The Art of Evasion – or Lying?

If anyone wants to see the dangerous and deceitful nature of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity, please carefully read the following email exchange I had with pastor Arvind Balaram of DBF Church, Gurgaon, India.

4.12.16
Dear Arvind,

It was lovely to meet and speak with you today at DBF Gurgaon.

To recap our conversation re the DBF ‘What we believe’ statement, I want to make it clear that I agree with the Apostle’s Creed, which includes essentially all the points in the DBF statement of faith, except point 2:

“We believe in one God, creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternal existing in three persons, Father, Son & Holy Spirit.”

As I explained to you, I wanted clarity from you regarding point 2 above. To me, it seems like your church is promoting the Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity, which is not in the Bible, and nevertheless is still promoted by many so called protestant churches. It would appear that you also believe in this doctrine as you acknowledged that you believe God to be a triune god. The triune god was unheard of by the apostles and early church fathers of the first two centuries.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not mentioned in the Bible, of course they are; and I am not saying that they are not in unity, of course they are; I am saying that they are not as described in Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity, and that God is not described as being a triune god in the Bible.

As you advised, I read your sermon in order to gain a better understanding of what you believe. I will be honest and say that I intend to convince you otherwise.

Why is this so important? Why am I so concerned?

Most scholars know that the Roman Catholic church is the apostate and antichrist church of Revelation. If you do not know this, please verify this for yourself through prayer and further study. With that in mind, it ought to raise alarm bells when the Roman Catholic Church says that it considers its Doctrine of the Trinity to be “the foundation of its whole dogmatic system”. Why? And why was it formulated over several centuries upon pain of death?

The answer lies in the fact that it misrepresents the Father and the Son. Thereby creating a false god, an idol, leading the believer into spiritual adultery. It is satan’s masterpiece of deception. Once one accepts this ‘mystery’, more ‘mysteries’ can be created and used to deceive- as the Roman Church has been and is doing so well. So well, that many protestant churches have swallowed this false doctrine -hook, line and sinker!

You may think that I am exaggerating, but it is a fact that people have been executed in the past for opposing this doctrine. The angel in Revelation tells us to “come out of her, my people!”, i.e., come out of false doctrine and false church, which is spiritual adultery. Such warnings should not be ignored.

You said in your sermon: “…so now there’s God in heaven and God on earth, and they’re talking to each other and everything – but at the same time it’s the same God, and not two Gods!”

I say: The Father resides in the Son, and they are in unity of purpose, but they are two separate beings. The true God is the Father, yet it is not incorrect to call the Son a God, and to also honour him as the Father, the true God, is honoured.
John 5:22-23 KJV

You said in your sermon: “..Because God is a Trinity, God is love

o now I just want you to think about this for a moment – if God was only

one, single person, then what would His nature be like?”

I say: God Almighty, the Father, is a single person in the Bible, and this does not affect His ability to love. 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV.
Where does the “three in one” fit in here?

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, neither is “triune”, or “co-equal” and “co-eternal”. Neither is the concept described of the trinity as described by the Roman Church. None of the early church fathers knew of this doctrine. Certainly not the apostles. It is a concept originally derived from the Greek philosophers. The Father and the Son are described in the Bible precisely because they are meant to be understood in this manner- a ‘Father, Son’ love relationship is something mankind can relate to, not a man made ‘mystery’ which is not even understood by its makers. Not only that, it is not even required, God can be plainly understood from the Bible as it stands. For the doctrine of the RC trinity to be understood, the Bible would have to be rewritten.

Please do more research this issue, for your own sake, as well as your congregation. For me also- I would like to attend this church! But I cannot if this is what your Church believes.

But I am not the only one who is warning about the RC trinity. If you are interested, this topic is explored in greater depth on my blog havefaithinjesus.wordpress.com

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards

Reply by Arvind on 4/12/16

Thanks for your email, it’s good to hear from you. Thanks for sharing your concerns about our belief in the Trinity. I just wanted to clarify one thing from your email. You wrote, “The true God is the Father, yet it is not incorrect to call the Son a God, and to also honour him as the Father, the true God, is honoured.” Does that mean that there are two Gods? Please clarify.

