Some more interesting reading
Early Church Evidence Indicating the Real Presence in the Eucharist
"They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1) -- Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
No you are misguided here.
First of all, I do not put later so called "church fathers" and any of their writings equal or above scripture for any reason. No matter how some might be thempted to make their writings so.
Secondly, we read about Ignatius of Antioch, other issues which do not paint his words in the light you put them.
"Ignatius and transubstantiation. Ignatius of Antioch was a first century bishop of Antioch. Catholics appeal to his writings in order to try to prove transubstantiation and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. In regards to transubstantiation, Catholics often cite his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7 which says: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” (Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7). Patrick Madrid cites this text as alleged proof for transubstantiation in his book Why is That in Tradition? (Patrick Madrid, Why is That in Tradition?, [Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2002], p. 126). Here Ignatius is combating early proto-Gnostics known as the Docetists who denied Jesus was a real man but was instead a phantom. However, the debate is not if Ignatius called the bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus. The New Testament does that too. The debate is: what did he actually mean by that? Did he mean the elements actually transform in substance to the body and blood, or did he believe something else? There is much evidence it is symbolic and mystical, though spoken of strongly in the context of refuting the Gnostics, since in the rest of his writings he speaks very symbolically and mystically about the elements. For instance, in his Letter to the Romans he speaks of Jesus’ blood as “incorruptible love and eternal life” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 7). In his Letter to the Philadelphians he says the flesh of Jesus is the gospel (Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, 5). In his Letter to the Trallians he says Jesus’ flesh is faith and his blood is love (Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, 8). William Barclay correctly notes, “It is clear that Ignatius has no cut and dried theological theory of how the bread and wine are the body and the blood of Jesus Christ. They are for him the symbols of love and faith and the food of eternal life” (William Barclay, The Lord's Supper, [Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], p. 67).
Ignatius and propitiatory sacrifice. In regards to Ignatius supposedly affirming the Eucharist as a propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice, Catholics cite his Letter to the Philadelphians where he mentions an “alter” in connection with the Eucharist: “Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons” (Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4). Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis argues, “For the word ‘alter’ Ignatius uses the Greek θυσιαστήροιν, the same word used in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 in referring to the alter of which the Eucharistic consecration is performed” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 275). However, Hebrews 13:10 is not talking about a literal alter where Eucharistic consecration is performed. The alter it mentions which “we have” is in reference to us going to Jesus spiritually (v. 13), offering metaphorical sacrifices of praise and acknowledging him (v. 15), and doing good and sharing (v. 16). These are the symbolic sacrifices Christians do and the metaphorical alter mentioned in v. 13 Sungenis mentions must be understood in light of them. The same is the case with 1 Corinthians 10:18 in regards to the bread and wine symbolizing Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The error of the Catholic is that he jumps to concluding that because sacrifice and alter are in the equation here, that Paul must be teaching the Supper is itselfa sacrifice and does not simply celebrate Jesus’ sacrifice whereby believers have fellowship with God, that is, they participate with him, and with each other uniting together (i.e., “we who are many are one body” v. 17) through the commemorative meal (vv. 16-17). Roman Catholic Joseph A. Jungmann agrees with me that in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 it is not speaking of a literal alter of Eucharistic consecration in his massive study of the history of the Mass (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, [Christian Classics, 2012], p. 25 n. 16). Moreover, we know Ignatius does not refer to a literal alter for Eucharistic consecration since at this point in history they did not exist. As Joseph A. Jungmann further admits, “In Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, θυσιαστήριον is not yet the material alter of sacrifice” (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, [Christian Classics, 2012], p. 25 n. 16). What then does Ignatius mean when he refers to an alter in connection with the Eucharist? Joseph A. Jungmann explains, “in Ad Philad., 4, the expression is used in connection with the Eucharist: The Flesh of Jesus Christ and the chalice of His Blood form a θυσιαστήριον to which the Christians gather” (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, [Christian Classics, 2012], p. 25 n. 16). Ignatius never calls the Supper a sacrifice or offering as later Rome does, but only the “Eucharist” which means “thanksgiving” or “grateful” (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, [Christian Classics, 2012], p. 22). We are never told by Ignatius that a literal sacrifice of Jesus is happening during the Eucharistic meal. Hence, he does not support modern Rome at all."
