The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

MoreCoffee said:

Does the above mean that you did not understand the real presence in the Holy Eucharist in "exactly" the way described in the CCC?

Click to expand...

It means I try not to interfere with pleasant fantasies.

Rick Otto said:

It means I try not to interfere with pleasant fantasies.

Click to expand...

Many an atheist says that the whole idea of an invisible heavenly Father and an after life in connection with him is a pleasant fantasy. I, of course, do not agree but that is because I accept what Jesus says as truth revealed by God so when Jesus says "this is my body" I believe him and when he says "this is the new covenant in my blood" I believe him too. It does not matter that in the Holy Eucharist the body of Christ appears to be bread and the blood of Christ appears to be wine because faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. Faith is, after all, the evidence of things not seen. So when an Atheist dismisses Christian faith as a fantasy it is what a Christian expects, when your post dismisses Christian faith it is not what a Christian ought to expect.

God keep you in his grace, strengthen your spirit, and always be with you on the path of faith.

MoreCoffee said:

Many an atheist says that the whole idea of an invisible heavenly Father and an after life in connection with him is a pleasant fantasy. I, of course, do not agree but that is because I accept what Jesus says as truth revealed by God so when Jesus says "this is my body" I believe him and when he says "this is the new covenant in my blood" I believe him too. It does not matter that in the Holy Eucharist the body of Christ appears to be bread and the blood of Christ appears to be wine because faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. Faith is, after all, the evidence of things not seen. So when an Atheist dismisses Christian faith as a fantasy it is what a Christian expects, when your post dismisses Christian faith it is not what a Christian ought to expect.

God keep you in his grace, strengthen your spirit, and always be with you on the path of faith.

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

In another post you wrote that this realisation came to you at a very early age, well under 10 years of age. Did you understand the vocabulary used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or whatever was its equivalent when you were a young child? If you did then I hazard the guess that you were a prodigy of prodigious linguistic ability. Is that so?

Click to expand...

Hey I was doing my taxes at 2 so anything's possible

Rick Otto said:

You reiterated the importance of the written word.
That was my point, thank you.

Click to expand...

Of course the Written Word is important. It is central to the Traditional Churches as well.

But I'm afraid you'll have to explain yourself. You didn't address what I said, merely commandeered it to mean whatever it is you wish it to mean. And frankly, I don't see how that can be, whichever point it is you are seeking to prove with it?

Would that be the one where you said people didn't like to follow the written word?

Or the one you may be getting back to saying that what is taught means nothing?

Would you care to elaborate?

MoreCoffee said:

Many an atheist says that the whole idea of an invisible heavenly Father and an after life in connection with him is a pleasant fantasy. I, of course, do not agree but that is because I accept what Jesus says as truth revealed by God so when Jesus says "this is my body" I believe him and when he says "this is the new covenant in my blood" I believe him too. It does not matter that in the Holy Eucharist the body of Christ appears to be bread and the blood of Christ appears to be wine because faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. Faith is, after all, the evidence of things not seen. So when an Atheist dismisses Christian faith as a fantasy it is what a Christian expects, when your post dismisses Christian faith it is not what a Christian ought to expect.

God keep you in his grace, strengthen your spirit, and always be with you on the path of faith.

Click to expand...

So it has been, and same to you.
I have an opinion about what a Christian ought to expect as well.
I believe what Jesus said, not the interpretation you've chosen.
It's not like I'm denying you having communion with me, or anything that judgemental, I'll still share bread and wine with you in memory of Him, no problem.

MoreCoffee said:

It is incorrect to state, as you do Albion, that transubstantiation is not presented as a mystery. .

Click to expand...

That isn't what I said, though.

Why you misunderstood--if that's what it was--I won't guess at.

Albion said:

That isn't what I said, though.

Why you misunderstood--if that's what it was--I won't guess at.

Click to expand...

But you did write this didn't you?
Perhaps you can explain what you were saying since it seems that your most recent post suggests that I did not understand it.

Like a few other things, it was a stab at having it both ways - an explained mystery as it were, designed to satisfy the willing and resist the defiant.
Frustrating, the duplicity that permeated the whole process.

LittleLambofJesus said:

I am sure most of us here are aware of the SDA's sect view on

Click to expand...

???

I am not even sure I know what the LLOJ sect view is... (to use your terms)

the RCC being in Revelation. But that is not what this thread is about.

