The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8342030:

“Not clear what the believers thought”???

, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

IOW, they heard it exeactly the same way that the Jews-the “non-believers”-heard it. Again there are believers and non-believers .The non -belief group consisted of two groups : # 1- the people who followed him vs 24, and many disciples, vs 60- they both “murmured” and both left. The belief group “-the 12”, vs 67. Why do you have the disciples that left as believers ?. Are you assuming that because they were disciples that they were believers ? Vs. 64 seems to indicate that “from the beginning they believed not”.

I highly doubt that you’ll argue that His flesh availed nothing, that is if you assert what every other protestant asserts by falsely citing v 63.

Agree with you. Primary meaning is that by ourselves we can not follow Christ (in our flesh).The Father draws us. This to me is a main topic ,not RP. However ,a secondary meaning could include RP availeth nothing (Augustine: leave your belly or teeth behind ,and eat by faith literally (spirit).

[64] But there are some of you (disciples) that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

To “lean” to a merely figurative “understanding” without any indication from teh text to do so is to impose your preconceived beliefs onto the text. You are committing eisegesis.

And to deny Jewish law and culture on flesh eating allows for your preconceptions…A Catholic brother above says we should look at the times and culture for understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I hope that you’re really not proposing that lack of OT citations from Jesus is an indicator of lack of canonicity.

If so, then you’re going to have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted by Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

I hope that you’re really not proposing that lack of OT citations from Jesus is an indicator of lack of canonicity.

If so, then you’re going to have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted by Christ.

Good point .thank-you. Were any of these books combined ? I mean if he quotes 2nd Chronicles, wouldn’t you think 1st chronicles is ok.?
Both our points stand together. I would say generally that if Jesus quotes from a book , it is a “further indication” of it’s inspiration and authenticity.May I never shy away from a reasoned faith boost.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Again there are believers and non-believers .The non -belief group consisted of two groups : # 1- the people who followed him vs 24, and many disciples, vs 60- they both “murmured” and both left. The belief group “-the 12”, vs 67. Why do you have the disciples that left as believers ?. Are you assuming that because they were disciples that they were believers ? Vs. 64 seems to indicate that “from the beginning they believed not”.

You’re whole argument is irrelevent. The question is not “who” were believers or not. The question is what they heard. And for what they heard Him say they all heard Him say the same thing. Again, there was no elaboration on Jesus’ part. At no time did Jesus pull the twelve aside and say, “OK, OK, I was just kidding, I was speaking symbolically, so you can calm down now.”

He meant what He said.
david ruiz:

Agree with you. Primary meaning is that by ourselves we can not follow Christ (in our flesh).The Father draws us. This to me is a main topic ,not RP.

Again, “The words that I have said to you”…
"53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

“…are spirit and life.”

That is not merely about “following Christ” in your reductionist protestant sense.

The Eucharist is THE main topic because the Eucharist IS Christ.
david ruiz:

However ,a secondary meaning could include RP availeth nothing (Augustine: leave your belly or teeth behind ,and eat by faith literally (spirit).

Only by imposing protestantism onto the text.

As far as Augustine, you quote him just as badly as you quote Scripture. Your proetstant sensibilities are bordering on gnosticism.
david ruiz:

[64] But there are some of you (disciples) that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

And to deny Jewish law and culture on flesh eating allows for your preconceptions…A Catholic brother above says we should look at the times and culture for understanding.

And Jesus often flew in the face of Jewish cultural norms. I have much more to say on this but the RP must be addressed before any further diologue can be fruitful.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

david, why won’t you answer my question?

Was the flesh the flesh that Jesus offered for the life of the world on the cross His literal flesh or symbolic flesh?

 

[PRmerger]

Good point .thank-you. Were any of these books combined ? I mean if he quotes 2nd Chronicles, wouldn’t you think 1st chronicles is ok.?

Well, a Catholic wouldn’t have to worry either way, for we know it’s not our individual decision as to what is* theopneustos* and what is not, but trust in the authority of the Church.

