Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[MarysSon]

It's called textual criticism. We do this with all texts of antiquity. You were being disingenuous by implying the extant documents were from the early 2nd century when in fact they are much later. Thus the integrity of your quote is in serious question.

In "fact"??
You didn't prove your hypothesis. You simply quoted a guy who believes them to be false.

I can quote TEN guys who say Scripture is false - but that doesn't "prove" anything . . .

 

[Particular]

Nothing "magical" about the power of God.

With God ALL things are possible (Matt. 19:26).

God does not need to turn bread into flesh or wine into blood for a person to remember Jesus atoning sacrifice. Transubstantiation is an alchemy term that applies to the Roman Catholic mysticism never taught by Christ Jesus or his Apostles.

 

[MarysSon]

God does not need to turn bread into flesh or wine into blood for a person to remember Jesus atoning sacrifice. Transubstantiation is an alchemy term that applies to the Roman Catholic mysticism never taught by Christ Jesus or his Apostles.

God doesn't "need" to do anything.

He doesn't nee YOU and He doesn't need me - and He certainly didn't need to come down here and be nailed to a cross and die an agonizing death.

God does because God WILLS - not because YOU think it's a good idea.
God knows we are physical people with tangible needs - so He gives us tangible means to impart His grace.
WATER Baptism.
The EUCHARIST.
Anointing the sick with OIL.

When Christ healed the Blind Man - did He "Need" to use mud - or was it simply a tangible means for a physical people??
STUDY your Bible . . .

 

[Particular]

God doesn't "need" to do anything.

He doesn't nee YOU and He doesn't need me - and He certainly didn't need to come down here and be nailed to a cross and die an agonizing death.

God does because God WILLS - not because YOU think it's a good idea.
God knows we are physical people with tangible needs - so He gives us tangible means to impart His grace.
WATER Baptism.
The EUCHARIST.
Anointing the sick with OIL.

When Christ healed the Blind Man - did He "Need" to use mud - or was it simply a tangible means for a physical people??
STUDY your Bible . . .

Great, so God had no need to be an alchemist at the Last Supper. Instead, God showed how the Passover Lamb was fulfilled in Christ, while you imagine it's a treatise on alchemy.

 

[Adonia]

If Jesus was not speaking literally, He would be advocating symbolic cannibalism.

Ha! Great reply.

 

[Adonia]

Great, so God had no need to be an alchemist at the Last Supper. Instead, God showed how the Passover Lamb was fulfilled in Christ, while you imagine it's a treatise on alchemy.

Alchemy? This is nothing less than the Holy Spirit at work! Where is your faith brother? You can believe that a Virgin could actually give birth but draw the line at this. Such a thing makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Walpole]

Nope.
He would be using a metaphor and connecting himself as the Passover Lamb in the Seder meal.

Ok, then He would be advocating metaphorical cannibalism.

 

[Particular]

Alchemy? This is nothing less than the Holy Spirit at work! Where is your faith brother? You can believe that a Virgin could actually give birth but draw the line at this. Such a thing makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Holy Spirit doesn do alchemy, which is why the Roman Catholic stance on communion is so wrong.

 

[Particular]

Ok, then He would be advocating metaphorical cannibalism.

Do you have any understanding of the Seder meal? If you did, you would understand what Jesus is doing at the last supper.

 

[Yeshua1]

In response to Hollow Man and his last post mentioning the ECF's. You do realize sir that when they mention looking to the Holy Scriptures they do so in light of the Universal (Catholic) Church's interpretation of them. They are certainly not interpreting them as you Baptist's do.

Take St. Irenaeus on the Apostolic succession for example. He writes:

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the Truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.

And:

"It behooves us to learn the Truth from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech...." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.

Now, let us go to the question of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, this time by St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

"He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate and say It is not His Blood? Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ." St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Mystagogic," c. 350 A.D.

And then we have St. Ambrose whom you quoted.

"Perhaps you may be saying: 'I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the Body of Christ?' It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! Christ is in that Sacrament, because It is the Body of Christ." St. Ambrose, "The Mysteries," 390 A.D.

See what I mean, not the same interpretation of the Scriptures at all.

Baptists refuse to accept any teaching and doctrine that is not supported by the Canon of scriptures, such as most of the theology of Rome, as there is no support in the inspired books for most of them!

 

[Walpole]

Do you have any understanding of the Seder meal? If you did, you would understand what Jesus is doing at the last supper.

What happened in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday was the new Moses, Jesus Christ, fulfilling the type / figure of the old covenant of Moses in Exodus with the new reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice...


Exodus 24 (The figure) ---> The hill, the altar, the twelve, the blood, Moses, the covenant, the eating the drinking and communion with God ---> Points to the reality of the new now being fulfilled by Jesus Christ ---> The Upper Room, the altar, the twelve, the blood, the New Moses, the new covenant, the eating and drinking and communion with God

If the Eucharist is not the actual body and blood of Christ, then this would be the first instance in all of Scripture where the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.

