Patristic evidence for Luke 23:34, a post by Sam Shamoun

Patristic Evidence for Luke 23:34

 

The following is a list of citations from various church fathers which confirms that Jesus’ prayer to the Father to forgive those who were crucifying him is part of the original, inspired text. Their testimony shows that this reading was found in the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament which were in existence during that time, starting from the second century AD.

 

The Passage

 

“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.” Luke 23:34 Authorized King James Version (AV)

 

The Evidence

 

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (Longer Version)

 

“… And let us imitate the Lord, ‘who, when He was reviled, reviled not again;’564564 1 Pet. ii. 23. When He was crucified, He answered not; ‘when He suffered, He threatened not;’565 but prayed for His enemies, ‘Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.’566566 Luke xxiii. 34. If any one, the more he is injured, displays the more patience, blessed is he. If any one is defrauded, if any one is despised, for the name of the Lord, he truly is the servant of Christ. Take heed that no plant of the devil be found among you, for such a plant is bitter and salt. ‘Watch ye, and be ye sober,’567 in Christ Jesus.” (Chapter X.—Exhortations to prayer, humility, etc.: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.x.html; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III

 

5… And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, Luke 23:34 the long-suffering, patience, compassion, and goodness of Christ are exhibited, since He both suffered, and did Himself exculpate those who had maltreated Him. For the Word of God, who said to us, Love your enemies, and pray for those that hate you, Matthew 5:44 Himself did this very thing upon the cross; loving the human race to such a degree, that He even prayed for those putting Him to death. If, however, any one, going upon the supposition that there are two [Christs], forms a judgment in regard to them, that [Christ] shall be found much the better one, and more patient, and the truly good one, who, in the midst of His own wounds and stripes, and the other [cruelties] inflicted upon Him, was beneficent, and unmindful of the wrongs perpetrated upon Him, than he who flew away, and sustained neither injury nor insult. (Chapter 18: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Archelaus, Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes

 

“… There, Moses prayed that Pharaoh and his people might be spared the plagues; and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do…” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

St. Aurelius Augustine, Exposition on the Psalms

 

24. Let them be turned backward and put to shame that wish me evil. Turned backwards. Let us not take this in a bad sense. He wishes them well; and it is His voice, who said from the Cross, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34  (Psalm 40: ; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew

 

“…. and great miracles did He show forth, when lifted up, turning aside the sunbeams, bursting the rocks, raising the dead, frightening by dreams the wife of him that was judging Him, at the very judgment showing forth all meekness (which was of power not less than miracles to gain them over), forewarning them of countless things in the judgment hall; on the very cross crying aloud, Father, forgive them their sin…” (Homily 79: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200179.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Hippolytus of Rome, Expository Treatise against the Jews

 

3. Then, in what next follows, Christ speaks, as it were, in His own person: Then I restored that, says He, which I took not away; that is, on account of the sin of Adam I endured the death which was not mine by sinning. For, O God, You know my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from You, that is, for I did not sin, as He means it; and for this reason (it is added), Let not them be ashamed who want to see my resurrection on the third day, to wit, the apostles. Because for Your sake, that is, for the sake of obeying You, I have borne reproach, namely the cross, when they covered my face with shame, that is to say, the Jews; when I became a stranger unto my brethren after the flesh, and an alien unto my mother’s children, meaning (by the mother) the synagogue. For the zeal of Your house, Father, has eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached You are fallen on me, and of them that sacrificed to idols. Wherefore they that sit in the gate spoke against me, for they crucified me without the gate. And they that drink sang against me, that is, (they who drink wine) at the feast of the passover. But as for me, in my prayer unto You, O Lord, I said, Father, forgive them, namely the Gentiles, because it is the time for favour with Gentiles. Let not then the hurricane (of temptations) overwhelm me, neither let the deep (that is, Hades) swallow me up: for You will not leave my soul in hell (Hades); neither let the pit shut her mouth upon me, that is, the sepulchre. By reason of mine enemies, deliver me, that the Jews may not boast, saying, Let us consume him. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Jerome, Letter 50: To Domnio

 

“… When He was reviled He reviled not again. 1 Peter 2:23 After the buffeting, the cross, the scourge, the blasphemies, at the very last He prayed for His crucifiers, saying, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’” Luke 23:34 I, too, pardon the error of a brother…” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001050.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

 

“…For our Saviour Himself entreated His Father for those who had sinned, as it is written in the Gospel: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34…” (Book II, XVI. Of Repentance, the Manner of It, and Rules About It: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07152.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

“… But the executioners took the Lord of glory and nailed Him to the cross, crucifying Him indeed at the sixth hour, but having received the sentence of His condemnation at the third hour. After this they gave to Him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall. Then they divided His garments by lot. Then they crucified two malefactors with Him, on each side one, that it might be fulfilled which was written: They gave me gall to eat, and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink. And again: They divided my garment among themselves, and upon my vesture have they cast lots. And in another place: And I was reckoned with the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12 Then there was darkness for three hours, from the sixth to the ninth, and again light in the evening; as it is written: It shall not be day nor night, and at the evening there shall be light. All which things, when those malefactors saw that were crucified with Him, the one of them reproached Him as though He was weak and unable to deliver Himself; but the other rebuked the ignorance of his fellow and turning to the Lord, as being enlightened by Him, and acknowledging who He was that suffered, he prayed that He would remember him in His kingdom hereafter. He then presently granted him the forgiveness of his former sins, and brought him into paradise to enjoy the mystical good things; who also cried out about the ninth hour, and said to His Father: My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me? And a little afterward, when He had cried with a loud voice, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, and had added, Into Your hands I commit my spirit, He gave up the ghost, and was buried before sunset in a new sepulchre. But when the first day of the week dawned He arose from the dead, and fulfilled those things which before His passion He foretold to us, saying: The Son of man must continue in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him. But these things are also written in the Gospel.” (Book V, XIV. Concerning the Passion of Our Lord, and What Was Done on Each Day of His Sufferings; And Concerning Judas, and that Judas Was Not Present When the Lord Delivered the Mysteries to His Disciples: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm;bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Recognitions of Clement

“… Wherefore, in short, the Master Himself, when He was being led to the cross by those who knew Him not, prayed the Father for His murderers, and said, ‘Father, forgive their sin, for they know not what they do!‘ Luke 23:34 The disciples also, in imitation of the Master, even when themselves were suffering, in like manner prayed for their murderers. Acts 7:60…” (VI, Chapter 5. How the Fight Begins: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080406.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

The Clementine Homilies

 

“… For the Teacher Himself, being nailed to the cross, prayed to the Father that the sin of those who slew Him might be forgiven, saying, ‘Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.’ They also therefore, being imitators of the Teacher in their sufferings, pray for those who contrive them, as they have been taught. Therefore they are not separated as hating their parents, since they make constant prayers even for those who are neither parents nor relatives, but enemies, and strive to love them, as they have been commanded.” (Homily 11, Chapter XX. What If It Be Already Kindled?: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080811.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Gospel of Nicodemus I The Acts of Pilate

 

And Jesus went forth out of the prætorium, and the two malefactors with Him. And when they came to the place, they stripped Him of his clothes, and girded Him with a towel, and put a crown of thorns on Him round His head. And they crucified Him; and at the same time also they hung up the two malefactors along with Him. And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. And the soldiers parted His clothes among them; and the people stood looking at Him. And the chief priests, and the rulers with them, mocked Him, saying: He saved others; let him save himself. If he be the Son of God, let him come down from the cross. And the soldiers made sport of Him, coming near and offering Him vinegar mixed with gall, and said: You are the king of the Jews; save yourself. (Part I, First Greek Form, Chapter 10: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08071a.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Father, let not this sin stand against them; for they know not what they do. Then He says: I thirst. And immediately there ran one of the soldiers, and took a sponge, and filled it with gall and vinegar mixed, and put it on a reed, and gave Jesus to drink. And having tasted it, He would not drink it. And the Jews standing and looking on laughed at Him, and said: If you truly say that you are the Son of God, come down from the cross, and immediately, that we may believe in you. Others said mocking: Others he saved, others he cured, and he healed the sick, the paralytic, the lepers, the demoniacs, the blind, the lame, the dead; and himself he cannot cure. Matthew 27:40-42 (Part I, Second Greek Form, Chapter 10: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08071b.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

And when Jesus was scourged, he delivered Him to the Jews to be crucified, and two robbers with Him; one by name Dismas, and the other by name Gestas. And when they came to the place, they stripped Him of His garments, and girt Him about with a linen cloth, and put a crown of thorns upon His head. Likewise also they hanged the two robbers with Him, Dismas on the right and Gestas on the left. And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. And the soldiers parted His garments among them. And the people stood waiting; and their chief priests and judges mocked Him, saying among themselves: He saved others, now let him save himself; if he is the Son of God, let him come down from the cross. And the soldiers mocked Him, falling prostrate before Him, and offering vinegar with gall, and saying: If you are the King of the Jews, set yourself free. (Part I, Latin Form, Chapter 10: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08071c.htm)

 

Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle (Acts of Philip)

 

“And John and Bartholomew and Mariamme restrained him, saying: Our Master was beaten, was scourged, was extended on the cross, was made to drink gall and vinegar, and said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34…” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0818.htm; bold and italic emphasis ours)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Patristic evidence for Luke 23:34, a post by Sam Shamoun

  1. willjkinney says:

    Are you aware that James White does not believe Luke 23:34 is inspired Scripture and he said he would not preach on this verse? He said it very clearly in a 6 minute video that was on You tube for awhile; then he apparently took it down when people started to comment on this. Dan Wallace’s NET version has the verse but [in brackets] and he says he is not sure if it is authentic or not. That’s because he’s a bible agnostic, like so many others out there today. You know what that’s like, don’t you Sam?

