The Real Presence

[pablope]

What are you talking about? Eusebius, as far as I know, wrote about early Church history, and did not make bibles for Constantine. How could he make Bibles, there was no printing press then, and everything was copied by hand.

From AD 397, Council of Carthage: Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the] New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE)

Canon 59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

Canon 60. [After listing the books of the Old Testament] And these are the books of the New Testament: four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, seven Catholic epistles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, fourteen epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Notice here that Revelation is missing.

No, i am saying it is quite a miracle that we have the bible,.maybe only two ,yours and mine ,there are not 30000 ,at least not yet .

David…this is clearly what you said: "Quite true about Luther ,but he DID include them ,and **left it to the individual and God for conviction.Luther was NOT magisterially rigid. **Again Jerome had similar opinions on Hebrew and James etc,as did other scholars of Luther’s day .Luther was a good Catholic in these academic opinions. "

Seems to me you advocated individual determination of what the Bible should be, without realizing the result would be 30000 plus different Bibles. And Luther being " NOT magisterially rigid" has resulted in the your confusion, as seen by divergent beliefs of protestants. And you are a living example.

Just look at Lutheranism, because of the lack of a teaching authority, have different denoms in themselves.

And you have not answered this question, from post #841, David:

[SIGN]And if you are indeed going to follow Luther’s opinion on the DC books, then your Bible should also not have Hebrews, James, Revelations, which Luther opined should also not be in the Bible. So, why do accept these NT books in your Bible? [/SIGN]

Looks to me you are not being consistent.

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical,
I’m sorry but your argument or observation is still not consistent. Your logic is as follows:
If it is bread, then it can’t be a body therefore it is nothing but bread.
Well my reply would be to apply that to Jesus as follows:
If He is a human being then He can’t be God because God is Spirit and does not have a form nor a body.

You are missing the difference. With Jesus standing in front of the three of us (you, the non-believer and me) no one is suggesting that the human body of Jesus isn’t present. The presence of his human body is detected and verified by our senses. The question in that case is whether God is also present in the room with the presence of Jesus (the presence of God is not something that we would typically expect to detect and verify by our senses) With your Eucharist in front of the three of us, you are the only one suggesting that bread isn’t present. For the rest of us, the presence of bread is detected and verified by our senses. A bodily presence is something that we would typically expect to detect and verify by our senses.

Therefore, to conclude that the bread is not a body based on senses alone would force me to conclude that Jesus is not God based on senses alone. God is not supposed to be touched as physical matter is and yet Jesus (who is God) had flesh and can be touched.

the second sentence is an assumption…but in any event, Thomas touched Christ’s human flesh and not his divine nature…Jesus was both (human and divine) whereas your Eucharist isn’t claimed to be both (bread and body).

You mentioned the story of St. Thomas professing Jesus to be Lord and God when he saw Jesus resurrected. I can show you a similar story where two people’s eyes were opened in the breaking of the bread.

and? I agree with J Dunn that Luke 24:30 described a typical traveller’s fellowship meal (not a Lord’s Supper)…a fellowship meal being something that Christ would have likely shared with those two disciples on many occasions.

Hi Radical,
Because God is spirit and Jesus has a human flesh.
Alright. Then I can say the same thing. According to what we sense, flesh of a human being (and not God) is present.

Right, in contrast to a bodily presence, a divine presence is not determined by what we sense

Day to day experiences? I do believe we are dealing with the Scriptures here. Things happen in the Scriptures that don’t normally happen in our day to day experiences. People are healed from the diseases, their blindness and defness, a man is raised from the dead after 3 days in a tomb, things are created by a simple utterance of a Word from God, etc. Let’s be serious here.

indeed let’s…I’ll pick one of your examples. How was it determined that the fellow had a disease (say leprosy)? Answer: The people saw the symptons of leprosy. How was it determined that the fellow was healed of leprosy? Answer: the people saw that the symptons of leprosy were gone. Miracles were detected and verified in the same way as pretty well everything else was detected and verified on a day to day basis. Please note it surely wasn’t the case that the symptons of leprosy remained, and Christ was left to explain that the fellow had been really healed and that behind the signs of leprosy existed the substance of healed skin.