Actually, as I type that I realize that you, a non-Catholic, also simply have to trust in the authority of the Church to discern what is theopneustos.

Unless you want to give us a Bible verse which says that if Jesus quotes from a verse in the OT then that makes it inspired.

Both our points stand together.

I don’t think so. Your point that if Jesus quotes from an OT book that makes it inspired is not found in Scripture. You are making a man-made criterion.

Not to mention that then the corollary must also be true. The NT quotes from some non-canonical books: Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, plus some Greek pagans, so if you’re going to make the above your criterion, it would follow that Enoch and the A of M are also inspired, no?

I would say generally that if Jesus quotes from a book , it is a “further indication” of it’s inspiration and authenticity.

It is because the Church discerned, under the guidance of the HS, that it is inspired.

After all, you wouldn’t know what Jesus said were it not for the authority of the CC.

May I never shy away from a reasoned faith boost.

It is why you are here, to be sure, david. I believe the HS is calling you home, and you, obedient servant, hear His Voice.

 

[david_ruiz]

IOW it really doesn’t “prove” anything. Which was my point.

Begging the question. You, by your own admission, said that the Bible is not the exhaustive on what books Jesus quoted from.]

don’t believe i said that

You “thought” wrong. And you are ignorant of biblical history. The Septuagint was the result of Seventy (hence “septu”)Jewish priests in Alexandria in the first century BC translating the Hebrew scriptures into common Greek for the Jews of the diaspora. This included what you call “apocryphal” books.

Thank-you .I guess it was the King of Egypt that began the process with the commissioning of the seventy. It began with the Torah ,then prophets .I am not sure they had all the apocryphyl books( term from Jerome meaning “questionable authenticity”),I heard they were added over the next century.

Secondly, the Jews only decided to even meet to proclaim the “inspiration” of the scriptures AFTER the advent of Christianity. Their citeria was arbitrary and they no longer had any authority to proclaim anything.

It is speculation that Jerusalem ever read them in the synagogue.You have paradigm of top down management ,even with Holy Writ, that somehow church institution or magisterium only declares what is inspired .Perhaps , but some are inspired because thus saith the Lord ,which I am not sure those doubted books do. Like the Jews did not have a bible per say. Rome did not declare these books canon till Trent (1550 ish ?) A much needed boost to fight Luther for in it ,apocryphl book, is purgatory ,and alms for the dead -also It is interesting the Council rejected 2nd Esdras, because it speaks against prayers for the dead 7:105. ? Don’t know

That “pagan” cab do whatever he pleases, but nowhere does he have any authority. Just like Mormons and their book.

Some think it was a pagan who started the Septuagint (egyptian king).And the Mormons I hear love the apocyphal books.

1. You’re taking the verse out of context. Finish the sentence. If we can WILL what is right, we are not reprobate.

Never said we are reprobate after salvation .After rebirth ,you can will to do good but that don’t mean you will. Again ,who told you what is a good thing to will ?

1. You’re also ignoring the context of the Letter to the Romans itself. He is writing to people who are already Christians! They have already been called, they have already been given regeneration in baptism, they have already received God’s grace.

NO .I applied the stuff to Paul himself ,as he does -he is" the wretched man."
3)

You are ignorant of human nature. Even as an atheist I could love people and do good to and for people. Even in Rome, during the fire of 64 a.d., there are stories of Romans helping children and invalids to safety at the risk of their own lives. These are the same people who exposed their children on the Tiber if they didn’t want them.

Yes ,jesus said you being evil still know how to be good to our kids .Maybe he didn’t know that none doeth good no not one(rom 3:11)'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" Job14:4 There is none that doeth good ,no not one Psalms 53
We can" behold righteousness in unrighteousness".

Again, you are doing offense to the text. Finish the sentence.

So our flesh has a good will ?

So you’re saying that we can’t have life without being completely deprived of it?

