Communion Rebutal From Fundi

[N/A Gone]

So, I gave the previously mentioned Dr. Jefferson a chapter out of the Currie book "Born Fundamentalist, born again Catholic" This was his rebutal. I dont know how I should debate him back. He is very emotionally abusive and often will laugh an argument off rather than answer it. Any ideas you have would be great help. He is in red, i am not



[quote]I start this by agreeing wholeheartedly with John of the Cross: "Should I misunderstand or be mistaken on some point, whether I deduce it from Scripture or not, I will not be intending to deviate from the true meaning of Sacred Scripture or from the doctrine of our Holy Mother the Catholic Church.

[color="#FF0000"]Dear Jon, the question is, “what happens when the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church deviates from Scripture?”

To stay true to a human organization, rather then to God’s perfect word is folly and is exactly what all deceived cultists (JW’s, Mormons, etc.,.) do![/color]

Should there be some mistake, I submit entirely to the Church, or even to anyone who judges more competently about the matter than I."

[color="#FF0000"]Even if I, your bitter enemy (haha) judge more competently about the matter?

I pray you do love your Creator more then a human organization and that you will have the zeal to submit to wisdom and God’s word if you are shown the error of your ways.[/color]

-------
Communion

Sitting in communion service we hear the words.” This is my body” and “this is my blood.” What exactly did Jesus mean by these words spoken the night before his crucifixion? He knew that his words were to be repeated throughout the entire world for the rest of time. Surely he put a tremendous amount of thought into how he would express himself during this crucial night. If Jesus had meant to teach Lutheranism, he could have said in a clear way “This bread contains my body.” If he had meant to teach Evangelicalism, he could have said in a clear way “This bread only represents my body.” But he didnt say either. Yet he was clear. In the clearest way he could say it, he said, “This is my body” (Mt 26:26-28.)

[color="#FF0000"]This is a silly statement and simply meant to leave the reader with a Roman catholic bias before even considering the Scriptures. Silly.[/color]

A year earlier, Jesus had fed five thousand people with a handful of food. He had then preached a sermon that drove many of his disciples away. The sermon is hard to interpret in isolation, but it makes complete sense when understood in the context of the last supper. I have never linked the two until reading in a book by author Scot Hahn. He pointed out how important the timing of the sermon is. It occurred near Passover, one year before the last supper (which occurred on passover). A year later, the apostles would naturally remember and associate this sermon with the last supper, in much the same way that we reminisce each Thanksgiving about what has happened at past thanksgivings. Actions and traditions at present Thanksgivings are enriched by the words and traditions of past thanksgivings.

[color="#FF0000"]No comment needed. Irrelevant.[/color]

It is one of the longer sermons of Jesus recorded by the gospel writers. It is obviously very important. Since relatively few evangelicals are familiar with what this text actually says, I will quote all of Jesus' recorded words here, omitting the words not spoken by him. (It might be helpful to read the entire chapter.)

[color="#FF0000"]Why would you say that realitively few Evangelicals are familiar with this passage? This is not true and sounds quite strange.[/color]

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Isa 54:13
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
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.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
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.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
(Jn 6:26-63)

[color="#FF0000"]I don’t like the corrupted Scripture (per)version you quote, nor do I like the fact that you delete words from the text, nor do I like the fact that you do not even mention the full context of this passage but stop at verse 59, therefore, I have copied and pasted the entire context into this portion of your paper and have used the King James Bible text.[/color]

Lets review the passage. First, Jesus defines what we must do (“work”) for God: we must believe in Jesus. The Jews then ask for a sign from Jesus to prove he is worthy of belief. Jesus responds by claiming that he is “the bread of life”. This is an analogy just like “I am the door” or “I am the vine.” it could be understood in a multitude of ways, unless Jesus goes on to explain his analogy. He does exactly that: “This bread is my flesh, which i give for the life of the world.” Jesus says the bread of life is his flesh. Lest we not understand whether he means “flesh” in a real, physical, touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the cross. He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers.

[color="#FF0000"]You err not knowing the Scriptures, for the flesh profiteth nothing and you are not accepting the full context of Scripture![/color]
The analogy has been clearly explained. These is no doubt about its meaning. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a “figurative way,” or “spiritually speaking”, then so is the flesh of the crucifixion. Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative.

[color="#FF0000"]Then when he said that he is bread, like the father’s ate in the wilderness, either both the manna and he were really human flesh or both the manna and Jesus himself are edible bread! This is all childish nonsense and is due to the fact that you do not understand the full testimony of Scripture, nothing else.[/color]

Evangelicals have never wavered in their insistence that Christ really physically died on the Cross. A theologian espousing a merely spiritual crucifixion or resurrection would, by definition, no longer be an Evangelical. I can think of no way for Jesus to have affirmed more clearly that he would literally give us his flesh to eat for our salvation.

[color="#FF0000"]Roman Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism, which if they understood the Scriptures would realize is a grave sin.

Roman Catholics favorite verses are perhaps John 6: 53-54 which state, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Though this one verse does appear to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said: “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life" John 6:40

Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden!!!!!![/color]

The liberal theologian escapes this difficulty by saying that this dialogue is not really the words of Jesus. Evangelicals reject that thesis for another set of reasons, not germane to the present discussion. What is interesting about the liberal point of view, however, is that it sees the dialogue in John 6 as clearly and unmistakably supporting Catholic view of the Eucharist; that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist and that partaking of his Body and Blood does benefit us spiritually. Because the sacramental meaning is so clear in the passage, some liberal Protestant theologians assume the passage is a later fabrication. They reject the Catholic view by rejecting the authenticity of this passage.