Blessings,
Arvind

My reply on 8/12/16

Dear Arvind, You asked, ” “Does that mean that there are two Gods? Please clarify.”
Sure, I will explain what I mean, although I note that you did not answer my question re 1 Corinthians 8:6!
Before I explain, I want to just ponder again for a moment what you said in your sermon:
“…God is one, but at the same time He exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are also each fully God o you can think of it like this – the Father is 100% God, and the Son is 100% God, and the Spirit is 100% God, but when you add it up it equals to 100% God § It doesn’t add up to 300%, it’s not three gods – it adds up to 100%, one God And it’s not as if the Father is 33%, Son is 33% and Spirit 33% – they are all 100% God, but together they add up to 100% God – It’s a mystery – we can’t comprehend..”

I say: You are telling me that there are 3 Gods (line 3 above) and then you say that they are not three Gods (line 4). You call this a mystery. In other words, you expect to me to believe that when you say there are three Gods, there are actually not 3 Gods, but only one. You expect everyone to take your word for it and to accept this statement without question.

What does “Trinity” mean? The use of English would suggest it means “three in unity”, i.e. “Three “Gods” in unity of purpose”, but then you are claiming that there are not three Gods but actually a single God, as in a single entity, no more or less. Whether you like it or not, you have stated three Gods- you have not differentiated between them, you claim they are all equally God, equal in power and authority, but to get round this problem (you know that scripture says there is only one true God), you state that all three make up the ‘one God’, and that without any of these, there is no God.

Yet, when I say that it is not incorrect to call Jesus ‘a/myGod’, (see also my the reasons given below), would I be wrong in assuming that by your question you are attempting to accuse me of being a polytheist?

Let’s take this a bit further. Suppose I said to you that there are two Gods, each being 100% God but actually they add up to one God. I then tell you that it does not make any sense but we should believe it anyway. Would you accept my statement?

However, scripture, Jesus, the apostles and the early church never gave a description of God as you are suggesting. Remember, Jesus said he has a God, and this God is his Father, who is greater than him. I have quoted extracts of some of the early church fathers at the end which corroborate this and I think you will find it very educational, particularly the extracts from Irenaeus’ writings.

Contrast your trinity definition with what Jesus says. You will see that what I say agrees with Jesus’ statement and that of the early church,, that there is only one true God, the Father, and that the Son, the Word of God, who is begotten of the Father, is therefore also a god, and that it is not incorrect to call Jesus a god.

John 17:3 KJV
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 10:33-36
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
I say: Jesus himself is saying it is acceptable to call him a god because he is the Son of God and he is bearing God’s message. In John 17:3 he clarifies that the Father is the true God.
In Isaiah 9:5, the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet to describe Jesus as ‘mighty god’.
Let’s look at Psalm 82:6-8 KJV:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Psalm 136:2 KJV
2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
John 5:20-25 KJV
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
I say: it is therefore acceptable to call Jesus “God” in the sense that he is the Son of God; and as the early church father Irenaeus says, his dominion over Creation was given to him by His Father.
The Apostle Paul also understood this and the role of Jesus Christ:

Philippians 2:6-11 KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Paul also understood that Jesus is subject to His Father 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, which goes against the doctrine of the RC trinity, but agrees with Jesus’ statement, ” the Father is greater than I”, and “I go to my God and your God”.
The Apostle John also understood Jesus as being a ‘God’ in the same manner:
John 1:1-2 KJV:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 20:31 KJV:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I say: in John 20:31, John leaves us in no doubt that the Word of God ‘who became flesh’ is distinct from the Most High.
I say: This agrees with Jesus when he says the true God is the Father.
It all depends what you mean by the word ‘God/Elohim/theos’. In the Bible it may mean the Most High or even ‘judge’ or ‘magistrate’, depending on the context. Jesus told us to honour him as we honour the Father. If I say ‘Jesus is my God’, it is meant in the sense below:
John 12:44-45 KJV
44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
If I say ‘Jesus is my God’, it is meant in the above sense, i.e., ‘he that sees me does not see me but the One who sent me’.
Jesus glorified his Father, not himself, and was acting under the authority of the true God, his Father. And so it is in the Bible and also as recorded by some of the early church fathers (1st and 2nd century). They all considered it acceptable to call Jesus ‘God’, but not in the same line as when the God the Father is mentioned; in these instances Jesus is referred to as the ‘ the Lord Jesus Christ’ or the ‘Lord’, making the distinction. The supreme title of God/ the Most High is reserved for the Father only.