That’s pretty good way of putting it .The seed must die .Did we not die in Christ and rise in new life ? Lose your life to save it. Again it is full grace we are talking about ,being made after His likeness.You can’t get any fuller , life more abundantly ,not just life (which, as you correctly point out, has some grace).

Where in the Bible did Jesus condemn valid moral and religious law?

Sorry you misread me or i miswrote .i meant to say "setting us free from the law (religious or moral) and the condemnation they bring .I did not mean Jesus condemns law.Sorry."Therefore there is no more condemnation in Christ…(Rom 8:1)

 

[david_ruiz]

david, why won’t you answer my question?

Was the flesh the flesh that Jesus offered for the life of the world on the cross His literal flesh or symbolic flesh?

Oh,is that the question ? I recall it .I was waiting for thread 999.I have stated on some thread above “I believe He came and died and rose again in the flesh”.I am not like those Ignatius wrote about who did not believe he came in flesh and hence did not partake of communion(RP).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

don’t believe i said that

You admitted that the Bible is not the exhaustive account as to what Jesus said during His life. So you can’t use the “argument from silence” fallacy to argue that since the Bible doesn’t record Jesus quoting from them that that automatically disqualifies them.

We have ample evidence from the writings of the Church fathers and their usage of what you call the “apocrypha” in their letters that demonstrate that they considered all the books of the Septuagint “Scripture”. And that would have to come from the Apostles, most notably Paul.
david ruiz:

Thank-you .I guess it was the King of Egypt that began the process with the commissioning of the seventy. It began with the Torah ,then prophets .I am not sure they had all the apocryphyl books( term from Jerome meaning “questionable authenticity”),I heard they were added over the next century.

While I consider Jerome’s opinion as being more credible in most cases as compared to protestants, that doesn;t mean that Jerome was infallible. The bottom line is that he still included the books in his list, which was the same as the canons that came out of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
david ruiz:

It is speculation that Jerusalem ever read them in the synagogue.

I never said that. Read what I posted.
david ruiz:

You have paradigm of top down management ,even with Holy Writ, that somehow church institution or magisterium only declares what is inspired.

So Jesus was lying in Matt 16:15-19; Luke 10:16; and Paul was lying in 1 Tim 3:15?

It’s circular logic to insist that the Bible is inspired and authoritative because it says it is.

And Jesus didn’t give “all authority in heaven and on earth” to a book, He gave it to the Church.

The Church confirms the inspiration and authority of Sacred Scripture.
david ruiz:

Perhaps , but some are inspired because thus saith the Lord ,which I am not sure those doubted books do.

Then show me the verse from each book of the Bible where Jesus says that THAT book is inspired.
david ruiz:

Like the Jews did not have a bible per say.

They really didn’t, not in the sense that you think they did. The Sadducees insisted that the Torah alone was “scripture”(hence they rejected bodily resurrection). The Pharisees added the Prophets and the Wisdom literature to the Torah and called that “scripture”. They also added their interpretive writings to that and called that “scripture”.

Seems that by insisting on Jewish authority for determining your canon you affirm too much.
david ruiz:

Rome did not declare these books canon till Trent (1550 ish ?) A much needed boost to fight Luther for in it ,apocryphl book, is purgatory ,and alms for the dead -also It is interesting the Council rejected 2nd Esdras, because it speaks against prayers for the dead 7:105. ? Don’t know.

Wrong. Try the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 & 397:
Notably Canon # 24
Councils of Hippo & Carthage

But as a former Catholic you should have already known this?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

david ruiz:

Some think it was a pagan who started the Septuagint (egyptian king).And the Mormons I hear love the apocyphal books.

You’re trying to insinuate that by “starting” it he was its author? Talk about a red herring.

And you obviously haven’t conversed with many Mormons, have you. You do know that they are protestant, don’t you?
david ruiz:

Never said we are reprobate after salvation .After rebirth ,you can will to do good but that don’t mean you will. Again ,who told you what is a good thing to will ?

