ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Rosenritter]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
When the authors wrote "predestined"...God was writing "predestined."
If you deny that God wrote His word through the Apostles, Prophets, Kings, etc, within the Bible, then we have no common ground from which to discuss. I will not bother with one who denies that God spoke forth His word in scripture.

He simply wasn't writing "predestined" as defined within Calvinist theology texts.

* Destined = set for a certain path or result, but not a guarantee of achieving that path or result
* Pre = determined before

Absent from any of this definition is the absurd premise that God micromanages every person and has only created the illusion of free moral agency, or that every person fulfills the destiny which God has created for us.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 KJV
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

[7djengo7]

Because you disregard our ancestors in the faith as rank idolaters, you baldly assert (again) that the scriptures concerning the Eucharist are unambiguously metaphorical. Because I do not so disregard them, combined with a reading of those scriptures that allows for them to not be metaphorical, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

You unambiguously, baldly asserted the falsehood that the "scriptures that talk about the Eucharist" are ambiguous, at best, despite the fact that they are not the least bit ambiguous. And then, hypocritically, you accuse people, who know those texts to be unambiguously metaphorical, of reading something external into them, whereas you are the one who is reading something external into them because you think (or pretend to think) they are ambiguous. You're the eisegete, here.

In one post, you wrote:

I was a convinced Clavinist for many years

Did you, at some point, change from thinking that the eucharist passages are unambiguous to thinking they are not unambiguous? If so, what would you say it was, in those very Scripture passages, themselves, that you had previously missed, which, now that you have noticed it, compels you to now judge them to be ambiguous?

 

[MennoSota]

He simply wasn't writing "predestined" as defined within Calvinist theology texts.

* Destined = set for a certain path or result, but not a guarantee of achieving that path or result
* Pre = determined before

Absent from any of this definition is the absurd premise that God micromanages every person and has only created the illusion of free moral agency, or that every person fulfills the destiny which God has created for us.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 KJV
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

[https://www]
predestination

noun

pre·​des·​ti·​na·​tion | \(ˌ)prē-ˌde-stə-ˈnā-shən, ˌprē-de-\

Definition of predestination

1: the act of predestinating : the state of being predestinated

2: the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predestination

 

[Rosenritter]

There were those who believed in Him in a real sense, and they were the same who believed in His Real Presence in the Eucharist. Climate change opponents sometimes call it 'global warmening.' A minority of Christians today disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And none of them think that Christ is 'kept in a box,' anymore than climate change proponents would call it 'global warmening.'

You have all Christians from just after the Apostolic age onward, until the 1500s, being idolaters. I have trouble believing that, not because humans are incapable of error, but because it makes Christ and His Apostles virtually complete failures in building the Church.

Acts 17:29-30 KJV
(29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

If the Godhead is not like unto gold, or silver, or stone... why should it be bread? The very nature of idolatry is to claim that the thing itself is actually a god. This bread, can it speak? or is it another dumb idol?

1 Corinthians 12:1-2 KJV
(1) Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
(2) Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Speaking plainly, "worship of physical objects must not be idolatry because the Roman church says it is not" is not a good argument. The entire Roman system is not the church Christ created, which should be obvious from its intrinsic structure. Jesus did not come to institute Popes and priests to intercede between God and the people: that's precisely what he did away with.

In the Old Testament there was a temple, and only priests were allowed in that temple. There was also a special Holy place that only the High Priest could enter therein once a year. That veil was torn asunder and that temple was destroyed. Gone is the Levitical priesthood, replaced by Jesus our High Priest. Within the church that Jesus ordained there is no laity: the body of Christ are priests unto God without need for further intercession.

1 Peter 2:5-9 KJV
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
(8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

A system of control that establishes its own priesthood with power over the laity is the definition of Nicolaitan (power over laity) which Jesus specifically called out in when he spoke to the churches in Revelation 2:6 & 15. The church described by Peter has no laity.

The Eucharist also resembles the feeding of the 5000. A very small amount of food fed very many people.

If the Eucharist were merely a ritual of distributing a small amount of food to feed many and used to teach the feeding of the five thousand that would be perfectly acceptable. The problem arises as you told me that the wafer is literally worshiped.

I say let this idol be put to the same test that God subjected all other idols. Let it be torn down, destroyed, even burnt. If it be God then it can defend itself. But we already know what would happen (this has been done before, as it not?) A a dumb idol it can neither hear nor speak.