  2. Cbd94 says:

    How dare Protestants quote our Catholic church fathers!

  3. Cbd94 says:

    So basically sam shamoun is going to quote ire as, Augustine, Ignatius, etc as authorities on the veracity of this bible verse yet ignore what they all tought about the Eucharist, etc? Revolting!

  4. Sam Shamoun says:

    The Orthodox Church, who consider your Pope to be apostate for usurping authority from the other bishops, also appeal to these same fathers to prove they, as opposed to you apostates, are the one true apostolic church.

    Therefore, how dare you misuse the fathers to deceive people into following your antipope?

    In fact, instead of trying to convince us of following your false church, try to get your fellow sedavacantists to embrace your current antipope.

  5. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, first of all the Eastern “Orthodox” are heretics who reject the clear teaching of all those Fathers you quoted that the Bishop of ROME is PRIMAL. Second, sedevacantists are basically eastern “orthodox” people of the 21st century. Third, Protestants temples are not “Churches” because they reject the Mass.

  6. Cbd94 says:

    Scam Shamoun, if fact Cyril of Carthage even says ” Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition). Therefore Protestants do not have faith because they reject parts of the bible, they reject Matthew chapter 16 and they reject the seat of Peter. Therefore, they are heretics, false Christians, and not saved

  7. Sam Shamoun says:

    Thank you for highlighting the vile, wicked spirit which speaks through you. Now go find a statue to worship.

  8. willjkinney says:

    Hi Sam, I see that all you have so far in rebuttal is your constant name calling, but NO inerrant Bible to show us. Just like your fallen heroes James White and Dan Wallace. All you can do is call me “nasty and vile and demon possessed”, but you never get around to answering my basic question, do you.

    And do you know why you don’t answer the question? It’s simple. You are a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the existence of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in ANY language, and you know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it. So, in a really pathetic attempt to justify your own basic unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible or any final written authority, you resort to silly name calling and hope to dismiss a real Bible believer like me as being some kind of a nut.

    SHOW us a copy of your infallible Bible, Sam. Prove that I’m wrong about your biblical agnosticism and unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

  9. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, you say I have a “vile, wicked spirit”. But it is YOU who has the vile wicked spirit since you have the complete nerve to quote Church Fathers to support one doctrine but then reject what those SAME exact Church Fathers unanimously say about other doctrines. This highlights your hypocrisy. Then you say to “go worship a statue”. But you already know that Catholics don’t worship statues and I’ve heard you say so yourself. Only now that your hypocrisy is highlighted do you change your tone. Also you did not address the quote from Cyril, and the reason for that is because you don’t care because you aren’t concerned that you have a false religion of the devil.

  10. Eric Sloan says:

    Interesting stuff. I don’t really take a firm position on this particular issue, but here is the other side of the debate: James White and Alan Kurschner on the Dividing Line Sep 4, 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnqC1GyRlpw

  11. willjkinney says:

    Hi Eric Sloan. You say: “I don’t really take a firm position on this particular issue, but here is the other side.” Then you give us some of James White’s “musings” on this issue. The reason you don’t take “a firm position on this particular issue” is because you, like James White, are a bible agnostic (you don’t know for sure what God said) and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language.

    James White later went on to say in another program that he does NOT believe Luke 23:34 is inspired Scripture and he would not preach on it “but skip it”. The good Doktor White corrects ALL bible version out there – even your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. Then the man says: “I believe the Bible is the infallible words of God.” But if you ask James to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will NEVER do it. Why? Because he has no infallible Bible, and he knows he doesn’t. We used to call this type of thing lying. Now it’s called “scholarship”.

    See more about the rather dubious scholarship and prevarications of James White in my article about him and the Vatican Versions he is promoting and most Christians are now using here –

    James White – the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

  12. Eric Sloan says:

    I have absolutely no problem with the KJV. But the deity of Christ is championed in ESV, NIV, NASB, NET as well as the KJV. There are very few significant/meaningful textual variants, but are we to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they don’t exist?

  13. Cbd94 says:

    Eric Sloan, or we could just put an end to the sola scriptura heresy and realize that scripture is not the sole final authority. #logicalconclusion. If you say the bible is your sole final authority but you cannot use the bible to show what belongs inside the bible, you might wanna reconsider the sola scriptura heresy.

  14. Sam Shamoun says:

    Eric Sloan, A.K.A. Minoria, the gent who masquerades as a Christian only to go on Muslim blogs to throw believers such as David Wood and myself under the bus, while also pitting Christians against each other, i.e., citing White to try to refute us when that quote from White does nothing of the sort. This is a clear tactic of Satan and only exposes your motives.

    In the first place, I didn’t ask you to link to White’s discussion in order to hear “the other side of the debate.” Notice how you again are trying to pit Christians against each other?

    Second, one of the reasons I produced this article was for the express purpose of balancing out White’s presentation, which I heard and I wasn’t convinced. Now can you be so kind as to point to out anything stated in that presentation which would somehow undermine the plethora of witnesses to the existence of Luke 23:34, starting from the second century?

  15. willjkinney says:

    Eric Sloan says: “I have absolutely no problem with the KJV. But the deity of Christ is championed in ESV, NIV, NASB, NET as well as the KJV. There are very few significant/meaningful textual variants, but are we to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they don’t exist?”

    Hi Eric, you, like most Christians today including Sam Shamoun, do NOT believe that any bible in any language is or ever was the complete, inspire and inerrant words of the living God. This is the huge white elephant standing in the middle of the room that you all try to ignore.

    Your fake bibles like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET (all of which are the new Vatican Versions) mix true doctrine with false. The NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED by the children of Israel in Psalms 78:36 and so does the NET. Dan Wallace’s NET version has re-introduced false doctrine that just 60 years ago was condemned in the liberal RSV by the very same Dallas Theological Seminary Dan Wallace now teaches at. The NIV also has the same error in Micah 5:2 found in Wallace’s NET and the liberal RSV.

    Anybody who uses the NET version has taken a giant step backwards into confusion and uncertainty regarding the text of the Bible itself. Just over 60 years ago this same Dallas Theological Seminary, where Dr. Wallace now teaches, wrote a scathing article about three specific readings found in the liberal RSV.

    Here is what the Dallas Theological Seminary symposium said. This particular section was written by Merrill F. Unger, Th.D., Ph.D. You can see the Dallas Theological Seminary article here –

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/timeschangedtsemnet.htm

  16. Eric Sloan says:

    Sam,

    I’m not trying to contradict your fine post on Luke 23:34. I just wanted readers to be aware of White’s Alan Kurschner’s broadcast on this subject especially since Kinney claimed that White took the broadcast off of youtube in an attempt to save face. And I didn’t throw you and David under the bus..I merely disagreed with a weak and unbalanced argument you guys made. Anyway, keep up the good work and sorry for the misunderstanding.

  17. Sam Shamoun says:

    Eric Sloan, in order for our point to be weak and unbalanced you must first understood our argument, which you didn’t, which is why you thought those Bible texts somehow refuted our position, EVEN THOUGH I THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED ALL OF THEM IN MY ARTICLES WHICH I WROTE ON THIS SUBJECT? So my question is, did you actually read my explanation of texts such as 1 Kings 22:19-23, Jeremiah 20:7-9, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 etc.?

    To make it easier for you, please quote a Bible verse where Yahweh deliberately deceived his apostles and followers, people who loved and obeyed him, much like Allah did to the apostles and Muhammad and his followers in Q. 8:43-44?

    I will wait for your verses to substantiate your assertion that our argument is weak and unbalanced.

  18. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, I find it ironic that Will Kinney can complain and attack modern versions for claiming that the Israelites deceived Yahweh in Psalm 78:36, but says absolutely nothing about his Bible version accusing Yahweh of being a deceiver:

    “Then said I, Ah, Lord God! SURELY THOU HAST GREATLY DECEIVED THIS PEOPLE and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.” Jeremiah 4:10 AV

    “O Lord, THOU HAST DECEIVED, AND I WAS DECEIVED: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.” Jeremiah 20:7 AV

    Which would you rather have, people deceiving Yahweh or Yahweh deceiving people? Therefore, why isn’t Kinney condemning the AV translators of assaulting God’s character by accusing him of being a deceiver like Allah of the Quran?

    This is simply another glaring example of Will’s dishonesty and deception at work, and why he is one of the worst representatives of the KJV only position. You would do yourself a favor in avoiding his rather pathetic arguments.

