The New Testament just fell from the sky.

Protestants might have the impression that the bible just came to be as if it fell from the sky, in the KJV no less.  At the time the New Testament canon was being decided there were approximately 45 gospels and over 400 writings contending in some manner for inclusion as canonical scripture.  It was not until 362 AD that St. Athanasius, a leading Church Father, provided a list of books which matches our list of canonical books of the NT.  The Church beginning in 382 AD under the instruction of the pope held a series of councils culminating with the Council of Carthage in 397 AD which finalized the canon of the NT.  In the end the only books which made it into the canon of scripture where those considered canonical by the Western Church in the city of Rome.  Once the pope ratified the council findings the NT canon was accepted by the Church as a whole. 
The only reason we have a bible today is because the Catholic Church said so.  There were no protestants at these councils none at all.  If there were, I invite you to list the names of these Protestants.   The Catholic Church did not need the assistance of any Protestants in figuring out the bible; there were no protestants around and history would have to wait for over a millennia for the first protestants to show their face upon this earth.  If no bible was available and given the 45 gospels and over 400 epistles and the like to the protestant reformers of the 16th century would be anyone’s guess what they would have come up with.  We certainly know that Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations would not have made it into the NT scripture.
The Fathers of the Church are important because they, in their writings, are a witness to us as to what the apostles taught to them when they preached the faith throughout the known world.  It is this faith which the Farther of the Church record in their writings and admonish those considered heterodox.  The Fathers of the Church provide a record of the Church of their time of its beliefs, practices and traditions and how the apostles and the Early Church interpreted scripture.  It is their writings and theological insights which have guided and shaped the Church’s doctrines and dogmas.  The Fathers of the church illustrate to us the organic nature of the development and clarification of doctrine and dogma within the History of the Church which they have shaped.
 Christ never asked the apostles to write a book and distribute it but rather preach the Faith as taught to them.  Books require an external source of interpretation, no book interprets itself.  If Christ gave us a bible, he should have given us an authority to interpret the Bible.  He certainly did so with the Jews of the Old Testament, why would he have not done so for Christians of the New Testament?  Did he say read it and go and created 40,000 denominations/sects/cults for yourselves?  No, he prayed that they all be one.  Christ established one Church, and only one Church. 
 Look at the legal history of the United States and the interpretation of the United States Constitution.  Originalism in interpretation of the Constitution means that we look at the original intent and meaning of the text of the constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers as provided in their writings.  This is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to do in the same manner.  The courts (certainly the highest of these –SCOTUS) provides a living voice and a framework which arbitrates and adjudicates contentions in accordance to the constitution and the laws.   This is again no different from why the Catholic Church exists as an institution.  Without the Judiciary there would be anarchy, and likewise so, without a Church which speaks with authority.  This anarchy is evident in Protestantism which has given us 40,000 denominations/sects/cults.  The gate is certainly wide which leads to destruction; 40,000 denominations/cults and sects wide.  
Where does the idea of the Trinity come from?  Certainly it is biblical.  But the word nor the conceptual form exists in the scripture.  How about Original Sin?  These are traditions – the teachings of the Church Fathers which lent assistance to the development of these doctrines.  Without the Church Fathers, we would not have the concept of the Trinity nor of Original Sin.
Advertisements

111 thoughts on “The New Testament just fell from the sky.

  1. Mojo , I hope you realize you are making absolutely no sense. You write

    “I told you before that your, “horrific reliance on the “early church” is inexcusable because you prefer to forget that the early church was quick to fall…AWAY… from everything they had been taught” and I provided all the necessary proof which you ignore. You are insanely committed to the idea that everything the E.C. taught is true, when any historian will tell you that they contradicted each other left and right! Your mindset is totally backwards. Instead of looking at the E.C. as a secondary source, you put it in first place in front of the Bible”.

    Timothy

    How ironic that you claim this “early church ” fell away and yet you then rely on that same Church for the New Testament canon list. And as we explore the early Church Father’s teachings on the Real Presence we will find that they did not contradict each other left and right. Maybe we could start our Eucharistic debate with quotes from the Church Fathers and I can show they did not contradict themselves and you can try to show they did.

    Mojo writes
    There are NO BABY BAPTISMS spoken of therein, and so the doctrine is absolutely FALSE, whether you like it or not.

    Timothy
    The Bible speaks of families being baptized and there is no evidence that infants and children were excluded. It is totally absurd to believe that the apostles forbid infant baptism and some how the universal Church changed it’s position without any protest or uproar.

    Mojo responds to my question
    TP: So were the Apostles just horrible teachers or where the early Christians just that stupid that they did not get the message that infants should not be baptized?

    MJ: You are the one asking stupid questions. Because the Scriptures NOWHERE teach infant baptism, the apostles certainly didn’t teach it and so anyone who came up with it later on it were simply WRONG. Error creeped in gradually precisely as God had predicted.

    Timothy
    Of course Mojo you think it’s a stupid question because you won’t answer it. Your claim that the practice just slowly creeped into the early church has no basis in reality. There are no examples in the early church or the Bible of Baptism being withheld from infants. To think that in a age without mass communication that the universal church could be swayed away form an apostolic prohibition of infant baptism is truely absurd.

    Mojo also makes the following comment

    “As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand”

    Timothy
    So what Mojo is saying is we interpret part of the Bible and then we force our interpretation of other parts of the bible to fit into our initial interpretation. To hell with what the earliest Christians thought, if it doesn’t fit into our preconceived notions the Fathers must be wrong! By the way Mojo, you are aware aren’t you that not all Protestants refuse to baptize infants.

    By the way Mojo, that Satanic Catechism you refer to is called Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am sure you are aware that the term Roman Catholic came about after the English Church separated from the Catholic church and started calling themselves Anglo Catholics. Seems everyone wanted to be called Catholic back then. No wonder. St Augustine wrote

    “Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

    And so, lastly, does the very name of “Catholic”, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”

    Saint Augustine

    And remember St Athanasius who you thought belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church

    ““But beyond these [Scriptural sayings let us look at the very TRADITION, TEACHING AND FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, THE APOSTLES PREACHED, AND THE FATHERS KEPT. UPON THIS THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED, AND HE WHO SHOULD FALL AWAY FROM IT SHOULD NOT BE A CHRISTIAN, AND SHOULD NO LONGER BE SO CALLED. There is then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father ,Son and Holy Spirit.
    The Letters of St Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit (New York: Philosophical Library:1951 ) pp 133-135.”

    I’ll be glad to discuss the Eucharist with you. I believe my challenge was
    .
    “Mojo writes “phony Christ in the Eucharist “. Would you be willing to debate the biblical and early Church evidence of the Real presence? These debates tend to be never ending so I would love to focus on this one issue. Are you up to the challenge?”

    Mojo why don’t you start with all the biblical verses that you feel deny the Real Presence and I will follow with all the verses that show the bible does teach the Real Presence and then we can enter into a debate. And then I can show you the Early Church Fathers did not contradict each other over this issue. Fair enough?

    Like

  2. Interesting Mojo that you believe that God is constrained by time. And what is the basis for that assertion? Obviously your view was not held by St. Augustine who wrote

    “How this [‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

    Now I had written
    TP: All the churches that can date their Church to the apostolic age confirm their belief in the Real Presence.
    Mojo replied
    Again, I don’t give a rat’s tail how many people believed it. The Scriptural evidence utterly denies RC belief and practice.

    So Mojo you disagree with all the apostolic churches and all the Church Fathers. You do know that Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the apostle don’t you? For 1500 years Christians believed in the Real Presence and along comes the Protestant reformation teaching the human Tradition that denied the Real Presence. Mojo you can’t argue with the facts.

    Like

  3. R Zell, did Mojo ever tell you what denomination he belongs to. And if he is an exCatholic. I was hoping to write that article you requested and his responses would definitely help

    Like

  4. Amen brother. Historically we know that denial of the Real Presence essentially reared its ugly head with the Protestant reformation. I always asks Protestant apologist what would happen if someone joined their Church and started teaching the doctrine of the real presence. We know what would happen, there would be a major uproar. The “heretic” would either be thrown out of the church or most of the member would leave. But we are expected to believe that the apostles taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol and those sneaky Catholics somehow got the Universal Church to believe in the real presence without a single disturbance. It’s really mind boggling to me that any rational person could believe such a conspiracy theory. And Mojo does not have a shred of evidence to suggest that it happened. And if he has the evidence he should provide it

    Like

  5. TP: we are expected to believe that the apostles taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol

    MJ: That is exactly what the Scriptural evidence shows, and if no other reason than Peter’s SILENCE at table when Christ gave the command. It is unbelievable he, or anyone else sitting there believed they were about to eat the physical anatomy of the Lord. Even John Paul II admits: “Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [eucharistic] meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not” (“Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, #2).

    TP: And Mojo does not have a shred of evidence

    MJ: The sensitive reader probably needs a dose of smelling salts to avoid fainting….as they recall I posted a link TWICE on this page that casts a VERY dark cloud over TP’s theory about the early church— and of course every single line of it was ignored.

    Now let RZ send me an e-mail with the location of a debate page and if there be some type of format to go by (e.g., an opening statement, then a rebuttal, then a response, etc). I will abide by any rules you choose. I’m suggesting the debate be entitled, “Transubstantiation: Is it reasonable, let alone biblical?”
    Free anytime after the 12th.

    originsbydesign@aol.com

    Like

  6. I wrote

    TP: we are expected to believe that the apostles taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol
    to which Mojo responded

    MJ: That is exactly what the Scriptural evidence shows, and if no other reason than Peter’s SILENCE at table when Christ gave the command. It is unbelievable he, or anyone else sitting there believed they were about to eat the physical anatomy of the Lord. Even John Paul II admits: “Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [eucharistic] meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not” (“Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, #2).

    Timothy

    Mojo, is this the same Peter who in John 6 when the disciples who left Christ said “This is a difficult statement, who can listen to it ?” and “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Peter when asked by Christ responded “You do not want to go away also do you” to which Peter responded “Lord to whom shall we g? You have words of eternal life.”. And what were those word Christ spike at the Last Supper. “THIS IS MY BODY”. Now Mojo I know you have trouble with the word “beyond”, what is it about the word “IS” that you don’t understand. Now we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if Christ said “This represents My Body” or “This symbolizes My Body”. Now how much Peter understood is obviously pure speculation for we know that the Holy Spirit had not yet come to guide the apostles. Christ spoke John 1613 “But when He the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into “ALL THE TRUTH”.

    So Mojo did the apostles have “ALL THE TRUTH”? Yes or No?. Surely you will answer that question.

    Like

  7. Whoops should have read that last post before posting

    Mojo, is this the same Peter who in John 6 when the disciples who left Christ said “This is a difficult statement, who can listen to it ?” and “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Peter, when asked by Christ “You do not want to go away also do you” , Peter responded “Lord to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.”. And what were those word Christ spoke at the Last Supper. “THIS IS MY BODY”. Now Mojo I know you have trouble with the word “beyond”, what is it about the word “IS” that you don’t understand. Now we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if Christ said “This represents My Body” or “This symbolizes My Body”. Now how much Peter understood is obviously pure speculation for we know that the Holy Spirit had not yet come to guide the apostles. Christ spoke John 1613 “But when He the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into “ALL THE TRUTH”.

    So Mojo did the apostles have “ALL THE TRUTH”? Yes or No?. Surely you will answer that question.

    Like

  8. Now Mojo had suggested that the apostles taught the Eucharist was symbolic and that somehow the early Church leaders where able convince the Universal Church that no it was not just symbolic but that Christ was actually present in the Eucharist, ie the Real Presence. Now I had asked Mojo to provide any evidence for this fantasy that he has.

    TP: And Mojo does not have a shred of evidence

    MJ: The sensitive reader probably needs a dose of smelling salts to avoid fainting….as they recall I posted a link TWICE on this page that casts a VERY dark cloud over TP’s theory about the early church— and of course every single line of it was ignored.

    Now Mojo had posted the following website that tries to defend this fantasy world that Mojo lives in.

    http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/historical-examnination-of-roman.html

    Now Mojo must have great confidence in this website. What a wonderful source of information to help him in the debate I had suggested. I wrote

    “Mojo writes “phony Christ in the Eucharist “. Would you be willing to debate the biblical and early Church evidence of the Real presence? These debates tend to be never ending so I would love to focus on this one issue. Are you up to the challenge?”

    Now Mojo seems to now be willing to accept the debate challenge but with a minor change.

    Mojo writes

    “Now let RZ send me an e-mail with the location of a debate page and if there be some type of format to go by (e.g., an opening statement, then a rebuttal, then a response, etc). I will abide by any rules you choose. I’m suggesting the debate be entitled, “Transubstantiation: Is it reasonable, let alone biblical?”

    Woops! what happened to the Church Fathers? What happened to the great resource that debunks the Catholic position. Let me just give a little example of how ridiculous the Protestant position is. In the above website the following statement is made

    “2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation”

    Let’s just pick one example, so we are to believe that Augustine believed

    “that the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation”

    Really? Let’s look up what Augustine writes.

    Like

  9. So did Augustine teach against “Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation” Well let’s see what he wrote

    “The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

    Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

    Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

    [Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

    Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

    He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

    Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

    What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

    Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

    The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

    The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

    Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

    Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}

    He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

    The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}

    Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}

    Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

    The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered. {Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p.69}

    We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ. {Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p.69}

    It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}”

    What an interesting fact that while Catholic websites can list hundreds of quotes from the Church Fathers expressing their belief in the real presence Protestant apologist cannot provide a single quote where a Father explicitly denies the real presence. I have asked before and have never gotten a response. Now the Catholic Church today does understand the symbolic nature of the Eucharist as is attested by the early Church Fathers, but the Fathers never explicitly deny belief in the real presence.

    So how do these Protestant apologist try to counter this obvious problem. Very simple. First, they generally don’t provide quotes of their own but will provide a select quote from a Father that appears to teach the real presence and try to undermine the quote, while leaving out numerous other quotes from the same Church Father. Let me just give one example from Mojo’s great resource.

    Like

  10. TP: Surely you will answer that question.

    MJ: The frustrated reader will notice that I usually do answer all your questions; the ones that I don’t is simply for brevity’s sake. Essentially, there is not one RC objection that cannot be confronted head on with a more sane and biblical response. But I see now that for all your huff and puff about wanting to debate, it was all a smokescreen to hide your cowardice, and that’ because you know you will lose. I accepted the invitation twice with….. no answer! so THAT, as they say is THAT. And yet you ask me, “Surely you will answer that question” ???
    Perhaps you should change your name to that grand ‘ol fairy tale, CinderFELLA.
    IOW, if the shoe fits, WEAR IT.

    Like

  11. MJ: I will abide by any rules you choose. I’m suggesting the debate be entitled, “Transubstantiation: Is it reasonable, let alone biblical?”

    TP: Whoops! what happened to the Church Fathers? What happened to the great resource that debunks the Catholic position.

    MJ: The flabbergasted reader will notice TP is leading the cart before the horse. Scripture emphatically declares that it is able to “fully-equip” the man of God as it relates to doctrine, so naturally, any conversation on the Eucharist should FIRST begin with Holy Writ (!!!). Yet TP wishes to bypass all the biblical evidence he knows very well is like an active volcano ready to spew forth its lava all over the RC wafer-god, and so of course, he must seek refuge in those who came AFTER the canon was closed; effectively saying that God speaks with marbles in his mouth and no one is able to understand the written record standing on its own.

    I have no problem dealing with what any early luminary says, but this is to show the heart of TP is definitely not in the right place, for he implies the Bible is nothing but a dead letter which can only be resurrected by those who came after it.

    Like

  12. TP: So did Augustine teach against “Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation” Well let’s see what he wrote…

    MJ: All of this is off-topic to the title of the article on which this page resides, and RZ has the right to request comments remain on that issue and not have it sabotaged by another topic. If RZ wishes to open another page on the Eucharist, let me know and I will respond there, but until then, I am not commenting any more on the Eucharist.

    Like

  13. Mojo writes

    “But I see now that for all your huff and puff about wanting to debate, it was all a smokescreen to hide your cowardice, and that’ because you know you will lose. I accepted the invitation twice with….. no answer! so THAT, as they say is THAT. And yet you ask me, “Surely you will answer that question” ???”

    Timothy
    Mojo, I have every intention to debate you even after you changed the terms of the debate. I hardly fear debating someone who thought that St. Athanasius was a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact I am even going to debate you after you changed the terms of the debate. So who is the coward?

    Remember I wrote

    “Mojo writes “phony Christ in the Eucharist “. Would you be willing to debate the biblical and early Church evidence of the Real presence? These debates tend to be never ending so I would love to focus on this one issue. Are you up to the challenge?

    Now Mojo seems to now be willing to accept the debate challenge but with a minor change.”

    And Mojo writes

    “Now let RZ send me an e-mail with the location of a debate page and if there be some type of format to go by (e.g., an opening statement, then a rebuttal, then a response, etc). I will abide by any rules you choose. I’m suggesting the debate be entitled, “Transubstantiation: Is it reasonable, let alone biblical?”

    So Mojo why do you want to exclude the Church Fathers from the debate? Sounds rather cowardly. And When I said there wasn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that the Fathers did not believe in the Real Presence you reference to a ridiculous article that you obviously don’t have enough Faith in or you would agreed to have included the Church Fathers in the debate.
    And of course then I asked you a question

    “So Mojo did the apostles have “ALL THE TRUTH”? Yes or No?. Surely you will answer that question.”

    To which Mojo responded

    “TP: Surely you will answer that question.

    MJ: The frustrated reader will notice that I usually do answer all your questions; the ones that I don’t is simply for brevity’s sake”

    Timothy

    Excuse me for laughing but for “brevity’s sake”. How much more brevity can you get then a yes or no answer, And you still did not answer the question!!!! Did the apostles have “ALL THE TRUTH”

    Like

  14. Mojo writes

    MJ: The flabbergasted reader will notice TP is leading the cart before the horse. Scripture emphatically declares that it is able to “fully-equip” the man of God as it relates to doctrine, so naturally, any conversation on the Eucharist should FIRST begin with Holy Writ (!!!). Yet TP wishes to bypass all the biblical evidence he knows very well is like an active volcano ready to spew forth its lava all over the RC wafer-god, and so of course, he must seek refuge in those who came AFTER the canon was closed; effectively saying that God speaks with marbles in his mouth and no one is able to understand the written record standing on its own.

    Timothy
    Oh Mojo, are you really interested in interpreting Scripture accurately or simply reinforcing your Protestant biases. Scripture has to be interpreted so let’s see. Do I look at the writings of the earliest Christians to help us or the Protestant Reformers who came 1500 years later. Do I look for the authentic oral and written tradition in the Churches founded by the apostles or do I rely on Protestant reformers who broke away from the Catholic Church 1500 years later.
    So Mojo wrote

    ” and so of course, he must seek refuge in those who came AFTER the canon was closed; effectively saying that God speaks with marbles in his mouth and no one is able to understand the written record standing on its own”

    Again Mojo I hate to have to keep correcting you. I had given quotes from St.Augustine who played according to even Protestant scholars a pivotal role in helping to settle the issue of the New Testament canon. He definitely did not come as you wrote “AFTER the canon was closed”. And where did I say I wanted to rely on the Fathers after the canon was closed. Let’s just look at Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp who was instructed by St. John the Apostle. Irenaeus wrote the following concerning the Eucharist.

    “1. But vain in every respect are they 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 do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 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.

    2. 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 Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from 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.

    3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the 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.” Ephesians 5:30

    4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,

    5. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”

    6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

    Now Mojo you have suggested that somehow those dastardly Catholics had infiltrated the Church and convinced people that the according to you apostolic teaching that the Eucharist was just a symbol was actually incorrect but that Christ miraculously truly was present in the Eucharist. Look at the timetable with Irenaeus. So are you suggesting this heresy started with John the Apostle, Polycarp or Irenaeus himself. And Irenaeus elsewhere in his writing attest that the Christian everywhere in the ancient world are teaching the same doctrines. Well of course they were teaching the same doctrines if they were founded by the Apostles and those whom they had taught. And where did it all start? Jerusalem.
    Do me a favor Mojo, take those quotes and show them to family members and then ask them if Irenaeus believed in the Real Presence. When I have challenged other Protestant apologist to do the same they always refuse.

    Like

  15. Mojo cited an article in which the Protestant apologist claimed that St. Augustine taught against “Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation” . I simply provided multiple quotes from St. Augustine which appear in a recent post clearly showing how totally absurd the Protestant ‘s claim was. Mojo has responded

    MJ:
    “All of this is off-topic to the title of the article on which this page resides, and RZ has the right to request comments remain on that issue and not have it sabotaged by another topic”

    Timothy
    Somehow Mojo I don’t think RZ is offended by the direction this discussion has gone in. He knows as well as I do that there is never an inappropriate time or place to discuss the Eucharist. But since it appears to me you are willing to concede the church Fathers I’m ready to debate “Transubstantiation: Is it reasonable, let alone biblical?”. Is it reasonable to ask you for a list of biblical quotes that you feel teach that the Eucharist in only symbolic or that deny the real presence and then I can provide the biblical quotes that confirm the real presence which later on of course was explained by the term “Transubstatiation”. Would that be fair?

    Like

  16. On a debate Mojo and I will have on how reasonable and biblical is the doctrine of Transubstantiation Mojo writes

    “MJ: Yes. But a word of warning.
    You will lose.”

