OK, I will agree with this statement, with a little to add.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...(shortened for point and brevity)

So, we can faithfully conclude that all scripture is inspired. Of course we are referring to the autographs, not our preserved bible today. How was it inspired("God-breathed")? Via the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and the apostles alone.

The apostles, being moved by the Holy Spirit, would have to have known that what they were writing was the Word of God.

The issue of whether or not the original autographs were inspired is not arguable. I think we both agree on this.

I must admit, I am little confused about where we are going with this.

My understanding is this:

We agree that the apostles alone were inspired by God to autograph the New Testament books and letters.

We must understand that even as they were inspired to pen those autographs, they must have also understood them by the same revelation of the Holy Spirit which revealed it to them. It would be difficult to believe that they would not also understand what they wrote.

However, I must greatly stress that it was not their own intellect which allowed them to understand the scriptures that they penned. I believe inspiration to mean that the words that they wrote did not come from them, it came from the Holy Spirit.

Also, by the same token, after those autographs were penned, and the apostles passed on, that dispensation also ended. Could it have been passed on? I do not see how. Man cannot determine how the Holy Spirit is given to another. It is not like the olden prophets who passed on there mantles to their successors. Maybe I am wrong, but I see no evidence of this occuring.

Grace just does not work that way. Grace is accorded by God's sovereign will alone, and He bestows it upon whom He He will. It is not restricted by man's ability to succeed. It is a gift, only a gift.

I cannot agree with this statement.

No, I'm sorry. It is not.

The apostles were used to Jesus speaking to them in parables. Perhaps they waited for Him to sit down with them and clarify what He meant.

Do you believe that the only time that Jesus ever spoke a word to anyone is when it is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. "Bible Alone" people seem to act this way. If it isn't in the Scriptures, then Jesus didn't say it.

So He didn't sit down with them and explan how the Passover would become the Eucharist? I don't have proof that He did and you don't have proof that He didn't.

What we do have, which would stand up in a court of law, is witnesses. The Early Fathers, and what they believed, are a witness to the fact that Jesus taught the apostles that they would be, in some form, eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood.

We also have something else very important that you are not considering. You say that the proper belief was your belief regarding the elements of the Lord's Supper. If this were so, then we would have had at least two different camps competing to teach their truth. Both would have garnered followers and both would have been preaching their "truth" and seeking converts. This is what happened with heretic Arias.

And what happened after a while as the two camps collided over the deity of Christ?

The Council of Nicea.

In fact, we see the very first council, the Jerusalem council, called in the Book of Acts to discuss the claims of the circumcision party.

But we see no council -- none! -- regarding the nature of the Eucharist. You know what that evidence tells me? It tells me that there were no people who believed like you do, for if there were, there surely would have been a council to put the issue to rest once and for all.

And lastly, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church. I believe Him, and therefore, I believe that He kept the Church safe from all error, despite the strong attempts of the evil one to kill it off.

Brother Ed

First, he wasn't even speaking to the disciples and apostles who were present, they just were listening to Jesus' discussion with the Jews. Secondly, you sure have a peculiar way of deciding what you take literally and what you take metaphorically.

The Jews, as evidenced by Jesus' many discussions with them, needed to be spoken to in the way that they were here. It was a hard saying to them, because He knew they would take it literally.

This is simply evidenced by the following verse in John:
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.

Jim --

Answer the question, please.

WHY do we see NO COUNCIL to discuss the nature of the Eucharist?

Brother Ed

Because there has never been any "council" required for any New Testament christian to do anything under the law. We are NOT under law, why can't you understand that?

Why do catholics have such a problem with Christian liberty? Like I have been reiterating, why are catholics so selective on what they consider doctrine or not?

They bounce back and forth on what they accept as literal and what is metaphorical.

If the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood is coorect then what does John 6:63 mean?:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Catholics are so hung up on ceremony, which was abolished by the coming of Christ, and tradition, that they cannot see truth anymore. There is no room for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now you presume to know the thoughts of the apostles and disciples? So why are you praying to people who consistently disobeyed Jesus, even in your own words here, to "intercede" for you?

Not perhaps, I have now given the scripture to you twice. He did in fact explain himself:

John 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.