  19. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun is usually good against Islam (key word: usually, sometimes he mixes it with heretical protestant notions of “sola scripture” and “sola fide”), but his hypocrisy in this article is astounding. According to Sam Shamoun, the bible is sole infallible rule of faith and final authority. Since he doesn’t know what belongs in the bible he quotes the Church Fathers here as his authority. But he disregards those EXACT same Church Fathers UNANIMOUS statements on many, many other subjects. Basically Sam Shamoun is saying “The Church Fathers are an authority as long as they agree with me”, and “The Bible is the sole infallible authority, but not when I have to defend what its contents are, then the Church Fathers become an authority on the Bible itself (not the logical contradiction)”

  20. willjkinney says:

    Sam, the very confused bible agnostic, Shamoun posts: “Badmanna, I find it ironic that Will Kinney can complain and attack modern versions for claiming that the Israelites deceived Yahweh in Psalm 78:36, but says absolutely nothing about his Bible version accusing Yahweh of being a deceiver:

    “Then said I, Ah, Lord God! SURELY THOU HAST GREATLY DECEIVED THIS PEOPLE and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.” Jeremiah 4:10 AV

    “O Lord, THOU HAST DECEIVED, AND I WAS DECEIVED: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.” Jeremiah 20:7 AV

    Which would you rather have, people deceiving Yahweh or Yahweh deceiving people? Therefore, why isn’t Kinney condemning the AV translators of assaulting God’s character by accusing him of being a deceiver like Allah of the Quran?

    This is simply another glaring example of Will’s dishonesty and deception at work, and why he is one of the worst representatives of the KJV only position. You would do yourself a favor in avoiding his rather pathetic arguments.”

    Uh…. Sam. Did you bother to check your ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Darby, Holman Standard, Common English Bible, etc. to see how these verses read? They ALL say that God deceived them. In fact, we have in 2 Thessalonians 2 that because some people receive not the love of the truth that “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

    And then you turn around and try to defend the egregious theological error and bungled translation by Dan Wallace and the NASB that the children of Israel DECEIVED God. Well done, Sam.

    You not only do not believe in an inerrant bible, you don’t even believe the Vatican Versions you promote. Are you in the process of making up your own bible version. I can’t wait to see it, and I mean that literally.

    “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”, and from the looks of things, Sam, you have been doing a lot of messing with the Book.

  21. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, you see what I mean that this guy Kinney is terrible? Notice that to justify the AV’s rendering HE HAD TO APPEAL TO MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS WHICH READ THE SAME, THE VERY SAME BIBLE VERSIONS THAT HE HAS BEEN ATTACKING AS PERVERSIONS OF GOD’S WORD! In other words, he needs perverted Bibles to justify what he believes is the unperverted Word of God!

    Moreover, to put things in perspective HE WAS THE ONE WHINING ABOUT MODERN VERSIONS PERVERTING PSALM 78:36 FOR CLAIMING THAT YAHWEH WAS DECEIVED, AND YET THIS HYPOCRITE HAS NO PROBLEM, BUT ACTUALLY TRIES TO JUSTIFY, THE AV’S RENDERING OF JEREMIAH 4:10 AND 20:7 WHICH HAVE YAHWEH DECEIVING OTHERS!!!

    Hopefully, the caps will help Kinney to see through his blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy.

    Again Badmanna, avoid this inconsistent hypocrite since you can see that he is incapable of making a logical, consistent and coherent argument since he could care less about truth and consistency. He is no better than that Romish heretic CBD94. The only difference is that Kinney has replaced the antichrist Bishop of Rome with the AV as his pope.

  22. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, again no substantive response to anything I posted. Just pejoratives like “Romish heretic”. The real heretic is you, perhaps we can schedule a debate on the early church fathers and the papacy?

  23. willjkinney says:

    Sam Shamoun posts; “Badmanna, you see what I mean that this guy Kinney is terrible? Notice that to justify the AV’s rendering HE HAD TO APPEAL TO MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS WHICH READ THE SAME, THE VERY SAME BIBLE VERSIONS THAT HE HAS BEEN ATTACKING AS PERVERSIONS OF GOD’S WORD! In other words, he needs perverted Bibles to justify what he believes is the unperverted Word of God!”

    Hi Sam. You know, there is such a thing as ignorance; then there is willful ignorance; and then there is such a thing as abysmally willful ignorance.

    I have an inerrant Bible. It is the King James Bible. You clearly have none. I refer to other bible versions for the purpose which was abundantly demonstrated when you ignorantly criticized the KJB for saying that God deceived certain people. I merely pointed out to you that there are a multitude of Bible translations that say exactly the same thing you criticized in the KJB.

    The fact that you can’t see this, and now post the abysmally ignorant comments that you just did, shows that your faculties have become completely unhinged from any sense of reason or sound logic. You are living proof of the statement “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”

    I do hope for the sake of others that you are not teaching at some seminary or church somewhere. If you help to produce more like you, then the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is in a lot worse shape than I previously suspected.

  24. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, it seems I am going to have to break this down further since Kinney’s blind obsession to pervert the truth in order to defend his idolatry is hindering him from seeing his hypocrisy and inconsistency.

    Note that he first complained that modern Bibles are perverting God’s Word for translating Psalm 78:36 to mean that the Israelites DECEIVED Yahweh.

    Note that when I mentioned the fact that the AV in Jeremiah 4:10 and 20:7 has Yahweh deceiving others, thus inconsistent hypocrites comes back and defend the AV by appealing to modern translations which render these texts in the same way!

    Now for the thinking person this would expose Kinney’s hypocrisy since it proves that he doesn’t really care about whether a translation says people deceived Yahweh. This is simply his excuse to find fault with modern Bibles because it doesn’t read the same way that his idol reads. If Kinney was really troubled and bothered by a translation which speaks of Yahweh being deceived, then he would be equally troubled by the AV version imputing deception to Yahweh, and therefore condemn it along with all the other modern versions. Instead, he now defends his idol and tries to justify its imputing deception to Yahweh by appealing to the modern versions for support!

    In fact, had the AV translated Psalm 78:36 in the same way as these other modern Bibles did this inconsistent hypocrite wouldn’t dare say a word about it!

    Now any honest, logical person could see why this guy is a deceptive, dishonest and inconsistent individual whose blind idolatrous obsession with KJV has clouded his ability to be honest and think logically.

    I thank God Kinney doesn’t teach in any credible institution and that he isn’t pastoring any churches, since that would be a case of the blind misleading the flock.

  25. Sam Shamoun says:

    Anyway, I am done dealing with this idolater. I already wasted enough time trying to make this idolatry Kinney see, but his blindness is beyond any human being’s ability to cure.

  26. Sam Shamoun says:

    thus inconsistent hypocrites comes back and defend = this inconsistent hypocrite comes back and defends

  27. Sam Shamoun says:

    this idolatry = this idolater.

  28. cbd94 says:

    So far still no response from Sam Shamoun on his blatant hypocrisy. He is trying to distract people by instead responding to another one of his fellow protestant heretics. I find it funny when heretics fight each other. hehe

  29. Sam Shamoun says:

    Oops, almost forgot. This should muzzle that barking heretic CBD94, since this obliterates his papacy. Enjoy!

    Poor Romish apologists got slaughtered. Serves them well for trying to defend a satanic lie.

    BTW, Badmmana this same rabid heretic is about to get smoked by Keith Thompson on Paltalk. Can’t wait to see Thompson muzzle him as well by God’s grace.

  30. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is another one for the rabid papist:

    OUCH!

  31. Sam Shamoun says:

    This pagan papist’s humiliation just doesn’t end:

    OUCH AND OUCH!!!1

  32. Sam Shamoun says:

    Now this is really going to make this Popish statue worshiper cry:

    Now pagan, what was that about the church fathers and your false antichrist church? 😉

  33. willjkinney says:

    Sam Shamoun posts: ” If Kinney was really troubled and bothered by a translation which speaks of Yahweh being deceived, then he would be equally troubled by the AV version imputing deception to Yahweh, and therefore condemn it along with all the other modern versions. Instead, he now defends his idol and tries to justify its imputing deception to Yahweh by appealing to the modern versions for support!”

    Hi Sam. Your “argument” here is just more proof that you are losing your mind and apparently have the spiritual discernment of a zucchini. “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.” There is a HUGE difference between God deceiving others (which all bibles teach) and God being DECEIVED by men, as your fake NASB and NET versions teach in Psalms 78:36.

    And there is nothing hypocritical in the way I brought up this obvious truth by referring to other bible versions out there. I am not at all saying that all bible versions are TOTALLY CORRUPT and untrue. There is still a lot of truth and of God’s words in them, regardless of their corruptions. The gospel is still found in them all, even the worst of them, and God can and does save His people through hearing His words that are found in them.

    My point is that I honestly believe that God has acted in history to give us a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible and I can tell anyone where to get a copy for themselves. It’s called the King James Holy Bible.

