Calvinism & "Smile, Jesus Loves You!"

[Idolater]

Do you actually drink the cup, itself, or do you just drink the contents thereof?

I'm on my way to full communion. I don't partake.

 

[7djengo7]

The Church.
They weren't Christians.
Cannibalism.
Chrestus.
I told you cannibalism.

There must be thousands upon thousands of references to personages named 'Chrestus' in ancient literature. Please, narrow it down for me. Could you please cite a passage or two from ancient documents in which I can read, for myself, the statement that Christians were specifically accused, by people who weren't Christians, of cannibalizing someone by the name of 'Chrestus'?

 

[7djengo7]

I'm on my way to full communion. I don't partake.

Let me rephrase the question:

Does anyone actually drink the cup, itself, or do they merely drink the contents of the cup?

 

[Idolater]

Let me rephrase the question:

Does anyone actually drink the cup, itself, or do they merely drink the contents of the cup?

Oh, no---yeah they . . . they drink the metal cup itself, yup. Right on down. Everybody gets one, there are like 200 chalices just waiting as people eat metal objects, shaped like cups.

 

[Idolater]

There must be thousands upon thousands of references to personages named 'Chrestus' in ancient literature. Please, narrow it down for me. Could you please cite a passage or two from ancient documents in which I can read, for myself, the statement that Christians were specifically accused, by people who weren't Christians, of cannibalizing someone by the name of 'Chrestus'?

I probably could.

Do you have any idea where you're going with all this questioning, btw? And please answer that first, before asking me for another task.

 

[7djengo7]

The Church.
They weren't Christians.
Cannibalism.
Chrestus.
I told you cannibalism.

Let me rephrase the question:

What was the exact nature of the accusation of cannibalism of which you speak?

Were the Christians accused of cannibalizing numerous people, or were the Christians accused of cannibalizing just one person by the name of 'Chrestus'? Were hundreds, or even thousands, of persons all accused of cannibalizing just one person by the name of 'Chrestus'?

Please cite the passage(s) in ancient documents where I can see just what you are referring to, here.

 

[7djengo7]

I probably could.

Do you have any idea where you're going with all this questioning, btw? And please answer that first, before asking me for another task.

On the contrary, you and I both know very well that you can't. How stupid do you think I am? It definitely ain't in Suetonius, where Chrestus is.

Have you been taking evasion lessons from AMR? I ask you questions which you know you can't attempt to answer w/out embarrassing your cause, and you suddenly admit you're going to stonewall until I tell you where I'm "going with all this questioning". Classic. That's exactly where I was going, to the point of bringing you to that admission!

So, of course, your Christians-were-accused-of-cannibalizing-Chrestus ruse is a failure.

 

[7djengo7]

Oh, no---yeah they . . . they drink the metal cup itself, yup. Right on down. Everybody gets one, there are like 200 chalices just waiting as people eat metal objects, shaped like cups.

Oh, I see. So, when you say "drink the cup", it's only figurative; you don't literally mean that a communicant is drinking the cup, itself, when you say "drinking the cup", but only that they are drinking the liquid contained within the cup. No?

 

[Idolater]

On the contrary, you and I both know very well that you can't. How stupid do you think I am? It definitely ain't in Suetonius, where Chrestus is.

Have you been taking evasion lessons from AMR? I ask you questions which you know you can't attempt to answer w/out embarrassing your cause, and you suddenly admit you're going to stonewall until I tell you where I'm "going with all this questioning". Classic. That's exactly where I was going, to the point of bringing you to that admission!

So, of course, your Christians-were-accused-of-cannibalizing-Chrestus ruse is a failure.

Oh, I see. So, when you say "drink the cup", it's only figurative; you don't literally mean that a communicant is drinking the cup, itself, when you say "drinking the cup", but only that they are drinking the liquid contained within the cup. No?

Oh my goodness. You know what history records that the Church has believed from the start about the Eucharist, but your goal isn't to broadcast what you know, that the belief that the bread and the cup are the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, your goal is to see if you can find the edge of my personal, off the cuff knowledge of ancient documents?

What is your theology again, Jenga? I know I asked you a bunch of times, where you're here just tearing down this and tearing down that, never once telling us what you want to build up in its place. Why don't you go ahead and fill in that blank now? Huh, Jenga? Can you do that, for us, now, finally? What do you call yourself.

