RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Ole Trump is quite the snake charmer. He has now got non-Catholics hating on the Pope. Amazing!!!

---

No, the pope has always been problematic when they say crazy stuff or half truths.

Ummm .. I would disagree. Paul has been a controversial figure since he showed up proclaiming to be Christ messenger to the gentile's. A role Christ never mentioned, which is contrary to the other main players in the Bible. Someone always proclaims the next on is coming like John did for Jesus.

Doesnt it seem strange in 3 years and 13 Apostles Jesus never said to look out for another one? That Pail totally catches Peter and company by surprise? Read Paul versus Jesus or the others.

Paul's role was never non-controversial. Peter simply gave in and said OK, but he was not a fan. I would argue most Churches are set up along Paul, Jesus.

If you are interested read from these. (I had to really pull to find them! But notice the dates, these are the people closest to Christ time. That is one reason I like Augustine, he is the earliest of the big guns)

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130202) - Against Heresies
Tertullian (c. 160225) On the Resurrection of the Flesh and On the Soul
Origen (c. 185253) Contra Celsum (my favorite as I agree 100% on his views on "super-apostles")
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 150258) On the Unity of the Church and On the Apostles
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260340) Ecclesiastical History
Augustine (354430) On the Trinity and On the City of God

Not trying to change any minds, just showing that it is not as cut and dry as you guys like to portray things. The Bible was not even drafted at this time. The 100% faith in the Bible, which we know was cobbled together, and if it is not in there it does not count I disagree with. Once of the reasons I choose the Catholic Church they are least recognize there is outside influences.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest

The table is not entirely accurate about the positions of Jesus and where accurate, they complement each other instead of contradicting:

1. Contradicted by John 3:16, in Jesus's own words
2. Jesus preached that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand", clearly not referring to the prophetic earthly kingdom. This'd prophecies refer to end times and ard elaborated upon in the Revelation of John. Jesus knew He was going to bd crucified and resurrected, repeatedly warning His disciples.
3. Both are correct, as they complement each other
4. Both are poorly worded and misleading. Jesus did not preach following over minutiae of the law, as built up by the religious leaders, and deliberately violated their man-made rules (regarding the sabbath). Jesus did preach the resurrection because it had not yet happened, obviously. But both He & Paul preached repentance and faith as required for salvation. Paul focuses on many other details in his letters to elaborate upon the teachings of Christ (& inspired by the Spirit) because he was encouraging new Christian's to work through their salvation in. Personal relationship with God. It's called sanctification and he wrote about it frequently.
5. Both are correct and a natural result of geography and events. There is no problem with that.
6. Jesus lived under Mosaic law because He was a Jew bound by it. He is also the only Jew in history who never violated any of it since He was without sin. Paul operated under grace because Hd was saved, despite having been a terrible dinner (in his own words) and again, his letters were to an audience of new Christian's who were gentiles who knew little of Jewish history and tradition. Again, his focus was on sanctification.

This fake controversy reminds me of the one between Paul & James. Paul focused on faith while James also stressed works. But they both wrote about both and James's book complements the writings of Paul partly based upon the different audience.

We must always remember Paul's statement to Timothy about all scripture coming from God (in the letter to Timothy quoted above). Whomever wrote this is inventing a controversy because they seem to have forgotten this fact. A more productive approach would have been to find the unity in the apparently (but superficially) different words.

Correct

Christ did say so, directly to Paul. Read about Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. A red letter Bible makes it easier to see the words of Jesus.

Augustine was not a Protestant because he lived and died 1,000 years before Luther. That does not mean that his interpretation is aligned with all of Catholic teachings Omer those 1,000 years. In at least one instance his words are pretty much the same as Jesus's.

Jesus Himself instituted the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act. His words in context make this clear: "Do this in remembrance of me", for example. Also, He Himself ate the bread and drank the wine. In no way did the Son of God eat human flesh or drink human blood (His own!), barbaric practices of pagan societies that are obviously sinful. And Jesus never sinned.

We agree, that was Augustine's position as well. It was an issue for that stuff to happen back then.

I was showing where the discrepancies come from and that it is not a new, outside the box position. It has been argued since 100 AD.

I don't expect any of it to change you or anyone else's mind, just know where I am coming from.

But, you guys don't like having discussions on items of interest, I find it interesting that Paul showed up and basically hijacked the early Church. It seems this board wants to lecture on why they are right.

historian said:

---

Christ did say so, directly to Paul. Read about Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. A red letter Bible makes it easier to see the words of Jesus.

---

That is what bothers me. It is just Paul's word. That is it. EVERY other aspect of Christ's ministry was witnessed by the Apostles.

Paul shows up unannounced, with a story only he witnessed and basically says listen to me over Peter and the Jerusalem Apostles.

The only saving grace is motive, the Church was not anything. So why would he? So... Was never a fan of the "Super-Apostle" thing.

Don't you guys have views or thoughts that some of this doesn't add up? I know Faith, but still we are human. To just blindly quote the Bible or what we are told seems contrary to Jesus's message

Thanks for the clarification.