    You, on the other hand, are a confused bible agnostic who does not know for sure what God has said in hundreds of places, and you are an unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible that exists now or ever did exist. And the simple fact that you cannot apparently see the important theological difference between God deceiving people at times (which all Bible texts clearly say) and the heretical teaching that men can deceive God shows how far off the rails of spiritual discernment your mind has become.

  34. Sam Shamoun says:

    I almost forgot. Badmanna, what I really find funny is one these pagan papists go at at with each other concerning whether the current pope is legit or an antipope:

    http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/index_content.php/#sedevacantism

    Now this is really hilarious, pagans condemning each other over the lies and abominations of Romish popery.

    Hopefully, this vile pagan CBD94 will stick this in his pipe and smoke it.

  35. Sam Shamoun says:

    is one these pagan papists go at at… = is when these pagan papists at…

  36. Sam Shamoun says:

    This is the most hilarious one of them all, since this gentleman has become an utter humiliation for pagan papists like CBD94: http://www.gerrymatatics.org/

    Gerry Matatics was a celebrated Protestant convert to popery whom fellow papists hailed as one of their champions… that is until he turned against the current antichrist pope and embraced sedavacantism!

    OUCH, OUCH AND MORE OUCH!

  37. Sam Shamoun says:

    Now that I have muzzled that repulsive papist CBD94, I can get back to the issue at hand. Badmanna, make sure to read my next post since I have some questions for you to answer.

  38. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Badmanna,

    Here are some examples comparing the AV with other versions in regards to the Deity of Christ:

    “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; ” Titus 2:13 AV

    “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing OF OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,” New King James Version (NKJV)

    “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: ” 2 Peter 1:1

    “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST:” NKJV

    “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4 AV

    “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny OUR ONLY MASTER AND LORD, JESUS CHRIST.” New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    “to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” Jude 1:25 AV

    “to the only God our Savior, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” NASB

    Now I ask for your honest and sincere reply. Is the Deity of Christ more pronounced, more clear in the AV, or in these other versions that I cited?

  39. madmanna says:

    Brother Sam,

    I am KJV only, same as Will.

    I don’t believe in pick ‘n mix based on a plethora of Bible versions.

    Only one Bible is true and the rest are false, as I believe, wherever they disagree with the KJV. Why should I use a non-KJV Bible that mixes truth with error? Does that glorify God?

    I do not judge you or anyone else for not being of this persuasion.

    Regards.

  40. Cbd94 says:

    Scam Shamoun, since you are unable to defend your Lutherite heresy you try to deflect the conversation to someone else. You first did this with the eastern orthodox, now you are trying to do it with the sedevacantists. This is a typical Muslim tactic, Muslims often say “Many Christians reject Jesus (pbuh) is son of God), etc…. I don’t care what these lunatic/heretical groups say. The Church Fathers are CLEAR thats there is ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH and ONE SEAT OF PETER. You linked to the “Boston College Debate” which basically a debate where James White spends 2 and a half hour lying to everyone’s face (as usual) that none of the Church Fathers applied Peter to the Bishop of Rome (Ha!). Sam, like his Muslim co-brethern (Martin Luther, the protestant leftist false prophet of Prostestantism, supported Islam in his letter “On war against the Turk”), is unable to come up with his own unique arguments so he just links to other debates. Muslims often do this by linking to zakir naik or ahmed deedat clips, I am very disappointed that Sam Shamoun is acting just like his Muslim co-brethren. Scam Shamoun, why don’t you actually attend to defend your false religion with real arguments instead of Islamic Dawah propaganda?

  41. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Badmanna,

    I respect your belief in the AV. Yet I wanted to hear your reply to the clarity of these verses regarding the Deity of Christ as they appear in modern versions versus the AV. After all, one of the major objections used to undermine modern versions is that they deny and/or water down Jesus’ Godhead. However, as the examples I posted demonstrate, such is not the case and the same argument can be leveled against the AV. Take, for instance, the following text:

    “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” John 14:13-14

    Here the AV reads just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation:

    “Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.”

    Now contrast this with the following versions:

    “If you ask ME anything in My name, I will do it.” John 14:14 NASB

    “You may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it.” NIV

    “If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it.” ESV

    “If you ask ME anything in My name, I will do it.” HCSB

    As you can see, the modern versions contain an important word which affirms that believers can actually pray directly to Christ himself in his name, and he will answer them personally. That word happens to be “me”, which is also the same in Greek.

    Now I doubt anyone would use this as an argument to prove that the translators of the AV were opposed to the Deity of Christ and sought to undermine it. Therefore, this should encourage you to be careful from using some of these rather pathetic arguments from folks like Kinney, who only do their cause more damage than good.

    Anyway brother, you are free to answer my question or not. I won’t force you.

    Lord willing, I will send you some more articles for your consideration to post here on your blog. Until then, may our risen Lord continue to bless you brother.

  42. madmanna says:

    Thanks Sam,
    I look forward to posting more of your articles.
    The Lord bless you.

  43. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, no response again? How disappointed…. Sam Shamoun is running from me faster than Yusuf Estes with a jetpack

  44. willjkinney says:

    Sam Shamoun posts: “I respect your belief in the AV. Yet I wanted to hear your reply to the clarity of these verses regarding the Deity of Christ as they appear in modern versions versus the AV. After all, one of the major objections used to undermine modern versions is that they deny and/or water down Jesus’ Godhead. ”

    Sam, wasn’t it YOU who just a couple of weeks ago were attempting to point out an alleged “error” in the King James Bible (which you picked up from your fellow bible agnostic and hero James White) where it refers to Jesus’ Godhead in Colossians 2:9? And now you yourself are using the term in reference to Jesus Christ.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/godheaddeityschoolmast.htm
    Godhead or Deity – Is James White Right?
    Colossians 2:8-9

  45. willjkinney says:

    James White and John 14:14 – the Vatican Versions Bible Babble Buffet

    John 14:14 KJB – “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.”

    John 14:14 ESV – “If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it.” Footnote: Some mss. omit ME.

    James White tells us in his book, the KJV Controversy, on page 263 – “The TR excludes the reading, but it is retained by the NA 27, UBS 4th and the Majority text.”

    James White also says on pages 202-203 of his book – “The inclusion of the term “Me” in John 14:14 is based upon its being present in a large portion of the manuscripts, including the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Yet the KJV lacks the term following only one portion of the Majority Text.”

    Mr. White is misinformed.

    The extra word ME is NOT in the text of the Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad 1982, nor is it in the English Majority Text Version of Paul Esposito – “If you should ask anything in My name, I will do it.” and the Robinson-Pierpoint Greek text puts the word [me] in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. So Mr. White is not only not giving you the whole picture, but he is fudging on what little information he does give us in his book.

    As we shall soon see, not even his ever changing Critical Greek text versions are in agreement with each other either.

    The obvious difference here is the addition of the word ME. Versions that add this word ME to the text are the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman. Westcott and Hort originally put the word in [brackets] indicating doubt – “εαν τι αιτησητε [με] εν τω ονοματι μου τουτο ποιησω”, but later Critical text versions now include the word with no brackets. The additional word ME comes from the Sinaitic, Vaticanus and P66 manuscripts.

    However not even the ESV completely followed the Vatican mss. which itself differs from the Sinaitic mss. and P75 differs from P66. The Vatican as well as P75 says “If you ask ME THIS (touto) in my name, I will do it.”, but Sinaitius says “If you ask me ANYTHING (ti) in my name, I will do it.

    We see the same confusion in John 14:11 where the KJB says: “…or else believe ME for the very works’ sake.” Here the word ME is found in the Majority, A and Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits it and do do the NASB, NIV, ESV. BUT the earlier critical text versions like the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, the RSV 1946-1973 and the NRSV 1989 all contained the words “believe ME”. So we see from the get go that not only do the “oldest and best manuscripts” not even agree with each other, but neither do the constantly changing Critical text versions themselves that James White is so fond of.

    In John 14:14 the word ME is NOT found in the Majority text or in A, D, K, L, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin a, air, d, e, q, r1 or the Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian and Slavonic ancient versions and the Diatessaron 160-175 A.D. So our scholar James White is also wrong about what the reading found in oldest remaining manuscripts as well.

    Another King James Bible believing brother pointed out to me this interesting observation about the text. He writes: “According to a comment from John 14:14 if you add the word “me” in this verse which is not in the KJV then you have a contradiction between John 14:14 and John 16:23. John 16:23 says: “And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” He has a very good point here.

    Agreeing with the King James Bible that does NOT contain the extra word “me” are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525 – “Yf ye shall axe eny thige in my name I will do it.”, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 – “If ye shall aske any thing in my name, I wyll do it.”, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “If ye shall aske any thing in my Name, I will doe it.”, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Worsley N.T. 1770, Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Version 1869, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the ASV 1901, the REVISED STANDARD VERSION 1946-1973 – “if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” (Both of these were among the first critical text versions to come out and they did NOT follow the Vatican reading), New Life Version 1969, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE 1970 and REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE 1989 (2 more critical text versions), the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, J.P. Green’s literal, Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 – “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.”