I have included some extracts of the writings from the early church fathers of the first two centuries AD. You may find them interesting and educational. They bear no resemblance to Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity and the definition which you supplied.


Ignatius of Antioch (AD110-117), friend of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 15:
“15:1 It is better to keep silence and to be, than to talk and not to be. It is a fine thing to teach, if the speaker practise. Now there is one teacher, who_spake and it came to pass:_ yea and even the things which He hath done in silence are worthy of the Father.” “15:2 He that truly possesseth the word of Jesus is able also to hearken unto His silence, that he may be perfect; that through his speech he may act and through his silence he may be known.” “15:3 Nothing is hidden from the Lord, but even our secrets are nigh unto Him. Let us therefore do all things as knowing that He dwelleth in us, to the end that we may be His temples and He Himself may be in us as our God. This is so, and it will also be made clear in our sight from the love which we rightly bear towards Him.”
Ignatius to the Ephesians 18:2
“18:2 For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost; and He was born and was baptized that by His passion He might cleanse water.”

Ignatius to the Romans 0:0
“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God;” I say: I may call Jesus Christ ‘God’ because he is quite simply the only begotten Son of the one true God the Father the Most High., as Jesus himself stated. Just as Jesus is a man, because he said he is the Son of Man.

Ignatius to the Romans 3:3
“3:3 Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is the more plainly visible. The Work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of might, whensoever it is hated by the world.”

Ignatius to the Philippians 2:

“There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For “the Lord thy God,” saith [the Scripture], “is one Lord.” And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.” And in another place, “What is His name, or what His Son’s name, that we may know?” And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also,” saith [the Scripture], “one Spirit,” since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] “worketh one and the selfsame Spirit.” There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.”
Ignatius Letter to Polycarp 8:

“I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ, by whom continue in the unity and under the protection of God, I salute Alce, my dearly beloved. Fare well in the Lord.”

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho Ch 56:
“…Reverting to the scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.”

Ch 126 Justin:

” But if you knew, Trypho, who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.”

Irenaeus AD 180. In his youth, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 ch 10 (Bold emphasis mine):
“1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgement towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire, but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.” “2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 ch 22 (Bold emphasis mine):
“1. The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existance all things which exist. Thus says the Scripture to that effect By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth. And again, All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. John 1:3. There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence- He who formed the world (for the world is of all)—He who fashioned man—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,— He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3: 2(Bold emphasis mine)
“These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.”

Irenaeus Against heresies Book 3 ch 6 (Bold emphasis mine):

“1. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. Genesis 19:24 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [textfollowing] does declare the same truth: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Your God, has anointed You.

For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God— both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods. He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God— that is, the Son Himself— has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth.

Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not. Isaiah 65:1

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, I have said, You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father. Romans 8:15” “2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am. And thus shall you say to the children of Israel: He who is, has sent me unto you; Exodus 3:14 and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people. Exodus 3:8 For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.— As also Esaias says, I too am witness, he declares, says the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that you may know, and believe, and understand that I am. Isaiah 43:10”

Book 3 Ch 6 (Bold emphasis mine)

“4. Wherefore I do also call upon you, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Your mercy, has had a favour towards us, that we should know You, who has made heaven and earth, who rule over all, who is the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know You, that You are God alone, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.”

From Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (extract of translation by J. Armitage Robinson (Bold emphasis mine):

“3. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God;11 and is over all things that are made, and all things are put under Him; 73 and all the things that are put under Him are made His own; for God is not ruler and Lord over the things of another, but over His own;12 and all things are God’s; and therefore God is Almighty, and all things are of God.” “4. For it is necessary that things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained.13 Now among all things is this world of ours, and in the world is man: so then this world also was formed by God.” “5. Thus then there is shown forth 14 One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God.15 And, since God is rational, |74 therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made;16 and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power.17 Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body 18 and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God. Well also does Paul His apostle say: One God, the Father, who is over all and through all and in us all.19 For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father, 20 and fashions man into the likeness of God.4 Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father.”