[color="#FF0000"]I however, like many millions of Biblical Christians throughout all ages, do not reject the authenticity of the passage, yet still believe your view to be erroneous and unBiblical when taken in the full context of Scriupture in regards to this doctrine and practice. Scripture does not contradict itself ever. It is impossible to find a verse in the New Testament to contradict Christ’s command to “resist not evil” for God’s word does not contradict itself. Therefore, another verse such as when Christ allowed his disciples to carry a sword does not contradict the “resist not evil” command but must be rightly understood to mesh together with it. Those ministers who say that the sword verse allows Christians to murder their enemies have blasphemed the word of God and shamed themselves in the process for they did not rightly divide the word of truth.

This being said, when you use these verses to contradict those of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 which clearly show the flesh and blood as not only clearly symbolic but still as bread and wine, you do so at your own peril. These two portions of Scripture must be taken together and one must not be wrestled with in order to make it the more dominant of the two.[/color]
Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must “eat his flesh”. He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated “to chew”. This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the old testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the fiaht-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal.

[color="#FF0000"]Jesus also calls himself “the bread of heaven” and compares himself to the bread that the Hebrews ate in the wilderness, yet Jesus Christ is not a piece of literal bread. Again, this portion of Scripture must be taken in context together with the 1 Corinthians chapter 11 portion and in any case, Jesus did NOT command cannibalism as you do. If you would simply read, believe and obey the Scriptures, you would be set free from such satanic deception.[/color]
This is the only place in the Gospels where disciples of Jesus left him over a doctrinal issue. This is also the first time we hear of Judas doubting the wisdom of his master. There is a Church that accepts Jesus’ teaching here as truth, but I knew it was not any of the Evangelical churches.

[color="#FF0000"]To join a religion because you feel it has the “truth” in one doctrinal point is the height of foolishnbess, for then would you run to the Amish who practice the ban just as Christ commanded in Matthew 15: 18-20, to the Mennonite’s who obey the word of God in regards to the covering of a woman’s head (1 Cornithians 11), to the Hutterite’s who obey to the extremest degree the Lord’s command to resist not evil. You would even be led to run to the Jehovah’s Witness cult for they obey the Lord’s command to swear no oath,etc., etc., etc.,.

The truth is that it is Jesus Christ Himself who is the foundation of the true faith and is the truth Himself, no human organization can claim such a distinction, especially not based on one singular doctrine.[/color]
Catholics believe that Jesus is really present in the consecrated Host. This is only way to explain adequately Pauls assumptions in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself.” How could one be “guilty” of the Body and Blood of Christ if the service is only a memorial? Granted, the service is done in remembrance. Evangelicals and Catholics agree on that. But Catholics teach that it is more than that.

[color="#FF0000"]If the bread and wine symbolically represent the body and blood of the Lord, one could easily be guilty of such. If I were to hand my son a picture of myself and tell him to always hold it dear and never to lose or let it be destroyed, lest he be guilty of shaming himself and counting me as wortless and he gamble the photo away in a poker game, he would be guilty.[/color]
We must recognize (discern) the bread for what it truly is, “The body of the lord”, or be judged. How much clearer could Paul be than this? I could find no textual basis for the Evangelical teaching that communion is only a memorial.

[color="#FF0000"]The teaching is that it is symbolic and that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, which is what paul clearly teaches in 1 Cornithians chapter 11.[/color]

Catholic theology teaches that the host(bread) is changed into the substance of Christ’s Body by a miracle of God (the priest does not magically make the bread and wine into God by his own power, as some claim Catholics teach). The appearances of bread and wine remain with all their expected properties. This is a continuing miracle. Because these properties are retained, a person would still get drunk if he drank too much from the chalice at church.

[color="#FF0000"]This is quite a convenient doctrine, no? Any cult could claim the same in a similar manner. The Mormons could tommorow claim that God has magically transformed their Sal lake temple into the literal body of Christ, but since it retains all its expected properties, this may not be judged or even inspected, for to do so would be disbelief and a shame to the skeptic. The Jehovah’s Witness version of the Vatican, the Watchtower Organization could claim that Jesus Christ has come to literally dwell with them in Brooklyn, but that He has done so miraculously and invisibly andf therefore such claim must simply be accepted in faith .... oh, wait, this is what they claim! NONSENSE![/color]

This distinction between substance and appearance is a little difficult for Evangelicals to grasp. The analogy has been made to help understand by knowing the story of the old, retired star that Prince Caspian met in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by CS Lewis. In that story, one of the books in the Narnia series, some English children travel to another reality and meet a star that looks just like an elderly man. The sceptical child among them declares that stars are exploding gases and denies that this man can be an actual star that once lit up the night sky. The star replies that Narnian reality is different from earth’s reality, but even in our world a star is not essentially exploding gases. The gases are only the elements of which stars are made of. There is a distinction drawn in the story between substance and appearance that helps the modern mind to understand Catholic theology. (It is interesting that C.S. Lewis, the darling of American Evangelicals, is such a strong defender of the Eucharist, purgatory, and other Catholic dogmas that Evangelicals detest.)

