Modern Apostles and Prophets?

[TruthSeek3r]

To get us started, I would say that Carlos Annacondia seems to fit the definition (in my opinion) of a modern apostle. You can read more on his ministry here: Have massive, apostolic-level healings continued?

Here is a documentary on Carlos Annacondia:

 

[chevyontheriver]

With Both being 100% Correct at all times in Teaching, Predictions and Holy Living.

If this were exactly so the Twelve would have been the Zero. Nobody with the exception of Jesus, Mary, and just maybe John the Baptist was sinless. All the rest of us fail from time to time at holy living. Some of us fail spectacularly and publicly. Others more modestly or privately. But we all fail in the holy living department. Even popes said to be infallible. Because infallibility does not imply impeccability. Nor does it imply that everything a pope says is true. Fitting with the limits of the human character it only implies that in certain rare circumstances a pope will be protected from getting it wrong. Your standard was too high for even the Twelve. Nobody but Jesus Christ Himself could qualify. And yet the Twelve were not the Zero. We do expect rightly that we get correct teaching, we do expect our prophets to get it right, and we do expect a modicum of real holiness.

As to prophecy, remember that Jonah was a successful prophet even though his saying Nineveh would be destroyed didn't happen. Most prophecy is conditional, IF A then B.

I think a better standard would be correct in official teaching even if not every word they say, correct in official prophecy even if not every random prognostication, and that modicum of holiness with neither notorious public scandal nor private serious sin. Few enough could qualify for that but for those who do I think it is not wrong to consider that they may be prophets or occupiers of an apostolic role.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Feel free to send me a private message with the names. I promise not to disclose them.

Maybe I will do so on that other thread, depending on how the discussion matures in the Spirit Filled / Charismatic forum. This forum is too argumentative and I usually regret posting anything here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here is a documentary on Carlos Annacondia:

Does this Carlos Annacondia:

1) Confess the historic Creeds of the Church, and confess them faithfully? Or does he teach things contrary to the Creeds?

2) Preach the Gospel faithfully? Or does he preach the Gospel mixed with Law, teaching that it is up to men to get right with God rather than the truth: Through Christ God sets man right with Himself, by grace, through faith.

3) What does he teach concerning the Holy Sacraments? Does he teach that the Lord's Supper is indeed the real body and blood of Jesus; or does he teach that it is merely a memorial meal?

These are the kinds of questions that matter. What does he teach? What does he confess?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TruthSeek3r]

1) Confess the historic Creeds of the Church, and confess them faithfully? Or does he teach things contrary to the Creeds?

First of all, the Creeds are not the Bible. We need to get that straight right away.

Having said that, Carlos Annancodia was (and is) a Pentecostal preacher (source), so based on that and the many of his sermons I've watched, he's a Trinitarian and subscribes to the Creeds that most Protestant Christians subscribe to.

2) Preach the Gospel faithfully? Or does he preach the Gospel mixed with Law, teaching that it is up to men to get right with God rather than the truth: Through Christ God sets man right with Himself, by grace, through faith.

As far as I'm aware, Carlos preaches the full gospel: repentance from sin, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, deliverance from demonic powers, living consecrated lives to God, holiness, casting out devils (his ministry perform deliverances), healing the sick in Jesus' name, spiritual warfare, intercessory prayer (interceding for the land before conducting an evangelistic campaign on that place), the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, etc. In other words, he pretty much preaches the whole thing, as they did in the book of Acts. You should read his book Listen to Me, Satan!.

3) What does he teach concerning the Holy Sacraments? Does he teach that the Lord's Supper is indeed the real body and blood of Jesus; or does he teach that it is merely a memorial meal?

Good question. I've got no idea what he teaches concerning this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

First of all, the Creeds are not the Bible. We need to get that straight right away.

Having said that, Carlos Annancodia was (and is) a Pentecostal preacher (source), so based on that and the many of his sermons I've watched, he's a Trinitarian and subscribes to the Creeds that most Protestant Christians subscribe to.

Nobody claimed the Creeds are the Bible, so I'm not sure why that needs straightening out. The Creeds, however, are the standard by which we hold all doctrinal teaching as being the authoritative position of the Christian Church.

So it doesn't matter that the Creeds aren't the Bible, what matters is whether the Creeds are being affirmed or rejected.

You say he is a Trinitarian. Well, okay, good. What does he teach about the Trinity? Is it orthodox Triadology?

