Response for Kirtland R.M. about the Evidence You're Providing

[Theophan]

K., you said the following:

kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑
2019 Mar 11, 7:23 pm
Parallels, come on now. That's as far as you can go? Here is more. By the way, please let me know what you think we are missing in all of Cyril's 23 lectures. Where are your answers to my New Testament questions?

I engaged with you because you said you would point me in the direction of ancient, post-New Testament Christians who wrote about LDS temple ordinances. You responded with passages from the New Testament (which I didn't ask you for), the Gospel of Phillip and Cyril of Jerusalem. You linked the Gospel of Phillip with the LDS ordinance of eternal marriage and you linked Cyril with the LDS ordinance of washings and anointings. I was ready to discuss those with you, but you've steadfastly refused to do so. I provided a lengthy post about what I think you’re missing in all of Cyril’s lectures, which you’ve ignored. I asked a couple of clarifying questions, just so I understand your interpretation of Cyril correctly. You ignored those, too. Instead, you keep plowing ahead with copying/pasting page after page of one-sided scholarly interpretations of various ancient sources, one-sided because they only present the LDS view. I didn't ask you for those, either.

Well, you've signaled your intent. That’s your technique. You post stuff favorable to the LDS view, refuse to have a conversation about any of the ancient, post-New Testament writings you quote, the material I originally asked you for, opting instead for non-stop bombardment with masses of quotations, refusing to have a conversation about any of the primary sources you originally provided. That is not a conversation, it's a lecture. I'm not interested in a lecture, particularly from a mad quoter who hasn't bothered to read the primary sources he’s quoting. It seems you're only interested in playing the expert and schooling people. No thanks.

I wish you well, but until you engage with me on Cyril of Jerusalem and the Gospel of Phillip, I'm done. Of course, that would require you to read all of Cyril's lectures and all of the Gospel of Phillip, something you appear unwilling to do.

Let me know if you change your mind. Until then, I'm out. I'm sure the other folks on this thread will continue to find your material faith-affirming and uplifting.

[kirtland r.m.]

Oh boy, does this deserve a response. T. I will go line by line on what you are saying(in just a day or two). No hard feelings, but I will continue to be very pointed with what has been said so far, and if your response is fair and in my opinion honest. Not casting any stones at you, I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, and not a troll.

[Theophan]

Thanks, but I stand by what I said. If you’re response doesn’t focus directly and exclusively on the content of Cyril’s lectures or The Gospel of Phillip or some other ancient Christian document that you’ve referenced, then I’m still done with this conversation.

I’m not interested in discussing any of the secondary sources you’ve quoted: whether LDS, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, whether they support your view or mine. And yes, I read the non-LDS stuff you posted. All of it is irrelevant. When the topic is ancient Christianity, I never take any scholar’s word for it, no matter who says it or how many degrees they have or where they got those degrees. Scholarly quotations are only a roadmap pointing to the sources they use. I only consult the scholars so I can check their footnotes. That’s why I criticized Nibley. He only referenced a couple of Cyril’s lectures, ignoring the first 18 that give the context. No wonder he got it so wrong, along with every LDS church member who gets excited about what Nibley wrote on Cyril’s description of washing and anointing.

That’s why I asked you for the ancient primary sources that you think describe actual LDS temple ordinances practiced anciently (e.g., a washing that isn’t a baptism) and going forward that’s the only material I’ll pay attention to or discuss with you - and only if you’ve read the entire source first. Otherwise, I’m out. Not interested in anything else. Sorry.

[Theophan]

By the way, I’m no troll. Thanks for believing that. I’m only here because I stumbled across the thread where some folks wondered what the Mass is all about and then I noticed the use of writings by my Catholic Church fathers for LDS apologetics, which I find very strange. E.g., your use of my fave St. Bishop Cyril. The latest it seems is your post on the mosaics in Ravenna. It’s not an ‘early Christian church.’ It’s not even early, built five centuries after the Resurrection of our Lord. It’s one of my churches, an Eastern Catholic/Orthodox church, the Church of St. Vitale, founded during the tenure of the Catholic Bishop of Ravenna, Ecclesius, in 527 and finished in 547. The mosaics you mentioned are Byzantine Catholic/Orthodox mosaics. It would be great if you call them what they are - Catholic. I would never refer to Joseph Smith as a 19th Century Christian preacher, in reference to parallels between the United Order and the Book of Acts.