[color="#FF0000"]I consider C.S. Lewis to have been a devil possessed heretic so this argument surely does not influence myself.[/color]
Another example of this distinction may be helpful (although admittedly imperfect) We tell little kids that although playing with matches appears to be harmless fun, in reality it is extremely dangerous. In advancing these explanations, however, I need to be clear. Catholics believe in the Eucharist, but not because of these analogies. We are simply using our reason to shed some small light on a truth that the Bible clearly teaches. We believe it because Jesus taught it.

[color="#FF0000"]Of course, just like you believe in purgatory, although it is nowhere to be found, or just like you believe in baptism, although it is nowhere to be found, or just like you believe in torturing and murdering true Biblical Christians although Christ directly taught the opposite, or just like you believe the Crusades were acceptable to God, although Christ taught to “resist not evil”? Sure.[/color]
The consecrated elements of the Eucharist are treated with utmost respect by Catholics because, in spite of appearences, there is the Real Presence of Christ in these elements. Jesus said it. Paul taught it. Never would the leftover elements be tossed into the garbage at the end of a Catholic Mass as is done in many Evangelical communion services. We treat them as we would treat God, because that is what they are in their real substance, althought in appearance they do not differ from ordinart bread and wine.

[color="#FF0000"]The Lord sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven which He clearly stated, he does not reside in a piece of flour. This devilish doctrine was not taught by our Lord and can only be believed when one unrighteously and illogically elevates one portion of Scripture above many others.[/color]

Because Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, the church building is a special, holy place. For Evangelicals, worship in a gymnasium or forest preserve is just as acceptable as in any other place. For them, God is present as spirit anywhere they worship. For a Catholic, the physical presence of Christ is essential for corporate worship in the spiritual manner Christ intended. That can happen anywhere, but then that “anywhere” becomes holy because of Christ’s real physical presence.

[color="#FF0000"]Again, the Evangelical belief is far more Scriptural, especially when you consider that the presence of Christ swells in men and that God does NOT dwell in temples made by man’s hands in the New Testament time period. The Romish belief is pure foolishness.[/color]

I used to think that the concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been invented sometime during the Dark Ages as a ploy of the priesthood to gain power.

[color="#FF0000"]You were onto something there although it was invented long before the dark ages ... try in ancient Babylon![/color]

Yet this truth is such a mystery that it seems unlikely anyone would invent it.

[color="#FF0000"]By this insane logic (the more ridiculous something appears the more likely it is to be true), Jesus Christ must be dwelling in Watchtower headquarters! [/color]

Further, the most elementary reading of primary sources from the first three centuries of Christianity will show this theory of priestly invention to be the result of ignorance of almost unbelievable proportions.

[color="#FF0000"]You are incorrect here and need to do a bit more research on B.C. times dear Jon![/color]

In the early church, everyone who wrote anything about the Eucharist believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Communion. Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch and died a martyr at about the same time the Apostle John died. Speaking of the Docetist heretics, who denied the humanity of Jesus, he wrote, “They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 7). I thought that I had seen something new in John 6, until I noticed that Ignatius equated the flesh of the Eucharist with the flesh of the Cross, just as John had recorded Jesus as doing.

[color="#FF0000"]Wow Jon, not only are you blatantly lying to people but you are even rejecting later authors adored by the Catholic church. Consider the following quotes:

"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling." - Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

"'He that eateth me,' He says, 'he also shall live because of me;' for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says." - Basil (Letter 8:4)

“But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (Atenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord's cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated....But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ." (Cyprian, Letter 62:15)

"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. (Origen, On Matthew 11: 14)

"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)

"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)

"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure geniuses gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)[/color]

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who remembered Polycarp’s firsthand stories about the Apostle John. He used the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to prove the resurrection of the Christian dead: “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ"(Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 5.2.3). "How can they say that the flesh which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with his blood passes into corruption and partakes not of life?" (4.18.5). These texts, and many more like them, can be found in a protestant transltation, The AnteNicene Fathers, published by Eerdmans.

[color="#FF0000"]Dear Jon, is this a case of you purposely quoting only parts of works that you enjoy to deceive people? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps you are simply ignorant of what Irenaeus wrote just a bit further on is his work. It is quoted below:

"For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: 'Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, 'He who hath renewed the face of the earth.' He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

Irenaeus did NOT believe in transubstantiation as Roman Catholics do … consubstantiation, perhaps … but NOT transubstantiation![/color]
I had always been taught that there was a "golden thread", or remnant of true Christians, who had always believed just as modern Evangelicals do now. Yet as I searched for anyone in first three hundred years of the Church whose beliefs were even remotely related to Evangelical notions concerning the Lord's supper, I came up empty. Christians were being persecuted and martyred during this period. Yet there is in existence a fair amount of literature from this time. Modern Evangelical theology, however, was nowhere to be found in it. The only way to accept the remnant theory is to accept it a priori, in spite of the facts.