    Several Critical text versions do NOT put that extra word “ME” in their translations. Among these are the ASV 1901, the RSV 1946-1973 editions, The Living Bible 1971, The New English Bible 1970, Amplified Bible 1987, New Living Translation 1996 – “Yes, ask anything in my name, and I will do it!”, the Revised English Bible with Apocrypha 1989 – “If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.”, and The Voice of 2012 – ” Let Me say it again: if you ask for anything in My name, I will do it.”

    Numerous foreign language Bibles do not contain that extra word “ME” including the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 – 2011 – “Si algo pidiereis en mi nombre, yo lo haré.”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and French La Bible du Semeur 1999 – “Si vous demandez en mon Nom quelque chose, je la ferai.”, Luther’s German bible 545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 – “Was ihr bitten werdet in meinem Namen, das will ich tun.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “Se chiedete qualche cosa nel nome mio, io la far”.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada – “Se pedirdes alguma coisa em meu nome, eu o farei.”, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 – “Kung kayo’y magsisihingi ng anoman sa pangalan ko, ay yaon ang aking gaga win.”, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 – “As julle iets in my Naam vra, sal Ek dit doen.”, the Finnish Bible 1776 – “Mitä te anotte minun nimeeni, sen minä teen.”, the Modern Greek Bible – “Εαν ζητησητε τι εν τω ονοματι μου, εγω θελω καμει αυτο.” and the Modern Hebrew Bible – “כי תשאלו דבר בשמי אני אעשנו׃” = “If you ask anything in my name…”

    The NIVs are not always the same when it is carried over to foreign languages. Even though the English versions of the ever changing NIVS say “You may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it.” Yet the NIV Spanish version, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999, reads like the KJB – “Lo que pidan en mi nombre, yo lo haré.” = “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it.” and so does the Spanish Portuguese version of the NIV, Nova Versão Internacional 1999, – “O que vocês pedirem em meu nome, eu farei.” = “What you ask in my name, I will do it.”

    The Catholic Connection

    ALL Catholic versions add the extra word “ME” to the text. It comes from the Latin Vulgate – “si quid petieritis ME in nomine meo hoc facial.” This includes the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version. The modern Catholic versions and versions in English like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, Holman Standard are all based on the same Vatican “inter confessional” text set up to unite “the separated brethren”.

    If you don’t believe this, then see the documented evidence of this fact here – Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

    So once again you have a choice between the text of the Reformation Bibles or the inconsistent, ever changing texts of the new Vatican Versions to follow.

    All of grace, believing the Book – the King James Holy Bible

    Will Kinney

  46. madmanna says:

    @Cbd94

    Cbd94 says:
    May 25, 2014 at 7:35 am (Edit)

    Sam Shamoun, no response again? How disappointed…. Sam Shamoun is running from me faster than Yusuf Estes with a jetpack

    I reply:

    Apostolic succession is just one legend, among many, created by the papists. It has no biblical basis.

    There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, nevermind that he was the head of the church of Rome. More legend to prop up your power structure.

    The mass is an abomination to God.

  47. Cbd94 says:

    Madmanna, No evidence peter was in rome? Let us examine the evidence. Irenaus says:

    “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2, written around 190 A.D.)

    He then mentions the successors of Peter in the next paragraph:

    “3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement” (Against Heresies 3.3.3)

    Terullian wrote:

    “This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32, This was written around 200 A.D.).

    Eusebius wrote:

    “Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3)

    Eusebius also wrote:

    “”Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul , but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier” (Church History 3:4).

    Ignatius wrote:

    “I do not, as Peter and Paul did, issue commandments unto you.” (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 4)(This implies Peter and Paul were in Rome, which they were)

    So I have given you six early attestations to Peter being in Rome, can you please provide even one citation which says A) he was never in Rome or B) he was somewhere else? Good luck with that. Btw notice how several of those quotes mention apostolic succession.

    You also falsely and blasphemously called the Mass an “abomination”, just those words are enough to send you to hell for all of eternity. Let me tell you what some early writings say about the Holiest act on Earth, the Mass:

    Didache:

    “On the Lord’s own day assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure, your sacrifice must not be defiled.” (Didache, written around 67 A.D., 1500 years B.P.H (before the protestant heresy))

    Ignatius:

    “whoever keeps away from the altar deprives himself of the divine bread” (Letter to the Ephesians 5, written in 100 a.d., 1400 years B.P.H)

    Also from Ignatius, he denounces the Protestant cultist heresy against the mass:

    “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1)

    Along with Justin the Martyr:

    “”We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66)

    Time for you and your fellow heretic of the devil sam shaman to repent of your lies and convert to Christianity (Catholicism) away from your false religion.

  48. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna,

    Let me highlight for you why CBD94 is nothing more than a blind pagan papist who can’t see how his own sources destroy his popery. Note carefully the following:

    “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church FOUNDED and organized AT ROME BY THE TWO MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES, PETER AND PAUL” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2, written around 190 A.D.)

    “3. THE BLESSED APOSTLES, then, HAVING FOUNDED and built up the Church, COMMITTED INTO THE HANDS OF LINUS the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement” (Against Heresies 3.3.3)

    Do you notice how these quotes claim that BOTH Peter and Paul established the church of Rome, and that they BOTH appointed the bishop of Rome, thereby destroying this pagan’s lie that Peter appointed the Bishop of Rome to be his successor?

    This son of the devil also didn’t bother telling you that Ignatius’ letter also destroys his lies about popery since Ignatius DOESN’T MENTION ANY BISHOP OF ROME IN HIS LETTER! In all of Ignatius’ letters he greets the respective bishops of the churches to whom he is writing and exhorts the people there to submit to their bishops, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HIS LETTER TO CHURCH AT ROME. There, he makes absolutely no mention of the Bishop BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MONARCHICAL EPISCOPATE IN ROME DURING THE TIME IGNATIUS WROTE, WHICH WAS ROUGHLY BETWEEN 107-112 AD! This further destroys the lie that Peter appointed a bishop at Rome to succeed him.

    Moreover, Paul’s letter to the Romans proves that Ireneaus was wrong since he did not establish the Church there. The Church at Rome was already established by the time Paul wrote to them:

    “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ FOR YOU ALL, THAT YOUR FAITH IS SPOKEN OF THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; making request, if by any means now at length I MIGHT HAVE A PROSPEROUS JOURNEY BY THE WILL OF GOD TO COME UNTO YOU. FOR I LONG TO SEE, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I PURPOSED TO COME UNTO YOU, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I AM READY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO YOU THAT ARE AT ROME ALSO.” Romans 1:7-15

    You see why you need to ban this repulsive, lying, conniving pagan who masquerades as a follower of Christ, when in reality he is nothing more than a blind papist following an antichrist figure masquerading as Peter’s successor?

  49. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, here is an article I wrote on the mass which obliterates what thus lying heathen CBD94 says concerning it: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/questions-regarding-mass.html

    I even quote a source which shows how one of his own Popes DENIED TRANSUBSTANTIATION! OUCH, OUCH AND MORE OUCH!

    Poor pathetic pagan thought he would get away with his lies and blasphemies.

  50. Sam Shamoun says:

    And here is another article which documents how one of the early popes denied transubstantiation: http://www.justforcatholics.org/06.08.pdf

    Here is what this pope said:

    ““The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly THE IMAGE AND SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.””

    OUCH!

    I hope you enjoy this, since I know this son of Satan won’t be enjoying reading this shellacking which exposes the lies and blasphemies of his false wicked church.

  51. Cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, Hehehe attempting to distort the writings of Pope Gelasius I. Here is the full quote:

    “”Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; ‘Wisdom has built a house for itself'(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we ‘are made sharers of the divine nature'(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries.”

    Note the following “the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we ‘are made sharers of the divine nature”. He calls here the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ (protestants, in their arrogance, reject this), he says that they are a DIVINE REALITY and then he even says that through this divine reality we are made sharers of the Divine Nature (this is Eucharist theology, he clearly isn’t taking about normal bread). When he says “the nature of the bread does not cease to exist”, he is simply reiterating that the bread and wine continue in the same appearance as before the consecration. Your phony website attempts to argue that Pope Gelasius I contradicts himself within the same paragraph, what a joke.

    Now lets move to your hilarious attempt to discount the clear sources I posted earlier:

    Irenaus: You said that the whole quote of Irenaus should be discounted because he mentions both Peter and Paul in relation to the Church of Rome. Note, your heretic buddy says Peter never was in in Rome. Note this as well, He isn’t referring to the Papacy per se in the first quote but to the Church in Rome in general, he mentions both Peter and Paul because both Peter and Paul died in Rome and were major players in the Roman Church.

    Second, you attempt to say that Irenaus said that Linus was the successor to both Peter and Paul. He says that the blessed Apostles gave the Episcopate of Rome (also known as the Bishop of Rome) to Linus. This refutes your heretical false religion any way you cut it. Because your fellow heretic claims that Peter was never in Rome, and this quote refutes that. It also refutes you because you claim that during the time of Ignatius there was no Bishop of Rome, Linus died in 79 A.D. so therefore even according to your phony reading of the quote your wrong once more. Thank you for refuting yourself. Now when Irenaus says that the “blessed apostles” gave the episcopate to Linus, he means that Linus inherited the Roman Church that both Peter and Paul died serving. He is obviously not saying that he was the successor to both because you cannot succeed two people at once.
    Also note how you and your heretical buddy try to claim “there is no such thing as apostolic succession”, which many of those quotes are explicitly about. Also note how these quotes identify the seat of Peter with the Bishop of Rome.