[kirtland r.m.]

Thanks, but I stand by what I said. If you’re response doesn’t focus directly and exclusively on the content of Cyril’s lectures or The Gospel of Phillip or some other ancient Christian document that you’ve referenced, then I’m still done with this conversation.

I’m not interested in discussing any of the secondary sources you’ve quoted: whether LDS, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, whether they support your view or mine. And yes, I read the non-LDS stuff you posted. All of it is irrelevant. When the topic is ancient Christianity, I never take any scholar’s word for it, no matter who says it or how many degrees they have or where they got those degrees. Scholarly quotations are only a roadmap pointing to the sources they use. I only consult the scholars so I can check their footnotes. That’s why I criticized Nibley. He only referenced a couple of Cyril’s lectures, ignoring the first 18 that give the context. No wonder he got it so wrong, along with every LDS church member who gets excited about what Nibley wrote on Cyril’s description of washing and anointing.

That’s why I asked you for the ancient primary sources that you think describe actual LDS temple ordinances practiced anciently (e.g., a washing that isn’t a baptism) and going forward that’s the only material I’ll pay attention to or discuss with you - and only if you’ve read the entire source first. Otherwise, I’m out. Not interested in anything else. Sorry.

Hi T., hope you are well! Time is rolling by and I am late getting back to you. Because you are only interested in Cyril, I repeat his quote. Ancient Church Father, Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril of Jerusalem details how ointment or oil was "symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense" and that the "ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed." Cyril states that the "ointment is the seal of the covenants" of baptism and God’s promises to the Christian who is anointed. Cyril taught that being "anointed with the Holy anointing oil [Chrism] of God" was the sign of a Christian (Christos means "anointed"), and a physical representation of having the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).
You should be acquainted with this quote, as you enjoy his writings. And no, Cyril was not talking about baptism in the above quote.
Also you said, "You responded with passages from the New Testament (which I didn't ask you for)" So one, you didn't even make an attempt to answer them, and two, I guess no one is allowed to ask you a question? Here is why you didn't answer them, from a former post.
He has told us that he is a formerly Endowed Latter Day Saint, who is now a practicing member of another Christian faith.He says we don't have this kind of evidence about links with the earliest Christians, this is a thread to show many of them to him and anyone else who wants to know about these vital truths. There is only one reason you won't answer these questions, which have only one honest, real, logical conclusion, and that is because the answers don't fit into your current belief system. You have asked about the Endowment, I have posted answers.
Here are the questions I give you again. Now, about the early Christians, and their burial practices and clothinghttp://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/21/e ... yum-egypt/. The marks on the garments etc.? How about answering that? How could the latter-day endowment, in every way, including clothing, match up with what we’re finding out about early Christian beliefs and practices? And yes I’ve got many more topics regarding the endowment that I will put up in the next few days not just the three I have already listed on this thread. After you answer those questions tell me if you would, how about the scriptural questions which I have talked about. For example the Apostle Paul speaking about the three degrees of glory in heaven, and baptism for the dead as he taught the saints at Corinth?
All the best to you! I am here any time you want to shoot the breeze.

[Theophan]

Hi T., hope you are well! Time is rolling by and I am late getting back to you. Because you are only interested in Cyril, I repeat his quote. Ancient Church Father, Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril of Jerusalem details how ointment or oil was "symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense" and that the "ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed." Cyril states that the "ointment is the seal of the covenants" of baptism and God’s promises to the Christian who is anointed. Cyril taught that being "anointed with the Holy anointing oil [Chrism] of God" was the sign of a Christian (Christos means "anointed"), and a physical representation of having the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).
You should be acquainted with this quote, as you enjoy his writings. And no, Cyril was not talking about baptism in the above quote.

Hey k.,

I had a lengthier reply, but deleted it. Thanks for the response, but I think I'm done. Our methods are too different. You begin with a point of view, then assemble quotes to support that view; I read every word of the primary sources on which those quotations are based, and only then do I adopt a point of view.

For instance, you've read just a few of Cyril's words, see a similarity with the LDS temple, and conclude that Cyril's washing was not a baptism.

