Confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the RCC mass

[Adonia]

you left this out of 1Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Remembrance -- memorial

When we remember our fallen soldiers - we do not "kill them again"

We participate in the memorial - a "remembrance" of the "once for all" Heb 10 -- sacrifice of Christ

Not time travel
not confecting the body,blood, soul and divinity of Christ.



1 Cor 10 says nothing about confecting the body, soul and divinity of Christ - much less about confecting the blood of Christ.

1 Cor 10
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

Paul equates the Christian symbols as symbols the same way pagan symbols are symbols. Pagans do not "eat demons".

The flag is not "America" but still we are offended when the flag is shown dishonor. America stands just a strong after a muslim burns the flag as before - it is the symbol they dishonor and in so doing dishonor America.



On the contrary both are offering symbols of something - the pagans and the Christians and that which they offer - the symbol used - shows honor or dishonor to the one symbolized.

BTW - we all notice your need to avoid 1Cor 11 -- but as much as you think 1 Cor 10 makes your case - the fact that the text says the pagans are doing the very same thing with their own symbols and demons is irrefutable proof that you have this wrong.

Nothing like ignoring and then disregarding over 2000 years of orthodox Christian teaching on the Holy Eucharist, right Bob? But of course the truth only came about in your eyes when your gal Ellen White came on the scene sometime in the 1840's. We need to be aware of the false prophets that come about from time to time, don't you think?

 

[The Biblicist]

Nothing like ignoring and then disregarding over 2000 years of orthodox Christian teaching on the Holy Eucharist, right Bob? But of course the truth only came about in your eyes when your gal Ellen White came on the scene sometime in the 1840's. We need to be aware of the false prophets that come about from time to time, don't you think?

Your Platonic view of the Lord's Supper is foreign to the Scriptures and foreign to secular church history for the first few hundred years. Your view, like most errors was developmental only later to be confirmed as Roman Catholic Dogma.

However, the scriptures repudiate Rome's view and John 6 is a clear repudiation of Rome's view. Jesus repeatedly defines what he means by "eat" and "drink" in clear unmistakable language. Indeed, the whole chapter is dedicate to one theme, what it means to come to Christ by faith. Eating and drinking are metaphors for partaking of Christ by faith and he bluntly tells them this at least three times in this chapter and then bluntly tells them "the flesh profiteth nothing" with regard to literally eating it, but his words are "spirit" or opposite to what is literal, he was speaking metaphorical and salvation is found in belief of his words because they are truth.

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

How is their HUNGER satisfied? How is their THIRST satisifed? Not by literally eating him as bread, but by COMING to him that is coming to him by faith.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

From beginning to the end the issue is coming to Christ by faith. Faith is partaking of Christ just as the body partakes of food and drink. Peter sums it up in verses 68-69. He does not not say "thou hast the BLOOD and FLESH of life" but thou has the "WORDS OF LIFE" and the words that bring life are then professed to have been partaken of by faith which are "WE BELIEVE AND ARE SURE THAT THOU ART THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." Not "we believe and are sure that we must literally eat your body and drink your blood for eternal life."

This is so obvious to anyone who is merely objective and carefully reads what he is saying. Furthermore, the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted and so they could not literally eat him or drink his blood without being cannibals. Even when he instituted the Lord's Supper he had not yet shed that blood or had the body broken on the cross and so the apostles could not have possible literally drank his blood or ate his body. These are simple metaphors and the text makes it clear they are. Only someone who has dogma to defend can be so blind to miss the obvious. "THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING" but Rome has made "THE FLESH" everything. The only "flesh" previously mentioned before this verse is HIS FLESH.

 

[utilyan]

Your Platonic view of the Lord's Supper is foreign to the Scriptures and foreign to secular church history for the first few hundred years. Your view, like most errors was developmental only later to be confirmed as Roman Catholic Dogma.

However, the scriptures repudiate Rome's view and John 6 is a clear repudiation of Rome's view. Jesus repeatedly defines what he means by "eat" and "drink" in clear unmistakable language. Indeed, the whole chapter is dedicate to one theme, what it means to come to Christ by faith. Eating and drinking are metaphors for partaking of Christ by faith and he bluntly tells them this at least three times in this chapter and then bluntly tells them "the flesh profiteth nothing" with regard to literally eating it, but his words are "spirit" or opposite to what is literal, he was speaking metaphorical and salvation is found in belief of his words because they are truth.