You won’t go as far as saying that a Divine Being can’t posses certain qualities and come to the conclusion that God can become man. Who are we to tell God His limits? Seriously? What are you saying here?

I am describing the argument that you provided for the hypothetical Jewish fellow.

That if God wanted to transform bread and wine into His Body and Blood and leave the accidents as bread and wine, that He couldn’t do it? Says who? You are putting God in a box and saying “Lord, you are unable to do this because I don’t see how it is possible so I can’t accept it.”

to be precise I am putting the Greek philosophy behind your claims into a box and kicking it to the curb. I wouldn’t call it a “transformation” when no accidents of a body are present and the accidents of bread remain…who still approaches the world from such a philosophical POV? …aside from Catholics that is, for this one thing.

I do believe He can transform bread and wine into His Body and His Blood without changing the appearance of the bread and wine. As ridiculous as that may sound to you, a Muslim or a Jew can rightly claim your faith in the incarnation to be just as ridiculous.

yes, they could claim it, but it would be on the basis of a different argument than I use against a RBP. This all started b/c GreyPilgrim wanted to know if Christ’s real flesh or symbolic flesh hung on the cross…how did Mary know that Jesus had been hung on the cross? She saw it with her eyes.

You keep assuming that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist derived from Greek Philosophy.

the accidents vs substance stuff IS Greek philosophy

Are you aware that there are people who would tell you that your Christian beliefs and Christianity as a whole has its roots in Greek Philosophy?

yep…one should evaluate a claim on the strength of the evidence and arguments that support the claim and not merely reject/accept everything b/c of the source

Yet, you would agree with these same people in saying the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist had its influence from GP. You are really on their side of the argument when it agrees with what you believe and when they say something that disagrees with your beliefs then you disagree with them.

yes, b/c what I believe is determined by the evidence and arguments in support thereof.

 

[Radical]

You don’t go around wondering which human being is God and which is not.

agreed…even if the fellow claimed to be God. Now, if he performed a whole lot of miracles and claimed to be God…that would be something to consider.

It doesn’t take Greek Philosophy for me to see God taking BREAD and saying “This is MY BODY” to understand that, that bread is no longer bread but it is His Body because He said so. I am not saying that this is something you are to accept based on what I am observing. I am saying that this is something that doesn’t require philosophy. The Evangelists call it Bread at one point and then Jesus says it is His Body.

again, the How that Catholics have provided is founded on Greek philosophy

Let me give you an example:
I own a clock. I drop this clock on the floor. The clock no longer works. I now use this clock for something else. I place it on top of my paper files so that the files do not fly away from a ceiling fan that I have on. Question: Is it still a clock? Yes. Is it now something else to ME? Yes, it is a paper holder. It has completely changed in what it does without changing in how it appears.

do you argue that the clock is no longer present? …hopefully not. hopefully you would say that a broken clock is present.

So, what you’re basically saying is that God can’t do it (Catholic Eucharist) because you don’t think He can.

I am saying that the Catholic description of what supposedly happens doesn’t jive with standard word usage… and that the philosophy behind the HOW doesn’t work (IMHO).

The “image of God” bit tells me that God loves humans more than a piece of bread. It doesn’t tell me that we are closer to God than a piece of bread is. Example:
I am a human being and I own a computer and a paper clip. The computer is more dear to me because it means more to me than a paper clip. Yet, I don’t consider the computer to be more equal to me than the paper clip. They are both mere objects to me

we are not mere objects to God

Prophets performed miracles. With your logic, prophets are Gods.

no…it would be that what they claim is validated by the miracles…did they claim to be God or to speak for God?