“6. This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the |75 stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point21 of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father:22 through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up23 all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible,24 in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.”

“8. And by the Spirit the Father is called Most High and Almighty and Lord of hosts; that we may learn concerning God that He* it is who is creator of heaven and earth and all the world, and maker of angels and men, and Lord of all, through whom all things exist and by whom all things are sustained; merciful, compassionate and very tender, good, just, the God of all, both of Jews and of Gentiles, and of them that believe. To them that believe He is as Father, for in the end of the times He opened up the covenant of adoption; |77 but to the Jews as Lord and Lawgiver, for in the intermediate times, when man forgat God and departed and revolted from Him, He brought them into subjection by the Law, that they might learn that they had for Lord the maker and creator, who also gives the breath of life, and whom we ought to worship day and night: and to the Gentiles as maker and creator and almighty: and to all alike sustainer and nourisher and king and judge; for none shall escape and be delivered from His judgment, neither Jew nor Gentile, nor believer that has sinned, nor angel: but they who now reject His goodness shall know His power in judgment, according to that which the blessed apostle says: Not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance; but according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every man according to his works.25 This is He who is called in the Law the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of the living; although the sublimity and greatness of this God is unspeakable.”
My note:*Please note that the Most High God is ‘He’ , singular.
“40. Thus then the Word of God in all things hath the pre-eminence;112 for that He is true man and Wonderful Counsellor and Mighty God;113 calling men anew to fellowship with God, that by fellowship with Him we may partake of incorruption. So then He who was proclaimed by the law through Moses, and by the prophets of the Most High and Almighty God, as Son of the Father of all; He from whom all things are, He who spake with Moses—-He came into Judaea, generated from God by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, even of her who was of the seed of David and of Abraham, Jesus the Anointed of God,showing Himself to be the One who was proclaimed beforehand by the prophets.”
“41. And His forerunner was John the Baptist) who prepared and made ready the people beforehand for the reception of the Word of life; declaring that He was the Christ, on whom the Spirit of God rested, mingling with His flesh.”
“47. So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable,135 therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. And yet more plainly and evidently does David speak concerning the Father and the Son as follows: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: thou hast loved righteousness and hated unrighteousness: therefore God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.136 For the Son, as being God, receives from the Father, that is, from God, the throne of the everlasting kingdom, and the oil of anointing above His fellows. The oil of anointing is the Spirit, wherewith He has been anointed; and His fellows are prophets and righteous men and apostles, and all who receive the fellowship of His kingdom, that is to say, His disciples.”

As you can see, the early church had a very different understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards

Arvind’s response 8/12/16:

Thanks for your lengthy and detailed reply. But to be honest I don’t feel like you answered my question – are there two Gods, or just one? This isn’t to ‘accuse’ you of anything, but I’m just trying to understand what exactly you are saying. You mentioned that it is acceptable to call Jesus ‘God’, but at the same time you are saying that it is the Father who is the ‘true’ God. It almost sounds like you are saying that the Father is more ‘God’ than Jesus, but they are both somehow ‘God’. So it sounds to me like you are saying that there are two Gods, one higher and one lesser – but I’m not sure if that is what you are saying. Again, please clarify.

Also, you said at the end of the attachment that ‘the early church had a very different understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ – but I can’t really see how what you quoted there is different from what I believe (except for one line in there which seems to suggest that everyone who has received the grace of adoption is a ‘god’ – but even that I’m not sure if I’ve understood correctly. Is that the difference you are referring to?).

I’m sorry if I am a little dense! But I don’t feel we can even begin any kind of discussion unless I at least first understand what you are saying. So I would appreciate if you could spell out your understanding of all this very clearly.

Thanks,
Arvind

My response 8/12/16
Dear Arvind,

I do not think you are dense, but I do believe you have been deceived.