(Reformed Apologetics Ministries: Historical Examination of Roman Catholic Eucharist Theology)
So, yes, there were false prophets and teachers even then. These are the ones [Gnostics] that were called "antichrists" in the Epistles of John, in the Bible. These believers are your very close kin.
Here you go off the rails in your error. You seem to be trying to say that 1 John 4 is warning of those who deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh with those who deny the real presence in the bread and who say that it is still bread and wine and not literal or transubstantiated and that the bread does not become God in bread.
You are very confused here. John was most likely dealing with those who denied Jesus Christ deity and His coming in the flesh (as a man) as the gnostics do who consider the flesh and spirit different than scripture teaches. They believed the flesh was evil and that the spirit cannot mingle with matter, therefore they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and they had other errors about Him.
There are many false teachings of the Gnostics and too many to discuss here,.But this might sum up some of the ideas of that time in relation to jesus Christ
" But since, Christ is a spirit being, the incarnation, as it is traditionally understood, is rejected by the Gnostics, because spirit cannot commingle with matter. The Gnostics therefore teach that Christ did not come in the flesh but rather took possession of the mortal Jesus at the latter’s baptism at the river Jordan."
John shows clearly what he means in John 1:1, 14 when he shows that the
Word was God and the word was made flesh. Jesus had to be
fully human and fully God. To deny either is heresy. John deals with both. In 1 John 2 he says that those who deny the Son have not the Father. He also speaks of these three are one in 1 John 5:7, showing the trinity, or Tri Unity.
Most of the cults today deny the
eternal Son of God and His pre existence, or they deny that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV). They believe that there was a time when the Son was not, or that the Son was not the almighty God in eternity past.
To try and imply that any who deny the bread to be
literally Jesus Christ body and the blood to be
literally His blood are antichrist and heretics, is not what John is saying and you are to be ashamed not rightly dividing the word of truth.
All true christians confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This was God in Christ reconciling Himself to the world.
God was manifest in the flesh and the
Word was made flesh (John 1;1, 14 KJV).
The "
flesh" John speaks of is
"the body as opposed to the soul, human nature, human being." In Greek. It does not refer
in any way to bread. John is not referring to the bread and wine here.
In fact, to say that Jesus Christ becomes bread literally (I am not speaking of his word as food and of He being the bread of life spiritually), but to say that literal bread becomes God and is sacrificed by human hands,
is in a sense to deny that Christ has come in the flesh and instead says that Christ has come in the bread.
We also know that the angel said this same Jesus shall come in like manner as they saw him go up to heaven,
Acts 1:11
"Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
and we read,
Hebrews 9:28
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
and yet you say no, Christ has come in the flesh in the bread and the bread is no longer bread, it is transubstantiated and now is God, and likewise the blood also.
But we just read that Christ SHALL (future tense) appear a second time at the second coming. Buy you say no, He appears many times all over the world regularly. You can say "lo, here is Christ, or lo there is Christ" in your bread and wine.
Also Jesus shall come again as they saw him go into heaven. It doesn't say he shall come again as bread or in bread literally and in wine?. But you say he does.
Paul says believers don't know Christ after the flesh now. So to say we do contradicts Paul's words.
2 Corinthians 5:16
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."
But you say. you
do know him after the flesh again. Yet your
flesh you speak of is made by human hands as bread then a series of words are said and it pulls down God into the bread and now the bread is God to be worshipped, and the blood is literally blood to drink also. Yet Paul says "t
his bread which we break" and "
this cup which we bless". He doesn't say this flesh and blood literally. It is a symbol and in remembrance of Jesus body and blood given for salvation. You seem to avoid many scriptures I give you and cling to your traditions in stead and so called "
church fathers" etc.