As far as I'm aware, Carlos preaches the full gospel: repentance from sin, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, deliverance from demonic powers, living consecrated lives to God, holiness, casting out devils (his ministry perform deliverances), healing the sick in Jesus' name, spiritual warfare, intercessory prayer (interceding for the land before conducting an evangelistic campaign on that place), the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, etc. In other words, he pretty much preaches the whole thing, as they did in the book of Acts. You should read his book Listen to Me, Satan!.

In which case the answer to the question is no, Carolos doesn't preach the Gospel faithfully, but instead mixes the Gospel with the Law, and then adds unbiblical and foreign teachings into the mix.

Good question. I've got no idea what he teaches concerning this.

I mean, I would be absolutely startled and shocked if he did teach the Real Presence.

I think it's safe to say with, at the very least the information you've provided so far, that I can safely say that Carlos is definitely neither apostle nor prophet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Nobody claimed the Creeds are the Bible, so I'm not sure why that needs straightening out. The Creeds, however, are the standard by which we hold all doctrinal teaching as being the authoritative position of the Christian Church.

• What Creeds are you specifically talking about? Here is a list: List of Christian creeds - Wikipedia
• Which of those creeds do you consider to be authoritative and why?

So it doesn't matter that the Creeds aren't the Bible, what matters is whether the Creeds are being affirmed or rejected.

Why should that matter?

You say he is a Trinitarian. Well, okay, good. What does he teach about the Trinity? Is it orthodox Triadology?

I'd think so. I mean, he definitely isn't a Modalist, nor Unitarian, nor Binitarian, nor Swedenborgian, nor Jehovah's Witness, nor Mormon, nor Oneness Pentecostal, etc. He's just a normal Trinitarian, Pentecostal Christian as far as I'm aware. Now, if you meant to ask if he has spent a considerable amount of time studying philosophical attempts to wrap one's head around the Trinity, as in this article Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), then I'd say he probably hasn't (?). But again, those are human intellectual efforts to make sense of the Trinity, which are not found in the Bible itself.

In which case the answer to the question is no, Carolos doesn't preach the Gospel faithfully, but instead mixes the Gospel with the Law, and then adds unbiblical and foreign teachings into the mix.

Then I would appreciate it if you substantiate your accusations.

I mean, I would be absolutely startled and shocked if he did teach the Real Presence.

Why does this topic matter so much to you?

 

[chevyontheriver]

• What Creeds are you specifically talking about? Here is a list: List of Christian creeds - Wikipedia
• Which of those creeds do you consider to be authoritative and why?

Why should that matter?

Typically this would be the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Someone who denies anything in these creeds would be following something other than the Christian faith. Even participation in CF as a Christian presumes at least the non-rejection of the Nicene Creed. That's in the forum rules.

Then I would appreciate it if you substantiate your accusations.

For the record I make no such accusation. Not enough information for me to evaluate.

Why does this topic matter so much to you?

It, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, is the traditional teaching of the Church, without exception until two guys in the middle ages disagreed, and then a big chunk of the children of the Reformation decided to disagree. It is Catholic teaching, Orthodox teaching, Lutheran teaching, and even to a degree Methodist and Anglican teaching. A modern apostle or prophet should accept the real presence. Because it is normal and original Christian teaching.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

It, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, is the traditional teaching of the Church, without exception until two guys in the middle ages disagreed, and then a big chunk of the children of the Reformation decided to disagree. It is Catholic teaching, Orthodox teaching, Lutheran teaching, and even to a degree Methodist and Anglican teaching. A modern apostle or prophet should accept the real presence. Because it is normal and original Christian teaching.

I've never heard Carlos Annacondia preach on the Eucharist (which doesn't mean that he hasn't -- I haven't exhaustively watched/read every single sermon he has ever preached). However, according to Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia:

Many within the Holiness Pentecostal tradition, which is largely Wesleyan–Arminian in theology as are the Methodist Churches, also affirm this understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[80]​

So there is a chance that he believes in some form of real presence. But it doesn't appear to be a topic that he expounds much about, if at all.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've never heard Carlos Annacondia preach on the Eucharist (which it doesn't mean that he hasn't -- I haven't exhaustively watched/read every single sermon he has ever preached).

Well, I've never even heard of him. I guess I don't get out much.

However, according to Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia:

Many within the Holiness Pentecostal tradition, which is largely Wesleyan–Arminian in theology as are the Methodist Churches, also affirm this understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[80]​

So there is a chance that he believes in some form of real presence. But it doesn't appear to be a topic that he expounds much about, if at all.