    Thanks for the Protestant “history”, try again. Bloody heretic

  52. Cbd94 says:

    Someone asked me to post this quote from Eusebius. I decided to do it because it so elegantly refutes the Protestant false religion and Sam Shamoun. I hope you enjoy:

    “Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10)

  53. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, you see what happens to the brains and integrity of these pagan papists? Not only do they hate truth, they can’t even keep their lies straight, nor are they able to read their sources correctly!

    Note what this statue worshiper did? He quotes Eusebius who writes in the fourth century TO TRY TO REFUTE IRENEAUS’ STATEMENTS FROM THE SECOND CENTURY? You see how illiterate this guy is?

    Let’s quote Ireneaus again, in order to see how his statements refute the assertion that Linus was Peter’s successor:

    “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church FOUNDED and organized AT ROME BY THE TWO MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES, PETER AND PAUL” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2, written around 190 A.D.)

    “3. THE BLESSED APOSTLES, then, HAVING FOUNDED and built up the Church, COMMITTED INTO THE HANDS OF LINUS the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement” (Against Heresies 3.3.3)

    Do you notice how these quotes claim that BOTH Peter and Paul established the church of Rome, and that they BOTH appointed the bishop of Rome, thereby destroying this pagan’s lie that Peter appointed the Bishop of Rome to be his successor?

    But since this pagan son of Satan didn’t understand the implication of his own references, it seems I am going to break it down for him.

    If both Peter AND PAUL appointed Linus THEN THAT MEANS THE BISHOP OF ROME WASN’T PETER’S SUCCESSOR, ANYMORE THAN HE WAS PAUL’S SUCCESSOR!

    Moreover, due to the damage caused by worshiping statues this pagan doesn’t see how Paul’s statements in Romans 1:7-15 shows that Ireneaus’s claims are wrong, and therefore appealing to him does nothing to refute you. Here it is again:

    “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ FOR YOU ALL, THAT YOUR FAITH IS SPOKEN OF THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; making request, if by any means now at length I MIGHT HAVE A PROSPEROUS JOURNEY BY THE WILL OF GOD TO COME UNTO YOU. FOR I LONG TO SEE, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I PURPOSED TO COME UNTO YOU, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I AM READY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO YOU THAT ARE AT ROME ALSO.” Romans 1:7-15

    How can Paul have founded the Church in Rome WHEN HIS LETTER SHOWS THAT THE CHURCH WAS ALREADY WELL ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE HE EVER ARRIVED THERE? You see the brain damage that CBD94 has suffered from kissing statues too much?

    Note further that he failed to comment on the fact Ignatius MENTIONS NO BISHOP OF ROME IN HIS LETTER TO THE ROMANS, EVEN THOUGH IN HIS OTHER LETTERS HE MENTIONS AND ADDRESSES THE BISHOPS IN OFFICE IN THE OTHER CHURCHES WHICH HE WRITES TO! Do you know why Ignatius didn’t mention any Bishop in Rome? And you know know why 1 Clement fails to mention any Bishop in Rome either, even though it is supposed to have been composed from Rome? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SINGLE BISHOP OF ROME DURING THAT TIME! That only developed later, in the middle of the second century!

    But again, being a papist who hates the true God and his true Gospel, this heathen could care less about facts. He is more concerned about butchering history in the service of his antichrist religious system, which is an abomination of Satan!

    And let me end this once again in the words of one of his popes WHO DESTROYS THE LIE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, since it obviously didn’t sink in the first time I cited:

    “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly THE IMAGE AND SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

    Did you catch what this lying pagan did with this quote,? Much like he has been perverting and twisting the church fathers, he even had the audacity to pervert the words of his own pope? He add his own words to what is stated here by claiming that the pople simply meant that the APPEARANCE of the bread and wine do not cease. But the heathen failed to note this part:

    “…Yet THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE of the bread and wine DOES NOT CEASE…”

    There is nothing about appearances here. The pope is clearly talking about the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine NOT CEASING, which destroys transubstantiation which claims that the substance of the bread and wine do not remain the same, but are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

    Once again, OUCH, OUCH, AND OUCH! This is what I call pure pwnage!

    Anyway, I am done dealing with this repulsive troll since he has shown he has no integrity and will lie through his teeth to defend his wicked antichrist system.

  54. cbd94 says:

    Sam Shamoun, again like a typical Protestant cultist apologist you are inconsistent and lying. Lets examine what Irenaus said and see how it refutes you. He wrote:

    “[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2)

    So he is talking about the Church if Rome here in general was built by both apostles. This is true, both Peter and Paul were in Rome and both of them died there. This portion of the text refutes you and your heretical buddy in the following ways:

    1) It proves Peter was in Rome (your fellow heretic says this is “ahistorical”)
    2) It proves apostolic successions(“he faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops”)[You and your heretical buddy deny this]
    3) It proves the Primacy of the Roman Church (“it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere”)[Protestant cultists reject this and always have, because they are false “Christians”].
    4) It refutes the Protestant cultist notion of “Sola Scriptura”, which states that Scripture is the sole and final authority (a false doctrine of the devil)

    Lets move to the next part of the text, which reads:

    “3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3)

    This refutes you in the following ways:

    1) It mentions to succession of bishops, and he just said one paragraph earlier that this Roman Church is primal.
    2) The context refutes you. It says that Linus inherited the Church that BOTH Peter and Paul built. Irenaus is not saying that both Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome.

    Moving on, Irenaus wrote:

    “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3)

    This refutes you in the following ways:

    1) Again, look at the important Irenaus and all of the Church Fathers put into apostolic succession (which you pagans reject)
    2) Note how this passage also refutes the false doctrine of the devil known as “sola scripture”

    Sam Shamoun instead makes it seem like Irenaus is saying that Linus was the successor to both Peter and Paul, when in actuality any honest person can see that he is saying Linus inherited the Church that both Peter and Paul built. He keep quoting Romans 1 (as if that refutes anything) where Paul says over and over again stuff along the lines of “I long to see you”. Well thanks to the Church Fathers like Irenaus, we know that dream came true didn’t it 🙂

    Now back to Pope Gelasius I, since Protestant Cultists know that 100% of the Church Fathers believed in the Eucharist, they attempt to find some minor person (who isn’t even a Church Father) and twist his words.

    Here is the quote again which DESTROYS the idea that he rejected the real presence:
    “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine reality, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly THE IMAGE AND SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

    Notice he says the BODY and BLOOD of Christ in the Eucharist is a DIVINE REALITY. So at best, this protestant pagan can claim that he contradicting himself in this paragraph. Notice he also says that by receiving the divine body and blood of Christ we become partakers of the divine nature. This destroys the protestant cult. Therefore, since he just affirmed that the Eucharist IS indeed the Body and Blood of Christ and a divine reality, through which we become partakers of the divine nature, he is not going to contradict himself one sentence later. He wrote “the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease”, since he just said that these elements do indeed become the body and blood of Christ, he is therefore talking about the appearance of the elements.

    Note: Pope Gelasius I wrote a lengthy tract about how the Eucharist is to be given to the faithful and he even wrote an order that all priests must consecrate both the body and blood of christ. In this order you can see the importance and worship he gives to the Eucharist, please don’t slander him by saying he disbelieved in the eucharist.

    Also note: The desperation of Protestant Pagan Sam Shamoun. He is quoting a fifth century Pope out of context and ignoring the first and century quotes I provided because he knows he can’t find anything that supports him. Protestant pagans have NOTHING, so they are forced to find random fifth century Popes and twist there words. Its horrific what the Protestant-cultist false religion does to people. But then again, their founder Martin Luther was an adulterous, violent, and mentally ill false prophet of the devil just like Mohammad.

  55. D.A. Howard says:

    Sam, Sam, Sam. We Catholics wrote the NT. We canonized its contents. It is not a Protestant book, so you have no authority to interpret it. You should repent and become Catholic. CBD has effectively shut you down. Come now. You know Protestantism is false and Orthodoxy a distraction. Come home to Holy Mother Catholic Church.

  56. Sam Shamoun says:

    D.A. Howard I don’t mind conversing about these issues with respectful Catholics. However, trolls and thugs like CBD will only cause people to hate and despise your church. Therefore, if you want to try and convert people, CBD’s approach is not the way.

  57. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, I am going to be posting excerpts from Philip Schaff’s History of the Church, considered to be one of the best treatments on this subject. As we will see from this renowned Church historian, the early fathers did not UNANIMOUSLY hold to transubstantiation, contrary to what this deceiver CBD would have you believe by his misquoting the fathers, and reading into them his own pagan, antichrist assumptions into their words. So enjoy!

    1. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT.