You also reject the miracles of the Eucharist. If those miracles really are bogus, then why can’t intelligent scientists explain them away? Why do they study them and can’t explain them away? Do you really think it’s as easy as you make it?

they haven’t been open to proper independent testing, have they? I could find a bit of heart tissue and get it independently tested to verify that it is human heart tissue and claim that it came from the transformation of a piece of bread in my kitchen a year ago…the test doesn’t verify the transformation b/c it can’t speak to what did or didn’t happen in my kitchen and in fact, the test couldn’t determine if the tissue sample was ever even in my kitchen

How about we think about this for a second. You expect this bread and wine to transform into actual body and blood. If God were to do it that way, we would be literally eating a piece of flesh and drinking literal blood.

agreed, so to claim that a bodily presence is involved or that you actually eat the Lord’s flesh is to abuse the English language

If Christ wanted us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, how would you want Him to have done it?

well, if it wasn’t figurative, then in accordance with the HOW that he provided…and he didn’t provide a HOW of transubstantiation. There is nothing to suggest that he introduced an entirely unique mode by which something would exist. He provided what was obviously a figure and the only reason (that I can imagine) why someone would not recognize such an obvious figure is that the fellow himself is not satisifed with a figure and thinks that he needs something more (or believes that he must follow the teaching of some authority that isn’t satisfied with a figure and thinks that something more is needed).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Can you say “Faith”?

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence* **of things not seen.a 2Because of it the ancients were well attested. 3b By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible. … 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him, **for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists **and that he rewards those who seek him.

Scriptures teach us how to discern the spiritual realities from the carnal mind in the Eucharist by “Faith”, “for it is the Spirit that gives life and the flesh is of no avail”= Jesus.

1Corinthians 2:10… **this God has revealed to us through the Spirit. **
For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.

12** We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.* **

14Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone**.

16For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ

A recommended Solution: A valid baptism in Christ Jesus gives us the Grace’s to have the faith regarding these mystical spiritual realities of Jesus true presence in His Eucharist. If you do not have a valid baptism in Jesus Christ, how can anyone come to the knowledge of Christ if one has not entered the kingdom of God by the washing of the rebirth “baptism”.

For the eternal bread which gives eternal life is only for the children of God. How does one cast his pearls before swine? If the natural (carnal mind) has not been washed in the blood of the lamb?

 

[david_ruiz]

And you have not answered this question, from post #841, David:

[SIGN]And if you are indeed going to follow Luther’s opinion on the DC books, then your Bible should also not have Hebrews, James, Revelations, which Luther opined should also not be in the Bible. So, why do accept these NT books in your Bible? [/SIGN]

Did answer, for the same reason Luther had them in his.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Maybe ,but I don’t think so .His initial response was not overblown.He followed procedure and sent letter to the powers to be for change .The Papal reaction was overblown.

Overblown? What history are you reading? The Church was incredibly patient while Luther continued to write volumes of heretical writings and letters while remaining a priest for the Church. It was four years unitl the Diet of Worms that Luther was officially confronted by Church officials, his teachings and writings condemned, and he was excommunicated.

As far as Luther goes, here’s a quote from one of his letters:
“If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. If the sacriligeous and cursed custom of the Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall.”(Letter to Henry VIII, 1522).
david ruiz:

The Grey Pilgrim:

He had no intention of working within the Church for reform.

Again ,at what point ?

You want the answer, see the above quote.
david ruiz:

I would say Rome had no intention of admitting ANY error. That guarantees truth ,right ?

"…That you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15).

That’s in the Bible.
david ruiz:

Why do the Jews not have them in their bible ?

Because a bunch of Jews meeting in Jamnia have no authority to decide what the canon is.
david ruiz:

Why don’t you have all apocryphal books in yours?

1 Tim 3:15
david ruiz:

Rome rejected some also.