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

How is their HUNGER satisfied? How is their THIRST satisifed? Not by literally eating him as bread, but by COMING to him that is coming to him by faith.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

From beginning to the end the issue is coming to Christ by faith. Faith is partaking of Christ just as the body partakes of food and drink. Peter sums it up in verses 68-69. He does not not say "thou hast the BLOOD and FLESH of life" but thou has the "WORDS OF LIFE" and the words that bring life are then professed to have been partaken of by faith which are "WE BELIEVE AND ARE SURE THAT THOU ART THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." Not "we believe and are sure that we must literally eat your body and drink your blood for eternal life."

This is so obvious to anyone who is merely objective and carefully reads what he is saying. Furthermore, the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted and so they could not literally eat him or drink his blood without being cannibals. Even when he instituted the Lord's Supper he had not yet shed that blood or had the body broken on the cross and so the apostles could not have possible literally drank his blood or ate his body. These are simple metaphors and the text makes it clear they are. Only someone who has dogma to defend can be so blind to miss the obvious. "THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING" but Rome has made "THE FLESH" everything. The only "flesh" previously mentioned before this verse is HIS FLESH.

LOL. No.

Jesus never said EAT MY FAITH.

John 6 If Jesus was being symbolic the majority of his disciples would have left him on account of greater claims Jesus made previously. On this issue is where ALL his disciples abandon him and even a aura of doubt is around the apostles.

They don't have a problem with him being son of God, he claimed that all the time. Faith in Jesus, that ain't nothing THEY were healing the sick and casting out demons themselves.

The straw that broke the Camel's back is the same one breaking yours, They cannot accept the real presence.

Your argument is like you and your family just ate whole fried chickens....and the next day you show up with hot wings....and your family leaves you for it all leave you for it.

The claim you want John 6 to make is negligible next to the more grand claims Jesus made about himself previously. There is nothing newly offensive about john 6 which wasn't already claimed by Jesus. His disciples worked the miracles, they know he is son of God.


THINK ABOUT THIS

You tell a guy "give your life up for me" leave your family, I am son of God ect.:

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

32“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
37“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39“He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Ok he is in. He leaves his family follows you>

He sees miracles, Does miracles, heard you say you were God and existed before Abraham, has to believe you are the vine and he is the branch. To have faith in him.


But one day He says says again have faith in him (John6)

OH NO that did it......we are leaving believing you are God and son of GOD and we must sacrifice our family and own lives for you is not a problem we trust you. But asking us to trust you again we are leaving you Jesus!


No...............READ. "how can we eat his body?" "we can't really eat his body and drink his blood."

The vast majority reject Jesus because of the real presence in the bible and In life today. Even you reject it, its not a surprise.

It was the hardest thing Jesus said.

55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

“This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”







Jesus Christ is central to salvation not your ability of faith. You can have faith that moves mountains and if Jesus is not central then it is nothing. 1 Corinthians 13.


There is a reason why there is no complaints not a peep till 1500 years later.

Even your Master theologians, Luther AND Calvin still believe in real presence just in different "modes" on it happening.

We just pointed out less then 100 years after the ascension of Jesus and they already speak of Eucharist.

With the Immediate successors of the apostles the bishops they appointed, who where taught by them using the real presence of the Eucharist as a defense against heresy.


We provided actual sources, letters of those FIRST bishops ever hand picked by the apostles.

You just provide assumptive hot air with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL. No.

Jesus never said EAT MY FAITH.

Either you obviously have no clue about what I said as you would not make this absolutely ridiculous response or you are intentionally perverting what I said to confuse and mislead others. It is not "eat my faith" but "eat" IS the metaphor for faith in the sense of partaking as that is the character of faith as faith is partaking of Christ as the object of faith. Just as you partake of bread by eating it you partake of Christ by believing in him.

John 6 If Jesus was being symbolic the majority of his disciples would have left him on account of greater claims Jesus made previously. On this issue is where ALL his disciples abandon him and even a aura of doubt is around the apostles.