 

[7djengo7]

Oh my goodness. You know what history records that the Church has believed from the start about the Eucharist, but your goal isn't to broadcast what you know, that the belief that the bread and the cup are the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, your goal is to see if you can find the edge of my personal, off the cuff knowledge of ancient documents?

In post #32, you asserted:

They were accused by some of practicing cannibalism.

In post #35, I asked you, regarding your assertion:

[W]hom were "they" specifically accused of having cannibalized?

In post #38, your answer to my question was:

Chrestus.

In post #42, I asked you to back up, by specific chapter-and-verse citation from historical record, your assertion that some people were specifically accused of cannibalizing somebody by the name of 'Chrestus':

Could you please cite a passage or two from ancient documents in which I can read, for myself, the statement that Christians were specifically accused, by people who weren't Christians, of cannibalizing someone by the name of 'Chrestus'?

Your response to this request was to merely tell me, in post #45:

I probably could.

But, so far you haven't, and you know the reason why you haven't as well as I do: because you can't.

When you try to palm off baseless, off the cuff claims, such as your claim that Christians were specifically accused of cannibalizing a personage by the name of 'Chrestus', what, exactly, do you expect your audience to think?

I couldn't care less about the status of your "personal, off the cuff knowledge of ancient documents". Whether you honestly believe that some nameless 1st or 2nd century persons are on contemporary historical record as specifically having been accused, by other nameless 1st or 2nd century persons, of having cannibalized some personage by the name of 'Chrestus', the fact is, you have stated that it is so. And, that necessarily presents the question as to exactly why you have stated it. What is the provenance of that idea? Did the idea have its first advent through you? Did you just cobble it together out of other things you had read, or imagine you had read? If not, where did you first encounter the idea?

I was not trying to "find the edge" of the abilities of your personal memory recall of historical data, and, to complain that I was doing so is not only to utter falsehood, but is also to vainly try to divert attention, by a red herring, away from the questions I asked you (against which questions, thus far, you've been pleased to stonewall). If you honestly think that you did, at some point, get the idea from somewhere outside of your own imagination, and from some ancient document(s), why then, I, for one, couldn't care less whether or not you can't remember, "off the cuff", whence it came. You have time, access to the internet, and, perhaps, some capacity for a little research; you can try to look it up, and to report your findings, if you really believe you didn't make it up out of thin air, and especially if you really wish others to believe you didn't forge it out of thin air. It's your own problem, really.

Tacitus, writing in the 2nd century, mentioned a personage by the name of 'Christus' or 'Chrestus' who, living in the first third of the 1st century, "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". You can read it, here. Therein, at least, is not even the slightest shred of a hint that anyone ever accused anyone of cannibalizing this 'Christus' or 'Chrestus'. If you think you can find some historical source that does state, or even imply, that such an accusation occurred, why then, feel free to bring it forward, displaying the passage(s) you come up with, and citing it/them with chapter/verse, and, perhaps, a web link to where it/they can be read by anyone who cares. After all, you've made your claim to be an attempted prop for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation, have you not?

 

[7djengo7]

...the bread and the cup are the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist...

The cup, or the contents thereof? And, which cup? There must, at this moment, be trillions of drinking vessels of various shapes, sizes, colours, materials, textures, weights, etc., throughout the world. Which one of those drinking vessels are you saying is Christ? Is it a metal one, a wooden one, a Tupperware one, a Styrofoam one, or what? And, where is it right now? Is it in Rome? Is it in Jerusalem? Where is it?

 

[Idolater]

In post #32, you asserted:



In post #35, I asked you, regarding your assertion:



In post #38, your answer to my question was:



In post #42, I asked you to back up, by specific chapter-and-verse citation from historical record, your assertion that some people were specifically accused of cannibalizing somebody by the name of 'Chrestus':



Your response to this request was to merely tell me, in post #45:



But, so far you haven't, and you know the reason why you haven't as well as I do: because you can't.

When you try to palm off baseless, off the cuff claims, such as your claim that Christians were specifically accused of cannibalizing a personage by the name of 'Chrestus', what, exactly, do you expect your audience to think?

I wasn't even being serious with you.

I couldn't care less about the status of your "personal, off the cuff knowledge of ancient documents". Whether you honestly believe that some nameless 1st or 2nd century persons are on contemporary historical record as specifically having been accused, by other nameless 1st or 2nd century persons, of having cannibalized some personage by the name of 'Chrestus', the fact is, you have stated that it is so. And, that necessarily presents the question as to exactly why you have stated it. What is the provenance of that idea? Did the idea have its first advent through you? Did you just cobble it together out of other things you had read, or imagine you had read? If not, where did you first encounter the idea?