1 Tim 3:15
david ruiz:

Let’s be cynical and say Catholic ,Lutherans, and Jews have an axe to grind ,and are incapable of being judiciously academic and true to God and His Holy Writ…

Again, relativism. There is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction. And there is also such a thing as the Holy Spirit. There were no Lutherns during the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century. Yes there was still many objectors as to what was decided to be in the canon. That is irrelevent. The Holy Spirit spoke through the Councils and through the Pope who ratified their decision. The canon was closed.
david ruiz:

As to the one word, “alone”, out of a half million, not a bad statistic .Thank God Germans had those correct half -million .I will forgive him the one possible error ,especially given the monumentous, prevailing prejudiced doctrine to overcome .

Whitewashing Luther’s acts does nothing for your intellectual honesty. He also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, and St. John’s Revelation.
david ruiz:

Fair question .It would best be answered with doctrinal basis for the “practice”. Has omething to with purgatory ,and stored up grace and merit etc etc etc.

Purgatory simply didn’t fit in with Luther’s theology that man’s nature was completely reprobate because of original sin, which was false. He cared little for the Church’s explaination that man’s nature is not totally reprobate, but wounded. That we who have been baptized into Christ are neither so horrible to receive eternal punishment when we die nor are we so perfected at death to be accepted into eternal beatitude(Rev 21:27).
david ruiz:

Nice try .Even you are in denial that anything negative was going on during Luther’s time .

Then you aren’t reading my posts. I never whitewashed anything.
david ruiz:

Why don’t you inject this in your family scenario- "We are tired of eating pizza and wings and ice cream every other night, or we are tired of you working all the time and not being home ". Now what ?

This is just a false analogy. You’re equating superficial behavior and eating habits with things that are fundamental to familial order. Apples and oranges my friend. Luther was wanting to turn everything upside down and inside-out. He wanted to remake the Church in his name and in his likeness.
david ruiz:

You tell your kids that we will continue our diet cause we’ve done it a long time ,as I did with my parents ,there is nothing wrong with being “plump” with clogged arteries" Indeed we being evil still know how to give our kids good things ,but we being evil also give our kids bad things ,down to the third generation ,such as bad habits .Again ,your unrealistic assumption is that parents are perfect.

You do know the meaning of what and analogy is, don’t you? It is meant to illistrate a point, it will be identical in some ways, but not in every way.

The point is that kids(Luther) have no right to throw out what God established. I never said that parents are perfect. But Luther had the obligation to OBEY in humility, not to rebel in pride.
david ruiz:

Out of the mouth of babes you will be rebuked ,and learn the ways of the Lord.

Spare me your sanctimonius verse slinging.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”(Heb 13:17)

If Luther wanted to really teach them the ways of the Lord then why did he follow the path of Satan: pride and disobedience. “Non servium!” is Luther’s eternal mantra. That says all I need to know.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Same basic agrument by Calvin. Problem is, which is why it was crushed by the church, is that it places man and Calvins and Luthers knowledge before Gods. St. Bellarmine would be the works to read.

Who was Calivin or Luther to speak on what God could or couldn’t do and ultimately did do? Foolish self-centered pride of man is what it came down to. The response was the needed change in the church through Trent. Most definately the Real Presence debate failed as we see.

Bellarmine quotes Calvin as saying that, “It is stupid to inquire where the souls of the just now live and whether they are in glory or not. Sacred Scripture explicitly teaches us that they must all wait until the second coming of Christ before entering into their glory. Bellarmine counters with the prayer of St. Paul when he exclaimed, “I wish to be dissolved and be with Christ.” Bellarmine adds that if the souls of the saved are detained in some other place than heaven, Paul’s desire would have been a Utopian dream since Christ is assuredly in heaven.