They don't have a problem with him being son of God, he claimed that all the time. Faith in Jesus, that ain't nothing THEY were healing the sick and casting out demons themselves.

The straw that broke the Camel's back is the same one breaking yours, They cannot accept the real presence.

Your argument is like you and your family just ate whole fried chickens....and the next day you show up with hot wings....and your family leaves you for it all leave you for it.

You don't know what you are talking about. First, there is no possible way they could obey this command at the time Christ commanded it if he actually meant physically eat his flesh and blood unless they became cannibals and that is precisely why what he said was revolting to them as they took it literally just as you do. Second, they could not possibly do it at the institution of the Supper as he had not yet shed his blood as it is was still running in his veins.

Unbelievers do not have ears to hear even when it is spelled out to them, but are blind and deaf. Jesus identifies those disciples who stumbled at this as being unbelievers FROM THE BEGINNING. In other words they had never partaken of Christ by faith but were false professors, without ears to hear.

He sees miracles, Does miracles, heard you say you were God and existed before Abraham, has to believe you are the vine and he is the branch. To have faith in him.

You are disproving your own theory right here. Is Christ a LITERAL or METAPHORICAL vine? You have enough sense to realize he is not a literal vine but is speaking of himself metaphorically but you dont' have enough common sense that LONG BEFORE his blood was shed that he is speaking metaphorically of eating his body and drinking his flesh or PARTAKING of him by faith as one would partake of food and drink by eating and drinking EVEN THOUGH HE TELLS THEM THIS in plain language.

55

“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

“This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

Only by jerking this out of context, ignoring his explanations which I printed out can you maintain such an idiotic doctrine. A doctrine that had no possible reality when he told them to eat and drink of him. A doctrine that had no possible reality when he instituted the Supper and said "this is my blood."

If you are going to interpret language this way you just as well believe he is a LITERAL vine, a LITERAL door, a LITERAL light, etc. and be consistent.

He tells his disciples "THE FLESH profiteth NOTHING" and the only "flesh" he had just previously been speaking about was his OWN FLESH. His words were not to be taken LITERALLY but metaphorically as his words simply conveyed one must partake of Christ by faith or they cannot have eternal life. Those who understood him WERE BELEIVERS who had ears to hear while it was the UNBELIEVERS who were offended and did not understand him.

An unbeliever can't see the obvious even when it is spelled out like this:


Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

How is their HUNGER satisfied? How is their THIRST satisifed? Not by literally eating him as bread, but by COMING to him that is coming to him by faith.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter did not conclude from this conversation that "thou hast the FLESH and BLOOD of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that we must eat your flesh and drink your blood." No! He understood the common use of metaphorical language of eating and drinking as used by Isaiah in Isaiah 55:1-5 where it refers to partaking of eternal by faith in Christ or the "sure mercies of David" (2 Sam. 23:5).

You have no response that is contextually based or any substantive argument. You are simply jerking a text out of its context while ignoring the immediate context and that is the norm for all who propagate errors.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL. No.

You just provide assumptive hot air with no evidence whatsoever.

This is the best you can do as a response because you have NOTHING to base anything you say. No wonder you have to resort to this level. If all I have is "hot air" then why didn't you try to address my contexutal based arguments and demonstrate that I had taken them out of context LIKE I DID WITH YOURS? I will tell you why! You really have nothing but "hot air"and anyone reading it can see that.

 

[Adonia]

Your Platonic view of the Lord's Supper is foreign to the Scriptures and foreign to secular church history for the first few hundred years. Your view, like most errors was developmental only later to be confirmed as Roman Catholic Dogma.

However, the scriptures repudiate Rome's view and John 6 is a clear repudiation of Rome's view. Jesus repeatedly defines what he means by "eat" and "drink" in clear unmistakable language. Indeed, the whole chapter is dedicate to one theme, what it means to come to Christ by faith. Eating and drinking are metaphors for partaking of Christ by faith and he bluntly tells them this at least three times in this chapter and then bluntly tells them "the flesh profiteth nothing" with regard to literally eating it, but his words are "spirit" or opposite to what is literal, he was speaking metaphorical and salvation is found in belief of his words because they are truth.