That’s right. I am saying there is the Father, His name is Yahweh, the Most High God, the true God, the Almighty; and there is also the Son of God, the Word of God, who became flesh, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Son is subject to the Father. Yes, the Father is greater than the Son. You sound surprised, yet Jesus says very clearly that his Father is greater than him. As the Son says, he cannot do anything without the Father, who sent him. Scripture has termed both of them Gods, the Father being above all. The Son emanates from the Father just as a sunbeam emanates from the Sun.

Now if God has a Son, the Son must be a God also. Yes?

What does Paul mean when he says those who believe in God will be “joint-heirs” with Christ?

Romans 8:14-19 KJV

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

So yes, those who have received the Spirit of adoption are also sons of god, or ‘gods’, as Irenaeus also points out, only less mighty. And yes, this is another fundamental contradiction between the gospel and your definition of God and the trinity, and it is a very important one. We know that anything which contradicts the gospel is false.

Let us remember that everything will ultimately be subject to the Father, including Jesus Christ himself. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Do you understand now?

How do you explain 1 Corinthians 8:6 in terms of your definition of God?

Kind regards

Arvind’s response 9/12/16:

So are you also god?

My response 9/12/16:

All who receive the Spirit of adoption are children of God. I am an adopted child of God and I call Him Father.
Now, for the fourth time, please answer my question. How does your definition of God fit with 1 Cor 8:6? Why are you being so evasive? Surely if your definition is scriptural and in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ you should have no difficulty in explaining it?

Arvinds response 10/12/.16

Sorry for not answering your question about 1 Cor 8:6 – I wasn’t trying to be evasive, I just got caught up in trying to understand what you believe and so missed answering your question. It’s interesting that you ask about 1 Cor 8:6, it is actually a very precious verse for me. Paul is here contrasting the ‘many gods’ and ‘many lords’ of the pagans with the one God and Lord of Christianity. Of course God and Lord are equivalent terms for Paul – there is only God, who is the Lord of heaven and earth (e.g. Deut 6:4-5). I hope you wouldn’t disagree with me on this point – again, Paul’s whole point in this verse is to contrast the ‘one God’ of Christianity with the ‘many gods’ of the other religions (not the ‘two gods’ of Christianity and the ‘many gods’ of the other religions). So this actually turns out to be a very ‘Trinitarian’ verse – the Father is God, the Lord Jesus is God, and yet within this one God, the Father and Son are distinct from one another. They also have different roles within the Godhead – all things come ‘from’ the Father and are ‘for’ Him, but it all happens ‘through’ the Son.

Do you read this verse differently? How do you understand it?

I must confess that I’m still a little confused about what you believe about all this, and how it differs from what I believe. You said earlier that you wanted to ‘convince’ me that I am ‘deceived’ in my belief in the Trinity, but that is going to be difficult to do if I don’t even understand what you believe! Probably we can at least begin to make progress if you can give me a clear answer to this question: how many Gods/gods are there?

Blessings in Christ,
Arvind

My response on 11/12/16
Arvind, you said:

“So this actually turns out to be a very ‘Trinitarian’ verse – the Father is God, the Lord Jesus is God, and yet within this one God, the Father and Son are distinct from one another. They also have different roles within the Godhead – all things come ‘from’ the Father and are ‘for’ Him, but it all happens ‘through’ the Son….”
“…I must confess that I’m still a little confused about what you believe about all this, and how it differs from what I believe”.

I say:

You still do not understand.
How is this a ” ‘Trinitarian’ verse”, as you claim, the same? How does it jump from ‘but to us there is one God the Father’ to ‘the Father is God, the Lord Jesus is God’? That meaning cannot be derived from this verse at at all. What happened to your “God the Holy Spirit”? In your definition, your “triune” god is three co-equal and co-eternal persons, “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Instead, Paul reminds us that there is BUT one God, the FATHER. It is quite clear that Paul does not consider the Father and the Son as equal. Neither does the Son.

But if you say that rest of scripture says this, you are again mistaken.

You see, you are forgetting that Jesus also says he has a God, and this God is his Father. Does it says in scripture that the Father has a God? Of course not, because the Father is the Most High, the Supreme God. Which means He is above Jesus, because He is the God of Jesus, which means they cannot be equal. The Father is the head of Jesus, just as Jesus is the head of the Church. Surely you know this? What is so difficult to understand? It’s really very simple and straightforward. God is not the author of confusion.