Click to expand...

If LLOJ sect view is that the question asked me was in error or off topic- that prove that the person asking was in error. Because until you explain how the question Prodromos asked regarding the RCC and pagan influence that came in over the centuries such that the first century NT church would not the RCC -- your own LLOj sect view objection is unclear as to what part of the question should not be allowed given the subject of this thread.

Here it is "again"

==========================================================

Originally Posted by prodromos

So do tell us Bob, since you seem to be so knowledgeable in this area, what Greek pagan influence was adopted by the RCC in the centuries after the Apostles died? All we've got at the moment is their use of the flawed Aristotelean metaphysical model to describe the very real presence of Christ's body and blood as food and drink for the faithful in the Eucharist. Something which is core to the faith of all the ancient Christian bodies despite centuries of seperation.​

Click to expand...

In my list of doctrines that the RCC cannot find in the NT I provided this --

==================================
Which brings us to this post #123

So then where is the first century evidence for the RCC's doctrines?

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================

1. The Pagan Roman title "Pontiff" adopted by the RCC.
2. The greek pantheon of gods - adopted with Christian saint's names attached.
3. The day of sun worship adopted as a holy day.
4. The practice of ancestor worship - replaced by prayers to the dead.
5. The Rosary - replaced the pagan prayer beads, prayer wheels etc.
6. Dantes Inferno - spirit-guided by the Roman pagan Virgil
How a pagan poet created a Christian Hell… | Vergil's Inferno
Publius Vergilius Maro (Latin pronunciation: [ˈpuːblɪʊs ʋɛrˈgɪlɪʊs ˈmaroː]) (October 15, 70 BC – September 21, 19 BC),

7. Queen of Heaven - title given to Mary -- title first given to false gods in Jeremiah's day and also to Isis, Astarte, Hera...

Jer 17:18
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jer 44:17-25
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
[FONT=&quot]19 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her [/FONT]

=========================

MoreCoffee said:

But you did write this didn't you?

If it were presented as a mystery you might have a point. But Transubstantiation isn't that.

It's a claim that this, which is a mystery only because it takes God to do it, can and must be understood by church members almost scientifically, and it comes with an elaborate, step by step, explanation. ​

Perhaps you can explain what you were saying since it seems that your most recent post suggests that I did not understand it.

Click to expand...

I wrote more than one post and you apparently don't do well with nuanced position. That's too bad, considering that such is the nature of theology.

I guess those like Albion seem to have comprhension issues when asked to explain the point they were trying to make. Either that or most likely don't have much of a postion to explain in detail.

By Faith Alone said:

This is my body.

This is my blood.

I am the door.

I am the true vine.

All flesh is grass.

You are the salt of the earth.

Much to do about...METAPHORS.

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

If you want to think that what Jesus said was a metaphor that's up to you.

Click to expand...

Or else... He is really a wooden door/gate/vine or a lamb or manna floating down from heaven?

Really?

MoreCoffee said:

Or else your comments misstate reality in which Jesus is the proto-door from which all earthly doors take their meaning and Jesus is the proto-vine from which all created vines take their meaning and Jesus is the proto-lamb from which all lambs take their meaning and the proto-manna from which the manna in the wilderness takes its meaning.

The metaphor (though I contend that this is far from the correct word) is the created being while the reality is God the uncreated one.

Click to expand...

proto-bread
proto-vine
proto-lamb

so then not "lamb DNA" or "Lamb flesh" and not "wood" door and not "Vine Dna"??

Are we back to "bread is symbolic" and not human flesh -- really??

Nice!

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

God is the Proto-father from whom all fatherhood takes its name, So nobody ought to be surprised that God is also the source of all created things.

Click to expand...

Does not get to the point about proto-door as if all doors get their name from Christ in John 10 which we know is not true.

But more to the point - when looking at a door we do not expect to find the DNA of the incarnate Christ would said "I am the door".

And when looking at Christ we do not expect to find the structure for a vine, or wooden door, or iron door, or lion, or a Rock.

That your reply treats this idea as if it were strange is in itself strange

Click to expand...

Not even remotely.

our entire religion is built on the foundation that God is the creator of all things and that everything in creation was created by means of his Word and was thus spoken into existence and every thing that exists came from the mind and wisdom of God. No created thing came into existence on its own

Click to expand...

So say we all.

But that does not mean that God is a duck or that all ducks have the DNA of God or any such thing.