Hartmann Grisar on Luther,

“His opposition to the canonization of the saints was dictated by this hatred of all veneration of the saints and by his aversion to the ideal of Christian self-denial, submissive obedience to the Church and Catholic activity to which the canonized saints are models. Nowhere else is his attempt to destroy the sublime ideal of Christian life which he failed to understand and to drag down to the gutter of all that was highest, so clearly apparent as here. Striving after great holiness on the part of the individual merely tended to derogate from Christ’s work; the Evangelical Counsels fostered only a mistaken desertion of the world. Real saints must be “good lusty sinners who do not blush to insert in the Our Father, the: Forgive us our trespasses.”

Pretty much sums up the overall attitude of Calvin and Luther should you read through his debates with Erasmus this vile voice will be heard is the words. Yes, such Christian humility.

However as Erasmus and Bellarmine both concluded…we must proceed with charity. A concept lacking with the reformers, and very much true today also.

St. Bellarmines work so upset the reformers they banned it in England. BTW The Saint took that as compliment.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

Same basic agrument by Calvin. Problem is, which is why it was crushed by the church, is that it places man and Calvins and Luthers knowledge before Gods. St. Bellarmine would be the works to read.

Who was Calivin or Luther to speak on what God could or couldn’t do and ultimately did do? Foolish self-centered pride of man is what it came down to. The response was the needed change in the church through Trent. Most definately the Real Presence debate failed as we see.

Bellarmine quotes Calvin as saying that, “It is stupid to inquire where the souls of the just now live and whether they are in glory or not. Sacred Scripture explicitly teaches us that they must all wait until the second coming of Christ before entering into their glory. Bellarmine counters with the prayer of St. Paul when he exclaimed, “I wish to be dissolved and be with Christ.” Bellarmine adds that if the souls of the saved are detained in some other place than heaven, Paul’s desire would have been a Utopian dream since Christ is assuredly in heaven.

Hartmann Grisar on Luther,

“His opposition to the canonization of the saints was dictated by this hatred of all veneration of the saints and by his aversion to the ideal of Christian self-denial, submissive obedience to the Church and Catholic activity to which the canonized saints are models. Nowhere else is his attempt to destroy the sublime ideal of Christian life which he failed to understand and to drag down to the gutter of all that was highest, so clearly apparent as here. Striving after great holiness on the part of the individual merely tended to derogate from Christ’s work; the Evangelical Counsels fostered only a mistaken desertion of the world. Real saints must be “good lusty sinners who do not blush to insert in the Our Father, the: Forgive us our trespasses.”

Pretty much sums up the overall attitude of Calvin and Luther should you read through his debates with Erasmus this vile voice will be heard is the words. Yes, such Christian humility.

However as Erasmus and Bellarmine both concluded…we must proceed with charity. A concept lacking with the reformers, and very much true today also.

St. Bellarmines work so upset the reformers they banned it in England. BTW The Saint took that as compliment.

Peace

I wonder if Radical has read Bellarmine?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wonder if Radical has read Bellarmine?

No he only read on the reformers and not the counter-reformation. That would appeal to the Radical side. I understand that.

 

[david_ruiz]

Same basic agrument by Calvin. Problem is, which is why it was crushed by the church, is that it places man and Calvins and Luthers knowledge before Gods. St. Bellarmine would be the works to read.

Who was Calivin or Luther to speak on what God could or couldn’t do and ultimately did do? Foolish self-centered pride of man is what it came down to. The response was the needed change in the church through Trent. Most definately the Real Presence debate failed as we see.

Bellarmine quotes Calvin as saying that, “It is stupid to inquire where the souls of the just now live and whether they are in glory or not. Sacred Scripture explicitly teaches us that they must all wait until the second coming of Christ before entering into their glory. Bellarmine counters with the prayer of St. Paul when he exclaimed, “I wish to be dissolved and be with Christ.” Bellarmine adds that if the souls of the saved are detained in some other place than heaven, Paul’s desire would have been a Utopian dream since Christ is assuredly in heaven.