 

[Particular]

What happened in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday was the new Moses, Jesus Christ, fulfilling the type / figure of the old covenant of Moses in Exodus with the new reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice...


Exodus 24 (The figure) ---> The hill, the altar, the twelve, the blood, Moses, the covenant, the eating the drinking and communion with God ---> Points to the reality of the new now being fulfilled by Jesus Christ ---> The Upper Room, the altar, the twelve, the blood, the New Moses, the new covenant, the eating and drinking and communion with God

If the Eucharist is not the actual body and blood of Christ, then this would be the first instance in all of Scripture where the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.

Jesus is the new Adam, not the new Moses.
Jesus fulfills the atonement for his chosen people. Jesus foreshadows his atonement for his people when he changes the Seder meal so that he represents the Lamb that was slain so that his chosen people can remember as they go through the wilderness and enter the promised land.

 

[37818]

I don't need to disprove a negative.
The onus is on YOU to prove that the Letters of Ignatius were false.

This is Debating 101 . . .

I have been asking you to prove a positive. To state it this way, what is the evidence that any of the letters or part of any of those letters are quoted in the second century. There is a reason for your belief in those letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[37818]

If the Eucharist is not the actual body and blood of Christ, then this would be the first instance in all of Scripture where the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.

It would not be any such thing. Jesus' teaching He is the true manna which has come down from Heaven is not to be confused with His teaching of His death on the cross is represented in the Passover showing He is the true Passover.

 

[Walpole]

It would not be any such thing. Jesus' teaching He is the true manna which has come down from Heaven is not to be confused with His teaching of His death on the cross is represented in the Passover showing He is the true Passover.

The Sacrifice which concluded on the Cross began the night before in the Upper Room.

 

[Walpole]

Alchemy? This is nothing less than the Holy Spirit at work! Where is your faith brother? You can believe that a Virgin could actually give birth but draw the line at this. Such a thing makes absolutely no sense at all.

I always found it odd that those who profess to believe that God was present in a box making its way across the wilderness, took the form of a cloud, took the form of a dove, and even became an actual man, entering into His creation as a baby, cannot bring themselves to believe that this same God would be present amongst His people in the Eucharist.

 

[MarysSon]

I have been asking you to prove a positive. To state it this way, what is the evidence that any of the letters or part of any of those letters are quoted in the second century. There is a reason for your belief in those letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch.

Again – the Epistles of Ignatius were never called into question until recently because they are simply far too important to the development of Christendom. Protestant scholars try to debunk them as “forgeries” like they do every other EFC writing that supports Catholic doctrine.

You have presented ONE such objection to these writings – but the weight of scholarship rests with the fact that the Epistles of Ignatius were genuine. I can produce MANY sources that claim they are genuine - for example:
- St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Epistles - Paul A. Boer Sr.
- The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch - by St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, D. P. Curtin
- Ignatius of Antioch: Estimated Range of Dating: 105-115 A.D. - Ignatius of Antioch
- St. Ignatius of Antioch - Saint Ignatius of Antioch | Biography, Writings, & Martyrdom

Although there are some spurious writings attributed to Ignatius (Epistles to the Tarsians, Antiochans, Philippians, et al) – the Seven Epistles he wrote on the way to his martyrdom were NEVER called into question until recent Protestant scholarship had problems with the doctrines in them.

So – once again – the onus is on YOU to prove they were forgeries -= not ME to prove what has always been held throughout the centuries as fact.

 

[robycop3]

We must remember that Jesus ATE THE PASSOVER before introducing Communion. He spoke of the bread & drink, saying, "THIS is My flesh...THIS is My blood...". But at the time he had no wounds & all His blood.

His disciples, who'd been puzzled by Hie earlier reference to His own flesh & blood, now knew what He'd meant, that one must have FAITH in Him & believe He is whom He said He is.

The bread & drink remained bread & drink at the "Last Supper", & remain so in our Communion, which Jesus said to do IN REMEMBRANCE of Him.

 

[Particular]

I always found it odd that those who profess to believe that God was present in a box making its way across the wilderness, took the form of a cloud, took the form of a dove, and even became an actual man, entering into His creation as a baby, cannot bring themselves to believe that this same God would be present amongst His people in the Eucharist.

I find it odd that you would eat human flesh and drink human blood and then proclaim that the action caused God to impart his grace upon you.

 

[MarysSon]

We must remember that Jesus ATE THE PASSOVER before introducing Communion. He spoke of the bread & drink, saying, "THIS is My flesh...THIS is My blood...". But at the time he had no wounds & all His blood.

His disciples, who'd been puzzled by Hie earlier reference to His own flesh & blood, now knew what He'd meant, that one must have FAITH in Him & believe He is whom He said He is.

The bread & drink remained bread & drink at the "Last Supper", & remain so in our Communion, which Jesus said to do IN REMEMBRANCE of Him.

Then do us a favor and produce ONE SINGLE Early Church teaching to that effect.

Show me ONE writing from the Early Church that agrees with the Protestant assertion that the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

Do that - and I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.