Here's hoping if he hasn't done so he will.

 

[ViaCrucis]

• What Creeds are you specifically talking about? Here is a list: List of Christian creeds - Wikipedia
• Which of those creeds do you consider to be authoritative and why?

Why should that matter?

As @chevyontheriver pointed out, ordinarily what is being referred to is, at the very least, the Nicene Creed, but also the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds would be included here, at least in the Western Church (the Eastern Churches only use the Nicene Creed, but as far as I know, there's nothing objectionable to the East contained within the other two).

These are authoritative because the Church has, historically, received them as authoritative. A rejection of the Creeds is a rejection of Christianity, because the Creeds are the fundamental summary of basic Christian doctrine.

The Creeds faithfully communicate the Christian faith as it has been received since the beginning.

I'd think so. I mean, he definitely isn't a Modalist, nor Unitarian, nor Binitarian, nor Swedenborgian, nor Jehovah's Witness, nor Mormon, nor Oneness Pentecostal, etc. He's just a normal Trinitarian, Pentecostal Christian as far as I'm aware. Now, if you meant to ask if he has spent a considerable amount of time studying philosophical attempts to wrap one's head around the Trinity, as in this article Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), then I'd say he probably hasn't (?). But again, those are human intellectual efforts to make sense of the Trinity, which are not found in the Bible itself.

I only bring it up because it's an example of where people frequently trip up into various theological errors. And while I wouldn't expect Average Joe Layman to have studied the doctrine of the Trinity in depth, it's very much something I would expect from someone in any sort of pastoral capacity.

Then I would appreciate it if you substantiate your accusations.

Alright, here is the information you provided me

"As far as I'm aware, Carlos preaches the full gospel: repentance from sin, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, deliverance from demonic powers, living consecrated lives to God, holiness, casting out devils (his ministry perform deliverances), healing the sick in Jesus' name, spiritual warfare, intercessory prayer (interceding for the land before conducting an evangelistic campaign on that place), the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, etc. In other words, he pretty much preaches the whole thing, as they did in the book of Acts. You should read his book Listen to Me, Satan!."

Here's my problem: There's virtually no Gospel in that entire paragraph. The closest statement to the Gospel that I can see here is "deliverance from demonic powers". Which, yes, that is absolutely part of the Gospel: Christ by His death and resurrection has defeated all the powers and principalities of this age, rendering them impotent, and we have been liberated from the slavery and tyranny of death and the devil. And part of the Gospel, its proclamation in the world, is the freedom and deliverance of human beings from those powers. As such the Lord and His Apostles drove out demons, and the Church has always continued to do so. In fact every Christian Baptism is also an exorcism.

As for the rest, allow me to elaborate further, because you mention a lot of things, an there are plenty which I believe, they just aren't Gospel, they're part of the Law.

- Repentance from sin is not the Gospel, we preach the Law for repentance. We repent because we are sinners, and we know we are sinners from the Law which condemns us as sinners. Repentance is what happens when we, aware and grieving over our sins, confess that we are sinners, and that we grieve, are contrite, and have been humbled by the Law to our knees to pray for mercy.

- Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is not the Gospel. That Jesus Christ IS Lord and Savior is the Gospel, but that is entirely independent of whether or not we accept that. The Gospel is that this Jesus, whom was crucified, was raised up, and that He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father; God has made Him both Lord and Christ. It is certainly a good thing to accept Jesus, but that's what the life of discipleship is about: We bear our cross in this world facing hard choices, and in every choice in every moment we are given opportunity to accept Jesus, follow Him, and live in accordance with His Way.

But we aren't saved by "accepting Jesus"; the Gospel is that God has accepted us in Jesus Christ. Accepting Jesus, which we should do, because it's what God commands of us who believe in Him, is a Christian work of discipleship, it is Law not Gospel.

- Living consecrated lives to God is, again, Law, not Gospel. It is the Law that commands us to abide in holiness and justice. The Gospel, however, is the good news that that we have received the free gift of the righteousness and holiness of Jesus Christ; this is the righteousness that is through faith, a righteousness received, not a righteousness which we do. It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that we receive, as pure grace, that is Gospel. The call and command of God's Law that we live godly and righteous lives is just that, Law.

- Intercessory prayer, again, not the Gospel. Though God has charged His Church to pray, and to pray without ceasing.

- Fruits of the Spirit, not Gospel; but rather the ongoing work of the Spirit in sanctifying us.

Why does this topic matter so much to you?