The flesh profiteth nothing!

His reference to this was specific in referring to their questioning whether or not what He was saying was literal. Why do you continue to take things so literal like this when Jesus' consistency was that when He said things like this He was, in fact, not speaking literally. Consistency in scripture teaches us that any time Jesus was talking to the Jews, as He was here, he used speeches like this to confound them, because He knew they could not see anything other than literal.

So are you trying to tell me that the apostles never realized until after His death that they were supposed to cannibalize Him? What a farce! You really ought to listen to yourself talking here.

So are you telling me that no words ever came out of Jesus' mouth other than what is written in the bible? And then also, can I conclude that you are saying that no words ever spoken in the bible did not come from Jesus' mouth? Do you really believe that?

Do you ever read 1 Cor. chapter 11? There is your proof.

Again, here is where catholicism takes tradition above the bible. I would dearly like to see all of these "documents" that catholics have, that spells out this ceremonial law of apostolic council. It is scary indeed to think that anyone could claim that after Jesus died that these people came together and started drawing up plans for, and establishing law for the local church above and beyond that which the bible spells out.

It is also funny how you can take such a staunch position of how that "If it isn't in the Scriptures, then Jesus didn't say it.", yet you can take the entire catholic church which is steeped in years of what was, and is, not in the bible.

So your answer to my question is that if the apostles had understood what Jesus was saying literally, then they indeed would have eaten Jesus right then and there?

Is this what you are saying? Answer this question yes or no.

You cannot be a double-minded man. Either the apostles would or would not have eaten Jesus. If they would have, then you would not have your messiah, would you? Or they specifically broke a commandment of Jesus in rebellion against Him. If they would not, then obviously your thinking the "Eucharist" is truly the physical body and blood of Christ is unbiblical!

Bible or common sense, your choice. Either way, this cannot be.

Answer the question, wouldn't they have eaten Jesus had they thought He truly was speaking literally?

And lastly,

This has absolutely no bearing on what we are speaking of here. The Nicean council was created by Constantine to speak of a diference in opinion by Alexander and Arius on the creation of Christ. As usual, this problem began in Alexandria, where just about all biblical problems started.

I find it very ironic that the Emporer would write to them both thus:

It is not coincidental that the catholic church is so VERY similar to the religion instituted by Semiramis. I will leave this for the "Immaculate Conception" thread however as it deals with the Catholic Church's "Mary"

So, answer my question as I have given you above.

Hi Jim

Hope you had a Good Thanksgiving?

Jim, you fail to address the practice of the Early Church. It is a matter of record that they believed in the Eucharist. Agent Smith showed a number of writings of men who were taught by the Apostles. Those men and clearly the rest of the Church accepted the Eucharist as reality and not symbol.

Could please address the early church understanding of the Eucharist?

Kitefish

I have been provided conjecture on what the catholic church's view of "early church" doctrine of the eucharist is.

So my question is: Since we have the Holy Bible as our witness, why would I take any local church's(yes, even the "early church", depending on which church you're speaking of, in your case, the catholic beliefs) evidence" on any standing above and beyond that which is stated in God's Holy Word?

You loudly state the very source of the problems of the catholic church.

The issue is not what the "early church" believed as you have stated. There were plenty of "early churches" which were just as erroneous, if not more so then, as now.

If you are talking about true christianity, The apostles and disciples did NOT believe in the Eucharist. The bible says it, that settles it. I don't care if you think all early church's believe it, it is just not so. Just because a few people in your early catholic church stated it, doesn't make it fact.

Why can't you get past this? You cannot understand my viewpoint, I will not accept yours, so now what?

It is so sad that the very fact that someone finds manuscripts of early origin, that someone automatically accepts it as truth, as if early people were infallible somehow.

Why do you think God promised to preserve His word(Psalm 12:6,7)? Because of the very discussion we are having now.

If we are going to have a discussion, then you need to keep everything except for the Word of God out of it. Every other source, especially that which is declared by the catholic church, is conjecture and has man's erroneous bias in it.

Case in point, Eusebius of Caesaria. Enough said.

You seem afraid to admit that the Early Fathers believed in the Eucharist, don't you, Jim?