    The Didache of the Apostles contains eucharistic prayers, but no theory of the eucharist. Ignatius speaks of this sacrament in two passages, only by way of allusion, but in very strong, mystical terms, calling it the flesh of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, and the consecrated bread a medicine of immortality and an antidote of spiritual death.412 This view, closely connected with his high-churchly tendency in general, no doubt involves belief in the real presence, and ascribes to the holy Supper an effect on spirit and body at once, with reference to the future resurrection, but is still somewhat obscure, and rather an expression of elevated feeling than a logical definition.

    The same may be said of Justin Martyr, when he compares the descent of Christ into the consecrated elements to his incarnation for our redemption. 413

    Irenaeus says repeatedly, in combating the Gnostic Docetism,414 that broad and wine in the sacrament become, by the presence of the Word of God, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ and that the receiving of there strengthens soul and body (the germ of the resurrection body) unto eternal life. Yet this would hardly warrant our ascribing either transubstantiation or consubstantiation to Irenaeus. For in another place he calls the bread and wine, after consecration, “antitypes,” implying the continued distinction of their substance from the body and blood of Christ.415 This expression in itself, indeed, might be understood as merely contrasting here the upper, as the substance, with the Old Testament passover, its type; as Peter calls baptism the antitype of the saving water of the flood.416 But the connection, and the usus loquendi of the earlier Greek fathers, require us to take the term antitype, a the sense of type, or, more precisely, as the antithesis of archetype. The broad and wine represent and exhibit the body and blood of Christ as the archetype, and correspond to them, as a copy to the original. In exactly the same sense it is said in Heb. 9:24—comp. 8:5—that the earthly sanctuary is the antitype, that is the copy, of the heavenly archetype. Other Greek fathers also, down to the fifth century, and especially the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, call the consecrated elements “antitypes” (sometimes, like Theodoretus, “types”) of the body and blood of Christ.417

    A different view, approaching nearer the Calvinistic or Reformed, we meet with among the African fathers. Tertullian makes the words of institution: Hoc est corpus meum, equivalent to: figura corporis mei, to prove, in opposition to Marcion’s docetism, the reality of the body of Jesus—a mere phantom being capable of no emblematic representation418 This involves, at all events, an essential distinction between the consecrated elements and the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Yet Tertullian must not be understood as teaching a merely symbolical presence of Christ; for in other places he speaks, according to his general realistic turn, in almost materialistic language of an eating of the body of Christ, and extends the participation even to the body of the receiver.419 Cyprian likewise appears to favor a symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, yet not so clearly. The idea of the real presence would have much better suited his sacerdotal conception of the ministry. In the customary mixing of the wine with water he sees a type of the union of Christ with his church,420 and, on the authority of John 6:53, holds the communion of the Supper indispensable to salvation. The idea of a sacrifice comes out very boldly in Cyprian.

    The Alexandrians are here, as usual, decidedly spiritualistic. Clement twice expressly calls the wine a symbol or an allegory of the blood of Christ, and says, that the communicant receives not the physical, but the spiritual blood, the life, of Christ; as, indeed, the blood is the life of the body. Origen distinguishes still more definitely the earthly elements from the heavenly bread of life, and makes it the whole design of the supper to feed the soul with the divine word.421 Applying his unsound allegorical method here, he makes the bread represent the Old Testament, the wine the New, and the breaking of the bread the multiplication of the divine word! But these were rather private views for the initiated, and can hardly be taken as presenting the doctrine of the Alexandrian church.

    We have, therefore, among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views, an Oriental, a North-African, and an Alexandrian. The first view, that of Ignatius and Irenaeus, agrees most nearly with the mystical character of the celebration of the eucharist, and with the catholicizing features of the age.

  58. Sam Shamoun says:

    2. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE.

    This point is very important in relation to the doctrine, and still more important in relation to the cultus and life, of the ancient church. The Lord’s Supper was universally regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice,422 the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superseding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt. This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption. Hence the current name itself—eucharist; which denoted in the first place the prayer of thanksgiving, but afterwards the whole rite.423

    The consecrated elements were regarded in a twofold light, as representing at once the natural and the spiritual gifts of God, which culminated in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Hence the eucharistic prayer, like that connected with the typical passover, related at the same time to creation and redemption, which were the more closely joined in the mind of the church for their dualistic separation by the Gnostics. The earthly gifts of broad and wine were taken as types and pledges of the heavenly gifts of the same God, who has both created and redeemed the world.
    Upon this followed the idea of the self-sacrifice of the worshipper himself, the sacrifice of renewed self-consecration to Christ in return for his sacrifice on the cross, and also the sacrifice of charity to the poor. Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, “We offer,” and in the sentence: “All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord.”

    This subjective offering of the whole congregation on the ground of the objective atoning sacrifice of Christ is the real centre of the ancient Christian worship, and particularly of the communion. It thus differed both from the later Catholic mass, which has changed the thank-offering into a sin-offering, the congregational offering into a priest offering; and from the common Protestant cultus, which, in opposition to the Roman mass, has almost entirely banished the idea of sacrifice from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except in the customary offerings for the poor.

    The writers of the second century keep strictly within the limits of the notion of a congregational thank-offering. Thus Justin says expressly, prayers and thanksgivings alone are the true and acceptable sacrifices, which the Christians offer. Irenaeus has been brought as a witness for the Roman doctrine, only on the ground of a false reading.424 The African fathers, in the third century, who elsewhere incline to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, are the first to approach on this point the later Roman Catholic idea of a sin-offering; especially Cyprian, the steadfast advocate of priesthood and of episcopal authority.425 The ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar, are intimately connected, and a Judaizing or paganizing conception of one must extend to all.

  59. Sam Shamoun says:

    413 Apol. I. 66 (I. 182, third ed. of Otto). Here also occurs already the term metabolhv, which some Roman controversialists use at once as an argument for transubstantiation. Justin says: jEx h|” (i.e.trofh'”)ai|ma kai; savrke” kata; metabolh;n trevfontai hJmw’n, ex quo alimento sanguis et carnes nostae per mutationem aluntur. But according to the context, this denotes by no means a transmutation of the elements, but either the assimilation of them to the body of the receiver, or the operation of them upon the body, with reference to the future resurrection. Comp. John 6:54 sqq., and like passages in Ignatius and Irenaeus.

  60. Sam Shamoun says:

    I finally leave you with this excerpt from Dr. James R. White who quotes Augustine’s view of the mass:

    “… When Augustine commented on this passage, he wrote:

    “He that comes unto Me: this is the same as when He says, And he that believes on Me: and what He meant by, shall never hunger, the same we are to understand by, shall never thirst. By both is signified that eternal fulness, where is no lack.”

    There is no literality in Augustine’s understanding. Note his further comments on the passage:

    Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life.”

    Here are a few more just for the fun of it:

    Augustine (Faustus 6.5): “while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority.”

    Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): “The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. . . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

    Where is the literality? It is not there, which is why there were debates a thousand years after Christ concerning this very issue: and Augustine was one of the chief Fathers cited by those who opposed the absurdly literal interpretation that lead to transubstantiation. Note the words of church historian Philip Schaff:

    In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
    We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.703 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar…

    Speaking of Radbertus’ and his promotion of a transubstantiation-like concept, Schaff notes:

    His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.

    It seems historians do not share Tim’s viewpoint, and for good reason. We could cite from Tertullian and Theodoret and many others, but the most embarrassing for the Roman apologist who makes such claims has to be these words from Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

    The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

    Of course, it is easier to make universal claims about history that are inaccurate than it is to provide a meaningful and truthful response. Most don’t carry around notes with quotations from patristic sources so as to be ready for such claims. How one handles such a claim in a situation such as a family reunion will depend on the circumstances. A basic, “Such claims go far beyond the facts” might be appropriate.” (Truths of the Bible or Untruths of Roman Tradition?
    James White Responds to Tim Staples’ Article, “How to Explain the Eucharist” in the September, 1997 issue of Catholic Digest: http://vintage.aomin.org/MarkandTim.htm)

    OUCH!

    I also highly recommend that you watch the debate with White and Robert Sungenis on this topic, the link to which I posted above. In it, not only does White pwn Sungenis badly, he even humiliates him when Sungenis tries to misquote Augustine to prove that this father also held to Rome’s unbiblical and blasphemous view of the eucharist.