I think we all agree on that point no matter what side of the fence we are on.

Thus God's ideas (which are eternal and unchanging) are the ground of being for every created thing and being the ground of being means that God is himself the prototype of every thing that he created.

Click to expand...

That is not true.

The maker of a thing -- a duck, a snail, a rabbit is not by definition then "The first rabbit" nor even the "prototype rabbit from which all other rabbits are a copy or reproduction".

And again I think we all knew that no matter the side of the fence we are on for this subject.

So God is the proto-door, proto-lamb, proto-vine, and so on, including the proto-father from whom all fatherhood takes its name

Click to expand...

He does function in true first-role pattern as Father - not as duck, not as nail, not as wood, not as iron , not as vine.

The fact that He is the first and ultimate form/pattern of something does not mean he is the first form or pattern for all things - for ducks, snails, stone etc are things He made without having to first 'be one'.

in Christ,

Bob

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:

I guess those like Albion seem to have comprhension issues when asked to explain the point they were trying to make. Either that or most likely don't have much of a postion to explain in detail.

Click to expand...

Some like to sit on the fence and avoidtaking a stand.

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:

I guess those like Albion seem to have comprhension issues when asked to explain the point they were trying to make. Either that or most likely don't have much of a postion to explain in detail.

Click to expand...

You're already IN the club, aren't you? You shouldn't have to keep proving yourself to them in every post.

BobRyan, in my posts I've restricted my comments to the names Jesus Christ took to himself and the name that God takes to himself; specifically Father, Gate, Vine, and so forth. That Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is the new covenant in my blood" is not disputed by anybody. So, I see no reason to address ducks and whatever other thing you think might be of interest in this matter. The point is that Jesus did call himself the things noted above and he is the prototype, the pattern, the origin of these created things. It is therefore no surprise that he is, as he said, true food and true drink, the bread of life and the bread from heaven. I accept his words as they are stated, their interpretation I leave to others if they feel a need to interpret his words at the last supper. If your stated preference is to treat "this is my body" as a metaphor that is your privilege, I will not follow you down that path because I believe it to be in error.

By Faith Alone said:

** Maybe Albie is the brightest bulb on the shelf casting a shadow on the rest.

Click to expand...

Bulbs on a shelf usually are dark, they must be in an appropriate powered light socket to give light.

MoreCoffee said:

BobRyan, in my posts I've restricted my comments to the names Jesus Christ took to himself and the name that God takes to himself; specifically Father, Gate, Vine, and so forth. That Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is the new covenant in my blood" is not disputed by anybody. So, I see no reason to address ducks and whatever other thing you think might be of interest in this matter. The point is that Jesus did call himself the things noted above and he is the prototype, the pattern, the origin of these created things. It is therefore no surprise that he is, as he said, true food and true drink, the bread of life and the bread from heaven. I accept his words as they are stated, their interpretation I leave to others if they feel a need to interpret his words at the last supper. If your stated preference is to treat "this is my body" as a metaphor that is your privilege, I will not follow you down that path because I believe it to be in error.

Click to expand...

And you separate one metaphor from the rest and make it literal to create your own theology. Pretty good trick, if you ask me. But I don't buy it.

By Faith Alone said:

MoreCoffee said:

BobRyan, in my posts I've restricted my comments to the names Jesus Christ took to himself and the name that God takes to himself; specifically Father, Gate, Vine, and so forth. That Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is the new covenant in my blood" is not disputed by anybody. So, I see no reason to address ducks and whatever other thing you think might be of interest in this matter. The point is that Jesus did call himself the things noted above and he is the prototype, the pattern, the origin of these created things. It is therefore no surprise that he is, as he said, true food and true drink, the bread of life and the bread from heaven. I accept his words as they are stated, their interpretation I leave to others if they feel a need to interpret his words at the last supper. If your stated preference is to treat "this is my body" as a metaphor that is your privilege, I will not follow you down that path because I believe it to be in error.

Click to expand...

And you separate one metaphor from the rest and make it literal to create your own theology. Pretty good trick, if you ask me. But I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

A careful reading of my post (included in the above quote) will show that far more than one name taken by Christ is treated as true in the sense in which I explained its truth; namely that Jesus Christ is the proto-door, for example, and the true-food and true-drink that the faithful receive in holy communion.

I am going to work now, I shall not be commenting for a number of hours,

God bless and keep you.