I was not trying to "find the edge" of the abilities of your personal memory recall of historical data, and, to complain that I was doing so is not only to utter falsehood, but is also to vainly try to divert attention, by a red herring, away from the questions I asked you (against which questions, thus far, you've been pleased to stonewall).

What theology are you now? Oh yeah. 'Stonewall.'

If you honestly think that you did, at some point, get the idea from somewhere outside of your own imagination, and from some ancient document(s), why then, I, for one, couldn't care less whether or not you can't remember, "off the cuff", whence it came. You have time, access to the internet, and, perhaps, some capacity for a little research; you can try to look it up, and to report your findings, if you really believe you didn't make it up out of thin air, and especially if you really wish others to believe you didn't forge it out of thin air. It's your own problem, really.

Tacitus, writing in the 2nd century, mentioned a personage by the name of 'Christus' or 'Chrestus' who, living in the first third of the 1st century, "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". You can read it, here. Therein, at least, is not even the slightest shred of a hint that anyone ever accused anyone of cannibalizing this 'Christus' or 'Chrestus'. If you think you can find some historical source that does state, or even imply, that such an accusation occurred, why then, feel free to bring it forward, displaying the passage(s) you come up with, and citing it/them with chapter/verse, and, perhaps, a web link to where it/they can be read by anyone who cares.

I jumbled together my Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Justin Martyr. In reviewing what I mistakenly thought, it turns out the accusation was made early on, clearly due to misunderstanding, and that that accusation metamorphosed into a crazy accusation of them eating babies as part of the rite of initiation.

After all, you've made your claim to be an attempted prop for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation, have you not?

Yes. And of course, you for some reason, took the bait. You think that some spurious accusation made by non-Christians is the best evidence that the Catholic and Orthodox theology of the Eucharist now, is just as the earliest Church's was? Do you really think that? That that's all that we have to show the historicity of this doctrine? Come on. You don't think that Christian records prove this, and plainly?

Oh wait a sec. Now I remember your odd resistance that Ignatius wasn't a Christian, or that his epistles were forgeries written by pagans, or something like this. Oh oh oh. You're going to argue that, because you know what Ignatius wrote about the Eucharist. You know that he wrote in such a dismissive way about the Protestant notion that the Eucharist is symbolic only. You know that. That's why you floated that silly idea. Now I understand.

My goodness. We don't even need Ignatius. All we need is to read the Bible, and believe the Bible. It's the plainest language. We know what our Lord said about the matter, when He instituted the Eucharist, and we know that the earliest Church commenced celebrating the Eucharist right away, and we also know that when the Apostle John was adding some of the Apostolic tradition to writing, to convert the oral into the written and therefore into Scripture, that he wrote about Christ's discourse on the Eucharist. We also know that eating and drinking 'unworthily' warranted a threat of violence.

That the oldest Christian traditions believe literally in the body and blood of Christ being present in the Eucharist isn't why to believe it, it's just to be expected if that's what the Church always believed, going back into the Apostolic era.

 

[Idolater]

The cup, or the contents thereof?

The cup itself, obviously.

And, which cup?

Yes.

There must, at this moment, be trillions of drinking vessels of various shapes, sizes, colours, materials, textures, weights, etc., throughout the world.

Not 'sizes' though. Everything else, but not 'sizes.'

Which one of those drinking vessels are you saying is Christ?

Yes.

Is it a metal one, a wooden one, a Tupperware one, a Styrofoam one, or what?

Yes.

And, where is it right now?

I know, right?

Is it in Rome?

Geez idk.

Is it in Jerusalem?

What's that?

Where is it?

Four.

 

[Idolater]

What's your theology again, Django? Just try to answer. You don't even actually have to answer at this point, just try to.

 

[7djengo7]

I wasn't even being serious with you.

Well, then, go beg for attention from someone who hasn't already sounded you out for a shyster, and who is base enough to find your puerile antics the least bit amusing.

 

[Idolater]

Well, then, go beg for attention from someone who hasn't already sounded you out for a shyster, and who is base enough to find your puerile antics the least bit amusing.

Theology again? Why no answer. I wonder.

Wait.

I know.