I would expect that anyone who would call themselves apostle or prophet to hold to basic, historic, apostolic Christian teaching. Anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist can't be an apostle or a prophet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Alright, here is the information you provided me

"As far as I'm aware, Carlos preaches the full gospel: repentance from sin, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, deliverance from demonic powers, living consecrated lives to God, holiness, casting out devils (his ministry perform deliverances), healing the sick in Jesus' name, spiritual warfare, intercessory prayer (interceding for the land before conducting an evangelistic campaign on that place), the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, etc. In other words, he pretty much preaches the whole thing, as they did in the book of Acts. You should read his book Listen to Me, Satan!."

Here's my problem: There's virtually no Gospel in that entire paragraph. The closest statement to the Gospel that I can see here is "deliverance from demonic powers". Which, yes, that is absolutely part of the Gospel: Christ by His death and resurrection has defeated all the powers and principalities of this age, rendering them impotent, and we have been liberated from the slavery and tyranny of death and the devil. And part of the Gospel, its proclamation in the world, is the freedom and deliverance of human beings from those powers. As such the Lord and His Apostles drove out demons, and the Church has always continued to do so. In fact every Christian Baptism is also an exorcism.

As for the rest, allow me to elaborate further, because you mention a lot of things, an there are plenty which I believe, they just aren't Gospel, they're part of the Law.

- Repentance from sin is not the Gospel, we preach the Law for repentance. We repent because we are sinners, and we know we are sinners from the Law which condemns us as sinners. Repentance is what happens when we, aware and grieving over our sins, confess that we are sinners, and that we grieve, are contrite, and have been humbled by the Law to our knees to pray for mercy.

- Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is not the Gospel. That Jesus Christ IS Lord and Savior is the Gospel, but that is entirely independent of whether or not we accept that. The Gospel is that this Jesus, whom was crucified, was raised up, and that He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father; God has made Him both Lord and Christ. It is certainly a good thing to accept Jesus, but that's what the life of discipleship is about: We bear our cross in this world facing hard choices, and in every choice in every moment we are given opportunity to accept Jesus, follow Him, and live in accordance with His Way.

But we aren't saved by "accepting Jesus"; the Gospel is that God has accepted us in Jesus Christ. Accepting Jesus, which we should do, because it's what God commands of us who believe in Him, is a Christian work of discipleship, it is Law not Gospel.

- Living consecrated lives to God is, again, Law, not Gospel. It is the Law that commands us to abide in holiness and justice. The Gospel, however, is the good news that that we have received the free gift of the righteousness and holiness of Jesus Christ; this is the righteousness that is through faith, a righteousness received, not a righteousness which we do. It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that we receive, as pure grace, that is Gospel. The call and command of God's Law that we live godly and righteous lives is just that, Law.

- Intercessory prayer, again, not the Gospel. Though God has charged His Church to pray, and to pray without ceasing.

- Fruits of the Spirit, not Gospel; but rather the ongoing work of the Spirit in sanctifying us.

I'm quite sure he would agree with pretty much everything you said.

If you want to watch some sermons he preached in English (with the assistance of a translator) and judge by yourself, here are a couple of them:

Here is the documentary again:

Here is an interview in English: https://www.premierchristianity.com...list-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article

Here is another book: https://www.amazon.com/Humbled-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/193344682X

Carlos Annacondia is known the world over for his fiery gospel preaching and the miracles that accompany his clear, impassioned calls to salvation. Millions of people across South America and beyond have come to Christ through his ministry. Now, in his latest book, he reveals the secret to releasing the power of God in the world today: humility. In, Humbled, Carlos Annacondia gives readers an intimate, first hand account of the journey that led him from a career as a successful businessman to the front lines of international revival. Full of personal stories, scriptural insights, and practical guidelines, this book will inspire you to embrace humility and partner with the Holy Spirit. When you do, you’ll see His Kingdom change your life and the lives of those you love.

 

[Melody Suttles]

Are there any modern apostles and prophets?

I'm looking for examples of genuine, authentic modern apostles and prophets. It could be anyone from the last few centuries, but it would be even better if they are alive today.

What would be a list of, say, the top 5 people who you are highly confident are (or were) authentic modern apostles? Same question for modern prophets.

Another related question: what criteria should we use to discern the authenticity of an apostle and a prophet?

2 Corinthians 12:12 says the following about true apostles:

12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

What about true prophets?

Jonathan Cahn - a true prophet alive today.