I also showed you the
saving gospel 1 Cor 15;1-4 and you simply added more to it and denied the simplicity that Paul said he preached and what they received and how they were saved and how they keep saved by keeping it in memory.
Wycliffe was a false teacher, as were the reformers who promoted his false teachings.
No, he started to see the truth of these things and was helping others to avoid idolatry and superstition and erroneous teachings of men.
But, the important thing to note about the reformation is that it didn't fix a single thing about the Church.
Yes many good things came out of the reformation, a leading away from merits works for salvation to grace through faith. That was a big one. A leading away from forms without power and dry ritual and many aspects of the mass and other things. Away from Mary worship and adoration and of making statues and beads and scapulars, and indulgences for salvation etc.
I could go on nd on here but....
Yes, many reformed churches also did not go far enough. They are to be commended in some things they chopped off from Roman Catholicism , but not as much in things that they left undone and the similarities to their Mother church that they retained.
They still retained false unbiblical Basilicas called "churches" which stood as castles and with towers and grand show. They still had special men falsely called the clergy" or "priest" over the people and body life in Christ and spiritual worship and ministry in Christ was quenched often and hindered. etc etc.
Here is just one martyr of one of the reformation's many offshoots:
She was a Jehovah's Witness, Else Woieziek, executed by the Nazis for refusing to recant her religious beliefs. There are
many more like her, who suffered the same fate for refusing to recant their beliefs.
They are still false teachers denying the Divinity of Christ, teaching that God is the Father alone, without an Eternal "personal" Logos and "personal" Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is
not a person, just an impersonal Life force of the Father. The logos is God's first "created" being. He is not God. Rather, He is "a" god. I'm sorry that she had to suffer so for the sake of her beliefs, and all the others also.
It does't help to bring up heretics and false teachers from a much later time. I do not acknowledge any JW"s gatherings as Christian, or the Mormons, or Christadelphians, or many other groups. This is not connected to me at all. Or to true believers who fled from the Roman church and eEastern Orthodox churches or Anglican and Lutheran etc.
I'm sorry that the reformers who denounced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist had to suffer as they did too. But their suffering was on account of the evil in that is in the world, living in the dead hearts of corruption in others. It was not on account of them being correct in their beliefs.
No they simply saw scripture and the error of Roman Catholic teaching and Eastern orthodox teaching etc.
They could not go into idolatry and were men and women of conscience. Take heed when you sleight these faithful martyrs who died for Christ and His truth.
Jesus Christ taught the real presence of His Life giving body and blood in the Eucharist.
No, he didn't He did however speak of Himself as the true Light that lights mens hearts and as the seed sown in their hearts and the word of God they live by and are born again by. He did also speak of Himself being
in men and they
in him.
But as to the shadows and types he spoke about he spoke of the mysteries of the kingdom, but many could barely see or hear. They thought he was talking of bread one time when he said to beware the leaven of the pharisees etc. But no, he was speaking of their doctrine.
Jesus Christ established an ordained hierarchical body within His Church.
No he didn't he distinctly warned against the rulers of the gentiles and having dominos and authority over others. He said we are to be as servants and ministers.
Jesus also gives His power to all who abide in Him and are led by the Spirit.
True authority comes as men speak and live in the word of God and walk in the light in faith.
These attributes of the Church are born out quite well in Scripture and also evidenced in ancient Christian manuscripts.
No,
scripture easily rebukes
your entire order and priest and sacrifices, altars, bread worship as God, and almost all you do in your gatherings. But what you do seem to give much weight to is the traditions of men and the so called "church fathers" depending on which ones you think speak to your order. This is where you may be putting men above that which is written.
The late Roman innovations and the reformation movements that came a few hundred years afterwards in response to them have
You have many similar aspects to the Roman Church, you are almost identical in so many ways.