You see, if you admitted that, then you would really have no legs to stand on for your own private interpretation of the scriptures.

That is why I asked you whether or not there was a council regarding this issue. The lack of a council shows that there simply was no other opinion than that whcih we hold today -- the the Eucharist becomes the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is also interesting how you can scald me for what you would call "conjecture" regarding my posts in the Marian thread, but it is perfectly okay for you to use the same conjecture. Point in case: I have shown you how Jesus our Lord is called "the Last Adam" and then extrapolated the necessary truth from that title, which means that as the Last Adam, Jesus is the restoration of that which was lost in the Garden.

Your response is pretty well along the lines of "Bah. Humbug!"

Yet you turn right around and state that because the apostles didn't consume Jesus on the spot in a cannabalistic manner, this proves that the words He spoke were not meant literally.

Jim, you are trying to have it both ways, my man. Foul play!! 15 yards and loss of down!!

Let's also look at the scripture you gave us. It states that the "flesh profiteth nothing" and you interpret that to mean that there is no profit in the eating of Jesus' Flesh in the Eucharist.

Well, Jim! If that is so, then the Flesh that hung on the Cross was of no profit either then, was it? Again, you are trying to have it both ways here and your consistency is sorely lacking.

BTW -- And just a little food for thought for you. The Orthodox Church calls the Eucharist an "eschatological event" every time it is celebrated. It took me a bit to figure out what they are talking about, but when I understood it, it made sense.

The picture of the Eucharist is the nuptial bed in which husband and wife become "one flesh". Boy, do they ever become one flesh! That is not just a saying, it is a deep and intimate reality. In the nuptial bed, the husband and wife renew their covenant vows of marriage to one another, and they make real in the flesh what they feel in their spirit for one another -- their unity in love.

It is not without accident that we are called -- both corporately and individually -- the Bride of Christ. And the Eucharist is the nuptial bed of the Church in which our Lord becomes "one flesh" with us in His love for us. We are united to Him in love and our covenant is renewed through the sacrifice of Himself for us.

But this is merely a picture of a deeper and more profound reality which awaits those who die in faith -- the eternal love/uni*n with our Blessed Redeemer/Husband. There will be a "one flesh" experience in Heaven which we cannot understand this side of the grave. The Eucharist is merely a picture of that eternal eschatological event.

Let me ask you this. If this is true (just meditate on it for a second and pretend it is, even though you don't think so), WHY would you not wish to enter into the most intimate uni*n possible with the Lord Who so loved you as to give Himself to death for you?

The "bare memorial" meal of Protestantism is like a husband and wife sitting in their living room staring at their wedding certificate and saying "Yep, we're married".

The Eucharist is that husband and wife in the nuptial embrace, showing to each other by the full giving of themselves to each other, that they are indeed committed in marriage to each other.

It is my prayer that this beautiful picture of God's love to us would become a reality to you.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

When do I get my questions answered? It seems I have been doing the asnwering.

I have another one for you:

If the apostles were facing salvation, (I hope you actually believe the apostles are in heaven), then would you not agree that they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit in John Chapter 6?

Thinking about this, read the exchange between Peter and Jesus Christ:

6:67
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:69
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter's affirmation of Christ clearly disproves transubstantiation. He did not say, "Lord we believe that eating your flesh will give us eternal life". In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus blesses Peter saying that, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"

Realizing further, that had Peter truly recognized that Jesus had been speaking literally, we would not have had these words. Peter, as revealed to by the Holy Spirit stated, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

His WORDS, not His FLESH are what saves, can you understand that? It is belief unto salvation in the blood of Jesus Christ that saves, not cannabalism. His shed blood at calvary is salvation, not the drinking of it.

Supporting verses:

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Acts 16:30
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Further, what does Genesis 9:4 state?:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

And no, this is NOT talking about animals.

So are you saying that Jesus broke His Fathers commandment?

Then I will state loudly and clearly:

The true early church "fathers" or whatever you want to call them (I will tell you then that I am staying as far away as I can from catholic terminology), did NOT believe in the "Eucharist".

I want you and everyone else to understand the difference between your early "church fathers" and the people of whom I speak.