When Paul applies the word ‘Lord’ to Jesus in 1 Cor 8:6, it is used in the context of Acts 2:36:

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God HATH MADE the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

And Acts 2:34-35:

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

So, the Father is also ‘Lord’, and since he has MADE Jesus a Lord, He is also the Lord of Jesus -but Paul has stated it in this manner to differentiate between the Father and the Son. God the Father conferred Lordship on Jesus. Which means the Father is greater in authority than Jesus. Jesus said ‘The Father is greater than I’. Although the Father is the Lord and God of Jesus, the word ‘Lord’ which Paul uses in 1 Cor 8:6 is not referring to the Father, but to the Son.
This is where you are confused. It must be- or else you are saying the Father is the Son!

So Paul is very clearly stating that the Father is the one true God and that the Son is not.

Paul reiterates this in his opening of address of his letter 2 Cor 1:3:

Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

So does Peter in 1 Peter 1:3:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

Now it should be obvious that this God mentioned above cannot be Jesus, because we are told that it is his Father. So we know that Jesus has a God, who is his Father.

1 Cor 8:6
6 But to us there is BUT one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in HIM;

and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Please note that the ‘one God’, the Father, is referred to in the third person, singular.

Do you see now why your definition of the trinity does not fit?

Arvinds response on 11/12/16
Thanks for your reply. Please also answer the question I asked: how many Gods/gods are there?

Sent from my iPhone

My reply on 11/12/16
Ok I thought I had already made that clear in all my mails. There is one true God, the Father and Jesus is the Son of God….Jesus acknowledges his Father is the true God. As I proved in my previous mails, those who have the Spirit of adoption are children of God. They may also be referred to as ‘gods’ according to scripture, but the one true God is the Father; Jesus did not preach another God but the same since the beginning, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, i.e. the God who sent him.

Arvind’s response on 12/12/16
So the Father is the ‘true God’, but there are other lesser ‘gods’ as well, such as Jesus and all of God’s adopted children (like you, and possibly me too ). So isn’t it correct to say that you are a polytheist?

My response on 12/12/16
No, it is not correct to say that I am a polytheist, because for me the one true God is the Father, and I worship Him only through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Many Jews at the time of Christ also mistakenly levelled the same accusation at the early Christians and claimed that by calling Jesus the Son of God, the Christians were worshipping another god and advocating polytheism.; but this is clearly wrong because Jesus himself preached worship of the one true God, his Father, and stated that no one could gain access to the Father except through the Son. This is why the Son is called the mediator between God and Man. This Is why the Son taught us how to pray to the Father and why he constantly prayed to the Father also. Ultimately Jesus Christ will return everything to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.

Do you understand now?

Here’s a question for you- an easy one for any child of God but one which will cause palpitations for the believer in a ‘triune god’and the roman catholic doctrine of the trinity:

Who is the Most High God?

My mail again to Arvind after no response:

1 Peter 3:15 kJV

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

In the same spirit that I have shown, please answer the question I had asked you in my previous mail:

Who is the Most High God?

Arvind’s reply on 20/12/16

Sorry for the slow reply, we have been extremely busy with many programmes going on at the church this month!

I’m sorry for this, but after much reflection and prayer I think this will most likely be my last communication with you on this subject. I’ve enjoyed discussing this extremely important matter with you over email, but at this point I think it looks highly unlikely that either of us will convince the other of our positions on this issue. So at this point I think it’s best to end the discussion, and trust that God will give both of us more light in due time (along with humble hearts to receive it!). I hope this is OK with you.

In regards to the question you asked, I believe that the Most High God is the one, infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, Creator, Sustainer, compassionate, kind, slow to anger, abounding in love, who doesn’t share His glory with another. This is in fact one of the reasons that I can not accept the views that you’ve shared with me over the course of this email exchange, because if the Father and the Son are indeed two completely separate beings, then it is unthinkable to “call the Son a God, and to also honour him as the Father, the true God, is honoured” (as you stated in one of your previous emails). The Most High God does not share His glory with any other (Isa 48:11), unless that ‘other’ is also the Most High God. To call anyone ‘God’, and to honour anyone as we honour the Most High God, is actually blasphemy – unless again that other being is also the Most High God.