  61. Sam Shamoun says:

    I end with some more quotes from Augustine, whose view totally contradicts that of this pagan papist:

    12. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. TO WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU MAKE READY TEETH AND STOMACH? BELIEVE, AND YOU HAVE EATEN ALREADY. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. Galatians 5:6 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe. See if the Jews do not ask for signs. “They said therefore unto Him, What sign will you do, that we may see and believe you? What do you work?” Was it a trifle that they were fed with five loaves? They knew this indeed, but they preferred manna from heaven to this food. But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of himself that ge gave, “not the meat which perishes, but that which endures to eternal life.” Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children, health of body, and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perishes; the latter promised, “not the meat which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life.” They gave attention to Him that promised the more, but just as if they did not yet see Him do greater things. They considered therefore what sort of works Moses had done, and they wished yet some greater works to be done by Him who promised them such great things. What, say they, will you do, that we may believe you? And that you may know that they compared those former miracles with this and so judged these miracles which Jesus did as being less; “Our fathers,” say they, “did eat manna in the wilderness.” But what is manna? Perhaps ye despise it. “As it is written, He gave them manna to eat.” By Moses our fathers received bread from heaven, and Moses did not say to them, “Labor for the meat which perishes not.” You promise “meat which perishes not, but which endures to eternal life;” and yet you work not such works as Moses did. He gave, not barley loaves, but manna from heaven. (Tractate 25 on John 6:15-44)

    And:

    4. “Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where He were, he should show it, that they might take Him.” Let us for our parts show the Jews where Christ is. Would, indeed, that all the seed of those who had given commandment to have it shown them where Christ was, would but hear and apprehend! Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? How shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up your faith, and you have got hold. Your forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. But since His word is true, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world,” Matthew 28:20 He is away, and He is here; He has returned, and will not forsake us; for He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world. (Tractate 50 on John 11:52-12)

    For Augustine, Jesus does not come down in order to become the eucharist or to have the eucharist become physically him. and he is correct, since this blasphemous teaching destroys the Hypostatic union since it would end up deifying his humanity, making him omnipresent in relation to his physical body even though this is a divine attributes which properly belongs to his Deity, NOT HUMANITY!

    So much for this pagan papist’s butchering and manhandling of church history.

  62. Sam Shamoun says:

    BTW, here are the links to the quotes from Augustine:

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

    And:

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701050.htm

    And also make sure to see this clip which goes along with the last quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV0iO06dIQw

  63. Sam Shamoun says:

    I am apologize for all the typos.

  64. cbd94 says:

    Amazing, this animal takes quotes on the spiritual benefit of the Eucharist and tries to falsely claim that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here are some quote from Augustine on the Eucharist which refute Sham Scamoun and his “Dr” James White.

    “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
    ^Note how he says to ignore “what your eyes report to you” and accept based on faith that this is truly the Body and Blood of Christ

    “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

    “The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

    “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)

    “…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE WORSHIPS IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY WORSHIPPING [the Eucharist], WE DO SIN BY NOT WORSHIPPING [the Eucharist].” (Psalms 98:9)

    Protestants who try to twist St.Augustine’s commentaries on the spiritual benefit of receiving the Eucharist make me puke…….

  65. cbd94 says:

    Also Sham Scamoun, instead of simply quoting people like Schaff and plagiarizing other people’s work try to have an original thought for once. You quoting this::

    “The Didache of the Apostles contains eucharistic prayers, but no theory of the eucharist. Ignatius speaks of this sacrament in two passages, only by way of allusion, but in very strong, mystical terms, calling it the flesh of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, and the consecrated bread a medicine of immortality and an antidote of spiritual death.412 This view, closely connected with his high-churchly tendency in general, no doubt involves belief in the real presence, and ascribes to the holy Supper an effect on spirit and body at once, with reference to the future resurrection, but is still somewhat obscure, and rather an expression of elevated feeling than a logical definition.”

    ^Haha, that is one of the most pitiful arguments I have ever heard in my entire life. No theory of the Eucharist? Moron, the Didache calls the Mass a “sacrifice”, what does this animal mean “no theory of the Eucharist”? Have you even read it? Amazing what you lutherite pagans of the devil will says.

    Then it goes on the say that Ignatius and Irenaus don’t actually have a real presence view of the Eucharist they simply have a “high-churchly tendency” ahahaha, is it a Protestant “sacrament” to try to get around the plain meaning of what anything says?

    Unbelievable

  66. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, I said I wouldn’t respond to this lying pagan papist but I just can’t help myself since I knew he was going to plagiarize the following from one of his fellow papist’s website and get away with it. Note what this pagan idolater cited:

    “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
    ^Note how he says to ignore “what your eyes report to you” and accept based on faith that this is truly the Body and Blood of Christ

    “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

    “The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

    “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)

    “…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE WORSHIPS IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY WORSHIPPING [the Eucharist], WE DO SIN BY NOT WORSHIPPING [the Eucharist].” (Psalms 98:9)

    This perfectly illustrates what I said about this pagan, namely, that he reads into the words of the fathers his later blasphemous understanding of the mass. When we read Augustine in context, this is what we get:

    Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself EATEN SPIRITUALLY, DRUNK SPIRITUALLY. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life.”

    Augustine (Faustus 6.5): “while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains ITS SYMBOLICAL AUTHORITY.”

    Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): “The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. . . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ THE TYPES were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

    12. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. TO WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU MAKE READY TEETH AND STOMACH? BELIEVE, AND YOU HAVE EATEN ALREADY. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. Galatians 5:6 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe. See if the Jews do not ask for signs. “They said therefore unto Him, What sign will you do, that we may see and believe you? What do you work?” Was it a trifle that they were fed with five loaves? They knew this indeed, but they preferred manna from heaven to this food. But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of himself that ge gave, “not the meat which perishes, but that which endures to eternal life.” Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children, health of body, and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perishes; the latter promised, “not the meat which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life.” They gave attention to Him that promised the more, but just as if they did not yet see Him do greater things. They considered therefore what sort of works Moses had done, and they wished yet some greater works to be done by Him who promised them such great things. What, say they, will you do, that we may believe you? And that you may know that they compared those former miracles with this and so judged these miracles which Jesus did as being less; “Our fathers,” say they, “did eat manna in the wilderness.” But what is manna? Perhaps ye despise it. “As it is written, He gave them manna to eat.” By Moses our fathers received bread from heaven, and Moses did not say to them, “Labor for the meat which perishes not.” You promise “meat which perishes not, but which endures to eternal life;” and yet you work not such works as Moses did. He gave, not barley loaves, but manna from heaven. (Tractate 25 on John 6:15-44)

    And:

    4. “Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where He were, he should show it, that they might take Him.” Let us for our parts show the Jews where Christ is. Would, indeed, that all the seed of those who had given commandment to have it shown them where Christ was, would but hear and apprehend! Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? How shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up your faith, and you have got hold. Your forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. But since His word is true, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world,” Matthew 28:20 He is away, and He is here; He has returned, and will not forsake us; for He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world. (Tractate 50 on John 11:52-12)

    Now when we put all these quotes together what we get is this. Augustine did not believe the bread and the blood were the literal, physical body and blood of Christ, but were symbols of it. Yet he could still refer to them as the body and blood of Christ that Jesus carried since that is how Jesus referred to them, WITHOUT THIS IMPLYING THAT HE BELIEVED THEM TO LITERALLY BE SO.

    Had this zombie actually read what I cited he would have found this confirmed in the following citations:

    Where is the literality? It is not there, which is why there were debates a thousand years after Christ concerning this very issue: and Augustine was one of the chief Fathers cited by those who opposed the absurdly literal interpretation that lead to transubstantiation. Note the words of church historian Philip Schaff:

    In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.

    We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.703 THE SPIRITUAL THEORY WAS BACKED BY THE ALL-POWERFUL AUTHORITY OF ST. AUGUSTIN IN THE WEST, AND ABLY ADVOCATED BY RATRAMNUS AND BERENGER…

    Speaking of Radbertus’ and his promotion of a transubstantiation-like concept, Schaff notes:

    HIS OPPONENTS APPEALED CHIEFLY TO ST. AUGUSTIN, WHO MADE A DISTINCTION BEWEEN THE HISTORICAL AND THE EUCHARISTIC BODY OF CHRIST, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.

    It seems historians do not share Tim’s viewpoint, and for good reason. We could cite from Tertullian and Theodoret and many others, but the most embarrassing for the Roman apologist who makes such claims has to be these words from Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

    The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet THE SUBSTANCE or nature of the bread and wine DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

    Here we have papists in the west appealing to Augustine’s words TO REFUTE TRANSUBSTANTIATION SINCE THEY COULD SEE FROM HIS WORD, WHEN TAKEN IN COTEXT, THAT HE DENIED THIS BLASPHEMOUS IDOLATROUS TEACHING OF THIS PAGAN’S ANTICHRIST CHURCH!

    OUCH!

    This is the kind of stupidity and deception which popery creates in the mind of its zealous zombies like this heathen and liar CBD94. Now if he happens to be one of Rome’s best apologists then it is little wonder that people are leaving this antichrist abomination in droves, glory to God!

    Anyway badmanna, this will really be it for me and so this wicked lying pagan can get the last word in since he desperately needs it.

  67. cbd94 says:

    LOL so this protestant pagan responds to my ABUNDANTLY and ABSOLUTELY clear quotes from Augustine by saying they are “out of context” (while failing to show this) and simply re-posting his IRRELEVANT citations. This is typical protestant cultist lutherite behavior. He instead posts a bunch of quotes that either a) have NOTHING to do with the Eucharist or b) are about the spiritual BENEFIT of the Eucharist. Haha, I feel like I’m talking to Ijaz Ahmed. Protestants are so low.

  68. Nice Article Sam. Plenty of Church Fathers quotes as evidence of Luke 23:34. Keep up refuting the Catholics.

    Answering Judaism.

  69. Sam Shamoun says:

    Thanks brother Bobo. Lord bless you and all you do for his kingdom.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.