Paul did not hijack anything. As led by the Spirit, he began the process of spreading the gospel throughout the Roman world. The Spirit was so so successful that Christianity would permeate the empire and beyond in 3 centuries and soon after become the official religion.

Paul's teachings complement this'd of Jesus and the 11 apostles. He does not contradict any of it.

There was a competitive Jerusalem Apostle followers vs Paul followers for many years... It was not a love story.

I tend to fall on the side of the Jerusalem Apostlet side, but I grew up in NY in a highly Jewish area. My wife who was raised Lutheran in the Midwest, falls on Paul's side when we talk about it. I found that interesting.

You are looking at Paul and the early church in human terms. Paul and other 1st century leaders of the church were led by the Spirit. Everything they did was guided by His will. This is also why they had such stunning success.

We should remember as well that after his conversion, Paul spent in extended time alone with Christ being instructed for 3 years. I can only imagine what that was like!

"I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days." Galatians 1:17-18

FLBear: 'Don't believe Scripture, pay attention to me!'

Me? I pointed you to Church readings. I DON"T WANT you are anyone else following or listening to me. Think for yourself.

One consistent theme from you is believe what you are being told. By the Bible, Church Pastors, Law Enforcement, Trump, and the rest. God gave us the ability to critical think for a reason.

This survey contacted 6175 people in 2020 and then followed up with the same people in 2022 and 2024.

85% of folks made no change in affiliation.

Protestant --> Catholic: 14 people.
Cath. --> Prot.: 15
Prot. --> None: 125
Cath. --> None: 72
None --> Christian: 157 pic.twitter.com/7Pn5gFLJBb

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) May 3, 2026

historian said:

---

Augustine was not a Protestant because he lived and died 1,000 years before Luther. That does not mean that his interpretation is aligned with all of Catholic teachings Omer those 1,000 years. In at least one instance his words are pretty much the same as Jesus's.

Jesus Himself instituted the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act. His words in context make this clear: "Do this in remembrance of me", for example. Also, He Himself ate the bread and drank the wine. In no way did the Son of God eat human flesh or drink human blood (His own!), barbaric practices of pagan societies that are obviously sinful. And Jesus never sinned.

---

An interesting take but also One no Biblical scholar or user of aristatilian logic would arrive at. Catholic means of course Universal for a reason

It is really worth pondering deeply if you believe fervently what you wrote.

As weve noted many times, in John 6, note how many times He reinforces that it is not a symbol as protestants seem so hung up in. I get if your dad was a prot and his dad was a prot and his dad was a prot that it would be very hard to be objective so we just keep laying out the facts for considerstion in the event it matters, which of course, Catholics believe it does.

They don't even partake every week or day. A very sad self own to not fully partake jn all that the Lord gave us for this temporal life.

Peter and the others would never have accepted Paul if they didn't think he was sent from Christ. They had their disagreements and disputes, but there were never rival churches. Paul specifically rebukes that idea in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

My comment was more about the substance of Paul's writings. What did he teach that was contrary to Christ? Nothing that I see. Remember that it was Jesus, not Paul, who said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. If indeed it was hijacked by a fraudulent apostle, as you seem to suggest, how could Christ's promise be true?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

Of course Peter accepted Paul after his 15 day stay. They were both Christians and missionaries. They did share the same message, but with different interpretations of Jesus's words on several items.




Paul always struck me as a know it all ********. Every letter to "Brethern" was him telling them what to do. The definition of the Super-Apostle. Peter as more human. Also, Peter walked on water with Christ, so I give him the nod.

i always considered the Roman Mass format a Paul thing... But that's just me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

---

How so? He clearly says it is ONLY figurative, and not literal in any way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

---

How so? He clearly says it is ONLY figurative, and not literal in any way.

---

That's interesting. Do you have a quotation to that effect?

historian said:

---

Augustine was not a Protestant because he lived and died 1,000 years before Luther. That does not mean that his interpretation is aligned with all of Catholic teachings Omer those 1,000 years. In at least one instance his words are pretty much the same as Jesus's.

Jesus Himself instituted the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act. His words in context make this clear: "Do this in remembrance of me", for example. Also, He Himself ate the bread and drank the wine. In no way did the Son of God eat human flesh or drink human blood (His own!), barbaric practices of pagan societies that are obviously sinful. And Jesus never sinned.

---

Also, as was mentioned augustine mentioned it was figuritive. And I don't mean to mis-attribute here, but if I recall correctly, the words the Catholics use to claim Augustine believed in real presence were written in a letter to those who denied the physical resurrection, and he was clearly talking poetically to those who would dare deny the resurrection. This is clear in that he absolutely did not believe in transubstantiation, of course. I need to go back and find that reference.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Augustine was not a Protestant because he lived and died 1,000 years before Luther. That does not mean that his interpretation is aligned with all of Catholic teachings Omer those 1,000 years. In at least one instance his words are pretty much the same as Jesus's.

Jesus Himself instituted the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act. His words in context make this clear: "Do this in remembrance of me", for example. Also, He Himself ate the bread and drank the wine. In no way did the Son of God eat human flesh or drink human blood (His own!), barbaric practices of pagan societies that are obviously sinful. And Jesus never sinned.