It is almost as if you are trying to get me to admit that the early church fathers were more correct than God's Word. Do you believe this is true?

Where is your proof that there was any other belief than the Eucharistic practice of Catholicism in the second century?

Not to take away from the seriousness of the topic, but can vegetarians/vegans partake of the eucharist?

MNW

Where is your proof that there was any other belief than the practice of representative communi*n in which He commanded us in 1 Cor. 11?

What is wrong with you people? Look at your questions! It is a baiting!

Stop asking me to provide proof of something that is not relevant. Who cares what the people did outside of scripture. Anyone can twist scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean. Again, the catholic church.

If the entire world within 30 seconds of Christ's death decided to firmly believe that circumcision was indeed necessary for salvation, as some saved Jews believed, does that make it correct? NO.

So stop asking me loaded questions. If you cannot stick to scripture, and discuss what SCRIPTURE says, then I am not going to argue with you.

I think you are struggling within yourself to realize that maybe, just maybe, the catholic church has been teaching false doctrine from it's inception, or over a period of time. Either way, it is still false doctrine any way you look at it.'

Jim this is an assertion.

People have asked you to support your assertion that members of the Early Church believed, like you, that Eucharist is merely symbolic.

I think that is a fair request. Demonstrate your assertion with evidence. Who are the 'people of whom you speak.' ? AgentSmith and Defensor Fidei have provided you with some writings of Early Church Fathers that support the position that Eucharist is the Body of Christ.

kitefish

That is right, Jim. And that is exactly what you find in Protestantism. There are at least a dozen different ideas about the nature of the "Lord's Supper". There are probably two dozen different ideas about how it should be celebrated.

As a matter of fact, I would very much like to know how YOUR ASSEMBLY celebrates it, inasmuch as there is not one single word of command which tells us what to use for the elements, is there? Upon what then do you base your obsevance when there is nothing of direct command telling you what to do? Could it be your Fundamentalist Tradition perhaps?

The point of talking about other Christians in an earlier time is simply that if you have the entire group believing one thing, then you know that must be what the CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE IS!!!

Since we see no evidence of any other belief in that time, then your assertion that the Bible passages in John do not teach the Eucharist have no substance.

You keep saying "the Bible says" but the fact of the matter is that what the Bible clearly says, you keep denying. The Bible clearly says we must eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man for eternal life. Not only this, but the very very FIRST CHRISTIANS believed that also, and we see that from their writings. Yet because you A). do not understand the nature of covenantal renewal in the Eucharistic meal B). do not understand the nature of sacrifice in the covenantal system C) have been taught that everything the Catholic Faith teaches is wrong D) are scared spitless of Catholicism in general (don't argue this -- I was a Fundamentalist once of your belief and I know what it feels like)

YOU cannot see the forest for the trees.

Therefore, you continue to ignore evidence to the contrary because it does not fit your preconceptions of what is true and right.

Any alien lifeform who would come down to earth (as an example) and examine the body of evidence extant in the writings of the early Christians would conclude by sheer logic that there is simply no evidence that the Holy Scriptures were interpreted in the manner you use.

The ONLY other explanation then would be that the entire Church, from the apostles onward, APOSTACIZED AND BETRAYED JESUS' TEACHINGS the minute He ascended into Heaven from the Mount of Olives. In other words, for 1500 years, until the anabaptists brought forth their teachings that the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a bare memorial meal of rememberance, the whole Church was steeped in error!

Right?

Of course, if this is true, then the very scriptures which you accept as your finished canon come into question, don't they. After all, if these people were in error and deceived, what makes you think it stops when the Council of Carthage convenes to determine which of the numerous writings extant about Jesus are truly scripture and of divine origin and which are not? Can you really really believe that they would get baptism wrong, the Lord's Supper wrong, the hierarchy of the papacy as proper leadership wrong, honor given to the Blessed Virgin wrong, and somehow get the canon right?

Come on Jim, you are much smarter than that!!!

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT overcome His Church. If all those doctrines are wrong from day one, then the evil one DID overcome the Church and billions of souls went to hell for 1500 years?

What kind of Savior is that? What kind of salvation plan is that?

Not one I would trust!!! 8O

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed