John 6:66 - Why did many disciples stop following Jesus?

[Truth1945]

Ignatius of Antioch

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

St. Martyr

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",

-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

St. Cyprian of Carthage

"So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: 'In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.' The flesh of Christ and the Lord's sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.",

-"The Unity of the Catholic Church". Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,


A lot more early church father writings about he Holy Eucharist:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

 

[Enoch111]

A lot more early church father writings about he Holy Eucharist

We can't objectively deny this. But that does not necessarily make it so. John Wyclif was also a Catholic but he did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Truth1945]

We can't objectively deny this. But that does not necessarily make it so. John Wyclif was also a Catholic but he did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.

True, but that's probably why he is not a saint and was excommunicated. He's considered a heretic. You will agree with people from the 1400s and 1500s but not those in the apostolic days? Ignatius for example was born in 35AD and traveled with St Paul.

 

[Tong2020]

Ignatius of Antioch

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

St. Martyr

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",

-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

St. Cyprian of Carthage

"So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: 'In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.' The flesh of Christ and the Lord's sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.",

-"The Unity of the Catholic Church". Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,


A lot more early church father writings about he Holy Eucharist:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

With regards those persons whom the "Catholics" calls "father", this is what Jesus tells us in scriptures relative to calling anyone "father" or "papa":

Matthew 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

With regards your quotes of those whom you call "father", perhaps you consider them as though they are scriptures being then the words of God. But the question is, were such men you call "fathers" been inspired like the Holy Spirit inspired writers of scriptures?

Here's what I see. I'd guess that all such men let themselves be called "father" by the believers. For evidently, this thing is carried on to this day, with the "Catholic" priests being called "father" and accepting the same. Apparently then, such men do not abide and believe in what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23:9. This may be one tradition, a tradition that speaks not of the truth, but of a disbelief in the words of Christ in Mt.23:9. And apparently then, such men, by this tradition and still another tradition, taught this and of strange doctrines made up from the words of Christ pertaining to the Bread of God in John 6 and scriptures concerning the last supper of Christ with His disciples and on some writings of Paul touching the said last supper, throughout the years and to this day. It reminds us of the way of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, who made their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments, love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’

With regards to what is there in the linked article, what is said concerning the so-called "Eucharist", are not found in scriptures concerning the bread of God, the bread of life. It speaks of the bread of God, beyond what scriptures say concerning it, coming up with strange thoughts, not found in scriptures. Again, going in the way of the scribes and Pharisees.

In one of the links you also provided concerning the "Eucharist", it even speaks of a thing such as is called "Worship of the Eucharist". Well, scriptures does not teach of such. What we have in scriptures is this:

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”

Tong
R1290

 

[Tong2020]

True, but that's probably why he is not a saint and was excommunicated. He's considered a heretic. You will agree with people from the 1400s and 1500s but not those in the apostolic days? Ignatius for example was born in 35AD and traveled with St Paul.

Not that one was born in 35AD and travelled with Paul, makes him infallible. For there are many who have also been with Paul and were manifested to be at fault, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes (1 Tim. 1:15). This is why we have the scriptures, where we must always go to for the truth. Let's agree with scriptures and agree with people who agree with scriptures. This is why I brought up the matter of false brethren, even antiChrists, and false teachers in one of my post here relative to this, that one may consider the reality of their existence and what they can do to the churches of God across the globe. Such reality is undeniable, as even the churches at the time even of the apostles were not spared of having such people in their midst. And apparently, such people even made it to being the leader of many then, which sadly was succeeded by others, by tradition of their making.

Tong
R1291

 

[Truth1945]

With regards those persons whom the "Catholics" calls "father", this is what Jesus tells us in scriptures relative to calling anyone "father" or "papa":

Matthew 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

With regards your quotes of those whom you call "father", perhaps you consider them as though they are scriptures being then the words of God. But the question is, were such men you call "fathers" been inspired like the Holy Spirit inspired writers of scriptures?

Here's what I see. I'd guess that all such men let themselves be called "father" by the believers. For evidently, this thing is carried on to this day, with the "Catholic" priests being called "father" and accepting the same. Apparently then, such men do not abide and believe in what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23:9. This may be one tradition, a tradition that speaks not of the truth, but of a disbelief in the words of Christ in Mt.23:9. And apparently then, such men, by this tradition and still another tradition, taught this and of strange doctrines made up from the words of Christ pertaining to the Bread of God in John 6 and scriptures concerning the last supper of Christ with His disciples and on some writings of Paul touching the said last supper, throughout the years and to this day. It reminds us of the way of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, who made their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments, love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’

With regards to what is there in the linked article, what is said concerning the so-called "Eucharist", are not found in scriptures concerning the bread of God, the bread of life. It speaks of the bread of God, beyond what scriptures say concerning it, coming up with strange thoughts, not found in scriptures. Again, going in the way of the scribes and Pharisees.

In one of the links you also provided concerning the "Eucharist", it even speaks of a thing such as is called "Worship of the Eucharist". Well, scriptures does not teach of such. What we have in scriptures is this:

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”

Tong
R1290

Oh come on now! Really! I'm not going to dive deep because I have to work, but looks like St. Paul (1cor), St James, Stephen in Acts, and Father Abraham (Luke), just to name a couple, are in big trouble because they themselves or others are referred to as Fathers in the spiritual context. Not to mention the Old Testament but that does matter to you either. Or call no man Master or teacher or physician, etc...

I have more respect for people that don't want to be Catholic because of all the past and current problems the Church has rather someone total slaughtering the scriptures.

 

[Truth1945]

Not that one was born in 35AD and travelled with Paul, makes him infallible. For there are many who have also been with Paul and were manifested to be at fault, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes (1 Tim. 1:15). This is why we have the scriptures, where we must always go to for the truth. Let's agree with scriptures and agree with people who agree with scriptures. This is why I brought up the matter of false brethren, even antiChrists, and false teachers in one of my post here relative to this, that one may consider the reality of their existence and what they can do to the churches of God across the globe. Such reality is undeniable, as even the churches at the time even of the apostles were not spared of having such people in their midst. And apparently, such people even made it to being the leader of many then, which sadly was succeeded by others, by tradition of their making.

Tong
R1291

So all these Saints that many Christian churches refer to as, are wrong. But your interpretation is right? Hmmm... You're pretty scary man. It's time to wake up to reality.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

We can't objectively deny this. But that does not necessarily make it so. John Wyclif was also a Catholic but he did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I posted a link to an article earlier in this thread showing that many of the "early church fathers" did not believe that the bread and wine was literally transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. But he seems to be ignoring that info.

I'm reposting the article here. (This is a portion of the article. You can read all of it by clicking on the link to it at the bottom of this post.)

Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

1. We ought to interpret the church fathers' statements within their historical context.

Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7).

In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and "This is My blood"). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord's words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.

A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

Tertullian's explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ's physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.

Based on Tertullian's explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.

2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord's Table.


We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.

At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. "This is My body" and "This is My blood") when describing the Lord's Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . 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," show 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” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘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 [or symbol], 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 (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ's physical body.

At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord's Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.

Source: Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

 

[Tong2020]

Oh come on now! Really! I'm not going to dive deep because I have to work, but looks like St. Paul (1cor), St James, Stephen in Acts, and Father Abraham (Luke), just to name a couple, are in big trouble because they themselves or others are referred to as Fathers in the spiritual context. Not to mention the Old Testament but that does matter to you either. Or call no man Master or teacher or physician, etc...

I have more respect for people that don't want to be Catholic because of all the past and current problems the Church has rather someone total slaughtering the scriptures.

You have an issue with Matthew 23:9, not with me. What Jesus said there is clear to me, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Tell us, whom do you call "father"? Do you not call all the catholic priests "fathers"? Why do you call them "father"? And what do you not understand in what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9? And of course, the sense there is spiritual, not natural or carnal.

Well, as much I respect the opinions and words of men, I have the greatest and highest respect to God's words in scriptures.

Tong
R1292

 

[Tong2020]

So all these Saints that many Christian churches refer to as, are wrong. But your interpretation is right? Hmmm... You're pretty scary man. It's time to wake up to reality.

I am not sure how you read what I post.

I am scary? How are you scared? Let me try to find where in my post scared you.

I said "Not that one was born in 35AD and travelled with Paul, makes him infallible. For there are many who have also been with Paul and were manifested to be at fault, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes (1 Tim. 1:15). This is why we have the scriptures, where we must always go to for the truth. Let's agree with scriptures and agree with people who agree with scriptures. This is why I brought up the matter of false brethren, even antiChrists, and false teachers in one of my post here relative to this, that one may consider the reality of their existence and what they can do to the churches of God across the globe. Such reality is undeniable, as even the churches at the time even of the apostles were not spared of having such people in their midst."

I find nothing there to be scared about. Perhaps here:

I said "And apparently, such people even made it to being the leader of many then, which sadly was succeeded by others, by tradition of their making."

I find nothing there to be scared about. Did that scare you? How so?

Tong
R1293

 

[Truth1945]

Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

Very typical, pull a couple words out of context to devise your failed theories!

Bread and wine are a symbol of Jesus's body and blood when they "have not" been transformed into the body of Christ by a priest during Mass, via the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church only believes the Holy Eucharist feeds the spirit. Our flesh is of no avail, it dies and withers away as Jesus stated. It's pointless for Jesus to feed our flesh. As John 6:63 states, Jesus feeds the spirit which gives life, not the flesh which is of no benefit. He was not talking about his flesh either! He said "the" flesh.

Is Jesus’ flesh of no avail, of no benefit? No!

The Lord is perfect and sinless. His flesh is holy and pure. His flesh and spirit rose from the dead. Was his flesh on the cross of no help or benefit? Jesus is referring to “our” sinful flesh. “His” resurrected flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul), which gives life.

So it's totally correct to talk symbolically and spiritually, BUT ONLY WHEN IT'S WIHTIN THE CONTEXT!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Very typical, pull a couple words out of context to devise your failed theories!

Bread and wine are a symbol of Jesus's body and blood when they "have not" been transformed into the body of Christ by a priest during Mass, via the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church only believes the Holy Eucharist feeds the spirit. Our flesh is of no avail, it dies and withers away as Jesus stated. It's pointless for Jesus to feed our flesh. As John 6:63 states, Jesus feeds the spirit which gives life, not the flesh which is of no benefit. He was not talking about his flesh either! He said "the" flesh.

Is Jesus’ flesh of no avail, of no benefit? No!

The Lord is perfect and sinless. His flesh is holy and pure. His flesh and spirit rose from the dead. Was his flesh on the cross of no help or benefit? Jesus is referring to “our” sinful flesh. “His” resurrected flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul), which gives life.

So it's totally correct to talk symbolically and spiritually, BUT ONLY WHEN IT'S WIHTIN THE CONTEXT!

What? That article I posted quoted the “early church fathers” just like you did.

 

[Truth1945]

You have an issue with Matthew 23:9, not with me. What Jesus said there is clear to me, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

You have an issue with interpretation. I provided others verses. How are you going to manipulate those?

 

[Truth1945]

What? That article I posted quoted the “early church fathers” just like you did.

I could not copy your entire quote because it was over a 1000 words, so I just copied the title. But I addressed the failed theories

 

[Truth1945]

I am not sure how you read what I post.

I am scary? How are you scared? Let me try to find where in my post scared you.

I said "Not that one was born in 35AD and travelled with Paul, makes him infallible. For there are many who have also been with Paul and were manifested to be at fault, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes (1 Tim. 1:15). This is why we have the scriptures, where we must always go to for the truth. Let's agree with scriptures and agree with people who agree with scriptures. This is why I brought up the matter of false brethren, even antiChrists, and false teachers in one of my post here relative to this, that one may consider the reality of their existence and what they can do to the churches of God across the globe. Such reality is undeniable, as even the churches at the time even of the apostles were not spared of having such people in their midst."