Which is one reason why we believe that the second part of John chapter six concerns the Eucharist. The point was that the whole entire Church were idolaters according to your view, up until the Reformers saved the day. That view imo beggars belief, because it would make the Apostles virtually complete failures.

The apostles can hardly be faulted for false teachers later coming among the people - Jesus prophesied as much. Nor can they be faulted for the fulfillment of prophecy in other regards. There's another woman in Revelation which fits the Roman description very aptly as well.

The doctrine of the Real Presence makes adoring the Eucharist not idolatry, unless that doctrine is error.
If the doctrine of the Real Presence is error, then adoring the Eucharist is idolatry, we're agreed on that conditional premise. We disagree that the antecedent is true.

Worshiping bread.

If you were to ask me "Did God physically manifest Himself in the flesh" I could point to multiple passages to demonstrate that yes, He did, because it is clearly stated in the first chapter of the gospel of John and 1 Timothy 3:16.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

In comparison, there is absolutely no scripture that says "Great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the bread, consumed of saints, distributed by the priests, consumed by among the laity, believed on in the world."

We never disagreed on that.
If and only if the Real Presence is "specifically against what God has warned us about," and "superstition."
The only dispute about the Real Presence mentioned in antiquity was between the bishops who taught it, and those who taught that Christ hadn't come in the flesh.

John 4:23-24 KJV
(23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Not "God is now bread" and they which worship him must worship the bread.

And before you go further trying to establish that it must be right because the Catholic church must be the church Jesus made, you might want to make a comparison of the attributes of that church against the description in Revelation 17.

 

[Idolater]

You unambiguously, baldly asserted the falsehood that the "scriptures that talk about the Eucharist" are ambiguous, at best, despite the fact that they are not the least bit ambiguous.

Let's see. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe in the Real Presence, and there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not believe in the Real Presence.

That's proof positive of ambiguity.

And then, hypocritically, you accuse people, who know those texts to be unambiguously metaphorical, of reading something external into them, whereas you are the one who is reading something external into them because you think (or pretend to think) they are ambiguous. You're the eisegete, here.

For 1500 years there was no dispute about this. If we were living during those first 1500 years of the Church, you would be correct; there is no ambiguity. But today, there are hundreds of millions of Christians on both sides, so there is ambiguity, today.

In one post, you wrote:



Did you, at some point, change from thinking that the eucharist passages are unambiguous to thinking they are not unambiguous?

For many years I did not even consider that Christ might have been literal when He said, "This is My body." I was raised Protestant, and we had a monthly communion service, which I always hated, because it lengthened the worship service just on those days. I was unaware of Church history, and of Catholic and Orthodox contemporary reality. So I thought it was unambiguously symbolic, the bread and the cup, since that's all I was exposed to as a youth, and communion was a burden, and not a celebration.

If so, what would you say it was, in those very Scripture passages, themselves, that you had previously missed, which, now that you have noticed it, compels you to now judge them to be ambiguous?

I was exposed to the fact that the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence, which seemed like superstition to me at first. It was just the seed of the to me new idea that was planted in my Christian mind.

Then I thought about one day that there were only two Christian traditions who believed that Christ was being literal in the passages in question here, and upon examining these passages, I did not find anything definitive about them being metaphorical, symbolic, or anything other than literal. In fact it was simplifying to take them literally rather than symbolically or metaphorically. Christ said nothing like, "This is like or as My body," but instead plainly He said, "This IS My body."

And it wasn't just the Real Presence that drew me in, it was also that these same traditions held to other very literal interpretations of Scripture, such as all-men pastors, and remarriage after divorce being adultery. These were things that other traditions were retreating from, but the Catholic and Orthodox traditions continued to maintain them even in the face of harsh scrutiny. They are both unyielding wrt these things, and I found that this more represented me, than any other theologies and traditions.

 

[Idolater]

Acts 17:29-30 KJV
(29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

If the Godhead is not like unto gold, or silver, or stone... why should it be bread?

For one thing Pagans (Gentiles) literally made statues of their deities, out of gold, silver, stone, wood, who knows what else. The golden ones were very valuable of course, for their gold.

But more importantly, it is because He said, "This is My body."

The very nature of idolatry is to claim that the thing itself is actually a god. This bread, can it speak? or is it another dumb idol?

A very good point. And the Church would have never thought that Christ was really present in the Eucharist, had He not said that He is.

1 Corinthians 12:1-2 KJV
(1) Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
(2) Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Speaking plainly, "worship of physical objects must not be idolatry because the Roman church says it is not" is not a good argument.

And that's never been my argument.

The entire Roman system is not the church Christ created, which should be obvious from its intrinsic structure.

The structure is with bishops at the top. That's biblical. If you disagree, then I don't know what to tell you.

Jesus did not come to institute Popes and priests to intercede between God and the people: that's precisely what he did away with.

Priests are for tending to altars. That's what they're for.

In the Old Testament there was a temple, and only priests were allowed in that temple. There was also a special Holy place that only the High Priest could enter therein once a year. That veil was torn asunder and that temple was destroyed. Gone is the Levitical priesthood, replaced by Jesus our High Priest.

And His priesthood. The bishops.

Within the church that Jesus ordained there is no laity: the body of Christ are priests unto God without need for further intercession.

The Church partakes of the altar. Who under the Old Covenant was permitted to partake of the offerings made upon the altar?

1 Peter 2:5-9 KJV
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
(8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

What "spiritual sacrifices" do you think that Peter is talking about offering here?

A system of control that establishes its own priesthood with power over the laity is the definition of Nicolaitan (power over laity) which Jesus specifically called out in when he spoke to the churches in Revelation 2:6 & 15. The church described by Peter has no laity.

Can you explain why you think that this is what 'Nicolaitan' means? Is this a scripturally derived understanding?

If the Eucharist were merely a ritual of distributing a small amount of food to feed many and used to teach the feeding of the five thousand that would be perfectly acceptable. The problem arises as you told me that the wafer is literally worshiped.

I say let this idol be put to the same test that God subjected all other idols. Let it be torn down, destroyed, even burnt. If it be God then it can defend itself. But we already know what would happen (this has been done before, as it not?) A a dumb idol it can neither hear nor speak.

No, but Christ and His Apostles put the priesthood of the New Covenant into place. These men are God's men, they are Christ's men, and they are why the Eucharist has always been offered, right from the first days of the earliest Church, and why it has never stopped to this day.

The apostles can hardly be faulted for false teachers later coming among the people - Jesus prophesied as much. Nor can they be faulted for the fulfillment of prophecy in other regards.

They certainly should be blamed, if all the false teachers are all bishops. The bishops were instituted by the Apostles, and they all taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So I stand by my point.

There's another woman in Revelation which fits the Roman description very aptly as well.

Spell out what you're implying.

Worshiping bread.

Worshiping Christ.

If you were to ask me "Did God physically manifest Himself in the flesh" I could point to multiple passages to demonstrate that yes, He did, because it is clearly stated in the first chapter of the gospel of John and 1 Timothy 3:16.

Good.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

In comparison, there is absolutely no scripture that says "Great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the bread, consumed of saints, distributed by the priests, consumed by among the laity, believed on in the world."

There's a lot of things the Scripture does not say. But one thing that it says Four Times, is quoting Christ Jesus saying, "This Is My body," and never Him saying, "This is Like My body," or, "This is As My body."

John 4:23-24 KJV
(23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Not "God is now bread" and they which worship him must worship the bread.

Well, OK, since you've now entered John's Gospel into evidence, let's look at some other things that Christ is quoted to have said there.

"I am that bread of life." Jn6:48KJV
"This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Jn6:50-51KJV
"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. 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." Jn6:53-56KJV
"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." Jn6:57-58KJV
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jn6:63KJV

'Sounds like the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist to me.

And before you go further trying to establish that it must be right because the Catholic church must be the church Jesus made

That's not my argument. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built, but that's not my argument, that therefore the Real Presence must be true. My argument is scriptural.

, you might want to make a comparison of the attributes of that church against the description in Revelation 17.

Spell it out. Let's examine it together.

 

[Rosenritter]

Let's see. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe in the Real Presence, and there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not believe in the Real Presence.

That's proof positive of ambiguity.

Only if your measure of proof is asking the random opinions of anyone on the planet. Scripture has no doctrine of "Real Presence in the Bread" but it does speak additionally against idolatry, against the entire concept that God is present in physical items (like stone, gold, silver, and so forth.)

And more to the point, if we were in Christ's presence each and every Sunday in presence of a special wafer where he was REALLY present, why would Paul say this?

1 Thessalonians 2:19 KJV
(19) For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

Should he have not said "Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ each Sunday?"