That’s what Luther believed. “Dunghills covered in snow”.
david ruiz:

NO .I applied the stuff to Paul himself ,as he does -he is" the wretched man."

Was Paul a “saved” man-according to your theology-or not?
david ruiz:

1. Yes ,jesus said you being evil still know how to be good to our kids.

Maybe he didn’t know that none doeth good no not one(rom 3:11)

'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" Job14:4

There is none that doeth good ,no not one Psalms 53
We can" behold righteousness in unrighteousness".

You really like to wrench scripture out of context to make it say whatever you want it to, don’t you?

Using your method I can prove from scripture that “there is no God.” Your method of scripture citation is laughably absurd.

Rom 3:11 is Paul citing Psalm 14:1-3. Paul is using it to expound on man’s bondage to Original Sin. In no way does it support total depravity.

Pslam 14:5 speaks of “the company of the just”-hence not totally depraved. They do not even have the fulness of grace that we have in Christ, yet there are dozens who are declared “just” in the OT.
david ruiz:

So our flesh has a good will ?

We are not our flesh. We are "I"s. We are subjects, our “flesh” is our object, it is not us.

We are persons with both a body and a soul. We have an intellect and a will. This is basic human nature?
david ruiz:

That’s pretty good way of putting it .The seed must die .Did we not die in Christ and rise in new life ? Lose your life to save it. Again it is full grace we are talking about ,being made after His likeness.You can’t get any fuller , life more abundantly ,not just life (which, as you correctly point out, has some grace).

And you can’t get fuller grace than Jesus in the Eucharist, which is what you left by becoming protestant.
david ruiz:

Sorry you misread me or i miswrote .i meant to say "setting us free from the law (religious or moral) and the condemnation they bring .I did not mean Jesus condemns law.Sorry."Therefore there is no more condemnation in Christ…(Rom 8:1)

“…that is IF the Spirit of Christ is in you.”

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Oh,is that the question ? I recall it .I was waiting for thread 999.I have stated on some thread above “I believe He came and died and rose again in the flesh”.I am not like those Ignatius wrote about who did not believe he came in flesh and hence did not partake of communion(RP).

So it was His literal flesh?

OK then answer this:

** Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?**

 

[benedictus2]

Thank-you for admitting the apostles did not fully understand ,leaving the possibility for both RP AND symbolism .Peter’s “where shall we go” is very weak , but "You have the words of eternal life " may be a key to figurative acceptance ,Words =eating Him , for both somehow give/lead to eternal life.

Not at all. As a matter of fact - this is precisely what we claim, that the Eucharist comes from the Christ’s Words.

The Bread is His Flesh, the Wine is His Blood precisely because Christ said so (ex vi verborum).

What God says goes.

Let there be light. There was light.

This is my flesh, my blood ? Well you better believe it is because it was God who said so.

And by the way, you still have not come up with proof for your contention that the Church in the first 100 years did not believe in the real presence.

 

[benedictus2]

Again ,you stated they supported RP .I said they don’t. Prove to me they do ?

Not that easy my dear. You are the one who is making the claim. Nice try but it won’t work because people here have already given you proof.

As a matter of fact, Paul writes of it.

So again, where do you base your claim that the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence?

 

[benedictus2]

Hi David,

I understood what you meant. The issue is with the blood of the lamb. Eating the flesh of the lamb could mean eating the Body of Christ had Christ chosen to do it that way, but the issue is: how was he to have given us His blood? Were we to drink of the blood of the lamb?

no cause i don’t think that was Jewish ritual .It was meat ,drink /wine ,bread ,wasn’t it ?

And lyrikal’s point is exactly what I said earlier. When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse, He did not give them the “how”. How do they eat his bread and drink his blood.

But in the synoptics, He does. In the synoptics, however He does not give them any explanation for what He just did because He already did that one year before at another passover.