I've read all of Cyril's writings, not just a few snippets quoted out of context, and know from what he wrote that he was a bishop in the Catholic tradition; crossed himself like a Catholic; taught Catholic doctrines; worshiped like a Catholic; taught that the bread and wine of the sacrament are not merely a symbol, but are really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ through the action of the priest; and that the washing he describes is actually Catholic baptism, exactly as it's practiced today in our Eastern Catholic churches. You'd know that if you knew anything about the history and development of Catholic rites (Eastern and Western) and had actually read all of Cyril's lectures, but you won't do that. You won't read any of the ancient, post-NT Christian writings you're quoting. Our methods are different, so there's no shared ground for a productive conversation.

I do wish you well, but I'm done and will say goodbye. I appreciate your efforts and have enjoyed the conversation. Have a great day.

[kirtland r.m.]

Hi T., hope you are well! Time is rolling by and I am late getting back to you. Because you are only interested in Cyril, I repeat his quote. Ancient Church Father, Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril of Jerusalem details how ointment or oil was "symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense" and that the "ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed." Cyril states that the "ointment is the seal of the covenants" of baptism and God’s promises to the Christian who is anointed. Cyril taught that being "anointed with the Holy anointing oil [Chrism] of God" was the sign of a Christian (Christos means "anointed"), and a physical representation of having the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).
You should be acquainted with this quote, as you enjoy his writings. And no, Cyril was not talking about baptism in the above quote.

Hey k.,

I had a lengthier reply, but deleted it. Thanks for the response, but I think I'm done. Our methods are too different. You begin with a point of view, then assemble quotes to support that view; I read every word of the primary sources on which those quotations are based, and only then do I adopt a point of view.

For instance, you've read just a few of Cyril's words, see a similarity with the LDS temple, and conclude that Cyril's washing was not a baptism.

I've read all of Cyril's writings, not just a few snippets quoted out of context, and know from what he wrote that he was a bishop in the Catholic tradition; crossed himself like a Catholic; taught Catholic doctrines; worshiped like a Catholic; taught that the bread and wine of the sacrament are not merely a symbol, but are really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ through the action of the priest; and that the washing he describes is actually Catholic baptism, exactly as it's practiced today in our Eastern Catholic churches. You'd know that if you knew anything about the history and development of Catholic rites (Eastern and Western) and had actually read all of Cyril's lectures, but you won't do that. You won't read any of the ancient, post-NT Christian writings you're quoting. Our methods are different, so there's no shared ground for a productive conversation.

I do wish you well, but I'm done and will say goodbye. I appreciate your efforts and have enjoyed the conversation. Have a great day.

Goodbye T., by the way, I have read more of Cyril than you think. Discount what I have posed if you wish, that is your right. I know more about Catholic doctrine than most Catholics. Let's not make this personal, or a question of styles, ect..You and I know it is all about the Lord and His True Church. By the way, since you brought it up, a post on the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. I could have used more Catholic sources, but the result would be the same. This is a bit more concise than other sources I have been looking at. I really, really, wish you well T.. Take care. May God bless you always.
Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
Nathan Busenitz | April 22, 2016

Today’s post is intended to answer an important question from a historical standpoint. However, it ought to be stated at the outset that Scripture must be our final authority in the determination of sound doctrine and right practice.

The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?

In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.

Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “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).

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).

Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).

Origen (182–254): “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).

Augustine (354–430): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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” (Sermons 227).

How should we think about such statements?

Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.

But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?

In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

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

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

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

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

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

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

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

Final thought from kirtland, the Emblems of the Sacrament are symbols. They are very sacred. The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation however is flawed, and false. It is interesting to note that there are only three prayers in the restored church that the Lord instructs us to say word for word. They deal with our baptismal covenants. They are the words the Lord instructs us to say at baptism, and the two sacrament prayers.

[iWriteStuff]

Shorter answers to both:

"A man convinced against his will is unconvinced.....still."

[kirtland r.m.]

Shorter answers to both:

"A man convinced against his will is unconvinced.....still."

Ha Ha, hi iWriteStuff! Right, my goal is always three fold in T.'s case when posting about the gospel. First answer questions. Second, maybe later, something may sink in that will be important. Three, may give some knowledge to anyone else who can use it. T. has added to the knowledge on the forum, a good discussion to have I think. I hope T. hangs around. Keep smiling dude!