    Of course Mojo lets acknowledge that I am debating you with one hand tied behind my back since you were unwilling to allow this debate to focus on both the biblical and early church teaching on this subject but I was still willing to debate you because the biblical evidence is so overwhelming for the Catholic position. Now I would agree with you that the concept of transubstantiation to man is complete foolishness. Unlike the Papacy which makes perfect sense if Christ desired a unified Church which the Bible clearly teaches, the doctrine of the Real Presence is really so unbelievable . You of course join those who walked away from Christ saying “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?. Now we are not going to discuss what the Fathers wrote, but the Protestant apologist finds himself in the same position as with the Fathers. There are no quotes from the Fathers that explicitly deny the doctrine of the real presence. And the same holds for the bible. While the Catholic can cite multiple passages that sound oh so Catholic and defend those passages and their interpretation, the Protestant obviously is at a disadvantage. Anytime you want to post those quotes that support your position let me know and I will then post mine.

    Like

  17. TP: you were unwilling to allow this debate to focus on both the biblical and early church teaching on this subject

    MJ: If you want to use up the space you have available with nothing but the early church, go right ahead.

    TP: the biblical evidence is so overwhelming for the Catholic position.

    MJ: Yes, and Donald Trump will go on stage tomorrow evening at the Royal Academy of Dance, dressed in drag and performing in the Nutcracker Ballet.

    Like

  18. Mojo still awaiting your list of Biblical quotes that teach that the Eucharist is only symbolic or denies the real presence. I know this is quite a challenge for you since there are no such verses, but as I said after your post I will give you the verses that teach the doctrine of the real presence. Remember I asked you before

    “Is it reasonable to ask you for a list of biblical quotes that you feel teach that the Eucharist is only symbolic or that deny the real presence and then I can provide the biblical quotes that confirm the real presence which later on of course was explained by the term “Transubstatiation”. Would that be fair?”

    You responded Yes so whenever you want to start I am ready. I already have my verses.

    Like

  19. I’M NOT DEBATING ON THIS WEB PAGE. It has to be a “fresh” one with no one else able to comment. If RZ is not interested in doing that, then forget it.

    Like

  20. I do not know how to change the comments so they flow one after another. They go 10 deep and then a new comment thread needs to be started.

    I suggest you start.

    Like

  21. Not sure if there are some technical problems but anxiously await Mojo’s list. While waiting Mojo you never did answer the question “Did the apostles have “ALL THE TRUTH”?”

    Like

  22. Can’t see the link, I would be fine with just posting on one of the sites already in use but am puzzled by Mojo’s request

    Like

  23. R Zell, is there anyway Mojo’s and my debate can be seen under the recent comments?. I hate to put a light under a basket. I was totally amazed that at least based on his comments Mojo thought that fallible means to always be in error. What is amusing is his basis of determining that the Catholic church was not infallible was dependent on disproving the real presence, which he never attempted to do. I also was amused he still wants to argue that St.Athanasius was a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church by posting a website from the Orthodox Church with quotes from the Fathers. Isn’t it just fascinating that St.Athanasius did not know what Church he belonged to when he wrote

    “Athanasius wrote “the very TRADITION, TEACHING AND FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, THE APOSTLES PREACHED, AND THE FATHERS KEPT.”

    But of course I am sure Mojo knows more about which Church Athanasius belonged to then St.Athanasius did. Actually I am really looking forward to his attacks on the biblical quotes that I provided defending the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation but I so wish he would post the Protestant verses that prove or at least suggest that the Eucharist is only a symbol or deny the real presence. Of course we know that is not going to happen because we have both been in these debates before. Thanks for providing this format.

    Like

  24. Good Morning Timothy,

    Are you able to see them? It should be visible the moment you post. I see 7 comments on that blog post. I don’t know why it isn’t password protected because I followed the instructions.

    As for the “recent posts” I don’t see them there. I’m on as administrator right now and will look for a solution.

    Blessings

    Like

  25. Mojo after saying he was no longer going to debate left a long attempted defense of his position on the Eucharist. I’ve read it over and as always Mojo is the gift that keeps on giving. Interesting comments about it being in God’s plan to mislead, I guess that probably is the reason Christ said THIS IS MY BODY. Good grief! I will try to post my entire last response probably on Sunday as I want to be sure and answer all of Mojo’s comments. Have a good weekend!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s