 

[pablope]

I admit you lost me ,and i am at fault .Am not sure about Luther contetsing OT books but yes on NT…

David…that is why your protestant bible has 7 books less than the catholic bible. He started tinkering with the canon, that was undisputed since AD 397. That is why the council of trent made a declaration. You will find this out as you study more about the development of the canon.

At any rate, Luther then is the good guy ,cause you say he included ALL the books , OT and NT. (I thought you guys said he kicked some out ?).
Anyways, he is the good guy

 

[pablope]

No, this is your assumption ,that because we can freely be convicted of truth ,that we will all have diffrent Bibles ,when in fact we don’t .Why/? Could it be that there is some invisible universalism going on ,without top down authority ? Apparently there is ,at least with scriptural cannon(again relative universal in that only one or two cannons,and those two pretty close-not thousands )

On the contrary, David…there is an authority here on earth…that is why there are no 30000 different Bibles…and that is the Catholic Church…that you unwittingly follow for having made the declaration about the canon of the Bible. And through its infallible authority and its witness that is why you believe the Bible is the word of God.

Yes ,analyze Luther indepndently ,on it’s own merits ,but also in context of history and other factors.This is wise. Otherwise ,people will think Luther was a total rebel and fabricator, and the only one who ever said such things as in his prefaces to the “books”.Would you prefer such errors ? .

 

[david_ruiz]

You admitted that the Bible is not the exhaustive account as to what Jesus said during His life. So you can’t use the “argument from silence” fallacy to argue that since the Bible doesn’t record Jesus quoting from them that that automatically disqualifies them]

]Disagree .Apostles never quoted apocrypha ,but did 34 of 39 OT books.The ONE verse of Paul I ackmoledge you have info on ,but there equally responsive /rebuttals ,that he actualy alluded to OT.ECF’s have their debate also.And I disagree to the term ALL apocrypha,for some are better diputed or held than others.But I understand ,ALL the ones the Church cannonized must be inspired for you.

While I consider Jerome’s opinion as being more credible in most cases as compared to protestants, that doesn;t mean that Jerome was infallible

.Wow .thank-you for that. The bottom line is that he still included the books in his list, which was the same as the canons that came out of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.Understand,He was pressured form “friends”, as was Luther and King James to include them.

I never said that. Read what I posted.

we misunderstood.

So Jesus was lying in Matt 16:15-19; Luke 10:16; and Paul was lying in 1 Tim 3:15?

No ,but when you make out Peter and the church ,more of an institution than intended,you ursurp authority and church and apostles and scripture as intended.The “Church” was being blessed by Peter (oral) and scripture from early on ,before any formal "council 'Give credit where credit is due ,Yes thank the council for it’s decrees ,but to say or insinuate they had no bible before,or that we owe it all to church heirarchy or even the council , is wrong .Again ,we had complete bibles BEFORE the councils ,and yes because of the Church visible and invisible…

The Church confirms the inspiration and authority of Sacred Scripture.

And i did so from day one that some were written and so on ,way before the council.

They really didn’t, not in the sense that you think they did. The Sadducees insisted that the Torah alone was “scripture”(hence they rejected bodily resurrection). The Pharisees added the Prophets and the Wisdom literature to the Torah and called that “scripture”. They also added their interpretive writings to that and called that “scripture”.

unfair reasoning .The jews had the Torah and prophets all along Just because one sect did not believ in somebooks has no bearing .That would be like the bhuddhists saying all of Christendom does not have a bible because protetstants don’t have the Apocrypha,hence incomplete. I do not beleive their interpretive writings were ever considered “scripture” ,hence they were referred to differently -The Talmud :Wrong.

Try the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 & 397:

Trent did something too,I believe.

[/QUOTE]

 

[david_ruiz]

Not that easy my dear. You are the one who is making the claim. Nice try but it won’t work because people here have already given you proof.

As a matter of fact, Paul writes of it.

So again, where do you base your claim that the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence?