[color="#FF0000"]What a farce. To say that Evangelicals preach a “golden thread” in regards to doctrine and then to state that there doctrine on the “Eucharist” doesn’t prove such and therefore they are incorrect is ridiculous! The question is not about ONE singular doctrine, for if that were the case, there is not a human organozation on earth that could claim continous fidelity to God’s word. However it is true that the doctrine of “believer’s baptism” has a golden thread and can be explicitly traced back to the time of Christ. Does this automatically mean that the Baptist’s are “the one true church”? Of course not, not any more then the Jehovah’s Witnesses can claim they are the true church do to their obedience to swear no oaths. [/color]
[color="#FF0000"]Again, it is Jesus Christ Himself that is the truth and the foundation for all true Christians, not any man made organization![/color]
For a full millennium of Christianity, there were no exceptions to this belief of the early Church in the Real Presence. It was the universal teaching of the entire Church. Not until Rationalism (and its firstborn child, scepticism) had started to transform the thinking of Europe would any movement call into question the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[color="#FF0000"]I hope you will DELETE this LIE from your paper before allowing others to read it, that is unless you enjoy deceiving people![/color]

As an evangelical, I had heard the story exactly reversed. Superstition on this issue had not been added during the Middle Ages. Rather, truth originally transmitted by Jesus had been called into question by modern man. With Rationalism, something that could not be understood through reason was rejected. It has been said that mystery is an embarrassment to the modern mind. I have come to the conclusion that rejecting the reality of Christ in the Eucharist is merely a first step to denying other biblical teaching. Eventually, even the truth of the literal, bodily death and Resurrection of a historical Jesus is rejected. Protestant history certainly bears this out.

[color="#FF0000"]This is simply wishful thinking on your part and is not based in fact.[/color]

With the emergence of Rationalism and its attack on doctrine, the Church convened a council that defined what all Christians had always believed about Communion since Christ had walked the dusty roads of Judea. This was the Second Lateran Council in a.d. 1215. Inasmuch as no movement in the first millennium of Christianity had seriously challenged faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it had never been the subject of council debate, consensus, and decree. That the belief itself was universally accepted during that millennium is very easy to confirm.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes and in 2009 the Watchtower can hold a council to decree that all true Christians, including the apostles believed that it was merely a clone of Jesus Christ that rose from the dead and not Jesus Christ of Nazareth Himself. What nonsense![/color]

Evangelicals profoundly misunderstand councils and there purpose. Just as with the first council, recorded in Acts 15, any council's purpose is to reexplore and reaffirm the original teaching of Christ that is presently being questioned. In Acts 15, the apostles did not make up new dogma but merely clarified the original deposit of faith concerning salvation by grace apart from the Old Covenant law.

[color="#FF0000"]Exactly, the apostles did NOT make up “new dogma”. The Roman Catholic religion however has notoriously used their councils for such a purpose. God forbid cannabalism and the Roman catholic cult comes along and decrees such to be not only acceptable but the truth. God commands his people to “resist not evil” and the Roman Catholic church declares war on non-believer’s. On and on it goes and you, poor fella, are caught in the deception![/color]

So it is with all councils. They reaffirm teching that was given to the Church by the apostles but is currently under attack.

[color="#FF0000"]The Mormons would agree ... the only problem is that this statement is a joke! Councils have always been used to further man made doctrine![/color]

Protestantism is at its very core a child of Rationalism.

[color="#FF0000"]I would agree to a point but then again I despise Protestantism almost as much as I despise Roman Catholicism.[/color]

The modern evangelical asks, "How could Christ have held his own body in his hands at the Last supper?" The Church Fathers wrote that this was impossible to understand rationally but that this was nonetheless true. It is a mystery. They gloried in the impossibility of it all.

[color="#FF0000"]No sir, YOU glory in the impossibility of it all, meanwhile the apostoloc fathers did not believe such, nor did the apostle Paul. The JW’s can have their invisible Brooklyn Jesus, the Mormons their evolved man-god Jesus and you your cannibalistic feasts, I will stick with the Scriptures themselves![/color]

That the impossible is no problem for God can be seen just before Christ's sermon on the Eucharist, when he fed the five thousand.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, surely God can do the impossible, however He can not do the sinful. God cannot break His own commandments and commit sin which is what he would have been doing to advocate cannabalism.[/color]
Modern sceptics, who are more consistent than Evangelicals, reject that miracle as well.

[color="#FF0000"]Cute dig at Evangelicals.[/color]

The Eucharist is central to worship in the Catholic Church. We believe that Christ (body, blood, soul, and divinity) comes to us and feeds our souls when we participate in Communion.

[color="#FF0000"]Your point???[/color]

On a practical level, the Evangelical has reduced the soul of man to little more than his intellect.

[color="#FF0000"]Hardly anyone would agree with this, therefore you should elaborate.[/color]

As a result, Evangelical sermons tend to be from twenty to fifty minutes long every Sunday.

[color="#FF0000"]I don’t preach “sermons”. I read the Scriptures aloud (man times entire books) and simply explain them as I read or as questions arise. These services can last for 6+ hours, although some are certainly shorter, if for example we are reading 1-2-3 John.[/color]

That is how Evangelicals feed the souls of their faithful, through the mind.

[color="#FF0000"]You really might not want to send this to any Pentecostals or Charismatics as you will lose them here. There sermons are usually 90+ minutes long and their services last for 3-4 hours many times. Besides this, they aren;t generally a very bright group and they are bent on feeding the emotions and not the minds so much (haha).[/color]

For them, there is little way other than through the mind for the soul to be strengthened. For the Catholic, however, the will is the essential part of the soul. It is fed directly through its participation at Mass. There is still the intellectual part of worship, but in the elements of the Eucharist, God can directly strengthen the Christian's soul against temptation.