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

How is their HUNGER satisfied? How is their THIRST satisifed? Not by literally eating him as bread, but by COMING to him that is coming to him by faith.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

From beginning to the end the issue is coming to Christ by faith. Faith is partaking of Christ just as the body partakes of food and drink. Peter sums it up in verses 68-69. He does not not say "thou hast the BLOOD and FLESH of life" but thou has the "WORDS OF LIFE" and the words that bring life are then professed to have been partaken of by faith which are "WE BELIEVE AND ARE SURE THAT THOU ART THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." Not "we believe and are sure that we must literally eat your body and drink your blood for eternal life."

This is so obvious to anyone who is merely objective and carefully reads what he is saying. Furthermore, the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted and so they could not literally eat him or drink his blood without being cannibals. Even when he instituted the Lord's Supper he had not yet shed that blood or had the body broken on the cross and so the apostles could not have possible literally drank his blood or ate his body. These are simple metaphors and the text makes it clear they are. Only someone who has dogma to defend can be so blind to miss the obvious. "THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING" but Rome has made "THE FLESH" everything. The only "flesh" previously mentioned before this verse is HIS FLESH.

There you go again with your bad interpretation of the Scriptures and outright ignoring of the history of Christian teaching regarding this issue. For 1500 years there was but one reality of the Holy Eucharist and like our friend utilayn says, even the "Reformers" continued to believe in this basic truth.

 

[Adonia]

LOL. No.

Jesus never said EAT MY FAITH.

John 6 If Jesus was being symbolic the majority of his disciples would have left him on account of greater claims Jesus made previously. On this issue is where ALL his disciples abandon him and even a aura of doubt is around the apostles.

They don't have a problem with him being son of God, he claimed that all the time. Faith in Jesus, that ain't nothing THEY were healing the sick and casting out demons themselves.

The straw that broke the Camel's back is the same one breaking yours, They cannot accept the real presence.

Your argument is like you and your family just ate whole fried chickens....and the next day you show up with hot wings....and your family leaves you for it all leave you for it.

The claim you want John 6 to make is negligible next to the more grand claims Jesus made about himself previously. There is nothing newly offensive about john 6 which wasn't already claimed by Jesus. His disciples worked the miracles, they know he is son of God.


THINK ABOUT THIS

You tell a guy "give your life up for me" leave your family, I am son of God ect.:

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

32“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
37“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39“He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Ok he is in. He leaves his family follows you>

He sees miracles, Does miracles, heard you say you were God and existed before Abraham, has to believe you are the vine and he is the branch. To have faith in him.


But one day He says says again have faith in him (John6)

OH NO that did it......we are leaving believing you are God and son of GOD and we must sacrifice our family and own lives for you is not a problem we trust you. But asking us to trust you again we are leaving you Jesus!


No...............READ. "how can we eat his body?" "we can't really eat his body and drink his blood."

The vast majority reject Jesus because of the real presence in the bible and In life today. Even you reject it, its not a surprise.

It was the hardest thing Jesus said.

55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

“This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”







Jesus Christ is central to salvation not your ability of faith. You can have faith that moves mountains and if Jesus is not central then it is nothing. 1 Corinthians 13.


There is a reason why there is no complaints not a peep till 1500 years later.

Even your Master theologians, Luther AND Calvin still believe in real presence just in different "modes" on it happening.

We just pointed out less then 100 years after the ascension of Jesus and they already speak of Eucharist.

With the Immediate successors of the apostles the bishops they appointed, who where taught by them using the real presence of the Eucharist as a defense against heresy.


We provided actual sources, letters of those FIRST bishops ever hand picked by the apostles.

You just provide assumptive hot air with no evidence whatsoever.

A very good and enlightening response on this, but our Baptist friends will continue to keep the blinders on and ignore what the Word of God and sacred tradition says.

 

[BobRyan]

LOL. No.

Jesus never said EAT MY FAITH.

John 6 If Jesus was being symbolic the majority of his disciples would have left him on account of greater claims Jesus made previously.

Not true.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically "I am the bread that came down out of heaven" John 6 then they would be talking to a man - and not a big loaf of bread.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically then this is the literal meaning of it "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

In that case only the disciples that made the mistake of taking him "too literally" would leave - while the faithful disciples would remains - as they would focus on the Word of Christ and not on literally "biting Christ".