---

Also, as was mentioned augustine mentioned it was figuritive. And I don't mean to mis-attribute here, but if I recall correctly, the words the Catholics use to claim Augustine believed in real presence were written in a letter to those who denied the physical resurrection, and he was clearly talking poetically to those who would dare deny the resurrection. This is clear in that he absolutely did not believe in transubstantiation, of course. I need to go back and find that reference.

---

Bonne chance.

sam you have more patience than i do. They change the rules to fit whatever they believe and then throw it out like it is fact.

Augustine believed in the real presence. That is s fact. It has been studied and settled for over 1000 years

You pretend your opinion is proven.

The Reformation was necessary and effective in keeping the Church focused on Christ, not Rome or Constantinople.

Small wonder you resent that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

sam you have more patience than i do. They change the rules to fit whatever they believe and then throw it out like it is fact.

Augustine believed in the real presence. That is s fact. It has been studied and settled for over 1000 years

---

I'm not making stuff up, that's what the Catholics do.
I'm stating that I heard that the context was not as clear as the RC pretends, and he was actually writing to people who denied the physical resurrection. You guys throw away anything that the big hats tell you to. Me, I'm not even claiming what I know with certainty. I'll eventually get around to looking it up when I'm at a pc. I will have no problem admitting if I can't find it, as I'm not bound by the big hats one way or another. I certainly don't have a problem with people believing in real presence.

Thank you for a discussion-like response, not a lecture. Sincerely, appreciate it

If we were talking Luther's era, i would agree. Augustine's time? Not so much, they pretty much belie in real presence from the beginning. Ignatius in 106 confirms it.

Transubstantiation, i am not sure

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

---

How so? He clearly says it is ONLY figurative, and not literal in any way.

---

That's interesting. Do you have a quotation to that effect?

---

Of course. But you've got it backwards. You are the one needing to provide a quote where he says it is also literal, because you've already acknowledged that he said it is figurative. If you can't provide one, then it means Augustine is saying it is purely figurative.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest

---

"Real presence" does not equal transubstantiation, which is what Roman Catholicism means by "real presence". This is what RC does - it plays the motte and bailey game by equivocating between two meanings - assert transubstantiation, then when challenged, argue that "real presence" was always what the church believed. Pure dishonesty.

Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

---

How so? He clearly says it is ONLY figurative, and not literal in any way.

---

That's interesting. Do you have a quotation to that effect?

---

Of course. But you've got it backwards. You are the one needing to provide a quote where he says it is also literal, because you've already acknowledged that he said it is figurative. If you can't provide one, then it means Augustine is saying it is purely figurative.

---

He didn't say it was figurative. He said it was a figure.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest

---

Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.

---

Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.

I'm still looking for a RC or Orthodox to answer my question which went unanswered -

what "authority" for the Jews decided their canon (the Tanakh, or the Old Testament), which Jesus affirmed as being correct, and did this mean that this authority was also infallible in their interpretation of that canon and in their teaching?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

...which he clearly believed was symbolic/figurative, not literal.

Any argument against this is pure intellectual dishonesty.

---

Wrong.

---

"It is a figure" - Augustine.

---

Very different from "it is purely figurative and symbolic."

---

How so? He clearly says it is ONLY figurative, and not literal in any way.

---

That's interesting. Do you have a quotation to that effect?

---

Of course. But you've got it backwards. You are the one needing to provide a quote where he says it is also literal, because you've already acknowledged that he said it is figurative. If you can't provide one, then it means Augustine is saying it is purely figurative.

---

He didn't say it was figurative. He said it was a figure.

---

Thank you for showing how the Roman Catholic position is all about constantly and dishonestly squirreling out of difficulties.

And he did say it was "figurative" as well. What are you going to say next - "he said that on 'Opposite Day'"??

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest

---

Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.

---

Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.

---

Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".

And where's your Augustine quote?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."

---

As has been repeatedly shown to you guys, Augustine (4th - 5th century) himself wrote that the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh" in John chapter 6 was purely figurative/symbolic.

---

Augustine never wrote that.

---

What an absolute shock you think that.

Do you really think people put any weight in what you say?

---

I have no idea. Just stating the facts.

---

The facts as you see them, which have been repeatedly shown to be ridiculously faulty.

---

Not at all. Your proof text notwithstanding, it's been shown that Augustine was a Catholic and a believer in the Eucharist.

---

Augustine believed in the true presence. Reading his works any other conclusion is simply wrong. You are confusing his use of bread as symbolic rather than real flesh, not disputing transsubstantitation. Some groups weee arguing body and blood were literal. If your not be intellectually dishonest

---

Roman Catholicism requires you to believe in transubstantiation or you go to Hell. It's a dogma. Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, which means RC anathematizes him to Hell. LOL, there's the "unchanging church since the beginning" for you. There are literally hundreds of examples like this.

---

Sadly, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Catholic dogma being mischaracterized and misunderstood.

---

Name ONE that I or anyone else here "misunderstood".

And where's your Augustine quote?

---

There are four in the post I quoted.

Augustine had plenty to say about the Eucharist, but he never said it was purely figurative or symbolic.