[color="#FF0000"]This entire statement is mere wishful thinking and has no basis in Scripture. It would be like a Pentecostal claiming that when they roll on the floor and bark like dogs, they are being spiritually perfected and the other Protestants and Catholics are missing such a dynamic blessing .... cultic nonsense![/color]

Evangelicals may scoff, but as an adult who has lived the Christian life first without the sacraments and then with them, I can attest to the fact that they do work.

[color="#FF0000"]This is like the Pentecostal preacher I knew who was always saying “the proof is in the pudding” and bragging about how since he started “tithing” he has been blessed. Personal experiences have NOTHING to do with ultimate TRUTH![/color]

After accepting the dogma of the Real Presence as truly biblical, my mind was put at ease about another problem, one I had not thought about for years. As a teen, I believed in the presence of a demon world. It always puzzled me that the worshippers of Satan in the sixties and seventies would parody the Mass when they worshipped. I could not understand why demons, who knew right doctrine but rejected obedience to it, should foster hatred of the Catholic mass if the mass were merely a medieval superstition. If the Mass had not been instituted by Christ, then why would Satan worshippers make it the centerpiece of rebellion? Now I see that such a parody is a sure sign of rebellion against Christ precisely because the mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. Mockery of the Mass is mockery of its founder.

[color="#FF0000"]Wow, are you sure you don’t read only fiction books? You really sound like a cultist now! Did you know that Satanists also mock Protestantism in many ways? Did you know that Amish anabaptism mocks European traditions and beliefs? Roman Catholicism itself could be said to be the greatest copy-cat and mocker in history, both of Biblical Christianity (with the corrupted Scriptures) and even of historic Babylonian religion (monks, nuns, confessionals, etc.,.). However, None of this has anything to do with ultimate truth. If you want to base your life on personal experiences and the practices of satan worshippers, go for it, I don’t think you will be happy with the end result however.[/color]

Catholic teaching on the Eucharist also helped me understand a passage in Zechariah that is unexplainable from an Evangelical perspective. "On that day...all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them" (Zech 14:20,21). This verse had been an enigma to me for a while. I remember a conversation with a man whose specialty was eschatology.(end times) A young man approached us and askd the specialist about this verse from Zechariah. His question was, "If Jesus' sacrifice is final and complete, why will there be sacrifices needed in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection of Jesus?" The scholar's face momentarily clouded with annoyance, and I have never forgotten his next statement. He admitted that he knew of no plausible Evangelical explanation for this passage. The reason this verse is such a problem for Evangelicals is that virtually all of them agree that it speaks of events occuring in the Kingdom that Christ would come to establish(still in the future for Zechariah). But here is the problem. After Christ had died and set up his kingdom, why would sacrifices still be performed in Israel? There is no good Evangelical response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant that a priesthood here on earth is no longer needed; the need for sacrifices has ended. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. But if the Evangelicals are correct on this issue of sacrafice, why would God reinstitute something superseded by work of Calvary? Why perform sacrifices that are unnecessary?

[color="#FF0000"]Are you serious? Just about every “Evangelical” I have ever met could answer that question quite easily and mind you, I consider most Evangelicals I have met to be quite Biblically ignorant. This verse is not difficult to understand at all if one takes the book of revelation at its word and does not over spiritualize it into absurdity. The temple shall be rebuilt and sacrifices shall be offered again before the return of the Lord. Just about every Evangelical Christian and Messianic Jew, even Orthodox Jew believes this (with the exception that they believe it will be their Messiah and not Jesus Christ of Nazareth returning).[/color]

Catholics believe that the Eucharist is real, unbloody sacrifice that brings into the present time the saving effects of the once-for-all-time crucifixion of Jesus. The work of Christ on the Cross is finished. The crucifixion need never be repeated. But its benefits are applied to me in todays timeframe through the real sacrafice of the Eucharist.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes and this is devilish heresy, for the “benefits” do not need to be re-applied during every Eucharist, such is pointless! True Christians are reaping the “benefits” of Christ’s once for all sacrifiice continously![/color]

The concept of making Christ's past sacrifice efficacious in the present is not foreign to Evangelicals. That is precisely what Evangelicals believe happens when a person puts his faith in Christ. One day Christ's work on the Cross has not yet benefited the person, and the next it has been applied through faith.

[color="#FF0000"]This is stretching it just a bit, don’t you think. The Scriptures clearly teach that one does not receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life until repentance and being born again, which is what Evangelicals believe. It is merely what the Bible teaches. The concept of the mass and of the Eucharist and especially how you described it above is extra-Biblical nonsense with no basis in Scripture whatsoever.[/color]

Catholics believe their sacrafice of the Eucharist makes the grace of the Cross avaliable today.

[color="#FF0000"]So God needs a piece of dough to make His grace available huh? Boy, I never realized just how imprtant dough could be? HAHAHA! You just gotta feel bad for those who are allergic don’t you or for those who just don;t have the right ingredients huh? Man, Jesus body and blood wasn;t enough, we gotta have that dough! Get real![/color]

Granted, it is a much more physical method. I remember insisting, as an Evangelical, that sacrifices are no longer needed because of the Cross, yet I had no good explanation fo Zech 14. I finally came to the conclusion that Zech had to be referring to the Eucharist. This is the only logical reason he would wriite that sacrifice will be done in the Kingdom after the Messiah's coming.

