provided the following quote by Martin Luther regarding the ECF’s of the CC:

“…of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side”

Fly, in your opinion, were all these early church leaders wrong???

I would not consider Martin Luther an early church leader, if it is the same one that lived in the 1400 & 1500s.
I believe that the early church leaders used poetic/symbolic language and the further away in time, the more a literal meaning was assigned to it.
It is an example of how things can change without a deliberate attempt at change.

 

[joe370]

Hey Fly, I wasn’t suggesting that Martin Luther was an ECF.

Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He was actually taught by the apostles. He heard John preach when he was a boy and knew Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. Ignatius, a pupil of John did not agree with you regarding the Eucharist. Surely Ignatius got it right considering the fact that he was taught by John - agreed?

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, **because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."**

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and **break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."**

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. **I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, **who was the seed of David; and for drink** I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."**

 

[Janet1983]

How do non-Catholics interpret the following, regarding the Eucharist:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Let me give it a try.
Coming to the Lord’s table ritualistically, indifferently, with an unrepentant heart, a spirit of bitterness or any other ungodly attitude, does not only dishonor the ceremony, but it also dishonors His body and blood, treating lightly the gracious sacrifice of Christ for us. If we do not wish to mock the sacrifice for sin, by holding on to sin and partaking, we need to set all sin before the Lord (v. 28). If we take away the holiness of the celebration of Communion, we treat His life, suffering and death with indifference. The judgement we would eat and drink upon ourselves is His chastisement and discipline (see v. 32).

 

[guanophore]

Hey Fly… I am surprised that no one (other than you) - is responding to this thread…

I understand, but, Jesus said, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.’ He doesn’t say, So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of partaking of the Atonement without repenting.

Paul is specifically talking about the partaking of the bread and the partaking of the cup, as opposed to the partaking of the atonement without repenting, in an unworthy manner.

How do you interpret the following Fly:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord…For anyone who eats{{the bread} and drinks{the cup} - without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Some of my separated brethren have said that “recognizing the body” means being able to discern who the “true Christians” are by their conduct. One should not partake unless one is in a “bible church” where the body of Christ is visible in the membership.

I read a couple posts that said “it is what is says” which, in the light of the perspective here, is an insufficient response.

When it comes to scripture “it is what it says” can have about as many meanings as there are belly buttons.

 

[flyonthewall]

Here are a few scriptures that have people eating things that are not considered food: think about what it means to “eat” in these examples, and see how it can be applied to Jesus telling others to “eat” His flesh:

Jeremiah 15:16
Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Ezekiel 3:3
And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
(the roll referred to here is a book see Ezekiel 2:9)

Revelation 10:10
And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

The concept of “eating” something as a poetic way of believing/studying/following was not unheard of either in the OT or NT.
If you tie this in with John 6:35, you can see how it all fits.
Now to partake of the Eucharist unworthily is to not be following the teachings of Christ or to be out of compliance with them…unrepentant. It is repentance that brings us back in line with the teachings of Christ.

Joe, there were many that were taught by the Apostles that got it wrong and had to later be corrected by the Apostles…look at the epistles that were written.
I don’t know enough about the writings of the ECF to say one thing or another about them, but the quotes that you list can all be looked at as poetic language or symbolism. If you take the words literally, and remove all symbolism, then they lose a lot of meaning, including some of which you apply to them.