"66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life

Jesus does not say in John 6 "some day in the future I will be the bread of life" -- He does not say "some day in the future you must eat my flesh to have eternal life" - but rather right then it was already true - because right then at that time - he had the "Words of LIFE" . Biting Christ that day would put an end to the cross -- there would have been no future for Christ.

Matt 16 - the faithful disciples --taking Christ symbolism too literally.

Matt 16
6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[The Biblicist]

There you go again with your bad interpretation of the Scriptures and outright ignoring of the history of Christian teaching regarding this issue. For 1500 years there was but one reality of the Holy Eucharist and like our friend utilayn says, even the "Reformers" continued to believe in this basic truth.

Your good at expressing your opinions but no substance to support what you are saying and no contextual based evidence to overthrow the contextual based evidence I provided! Empty response!

 

[The Biblicist]

A very good and enlightening response on this, but our Baptist friends will continue to keep the blinders on and ignore what the Word of God and sacred tradition says.

Your posts are empty of substance. You have no contextual based responses. Why waste your time and our time to read nothing? Neither of you can deal with the contextual based evidence I provided. You have nothing to offer this conversation but your personal opinion and vain traditions.

You are demonstrating who is really wearing blinders.

 

[utilyan]

Not true.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically "I am the bread that came down out of heaven" John 6 then they would be talking to a man - and not a big loaf of bread.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically then this is the literal meaning of it "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

In that case only the disciples that made the mistake of taking him "too literally" would leave - while the faithful disciples would remains - as they would focus on the Word of Christ and not on literally "biting Christ".

"66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life

Jesus does not say in John 6 "some day in the future I will be the bread of life" -- He does not say "some day in the future you must eat my flesh to have eternal life" - but rather right then it was already true - because right then at that time - he had the "Words of LIFE" . Biting Christ that day would put an end to the cross -- there would have been no future for Christ.

Matt 16 - the faithful disciples --taking Christ symbolism too literally.

Matt 16
6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Bob what I'm pointing out is that Jesus made much MORE GRAND claims previously as to not offend all those disciples. And they went in ready to sacrifice their lives and even worked with Jesus.

The one time Jesus loses disciples ALL but the twelve and even Jesus is sensing trouble among the twelve is John 6.

If there is something misunderstood Jesus is not EVIL like us as to not explain himself.

Example just a couple chapters back:
John 4

31Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” 34Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

See how he explains to his disciples. You don't see the disciples say well that's crazy and leave.

And if you look closely in JOHN 4, he calls himself that water of LIFE. John 3 we have 3:16, we have John 5 where he is EQUAL to GOD.
But no disciple leaves, no apostle is shaken.


Jesus calls himself a DOOR, a VINE, No one stops and says "hold on a minute this guys is not a door, he is not made of wood, where is the door knob!?"


But in John 6, he repeats himself over and over. There is no symbolic explanation assumed if there was there is no GREATER basis to leave then anything he has stated otherwise before.

And you have to understand the mentality, you might see in movies depicting middle east fellah saying I WILL DRINK the BLOOD OF MY ENEMIES.
If what Jesus said was "SYMBOLIC" it would already have that cliché meaning to persecute or assault Jesus.



The words Jesus uses for eating is like MUNCHING and GNAWING.
The word is trogon. I'm no eptymology expert but in Spanish that's to SWALLOW you'd say that if someone was pigging out.


Look what Jesus says:

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

He is confirming one miracle with another. He does this sort of thing before. When he forgives sins, he is challenged, YOU CANT FORGIVE SINS, well what if Tell this guy to get up and walk? and he does the miracle.

Here theses guys are saying YOU CANT REALLEY GIVE YOURSELF TO BE EATEN BY US. Jesus is saying well what if you see me go back to heaven?

The forgiveness of sins was real it wasn't symbolic. He really did ascend into heaven!

 

[utilyan]

When the disciples are grumbling I don't think SYMBOLIC is on the radar.

You can symbolically eat the entire planet when you eat a grape no one is going to argue that is impossible.

The impossibility the Disciples are grumbling about is one of ACTUALITY.