There may be hundreds of millions that simply repeat what they have been told by their priests, but this isn't ambiguous. The doctrine is formed by turning an obvious metaphor to a ridiculous extreme until it has become superstition and idolatry.

 

[Idolater]

Only if your measure of proof is asking the random opinions of anyone on the planet.

Proof of ambiguity. It's completely valid. If there were but a few who took these scriptures in question to mean something other than all the rest, then you'd have a good case against my claim that they're ambiguous. But you don't have that. More, which I did not mention, is that there are many more hundreds of millions of Christians who take them literally, so if this were democratic, then the Real Presence would win out as the correct view. But I did not mention that, because all I needed to show was that the scriptures in question are ambiguous.

Scripture has no doctrine of "Real Presence in the Bread"

Says you.

but it does speak additionally against idolatry, against the entire concept that God is present in physical items (like stone, gold, silver, and so forth.)

All well and good, except when you have your understanding contradicting plain, non-figurative, non-metaphorical, non-symbolic language like the Lord's "This is My body," and the second half of John chapter six.

And more to the point, if we were in Christ's presence each and every Sunday in presence of a special wafer where he was REALLY present, why would Paul say this?

1 Thessalonians 2:19 KJV
(19) For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

Should he have not said "Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ each Sunday?"

idk. Why would he write that, in the light of Matthew 18:20 KJV?

Have you hoisted yourself with your own petard?

There may be hundreds of millions that simply repeat what they have been told by their priests, but this isn't ambiguous. The doctrine is formed by turning an obvious metaphor to a ridiculous extreme until it has become superstition and idolatry.

Then we return to my contention that given that the Real Presence was undisputed and taught by all ancient bishops, that your view has the Apostles as colossal failures in administrating the Church, in particular, with picking the wrong men to be bishops.

 

[Rosenritter]

For one thing Pagans (Gentiles) literally made statues of their deities, out of gold, silver, stone, wood, who knows what else. The golden ones were very valuable of course, for their gold.

But more importantly, it is because He said, "This is My body."

1. The very definition of metaphor is when two things are compared with the relation of "is" to draw a similarity.
2. Jesus is not only known to speak in parables, but it is said that he did not speak to the people without parable.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to take a statement which has obvious metaphorical application and force a literal meaning contrary to evidence. Jesus was well known for speaking in metaphor in this fashion:

Mark 3:32-34 KJV
(32) And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
(33) And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
(34) And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Are you being consistent in interpreting every word of Christ as literal?

Mark 3:35 KJV
(35) For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

That which is obviously metaphor must be interpreted as metaphor unless it is clearly stated to be otherwise.

A very good point. And the Church would have never thought that Christ was really present in the Eucharist, had He not said that He is.
And that's never been my argument.

I don't think that's the reason. The Catholic church is well known for integrating Pagan practices into its religion for the purpose of integration. The transubstantiation doctrine dates back to Osiris and Mithra worship. Nor should this influence be surprising, considering that a December 25th date was chosen for "Christ's birthday" that rather matches Mithra's birthday and the winter solstice rather than any scriptural basis.

Spoiler

As a sampling documentation of pagan origins of the "literal presence" doctrine.

http://mtc.org/eucharst.html
https://classroom.synonym.com/the-pagan-origin-of-the-communion-12087032.html
https://werdsmith.com/genesology/nmhWhAjpC

The structure is with bishops at the top. That's biblical. If you disagree, then I don't know what to tell you.

I disagree because scripture tells us that Christ is at the top, that every man is subject to Christ, and that the church is subject to Christ. No mention of the church being subject to a pope or a bishop, or of every man being subject to a pope or a bishop.

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
(3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:23-24 KJV
(23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
(24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Priests are for tending to altars. That's what they're for.

No, that's not what priests are for, it is much broader than that. Priests intercede to God on behalf of others. If there is an altar this might include an altar, but that is not a necessary part of the definition.

And His priesthood. The bishops.
The Church partakes of the altar. Who under the Old Covenant was permitted to partake of the offerings made upon the altar?
What "spiritual sacrifices" do you think that Peter is talking about offering here?

Ourselves.

Romans 12:1-2 KJV
(1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
(2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

However, the operation of the Roman church as not been to stay separate from the world, but rather to integrate itself into rites and traditions and beliefs of the already existing pagan religions.

Can you explain why you think that this is what 'Nicolaitan' means? Is this a scripturally derived understanding?