I find nothing there to be scared about. Perhaps here:

I said "And apparently, such people even made it to being the leader of many then, which sadly was succeeded by others, by tradition of their making."

I find nothing there to be scared about. Did that scare you? How so?

Tong
R1293

Your scary because you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding your every interpretation. There are plenty of crazy people out there like that believe God is guiding them when in fact it's the devil.

 

[Tong2020]

You have an issue with interpretation. I provided others verses. How are you going to manipulate those?

Where are the verses regarding this subject which you said you provided? I see none. I would appreciate you providing the exact reference verses, not books (Acts, 1 Cor., Luke). For in those 3 books of the Bible, I found none that supports what you teach and practice. So, tell us the exact reference verses in each of those books.

You call all your 'Catholic' priests all over the globe as "father". I did not only say that goes against God's words but provided you the reference scriptures, Matthew 23:9.

And since you have no reference verses to show that supports your teaching, then the only recourse is to appeal to wrong interpretation. So, why don't you tell us your interpretation of Matthew 23:9 or what your "Church" father teach you it means?

Tong
R1294

 

[Tong2020]

Very typical, pull a couple words out of context to devise your failed theories!

Bread and wine are a symbol of Jesus's body and blood when they "have not" been transformed into the body of Christ by a priest during Mass, via the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church only believes the Holy Eucharist feeds the spirit. Our flesh is of no avail, it dies and withers away as Jesus stated. It's pointless for Jesus to feed our flesh. As John 6:63 states, Jesus feeds the spirit which gives life, not the flesh which is of no benefit. He was not talking about his flesh either! He said "the" flesh.

Is Jesus’ flesh of no avail, of no benefit? No!

The Lord is perfect and sinless. His flesh is holy and pure. His flesh and spirit rose from the dead. Was his flesh on the cross of no help or benefit? Jesus is referring to “our” sinful flesh. “His” resurrected flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul), which gives life.

So it's totally correct to talk symbolically and spiritually, BUT ONLY WHEN IT'S WIHTIN THE CONTEXT!

Just keep repeating what had been refuted a number of times in this thread. Cutting and pasting a post does not make it say any different from the first time it was posted.

But let me address one new line in your post.

<<<Bread and wine are a symbol of Jesus's body and blood when they "have not" been transformed into the body of Christ by a priest during Mass, via the Holy Spirit.>>>

What you believe is clear here, that the wafer and wine that is used in the "Eucharist" are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, so that the wafer and the wine ceased to be just symbols. Well, you really have to answer the argument of @Prayer Warrior regarding that, which you have not refuted. Another thing you have to answer is my question, which you have effectively evaded, if the supposed transformed wafer and wine becomes imperishable or not.

Another is your belief that it is the priest that transforms the wafer and wine to being the body and blood of Christ. Well, what can I say, but that, so be it with you then. Not saying that the wine and wafer are transformed, but as for me, only God has the power to transform, not only things, but even the man.

Tong
R1295

 

[Tong2020]

Your scary because you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding your every interpretation. There are plenty of crazy people out there like that believe God is guiding them when in fact it's the devil.

Well, there it is. It seems to me that you don't believe that the Holy Spirit is Him who guides the children of God in his reading of scriptures. And who then guides you if not the Holy Spirit? Now, that's scary.

Tong
R1296

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You have an issue with interpretation. I provided others verses. How are you going to manipulate those?

LOL! Doesn't everyone have an issue with interpretation? Even you!

This is why we NEED, no, REQUIRE the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

LOL! Doesn't everyone have an issue with interpretation? Even you!

This is why we NEED, no, REQUIRE the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth!

Yeah, I don't know why the Catholic church is so sure they've cornered the market on Biblical interpretation. Just because they say so???? That doesn't make them any different than those on the Protestant side who say that.