Let me suggest you change your position From Symbolic to SPIRITUALLY because that still leaves room for actuality.

Heres something that might help clear things up Bob, If you could in your own words explain SYMBOLICLLY VS. SPIRITUALLY.

A I understand SPIRITUALLY does not equal LESS REAL. If anything Spiritual is LIFE IN HD, High Definition a more real reality.

 

[Adonia]

Your posts are empty of substance. You have no contextual based responses. Why waste your time and our time to read nothing? Neither of you can deal with the contextual based evidence I provided. You have nothing to offer this conversation but your personal opinion and vain traditions.

You are demonstrating who is really wearing blinders.

I offer my opinions based on what really happened with the history of Christianity from the beginning. It started with Christ and then it evolved as time went on and I accept that reality of what was taught to all Christians for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Your reality as a Baptist and it's doctrines only starts sometime around 1606 by a Mr. John Smyth who was a dissenter with the Church of England. And you want us to accept your version of things? Confusion and chaos is not the means to the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

I offer my opinions based on what really happened with the history of Christianity from the beginning. It started with Christ and then it evolved as time went on and I accept that reality of what was taught to all Christians for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Your reality as a Baptist and it's doctrines only starts sometime around 1606 by a Mr. John Smyth who was a dissenter with the Church of England. And you want us to accept your version of things? Confusion and chaos is not the means to the truth.

Surely Adonia you can see that your approach is superficial and subjective as one can find anything they want to find in traditions of men. On this thread the subject is the final authority of God's word not the final authority of uninspired often contradictory traditions and opinions of men.

Surely Adonian you really don't think your "opinion" is equal to the Word of God, do you???? Surely you can't believe uninspired traditions of men is equally as inspired as the Word of God can you? If so, we have nothing more to talk about.

 

[BobRyan]

When the disciples are grumbling I don't think SYMBOLIC is on the radar.

No joke my friend. The faithLESS disciples that leave in John 6 - are the ones taking Christ too literally. But even THEY - do not "bite Christ".

And in John 6 the faithFULL disciples admit to "getting the point" that "literal flesh is worthless - it is My WORD that has Spirit and Life".

Christ did not say "some day I will be bread coming down from heaven"

Christ said "I AM the bread that came down" -- already the case in John 6.
Christ said they already must eat the flesh and drink the blood - it was not "some day in the future you must" -- yet not even the wayyy-too-literal faithless disciples that left him -- did not "bite Christ" in John 6!

This is irrefutable.

What is more in Matthew 16 Christ once again hammers His followers for taking the symbol too literally when it comes to bread.

And John starts of with Christ as the "WORD" that "became flesh" in John 1.

John 6 - the Word is the BREAD that came down from heaven

And the lesson of bread coming down from heaven??

So it in Deut 8
2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

 

[BobRyan]

Not true.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically "I am the bread that came down out of heaven" John 6 then they would be talking to a man - and not a big loaf of bread.

If Jesus was speaking symbolically then this is the literal meaning of it "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

In that case only the disciples that made the mistake of taking him "too literally" would leave - while the faithful disciples would remains - as they would focus on the Word of Christ and not on literally "biting Christ".

"66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life

Jesus does not say in John 6 "some day in the future I will be the bread of life" -- He does not say "some day in the future you must eat my flesh to have eternal life" - but rather right then it was already true - because right then at that time - he had the "Words of LIFE" . Biting Christ that day would put an end to the cross -- there would have been no future for Christ.

Matt 16 - the faithful disciples --taking Christ symbolism too literally.

Matt 16
6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Bob what I'm pointing out is that Jesus made much MORE GRAND claims previously as to not offend all those disciples. And they went in ready to sacrifice their lives and even worked with Jesus.

The one time Jesus loses disciples ALL but the twelve and even Jesus is sensing trouble among the twelve is John 6.

If there is something misunderstood Jesus is not EVIL like us as to not explain himself.

And here is the explanation HE gives in John 6 itself!

In John 6 Jesus said - "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

(Not -- "in the future -- if any man eat of this bread")

And what is the response of the too-literalist faithLESS ??