[color="#FF0000"]Wow ... you are truly deceived ... what does the devil on your shoulder look like?[/color]

When I saw the connection, I was very excited.

[color="#FF0000"]Yeah, just like a JW when he finally believes in faith that Jesus is hanging out at Watctower headquarters or the Mormon that finally believes in faith that Joseph Smith was God’s greatest prophet .... DECEPTION! [/color]

The sacrifice of the Mass is being celebrated every day in Catholic Churches, not only in Jerusalem but all over the world. The continuing sacrifices of the Church after Christ's death and Resurrection were foretold in the Old testament. I am amazed that Evangelicals totally miss the meaning of another important messianic prophecy.

[color="#FF0000"]This is NOT a “Messianic prophecy” whatsoever.[/color]

Karl Keating has pointed this out in a book I am currently reading called "Catholicism and Fundamentalism": "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'you are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'" (Ps 110:4). By definition, a priest offers a sacrifice. What did Mechizedek offer? Some Evangelicals are unaware of the fact that it was bread and wine that Melchizedek brought out to Abraham as an offering (Gen 14:18).

[color="#FF0000"]Totally irrelevant to the discussion unless you mean to use it to deceive.[/color]

The next logical question is, "when did Jesus offer bread and wine as sacrifice?" The only instance recorded in the Gospels is the Last Supper. Isnt it logical, then, that unless Evangelicals can point to another time Jesus fulfilled this function of the Melchizedekian priesthood, Jesus saw the Last Supper as the institution of a sacrifice? Otherwise the imagery of Psalm 110:4 is emptied of meaning.

[color="#FF0000"]This again is bending the Scriptures to fit your peculiar personal interpretation. The Lord could have considered Christ’s miracle of creating Bread and His miracle of turning water into wine as offering a sacrifice. However, even if this was considered a sacrifice, this has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation, the mass, et all.[/color]

The idea of Mass as sacrifice also explains why 1 corth 11:24-25 quotes Jesus as saying during the Last supper, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." As scripture scholar Father Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., has pointed out, the Greek word for "remembrance" in this passage is a very technical word. Interestingly, it is also a relatively rare word in scripture. Outside of its uses in the last supper, it is used only one other time in the New Testament. This is in Hebrews 10:3, where the remembrance is the act of carrying out a sacrafice. "Those sacrifices are an annual reminder (remembrance) of sins." if an Evangelical were to check his Greek Old testament, he would find the word used only twice. Both times the remembrance is actually a sacrifice:" Put some pure incense as a memorial...to be an offering"(lev 24:7) and "sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you"(NB 10:10). (This word ccurs two other times in the Old Testament- in the heading to Psalms 37 and 69. These were added later by commentators and so are obviously not actual Scripture, but they can indicate the meaning of the word Jesus used. Both speak of that Psalm as being used in conjunction with a memorial sacrifice. The Catholic old testament has one more occurence, of a different nature, in wisdom of Solomon 16:6.)
This Greek word "remembrance" is more than just "think about me by recalling this event to mind." It is a word fraught with sacrificial overtones, used in the Bible to mean "remind yourself or something by participating in a sacrifice." What a strange word for Jesus to use if he did not intend to set up the Eucharist as a sacrifice. In fact, Jesus' choice of this rather rare word is unexplainable if he did not view the Last Supper as a sacrifice.

[color="#FF0000"]Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 shed even more light on this matter:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.
Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper:
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19

Furthermore, if you will understand that the remembrance is done under pain of death (many sleep) and that one must be worthy to partake of such, it is not difficult to understand the Evangelical view point whatsoever. This bread and wine which symbolically represent Christ’s body give us life and if we partake of them unwprthily can also bring forth death. Evangelicals have long forgotten this truth and usually attach no warning whatsoever to this event but treat it like it was a burger and coke, which is sad. However, the Scriptures are clear that with this event, repentance and a personal searching is to take place for we are not to partake of this bread and wine if we are filled with unrepentant sin.[/color]
I could no longer justify my Evangelical use of "remembrance" (or "memorial" in some translations) with a nonsacrificial meaning,

[color="#FF0000"]Right, so instead you adopted a cannabliatic fest which is specifically outlawed by God? Good reasoning there Jon....hahaha![/color]

While discussing the passages on the Eucharist, an Evangelical bible teacher admitted to me that Evangelicals break almost all of their own hermeneutical rules (rules for interpreting the bible) when they encounter these passages. Catholics are the ones with a consistent hermeneutical method.

[color="#FF0000"]You’ve got to be kidding me ... I would go off on a tangent, but I will save that for later and stick to the topic.[/color]

The very core of Catholicism is the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Pope John Paul II has said, "The Eucharist is the heart of the Church. Where eucharistic life flourishes, there the life of the Church will blossom." From the Catholic perspective, most other issues of discussion between Catholic and Protestant are peripheral.