1. Although not directly supported from scripture, the word itself contains meaning. Subdue + people (laity.)

Spoiler

https://renner.org/who-were-nicolaitans-what-was-doctrine-deeds/

The name “Nicolaitans” is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.[/quote]

2. As supported by scripture, it is used in reference to the doctrine of Balaam, which also fits the Roman practices of integration and adoption (fornification) of idolatry and other pagan practices.

Revelation 2:14 KJV
(14) But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

No, but Christ and His Apostles put the priesthood of the New Covenant into place. These men are God's men, they are Christ's men, and they are why the Eucharist has always been offered, right from the first days of the earliest Church, and why it has never stopped to this day.
They certainly should be blamed, if all the false teachers are all bishops. The bishops were instituted by the Apostles, and they all taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So I stand by my point.

You would have to show me where Christ was implementing another priesthood. In his New Covenant there is no more veil over the Holy of Holies. It was torn from top to bottom, by God and not by men. We are not to go up to Jerusalem or any other place to worship, but rather we should worship in spirit and in truth.

Spell out what you're implying.

The Roman church already has its place in scripture as the woman that rides the beast, drunk with the blood of the saints of Christ's true church which is scattered and persecuted. This prophecy was in existence before the Roman church, and as such Catholic tradition is not a good standard to be using for authenticity of any teaching.

Worshiping Christ.
Good.
There's a lot of things the Scripture does not say. But one thing that it says Four Times, is quoting Christ Jesus saying, "This Is My body," and never Him saying, "This is Like My body," or, "This is As My body."
Well, OK, since you've now entered John's Gospel into evidence, let's look at some other things that Christ is quoted to have said there.

"I am that bread of life." Jn6:48KJV
"This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Jn6:50-51KJV
"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. 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." Jn6:53-56KJV
"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." Jn6:57-58KJV
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jn6:63KJV

'Sounds like the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist to me.

All continually consistent with the same metaphor. That brings us back to the first point of 1) Do you also interpret all statements of Christ literally? (you do not) and 2) where would such an equivalence be spelled out as actually literal?

That's not my argument. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built, but that's not my argument, that therefore the Real Presence must be true. My argument is scriptural.
Spell it out. Let's examine it together.

This post is long enough already. Let's spell out Revelation 17 in the next post? It would be important to handle this carefully to avoid undue offense.

 

[Rosenritter]

idk. Why would he write that, in the light of Matthew 18:20 KJV? Have you hoisted yourself with your own petard?

Fair enough question. I understand Matthew 18:20 both in a metaphorical sense (as to why they can ask of the Father in his name) but also fulfilled in reference to the the holy spirit. This would be a constant spiritual presence (within the believer), not a Real presence (as if God could be kept within bread.)

Then we return to my contention that given that the Real Presence was undisputed and taught by all ancient bishops, that your view has the Apostles as colossal failures in administrating the Church, in particular, with picking the wrong men to be bishops.

No, it is likely that those ancient bishops are victims of a fraudulent church that would attempt to supplant the church of Christ and his apostles. I cannot be specific without knowing which particular bishops you are referring to. The Roman claim and doctrine of "apostolic succession" is not an accepted given in this context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Spell out what you're implying.
Spell it out. Let's examine it together.

The Roman church already has its place in scripture as the woman that rides the beast, drunk with the blood of the saints of Christ's true church which is scattered and persecuted. This prophecy was in existence before the Roman church, and as such Catholic tradition is not a good standard to be using for authenticity of any teaching.

This post is long enough already. Let's spell out Revelation 17 in the next post? It would be important to handle this carefully to avoid undue offense.

Maybe starting a list of what we are told about that woman in Revelation 17 would be a good start? From there we could see what lines up where.

 

[7djengo7]

Let's see. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe in the Real Presence, and there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not believe in the Real Presence.

That's proof positive of ambiguity.

So, for the proposition, P, the fact that one person believes P while another person does not believe it (or even denies it) makes P ambiguous? Really? How about the true proposition, 'Jesus rose from the dead'? Lots of people believe the truth that Jesus rose from the dead, yet other people do not believe the truth that Jesus rose from the dead. According to you, that truth--that Jesus rose from the dead--would be ambiguous, because some people believe it while others do not. Unless, of course, you are specially pleading just for the eucharist Scriptures when you assert that they are ambiguous. What about the pronouncements of those whom you call teaching authorities? Obviously, only some people believe the things they teach, while other people do not believe those things; it seems, then, that the things your teaching authorities teach are, of necessity, ambiguous. And, the things which you, yourself (on what authority I know not) teach? For instance:

the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence

You believe (or, at least, pretend to believe) that proposition, whereas others do not believe it, nay, many deny it. So, then, the thing which you claim--that "the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence"--must, by your own principle, be ambiguous, since it is both believed and not believed.

 

[7djengo7]

Christ said nothing like, "This is like or as My body," but instead plainly He said, "This IS My body."

Christ called Simon Barjona a rock. Do you take it that Simon was literally a rock? If not, then why the double standard?

 

[7djengo7]

For 1500 years there was no dispute about this. If we were living during those first 1500 years of the Church, you would be correct; there is no ambiguity. But today, there are hundreds of millions of Christians on both sides, so there is ambiguity, today.

Here, you're admitting my point. In saying that there used to be no ambiguity, but that now there is ambiguity, you are necessarily excluding ambiguity from the text, itself, since the text has not changed.

 

[Rosenritter]

Christ called Simon Barjona a rock. Do you take it that Simon was literally a rock? If not, then why the double standard?

Matthew 16:17-18 KJV
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The name Peter means "stone" but Jesus called himself the Rock. The church is built on Jesus, and Jesus is the head of the church, and it was Jesus who prevailed against the gates of hell.

1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Colossians 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Matthew 7:24 KJV
(24) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

2 Samuel 22:32 KJV
(32) For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

 

[Idolater]

Here, you're admitting my point. In saying that there used to be no ambiguity, but that now there is ambiguity, you are necessarily excluding ambiguity from the text, itself, since the text has not changed.

I have no trouble with that conclusion, since I only grant there is ambiguity in the scriptures in question, because of, and on the behalf of, all of you who deny the Real Presence. I don't think these scriptures are ambiguous, which is why I said that they are only ambiguous 'at best.' 'At worst,' for you, is that no, they're not ambiguous, but are rather quite clearly teaching the Real Presence, especially taking into account the text of the second half of John chapter six (which actually addresses those that day, who wondered, like you all, if the Lord was being metaphorical, symbolic, or figurative), the context of John's Gospel (he wrote it after Peter had died, and it is the latest Gospel written, so what John chose to include shines some indisputably Apostolic light upon the state of the Church in the waning years of the Apostolic age), and the undisputed history of the Church, for 1500 years (during which the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was uniformly believed and taught by her).

So I agree that the text is not inherently ambiguous, and that it has not changed. It means today what it meant then, and for 1500 years its meaning was manifestly unambiguous.

Here is what 'ambiguous' or 'ambiguity' means, from the first page of my search:

Ambiguity | Define Ambiguity at Dictionary.com
noun, plural am·bi·gu·i·ties. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention ....

Ambiguity - Wikipedia
Ambiguity is a type of meaning in which several interpretations are plausible. ... ....

AMBIGUITY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
ambiguity meaning: 1. (an example of) the fact of something having more than one possible meaning and therefore possibly causing confusion: 2. a situation or statement that is unclear because it can be understood in more than one way ....

What is ambiguity? definition and meaning ...
Ambiguity is commonly of two types (1) Latent ambiguity is not readily apparent from the language or text of a document, but arises when the document is executed or interpreted together with another document, and (2) Patent ambiguity arises directly from the language or text of the document itself.

Ambiguous - definition of ambiguous by The Free Dictionary
ambiguous describes that which is capable of two or more contradictory interpretations, usu. unintentionally so: an ambiguous line in a poem; an ambiguous smile. ....​

I have made my case that the scriptures in question (i.e., "This is My body" x 4) are either ambiguous, or unambiguous, in which latter case they teach the Real Presence. You haven't made a case, but have again relied upon your old trusty bald assertion, that they are unambiguously metaphorical, figurative, and symbolic.

 

[Idolater]

Christ called Simon Barjona a rock. Do you take it that Simon was literally a rock? If not, then why the double standard?

It's not a double standard. Peter was named, He gave Simon a new name. He also made Peter the leader of His Church. Versus instituting the Eucharist. They are different contexts.

 

[Idolater]

So, for the proposition, P, the fact that one person believes P while another person does not believe it (or even denies it) makes P ambiguous? Really?

Isn't that the definition of the word?

How about the true proposition, 'Jesus rose from the dead'? Lots of people believe the truth that Jesus rose from the dead, yet other people do not believe the truth that Jesus rose from the dead. According to you, that truth--that Jesus rose from the dead--would be ambiguous, because some people believe it while others do not.

So what? You sure are fixated on this word. Perhaps you're reading into it necessary intent? I don't do that. It'd be more accurate to call deliberate ambiguity 'equivocation,' I think, than 'ambiguity.' Those two words denote similar things, but they connote different things. Some other words that might be more accurate are 'tricky,' 'crafty,' 'deceptive,' 'confusing.' I don't grant any of these other words though, to the passages teaching the Real Presence; I grant 'ambiguous,' on account of all the Christians who deny the Real Presence. It's from charity, really.

Unless, of course, you are specially pleading just for the eucharist Scriptures when you assert that they are ambiguous.

I grant that they ambiguous for your sake. I don't find them to be ambiguous.

What about the pronouncements of those whom you call teaching authorities? Obviously, only some people believe the things they teach, while other people do not believe those things; it seems, then, that the things your teaching authorities teach are, of necessity, ambiguous.

So what? Is your concern that I'm too liberal with the word? OK, fine. Christ's Resurrection is not ambiguous. Neither are the scriptures that teach the Real Presence. And neither are any of the Church's authorized teachings in matters of faith and morals.

There. Better?

And, the things which you, yourself (on what authority I know not) teach? For instance:



You believe (or, at least, pretend to believe) that proposition, whereas others do not believe it, nay, many deny it.

Who? You said "many," and I'll grant that you're one of them, so give me one more name of a person who denies that "the ancientest Christian traditions (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) believed in the Real Presence."

So, then, the thing which you claim--that "the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence"--must, by your own principle, be ambiguous, since it is both believed and not believed.

After you cite a source that shows that many deny it, then I'll still ask you, And that does what for your position?

 

[Rosenritter]

I have made my case that the scriptures in question (i.e., "This is My body" x 4) are either ambiguous, or unambiguous, in which latter case they teach the Real Presence. You haven't made a case, but have again relied upon your old trusty bald assertion, that they are unambiguously metaphorical, figurative, and symbolic.

Matthew 12:48-50 KJV
(48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
(49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Is there a REAL Presence of Mary in his disciples?

 

[Idolater]

1. The very definition of metaphor is when two things are compared with the relation of "is" to draw a similarity.

Every sentence that says "X is Y" is a metaphor?

2. Jesus is not only known to speak in parables, but it is said that he did not speak to the people without parable.

What is said about how He spoke to His future Apostles?

Therefore, it is not reasonable to take a statement which has obvious metaphorical application and force a literal meaning contrary to evidence. Jesus was well known for speaking in metaphor in this fashion:

Mark 3:32-34 KJV
(32) And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
(33) And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
(34) And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Are you being consistent in interpreting every word of Christ as literal?

Mark 3:35 KJV
(35) For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

That which is obviously metaphor must be interpreted as metaphor unless it is clearly stated to be otherwise.

I agree. I just disagree that the scriptures concerning the Eucharist are "obviously" metaphorical.

I don't think that's the reason. The Catholic church is well known for integrating Pagan practices into its religion for the purpose of integration.

And the Orthodox churches. And why? Because we're all Pagans/Gentiles, and the Church has long welcomed "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," that is, all those things, whether they are of Pagan/Gentile origin or not, that do not conflict with the Word of God/the Christian faith.

Pagans/Gentiles are God's children, and while their paganisms are all false at the end of the day, nonetheless "elements of truth and grace" are found among them. Consider Paul. He by virtue of His Apostolic teaching authority, entered into the Christian scriptures, these Pagan/Gentile words: "in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being," and, "we are also his (God's) offspring" (Ac17:28KJV). These words were penned by rank Pagans/idolaters, who nonetheless, by virtue of them being "His offspring," were able to devise things that were not in conflict with the Word of God, and in this case, were even quite in keeping with it.

The transubstantiation doctrine dates back to Osiris and Mithra worship.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a fallacy, as is equating correlation and causation without additional evidence.

Nor should this influence be surprising, considering that a December 25th date was chosen for "Christ's birthday" that rather matches Mithra's birthday and the winter solstice rather than any scriptural basis.

It's imo immaterial when the Church decides to celebrate the Lord's birthday. I don't consider it blameworthy to declare 'adverse possession' of an abandoned Pagan/Gentile annual holiday, and claim it as a Church feast day. Is it a big deal for you?

Spoiler

As a sampling documentation of pagan origins of the "literal presence" doctrine.

http://mtc.org/eucharst.html
https://classroom.synonym.com/the-pagan-origin-of-the-communion-12087032.html
https://werdsmith.com/genesology/nmhWhAjpC

Post hoc fallacy, and correlation and causation again. Unless you can show that the Church was actually influenced by these? Right now I feel like you're reading between lines, and it is not warranted.

I disagree because scripture tells us that Christ is at the top, that every man is subject to Christ, and that the church is subject to Christ. No mention of the church being subject to a pope or a bishop, or of every man being subject to a pope or a bishop.

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
(3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:23-24 KJV
(23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
(24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

So it's a lack of scriptural specificity as to the bishops' role in the Church, that supports your apparent belief in the 'cessation of bishops' then? 'Feels like 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater,' but maybe that's overstating it a bit.

No, that's not what priests are for, it is much broader than that.

So it Is what priests are for, it's just that they're also for more than just that?

Priests intercede to God on behalf of others. If there is an altar this might include an altar, but that is not a necessary part of the definition.

If there is no altar, then there is no need for priests. Protestant ecclesial communities typically, but not always, lack any altar, because they don't believe in the Real Presence.

Ourselves.

OK.

Romans 12:1-2 KJV
(1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
(2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

However, the operation of the Roman church as not been to stay separate from the world

How do you interpret 1st Corinthians 5:10 KJV's apparent disapproval of the notion that the Church should "go out of the world," and 2nd Corinthians 6:17 KJV's "come out from among them, and be ye separate?"

Also, who under the Old Covenant was permitted to partake of the offerings made upon the altar?

, but rather to integrate itself into rites and traditions and beliefs of the already existing pagan religions.

I disagree that the Church integrates herself "into" these things, as if she is subject to them. Did Paul integrate his teaching "into" Pagan/Gentile "beliefs" in Acts 17:28 KJV? I think rather that he 'appropriated' them.

1. Although not directly supported from scripture, the word itself contains meaning. Subdue + people (laity.)

Spoiler

https://renner.org/who-were-nicolaitans-what-was-doctrine-deeds/

The name “Nicolaitans” is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.

In what way do you think that the bishops "were somehow conquering and subduing the people," and do you have any source, biblical or otherwise, that supports it?

2. As supported by scripture, it is used in reference to the doctrine of Balaam, which also fits the Roman practices of integration and adoption (fornification) of idolatry and other pagan practices.

Revelation 2:14 KJV
(14) But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

I don't read "the doctrine of the Nicolaitans" as being "in reference to the doctrine of Balaam," since Revelation 2:15 KJV says that, "them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans," are distinct from "them that hold the doctrine of Balaam" (Rev2:14KJV); "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans...."

You would have to show me where Christ was implementing another priesthood.

Isn't that one of the descriptions of the Church, that we are a kingdom of priests? And where in Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV, Christ is called "minister," so Paul calls himself "minister" in Romans 15:16 KJV, though he is of course distinct from Christ.

In his New Covenant there is no more veil over the Holy of Holies. It was torn from top to bottom, by God and not by men. We are not to go up to Jerusalem or any other place to worship, but rather we should worship in spirit and in truth.

Right, no argument.

The Roman church already has its place in scripture as the woman that rides the beast, drunk with the blood of the saints of Christ's true church which is scattered and persecuted. This prophecy was in existence before the Roman church, and as such Catholic tradition is not a good standard to be using for authenticity of any teaching.

For centuries, the blood of the saints was not on the saints' own hands, but upon the hands of Pagans/Gentiles.

And Jews.

All continually consistent with the same metaphor.

And so we agree to disagree, since I see it consistent with the Real Presence.

That brings us back to the first point of 1) Do you also interpret all statements of Christ literally? (you do not)

In context, yes, I believe that I do.

and 2) where would such an equivalence be spelled out as actually literal?

If you cannot, will not, or otherwise do not, see the absence of any words indicating metaphor/symbol/figure, as at least allowing for literalness, then we just have to continue to agree to disagree, since this question, to me, on its face, is answered by simply reading the texts in question concerning the Eucharist.

Also, if the bread and the cup are as you believe, symbols, figures, metaphor, then why, have you ever wondered, are we to consume them? Why wouldn't the elements of the Eucharist be treated instead like the shewbread was in the temple? Just curious if you have thoughts on that.

This post is long enough already. Let's spell out Revelation 17 in the next post? It would be important to handle this carefully to avoid undue offense.

OK.