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(not - "some day in the future whoever then eats my flesh will have eternal life" ) yet neither the too-literal-faithLESS disciples nor the faithFULL disciples of John 6 ... bite Christ in John 6.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

(not "this is the bread that will come" but this is the "bread that CAME"... and not "my flesh will one day be meat indeed" but "my flesh IS"... and not "He that in the future eateth" but already - he who does now already eat!)

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that give life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


There it is Christ's answer. Yet it is an answer much-to-be-ignored by the faithLESS disciples in John 6 who left because they did not listen to the vs 63 explanation -- and instead took Christ too literally.

 

[utilyan]

Surely Adonia you can see that your approach is superficial and subjective as one can find anything they want to find in traditions of men. On this thread the subject is the final authority of God's word not the final authority of uninspired often contradictory traditions and opinions of men.

Surely Adonian you really don't think your "opinion" is equal to the Word of God, do you???? Surely you can't believe uninspired traditions of men is equally as inspired as the Word of God can you? If so, we have nothing more to talk about.

Tradition #1 --> cannon of scripture.

You don't have a bible, Biblicist. You can only hijack what we picked out FOR YOU.

There is no inspired table of contents. You have to act on your FALLIBLE guess...... ok what these guys are using is holy scripture.

All your top dog theologians will tell you they are taking a fallible guess at what is infallible scripture.

And what is more nuts is, Ok these guys got religion all wrong......but oh wait their book is perfect.

Those 66 books weren't picked out by your denomination that began last week.

Had someone handed you a QUARAN sure enough you'd be telling us to be Muslims.

 

[utilyan]

And here is the explanation HE gives in John 6 itself!

In John 6 Jesus said - "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

(Not -- "in the future -- if any man eat of this bread")

And what is the response of the too-literalist faithLESS ??

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(not - "some day in the future whoever then eats my flesh will have eternal life" ) yet neither the too-literal-faithLESS disciples nor the faithFULL disciples of John 6 ... bite Christ in John 6.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

(not "this is the bread that will come" but this is the "bread that CAME"... and not "my flesh will one day be meat indeed" but "my flesh IS"... and not "He that in the future eateth" but already - he who does now already eat!)

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that give life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


There it is Christ's answer. Yet it is an answer much-to-be-ignored by the faithLESS disciples in John 6 who left because they did not listen to the vs 63 explanation -- and instead took Christ too literally.

The scripture says JESUS KNOWS what they are thinking.

John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Jesus KNOWS what they are thinking, Had they been mistaken of meaning, Jesus would have said "Guys i'm being symbolic".

Instead Jesus brings a head-on crash using the RESSURECTION as validation that the Eucharist is TRUE.

They are grumbling "HE CAN'T REALLEY give us his body and blood to eat and drink"

And your saying Jesus is going to use the resurrection as proof that eating his body and blood is a FAKE THING!?!?

 

[The Biblicist]

Tradition #1 --> cannon of scripture.

You don't have a bible, Biblicist. You can only hijack what we picked out FOR YOU.

That is a LIE! First, the canon of scripture was settled before the end of the first century not by YOU, the Great Harlot, but by New Testament churches and even your uninspired traditions attest to it asTertullian confirms all the apostolic writings were completed prior to the death of John and even as late as 250 A.D. the originals were still being read in the churches that they were addressed to:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” – Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter xxxvi. p. 260

Tertullian argues that the churches had received their rule of faith from the apostles, and the apostles received it from Christ, and that this rule of faith is the “entire volume” of scriptures. He speaks of the scriptures as a completed or “entire volume”

“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with amore cunning mind and skill than Marcion.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 260

Tertullian speaks of, and recognizes the "entire volume" or a completed canon that Valentinus used but in contrast Marcion did not use “the entire volume” but cut out what did not harmonize with his Gnostic beliefs. Hence, Marcion produced an edited version of the New Testament.

However, Tertullian claimed that right from “the beginning” of the second century the churches possessed “the entire volume” that they never added unto or subtracted from:

“Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are, (and have been) from the beginning.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 261 – emphasis mine

Here is an "entire volume" of scriptures that they dared not "add" to it or "alter it." Without question the real true New Testament churches possessed the "entire volume" of scriptures. No doubt early Christians read other Christian writings, but did not include them within “the entire volume” of the Scriptures.