[color="#FF0000"]Great, Roman Catholicism “heart” is unBiblical and satanic cannabalism ... don;t you see a real problem with this?[/color]

I am not sure exactly how or when it occurred, but one day I knew that I firemly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[color="#FF0000"]Ahhh.... perhaps it was the same “burning in the bosom” that a Mormon gets when they put their faith into Joseph Smith???[/color]

After all, Scripture is so clear about it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes it sure is, but you obviously missed it![/color]

One of my earliest Catholic friends I met during my pilgrimage to Catholicism said that my belief in the Eucharist was simply a gift: the undeserved grace of God in my life. I wholeheartedly agree.

[color="#FF0000"]You sound just like a good Mormon![/color]

When compared to all the other beliefs I have accepted all my life, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, I find it hard to justify the reluctance I felt for so many years to accepting what was clearly taught by scripture and unanimously believed by the early Christians.

[color="#FF0000"]Perhaps it was because the Holy Spirit who was given to you as your teacher and who led you to these other Biblical truths consistently warned you against apostasizing into babylonian heresy, however as you weakened and rejected His counsel and led yourself into deception, He let you make your deceision, a decision that one day you will gravely be sorry for. [/color] [/quote]

[shortnun]

Emotionally abusive is an understatement. That's not adult (Christian!) debating at all. He's dismissive and undermining. In his mind, the two of you are not equal in this conversation.

Unfortunately, I have no suggestion as to how to respond. Is he a prof of yours?

[thessalonian]

This kind can only be driven out with much prayer and fasting.

Edited October 9, 2006 by thessalonian

[jswranch]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1087613' date='Oct 9 2006, 03:18 PM']
Fasting and prayer is the only thing that can drive this kind out.
[/quote]
Amen,


Also, pick one topic and stick to it. If you want, try the beliefs of the early church.

Ask, "If Catholicism is a made up doctrine, why are all the folks who lived or preached Christianity between 100-200AD Catholic? Why were Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneous of Lyon, and Justin Martyr wrong?"


Also, avoid sweeping articles like this one. He can do too much of the doctinal dance. Or, just pick at one of his arguments.

Edited October 9, 2006 by jswranch

[XIX]

I'm disturbed that he constantly calls you childish as if it's a bad thing.

Considering last week's Gospel reading mentioned something about the Kingdom belonging to such as these (children) and something else about not corrupting these children or something really really bad will happen to you...

you might want to touch on that.

And you might want to ask him to define "Bible believing Christian." It seems to me that if you believe Jesus and the Bible, you'll believe John 6.

You might want to focus on interpreting all of John 6, not just the few verses he quoted. Does anybody else find it ironic that he accuses us of taking a few Bible verses out of context, and then only really quotes a few othersto supposedly debunk the Eucharist?

My initial inclination is to just perform a full-out analysis of John 6 and put your focus into that. You can even look into other Bible verses that support the Holy Communion.

Dr. Jefferson does not seem to know what a simile is. If manna is like the bread that gives life, that does not mean they are exactly the same. It means they are analogous. If I say you are like a twig because you are so skinny, that does not mean that you are a twig or that the twig is a person. You are two different thing altogether, even though you are alike each other.

Manna from heaven, as I understand it, was used to keep the Jews spiritually alive. It was just bread but it came from heaven and was vital for temporal survival. The bread that is Jesus is needed for our spiritual and perpetual survival. It is like manna from heaven because it is necesary to overcome death and is a direct gift from heaven.

Ask him to define cannibalism, because

You can go ahead and let him in on a dirty little secret: you actually don't believe is torturing and killing Christians. His insistence on misrepresenting you only destroys his credibility.

Other than that, I really dont know how to respond to him. First of all, God bless you...I don't think I could ever carry on a debate with such long replies against somebody like Dr. Jefferson who resorts to these attacks. Most of his replies are a bunch of "you are wrong" and laughing at you and insulting you, with an occasional attempt to come up with a valid argument to support his wild assertions. weird.

[cmotherofpirl]

If he is emotionally abusive and unable to engage in an actual debate between equals walk away.

[XIX]

touche

[Guest history&faith]

I've always wondered why the protestants love the KJV so very much, I guess cause it makes them feel historical. I've also wondered why more of them don't speak latin or greek, if the word of God is all you need have you think people would prefer the original thing as opposed to a translation.

[iKonstantin]

And I thought that I was a bigot. This guy takes the cake.






bpat Konstantin

[N/A Gone]

We have been carrying on this debate for about 2 years now.

it started when he made incredibly wild anti-catholic statements on a popular sports message board that I moderate and I just took him on head-to-head. And it has carried from there.

It is hurtful. But apologetics is the closest I have to a legit catholic experience right now.

[thessalonian]

[quote]It is hurtful. But apologetics is the closest I have to a legit catholic experience right now.[/quote]

God has given you a passion for it and that is good. It is hard to walk away knowing you won the arguement but have not convinced your opponent of that fact. But make sure that apologetics isn't the ground of your faith. Jesus Christ is (not that the two are in conflict). All must be according to love. I have hung on with guys like this before and it really does no good, though it is hard to walk away. They don't listen. They don't think. St. Augustine's mother keep badgering him to come to the faith. One day she went to the preist and his advice was to pray more, preach less.

Apologetics is not the end. It A means.

Edited October 10, 2006 by thessalonian

[scardella]

He has ears, but does not hear. He has eyes, but does not see. Pray for him. Let God melt his stony heart.

[N/A Gone]

as sad as he is, We can not just leave this without a response. He views it as winning.