Hartmann Grisar on Luther,

“His opposition to the canonization of the saints was dictated by this hatred of all veneration of the saints and by his aversion to the ideal of Christian self-denial, submissive obedience to the Church and Catholic activity to which the canonized saints are models. Nowhere else is his attempt to destroy the sublime ideal of Christian life which he failed to understand and to drag down to the gutter of all that was highest, so clearly apparent as here. Striving after great holiness on the part of the individual merely tended to derogate from Christ’s work; the Evangelical Counsels fostered only a mistaken desertion of the world. Real saints must be “good lusty sinners who do not blush to insert in the Our Father, the: Forgive us our trespasses.”

Pretty much sums up the overall attitude of Calvin and Luther should you read through his debates with Erasmus this vile voice will be heard is the words. Yes, such Christian humility.

However as Erasmus and Bellarmine both concluded…we must proceed with charity. A concept lacking with the reformers, and very much true today also.

St. Bellarmines work so upset the reformers they banned it in England. BTW The Saint took that as compliment.

Peace

Good thing we don’t follow Luther. Maybe I should say the office he stood for, the “event” he stood for, the “calling”, was holy , and to be respected , even if Luther wasn’t .Yes ,that sounds good ,I hear that a lot from some Catholics, defending some of their…
But thank-you , it is fascinating history.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good thing we don’t follow Luther. Maybe I should say the office he stood for, the “event” he stood for, the “calling”, was holy , and to be respected , even if Luther wasn’t .Yes ,that sounds good ,I hear that a lot from some Catholics, defending some of their…
But thank-you , it is fascinating history.

You follow the…Reformation. Silly Rabbit, Trix are for Kids.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good thing we don’t follow Luther. Maybe I should say the office he stood for, the “event” he stood for, the “calling”, was holy , and to be respected , even if Luther wasn’t .Yes ,that sounds good ,I hear that a lot from some Catholics, defending some of their…
But thank-you , it is fascinating history.

David, I think you missed the point of Trent. That was in understanding the reformation brought real needed change. However the reformation never seems to acknowedge it needs any change, just another church???

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

David, I think you missed the point of Trent. That was in understanding the reformation brought real needed change. However the reformation never seems to acknowedge it needs any change, just another church???

And notice that the Church never backed off of indulgences, either. In fact she defended the practice of offering indulgences(not selling them of course).

Still waiting for Radical or David to come over to the thread I started to answer my question…

 

[david_ruiz]

. Could you please tell me what bibles do not have 27 nt books (or at least thier content-that is not combining books) ? I thought I know our two bibles differ slightly in books, so we are up to two bibles .Where are the other 29998 ?
Again let’s be genuine please ,Luther said nothing that many early and contemporary fathers said. He included the 27 as did all the others. However ,some of the books were "disputed " by some since day 1 .All the others were not disputed by anyone .It was totally ok to “dispute” the authenticity /authorship of a letter .There were forgeries and spuroius books the early churches had to sift thru .So please , Jerome and others said similar things about some of these books in their prefaces to the books ,as do bibles of today.Eusebius attests to this also.He speaks of 4 classes of writings: 1- the universally accepted,2-the disputed-James ,2 peter, jude 2,3, john, 3-spurious-acts of Paul ,didache,S of hermas, 4- forgeries by heretics-gospel of peter ,thomas ,mattias,acts of andrew and john.Please notice they (1 and 2 ) are included, however as Holy Writ …Some are more obvious than others .The 27 are a consensus ,but not always unanimous. All Luther did was to give you his academic opinion ,like others did (Catholics),but left it open for other studies /opinions.If you knock Luther for his prefaces ,then you must also knock other catholic scholars /fathers who had similar opinions/prefaces(and for what? They all still would have them in the 27).Bash Luther for this and you bash Jerome.
J

According to Halleys bible commentary-Eusebius made fifty bibles for the churches of Constantinople (325 ?), by orders from Constantine-using the finest velum and skilled copyists.He had all our new testament books and no more.It is believed the Vatican still may have an original.Origen(185-254) quotes almost 2/3 's of NT in his extensive writings (like Lyrikal)and had the 27 books.The old latin version of the bible (160 ad ) had 24 books (not hebrews ,james, 2peter)

 

[david_ruiz]

David, I think you missed the point of Trent. That was in understanding the reformation brought real needed change. However the reformation never seems to acknowedge it needs any change, just another church???