It is true that the authenticity of a few books of the New Testament were being challenged by apostate churches which finally merged with the Roman State and formed the Great Whore or what became known as "the holy Catholic church." However, the few who did challenge the few epistles proves they existed already and were accepted in the canon by the majority of churches. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the same few books that were questioned were not accepted by the majority of New Testament congregations. Moreover, “the entire volume” of scripture was confirmed right from the beginning of the second century after the death of the last living apostle, as translations of the New Testament into old Syriac and old Latin had occurred as early as 150 A.D. Those who deny that the Old Syriac and old Latin translations were not complete do so based only on insufficient documentary evidence.

However, we have the testimony of Scripture itself that declares the completion of the Biblical canon prior to the end of the first century "among my disciples" and therefore the Great Whore (Roman Catholocism) and all who depend upon uninspired sources in order to deny it are liars and there is "no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).

 

[utilyan]

That is a LIE! First, the canon of scripture was settled before the end of the first century not by YOU, the Great Harlot, but by New Testament churches and even your uninspired traditions attest to it asTertullian confirms all the apostolic writings were completed prior to the death of John and even as late as 250 A.D. the originals were still being read in the churches that they were addressed to:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” – Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter xxxvi. p. 260

Tertullian argues that the churches had received their rule of faith from the apostles, and the apostles received it from Christ, and that this rule of faith is the “entire volume” of scriptures. He speaks of the scriptures as a completed or “entire volume”

“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with amore cunning mind and skill than Marcion.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 260

Tertullian speaks of, and recognizes the "entire volume" or a completed canon that Valentinus used but in contrast Marcion did not use “the entire volume” but cut out what did not harmonize with his Gnostic beliefs. Hence, Marcion produced an edited version of the New Testament.

However, Tertullian claimed that right from “the beginning” of the second century the churches possessed “the entire volume” that they never added unto or subtracted from:

“Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are, (and have been) from the beginning.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 261 – emphasis mine

Here is an "entire volume" of scriptures that they dared not "add" to it or "alter it." Without question the real true New Testament churches possessed the "entire volume" of scriptures. No doubt early Christians read other Christian writings, but did not include them within “the entire volume” of the Scriptures.


It is true that the authenticity of a few books of the New Testament were being challenged by apostate churches which finally merged with the Roman State and formed the Great Whore or what became known as "the holy Catholic church." However, the few who did challenge the few epistles proves they existed already and were accepted in the canon by the majority of churches. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the same few books that were questioned were not accepted by the majority of New Testament congregations. Moreover, “the entire volume” of scripture was confirmed right from the beginning of the second century after the death of the last living apostle, as translations of the New Testament into old Syriac and old Latin had occurred as early as 150 A.D. Those who deny that the Old Syriac and old Latin translations were not complete do so based only on insufficient documentary evidence.

However, we have the testimony of Scripture itself that declares the completion of the Biblical canon prior to the end of the first century "among my disciples" and therefore the Great Whore (Roman Catholocism) and all who depend upon uninspired sources in order to deny it are liars and there is "no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).

So lets get this straight, BIBLICIST, believes the bible is the bible because TERTULLIAN says using an "ENTIRE VOLUME" In his arguments against Marcion.

“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with amore cunning mind and skill than Marcion.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 260

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Marcion's canon rejected the entire Old Testament, along with all other epistles and gospels of the 27 book New Testament canon because they transmitted "Jewish" ideas. -- Wikipeida


Marcion did not believe Jesus had a Body or Blood.


"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

--Tertullian



If you understand the heresy of Marcion, Where he doesn't believe not only against real presence but doesn't believe was ever real presence of a man on earth. We start to see Tertullian piece together REAL PRESENCE.


“Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, ‘This is My Body’ — that is, the ‘figure of My Body.’ A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: ‘They have devised a device against Me, saying, “Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,”’ — the cross, of course, upon His Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:30:3)


Keep in mind when he says "FIGURE" that doesn't mean the bread is the pretend action figure of Jesus Christ.




"the Great Whore (Roman Catholocism)"

We would not call anyone a whore or even know.

Tell me Biblicist, What is a Great Whore? One that gives discounts or one that isn't one at all?