[Guest StoryofaSoul]

Thanks for posting this...it's helped to read it.
I'm in a similar situation myself, so I definitely feel your pain.
As much as I want to just drop it with this person, I feel like if I do, then yeah...he will think he's victorious in the discussion.
God bless you for your patience with this though. It's tough.

[N/A Gone]

As usual, his comments are in [color="#FF0000"]red[/color]

[quote]Dr. J,

to be honest I forgot about the "real presence" argument because I found your last post to just be an ad hominem response sprinkled with personal insults and nothing to really logically dialogue back.

[color="#FF0000"]That is a very weak cop-out as the reply was nothing like that. I refuted just about every statement you made and quoted extensively from the early church fathers to prove your paper incredulous.

My guess, is when you read my refutation, you just said, "oh man, he caught me, and I can't refute what he just said, why bother, I will just ignore it". I truly hope that is not the case, however this reply makes me think it is.[/color]

I think yoyu were tryng to be emotionally abusive (this is an understatement).

[color="#FF0000"]Oh boy, please do not resort to playing the wounded puppy, I really have no tolerance for such childishness. I refuted your arguments, used your own sources against you and I received no reply, There was no "emotional abuse", only solid arguments which you apparently have no answer for.[/color]

I would not consider it adult (Christian!) debating at all.

[color="#FF0000"]Thank you for your expert opinion (hahaha).[/color]

You were dismissive and undermining as if in your mind, the two of us are not equal in this conversation.

[color="#FF0000"]I was not dismissive, this is your m.o., not mine. I tacfkle every debate, every cultist and every statement with a zeal not commonly seen these days. I have written 80 page books, for no other reason than to give it to ONE individual cult member in hopes of leading him to the truth. I am not dismissive, but the others ....

Well, I am not gonna lie just to make you happy. You are right, I do NOT believe that we are "equal" in regards to our viewpoints whatsoever. I believe you are a brainwashed young man who is living a lie and serving your cult the same way a good JW or Mormon does. I believe the sources you use actually disagree with you, which i proved and that6 the word of God dismisses your claims as foolishness, which I have shown many times and never recieved a reply (where is your reply to our Bishops must be married dialogue ... kinda disappeared on me in that one to).

As far as mere human beings go, I do not believe we are equal there either, as I believe you to be an unregenerate and deceived sinner, who has never been "born again" and is on his way to eternity in the lake of fire, while I am a sinner saved by grace, truly born again and on my way to an eternity with my gracious Saviour.

Finally, in regards to intellect and personality, I do not think we are "equal" either. I think I am a difficult and often, absolutely fanatical zealot, who gets on people's nerves like crazy and forces people to either love me or hate me. I also feel that without my Lord I am an idiot and not worth the dirt I was made from. You on the other hand, in my mind, are a very intelligent young pup, and probably regarded as a genuinely "easy going fella" and a pleasure to be around by sinners and saints alike.

We are certainly not equal, any way you look at it, and that is okay, as we don't need to be. We simply need to be what God calls us to be, do what he commands us to do, and leave the rest up to Him.[/color]

If you wanna try again I would be willing to run through it, please stick to one topic and let us go through it.

[color="#FF0000"]No Jon, deal with the refutation as it is. I refuted your entire paper in one night and used quotes from your own patristic sources to prove you wrong. Now it is your turn to "defend the faith" if you can. However, just as you seemed to slide away on the Bishop neding to be married issue, when you had no Biblical ground to stand on, you are hiding on this issue and claiming I need to "try again". If I bowed to every request of every cultist that came my way, I would be reading Watchtower literature 24 hours a day to "see if it is true", praying for the "burning in my bosom" 24 hours a day to see if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and making a weekly haj to Mecca to see if I can "sense the power of Allah" there. I refuted your paper in full and now it is your turn to defend it if you can, however you cannot and i think we both know that.[/color]

If you want to continue with the Real presence we can do that, if you want to type something and let me respond cool. In matters of speaking you are on the offensive here anyway. Try to keep it at 500 words. If you go more than that we can split it. Be as specific as you want. But stay topical. I do not have the time to put into something so complex.

[color="#FF0000"]This is exactly why I made my refutation so short and concise. I did not babble on and on, or quote enormous portions of text, just the basics. Read through it and defend your faith young blood.

As for other topics .... I am open to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, including, but not limited to:

1.) Bishops and Deacons needing to be married (already got you on that one, but to no avail???)

2.) Infant Baptism (Would love to go at this one)

3.) Papal Infallibility

4.) Christ's command to "resist not evil"

5.) Christ's command to "love your enemies"

6.) Christ's command to "swear no oath"

7.) Eschatology, Mass, Sanctification, Justification by faith alone, purgatory, etc, etc, etc.[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]Now, be blessed, enjoy your wife, have fun with your brother, don't stress out in school and have the zeal to obey God, no matter the cost!

In Jesus Christ's salvation,

Trevor

p.s.

Good, as I would like to hear your thoughts on the Rwanda and especially the Darfur (as that is happening as we speak) situation.
By the way, what race are you and your wife? Just curious. I have always pictured you as a skinny white guy (haha), but who knows?
What are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Just curious as that plays into the African genocide's in a way.
Until next time,[/color]
[/quote]


I seriously wish I was as smart as some of you guys so I could answer him back instead of just getting frustrated with him and with asking for help