No evidence for RP in ECF"s was given before 130 AD,except perhaps Ignatius ,which was easily contested but thanks (that I recall ,after almost1000 threads)

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Disagree . Apostles never quoted apocrypha ,but did 34 of 39 OT books.

Begging the question. There is no way that you know everything which the Apostles said, much less know enough to make such a statement. The OT canon that we use and call the Septuagint has been universally testified by the ECF’s as that which was handed on to them from the Aposltes.
david ruiz:

ECF’s have their debate also. And I disagree to the term ALL apocrypha,for some are better diputed or held than others.But I understand ,ALL the ones the Church cannonized must be inspired for you.

The fact is that Holy Spirit closed the canon despite their opinions and debates.
david ruiz:

.Wow .thank-you for that. The bottom line is that he still included the books in his list, which was the same as the canons that came out of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.Understand,He was pressured form “friends”, as was Luther and King James to include them.

Which makes your point for Luther’s arbitrary criteria how?
david ruiz:

No ,but when you make out Peter and the church ,more of an institution than intended,you ursurp authority and church and apostles and scripture as intended.

1. I don’t “make out” anything. Jesus founded this “institution”. Jesus knew it would become what it is. The book of Acts clearly shows a heirarchical Church in action, nit this mere “fellow travelers on the way” idea that protestants posit.
2. You falsely assume that the oak tree in its fulness will look exactly like the acorn. There’s no “usurping” anything.
3. You mean “as intended” as in “how I think it should have been intended”. IOW you’re begging the question, presupposing that protestantism is true.

david ruiz:

The “Church” was being blessed by Peter (oral) and scripture from early on ,before any formal "council ’

The Council of Jerusalem was not a formal council?
david ruiz:

Give credit where credit is due ,Yes thank the council for it’s decrees ,but to say or insinuate they had no bible before,or that we owe it all to church heirarchy or even the council , is wrong .

Relativists always accuse their opponents of being absolutists. Nowhere did I say that they had “no bible”. They had the Septuagint, they had the Gospels, and they had "the memoirs of the Apostles. They also had other letters from ECF’s that were read. They had the Martyrologies. They had the Didache & numerous other works that were all read during Mass. Are all of these “scripture”. No.

The Church set the criteria for which of these works were in the canon, they set apart those that met those criteria and called them “Scripture” and the rest they ordered to not to be read at Mass; and they did so infallibly in a Council.
david ruiz:

Again ,we had complete bibles BEFORE the councils ,and yes because of the Church visible and invisible…

No, not in the way you assume. And if “Church, visible and invisible” you mean the “the Catholic Church” then you are correct. If you mean that rediculous notion of protestantism of “all believers everywhere” no matter how their doctrines contradict then are you really willing to call gnostics “christians”?
david ruiz:

unfair reasoning .The jews had the Torah and prophets all along Just because one sect did not believ in somebooks has no bearing.

1)Thank you for making the Catholic Church’s position against protestantism for me.

2)“unfair reasoning”? Never heard that one before. Is that a formal or deductive fallacy?
david ruiz:

That would be like the bhuddhists saying all of Christendom does not have a bible because protetstants don’t have the Apocrypha,hence incomplete.

Bhuddists at best are agnostic about God. Also they believe all paths are paths to the divine “All”. They do not bother with such distinctions so they would not say that at all. It’s just a bad analogy.
david ruiz:

I do not beleive their interpretive writings were ever considered “scripture” ,hence they were referred to differently -The Talmud :Wrong. Trent did something too,I believe.

What you subjectively believe is irrelevent. Their interpretations were in fact believed to be on par with scripture.

Trent reaffirmed, because of Luther’s heresy, what the previous Councils already proclaimed. So your point is moot.

 

[CopticChristian]

No evidence for RP in ECF"s was given before 130 AD,except perhaps Ignatius ,which was easily contested but thanks (that I recall ,after almost1000 threads)

How many of those threads were posted by those that believe in the Real Presence?