Thank-you .Yes i heard of some later change .Again the change was in the Church’s terms ,“saving face” ,was critical in those perilous times. Could you list a few changes/reforms.I know the Jesuits did a lot ,cleaning up clergy behavior ,doing good works ,educating.They won a lot of german princes back to Catholicism during that long and postponed council,sealing the ill fate of any Lutheran requests/reforms.

 

[david_ruiz]

You follow the…Reformation. Silly Rabbit, Trix are for Kids.

Did you fill in the blank ? or shall i finish my sentence,seriously.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

Because the Bible doesn’t say that we symbolically eat Christ.

Well that is what we are contesting/discussing.

There is no verse in the Bible that says that we are symbolically eating the Lamb when we eat the Eucharistic meal.

Your assumption is that it is literal .It would require some explanation ,for it would be un-Jewish for a literal int. There is zero info on trans.,or as Radical says, to you ,the “how”. Zero. Normally ,I’d say, "ok ,Jesus said it ,that settles it ",except for the whole Jewish context , including the Passover.Again some explanation from Jesus would be nice ,as He did at other times.An explanation would still require faith.

The word symbolized is never used in the Bible when discussing the Last Supper and what Jesus instituted. But, I know what you mean by your question and I will answer “yes the Lamb is symbolized in the bread” if we understand what we mean by symbolized. I don’t mean that it is merely a symbol. It is really His flesh because He said “This IS my body” not “This symbolizes my body.”

Thanks for the I know what you mean .I got your points also.Thanks

 

[david_ruiz]

=lyrikal;8335921Hi David,

You said you believe in Tradition and Church Authority as long as those two are in par with the Scriptures and agree. I would disagree with this statement. I would agree that Tradition and Church Authority CANNOT contradict the Bible but I don’t agree that they HAVE TO AGREE with the Bible. Here is an example:

A.) The New Testament has a set of 27 books.
B.) There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us what books should be in the Bible.
C.) We know what books are to be in the Bible because of Tradition and Church Authority (as guided by the Holy Spirit).
D.) Therefore, Tradition has additional teachings that are not found in the Bible that do NOT contradict the Bible but are still additional.

I understand .now that we have the 27 does that change things ? is there an example wher non-agreement is ok ?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Well that is what we are contesting/discussing.

Your assumption is that it is literal .It would require some explanation ,for it would be un-Jewish for a literal int.

Begging the question. The Jews understood correctly just what Jesus was saying, hence their incredulousness. He gave no correction. So what He said is how He meant it.
david ruiz:

There is zero info on trans.,or as Radical says, to you ,the “how”. Zero. Normally ,I’d say, "ok ,Jesus said it ,that settles it ",except for the whole Jewish context , including the Passover.Again some explanation from Jesus would be nice ,as He did at other times.An explanation would still require faith.

This shows just how inconsistent your logic is.

Do you or Radical need a “how” as to the Incarnation? How the eternal God can become a single cell inside of a woman and grow to be a man? No.

Do you need a “how” to the numerous miracles? No.

Do you need a “how” as to God the Son dying on the cross? No.

Do you need a “how” as to His resurrection? No.

But THIS you need a “how” to before you believe?

I’m still waiting for that answer to my other question…

 

[david_ruiz]

[Because a bunch of Jews meeting in Jamnia have no authority to decide what the canon is.

Why didn’t jesus quote from the “secondary ,uninspired books” of the septuaguint ?

Whitewashing Luther’s acts does nothing for your intellectual honesty. He also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, and St. John’s Revelation.

[/QUOTE]