"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28)

"Everyone who believes me will be able to do wonderful things. By using my name they will force out demons, and they will speak new languages. They will handle snakes and will drink poison and not be hurt. They will also heal sick people by placing their hands on them. After the Lord Jesus had said these things to the disciples, he was taken back up to heaven where he sat down at the right side of God. Then the disciples left and preached everywhere. The Lord was with them, and the miracles they worked proved that their message was true (Mark 16:17-20)


Other prophets I believe are true and alive today: Bobbie Jean Merck and Reinhardt Bonnke.
A prophet who passed away in the 20th century: Katheryn Kuhlman

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist can't be an apostle or a prophet.

scripture please stating this is what the apostles and prophets taught.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jonathan Cahn - a true prophet alive today.

"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28)

"Everyone who believes me will be able to do wonderful things. By using my name they will force out demons, and they will speak new languages. They will handle snakes and will drink poison and not be hurt. They will also heal sick people by placing their hands on them. After the Lord Jesus had said these things to the disciples, he was taken back up to heaven where he sat down at the right side of God. Then the disciples left and preached everywhere. The Lord was with them, and the miracles they worked proved that their message was true (Mark 16:17-20)


Other prophets I believe are true and alive today: Bobbie Jean Merck and Reinhardt Bonnke.
A prophet who passed away in the 20th century: Katheryn Kuhlman

Didn't Mr. Cahn "prophesy" that Donald Trump would win the 2020 election?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

as per usual to ignor is just ignorance

 

[ViaCrucis]

scripture please stating this is what the apostles and prophets taught.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" - Matthew 26:26-28

"And as they were eating, He took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is My body.' And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they al drank of it. And He said to them, 'This is M blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." - Mark 14:22-24

"And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' And he took bread, and when He had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'" - Luke 22:17-20

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.'" - John 6:53-56

"I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not partaking in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not partaking of the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" - 1 Corinthians 10:15-18

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, 'This is My body, whic his for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same way also He took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For a nyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

And from the testimony of the ancient fathers:

"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess 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 to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 7, c. 107 AD

"And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the one that believes the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the forgiveness of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'Do this in remembrance of Me, this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and gave it to them alone." - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 66, c. 150 AD

"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, 'This is My body.' And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world," - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book IV, 17.5, c. 180 AD

"But in vain in every respect are those who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood, nor the bread which we break the partaking of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood He redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, 'In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.' And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is part of the creation) as His own blood, and which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that 'we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.' He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones" - ibid. Book V, 2.2-3

-CryptoLuthera

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" - Matthew 26:26-28

"And as they were eating, He took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is My body.' And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they al drank of it. And He said to them, 'This is M blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." - Mark 14:22-24

"And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' And he took bread, and when He had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'" - Luke 22:17-20

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.'" - John 6:53-56

"I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not partaking in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not partaking of the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" - 1 Corinthians 10:15-18

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, 'This is My body, whic his for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same way also He took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For a nyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

And from the testimony of the ancient fathers:

"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess 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 to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 7, c. 107 AD

"And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the one that believes the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the forgiveness of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'Do this in remembrance of Me, this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and gave it to them alone." - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 66, c. 150 AD

"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, 'This is My body.' And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world," - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book IV, 17.5, c. 180 AD

"But in vain in every respect are those who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood, nor the bread which we break the partaking of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood He redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, 'In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.' And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is part of the creation) as His own blood, and which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that 'we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.' He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones" - ibid. Book V, 2.2-3

-CryptoLuthera

So as He was saying all of that was He handing them symbolic items that meant that edification is in Him alone or did He hand them a chunk of lamb and some wine, the wine symbolizing living water consecrating the wedding feast? Same thing different word perhaps? Or just another form of exclusion? My guess is the latter.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not to anyone in particular but kinda fits with my study today ....

Ecclesiastes 6:10
Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what human beings are, and that they are not able to dispute with those who are stronger.

Ecclesiastes 10:3
Even when fools walk on the road, they lack sense,
and show to everyone that they are fools.

Ecclesiastes 8:14
There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people who are treated according to the conduct of the wicked, and there are wicked people who are treated according to the conduct of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity.

Ecclesiastes 4:2
And I thought the dead, who have already died, more fortunate than the living, who are still alive;

 

[chevyontheriver]

scripture please stating this is what the apostles and prophets taught.

Can an apostle or a prophet deny the truths of the faith? I'm doubting that. Do I need Scripture to prove to you that any apostle who denies truths of the faith is a false apostle or a false prophet?