By the way another reason I can not accept your views on these matters is that you seem to use the word ‘god’/’God’ very casually, in that Jesus is a god/God, and those who are adopted as children of God are also somehow ‘gods’. But the Most High God makes it very clear that we shall have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7), and thus you again seem to be advocating a position that is clearly incorrect (and even blasphemous). These are extremely grave and serious errors! It’s hard to understand how you can believe what the Bible teaches about the Most High God, and yet continue to promote such views. Please be careful- our God is a jealous God (Ex 34:14)!

Anyway you can please feel free to respond, but as I mentioned above this will hopefully be my last communication to you on this subject (though I would certainly be happy to be in touch about other matters of course!). Thanks for the discussion we’ve had, it was interesting and thought-provoking for me. Hope to see you again soon sometime, please be in touch. All the best, and God bless you!

In Christ,
Arvind

My response to Arvind 20/12/16
Arvind,

Our discussion highlights the blasphemy of a ‘triune god’ and the trinity as described by the Roman Catholic church. You proved it:

I had asked you a simple question, “Who is the Most High God?”. The answer in the Bible is, of course, the Father, the God of Jesus. Yet you could not answer this, because you know that if you said “the Father”, your doctrine of the trinity cannot be true. The ‘Most High God’ means there is no co-equality, and that He is One. Deep down, you know this. Instead of answering my question, you furnish me with details of His nature, not who He is. This tells me that you do not know who God is, or His name. This is what the Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity aims to achieve- a misunderstanding of the Most High God and who He is. Why do you think the RC church recently advocated removing the name of Yahweh?

You then accuse me of blasphemy, for repeating what Jesus himself commanded us to do, as I had pointed out earlier:

John 5:23

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Jesus said exactly what I said. Are you accusing Jesus of blasphemy as well?

Please explain. If this is what you believe then you will not inherit eternal life.

Incredulously, you go on to say:

“…if the Father and the Son are indeed two completely separate beings, then it is unthinkable to “call the Son a God, and to also honour him as the Father, the true God, is honoured” (as you stated in one of your previous emails)…”

I say: yet in your own doctrine of the trinity you tell me that the Son is 100% God and that he is distinct!!

Would you care to explain?

You said: “The Most High God does not share His glory with any other (Isa 48:11), unless that ‘other’ is also the Most High God.”

I say: So now you are saying that there are TWO Most High Gods?? This is ridiculous- and also blasphemy.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Regarding Isaiah 48:11, you have taken it out of context.

11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

let’s look at the context:

Isaiah 48
3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them….

9 For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off…..
11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

This is a confirmation of Isaiah 42:8:
8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

It is clear here that the Most High God is talking about IDOLS, not His Son and the children of God. Remember, the Most High anointed His Son with the Holy Spirit.

John 17:22
22 And the GLORY WHICH THOU GAVEST ME I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Romans 8:14:17

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also GLORIFIED together.

Also:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the GLORY which I had WITH thee before the world was.

So we see that God does give and does share his glory with His sons. Or do you wish to deny scripture? Please explain.

Do you understand now?

You said: “To call anyone ‘God’, and to honour anyone as we honour the Most High God, is actually blasphemy – unless again that other being is also the Most High God.”

I say: I did not say ‘anyone’, I said ‘Jesus’, as he commanded. John 5:23

As for explaining what I mean by a god/God, I have done so now several times and provided the scripture references, see also Romans 8:14-17 again, above. Please read through all the scripture references again. Denying them is to deny the prophets, the apostles and Christ.

You said:”But the Most High God makes it very clear that we shall have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7), and thus you again seem to be advocating a position that is clearly incorrect (and even blasphemous)”

I say: My stance is totally biblical and I explained what I mean very clearly in my last mail, please read it again.

Arvind, so far, all I have gleaned from your replies is that you do not know who the Most High God is. When you accept what Jesus says in the Bible we will be able to make progress. Until then, you are in the dark. I hope and pray that you will come to the light and truth. Your doctrine is false, look at it again.

Tom & John

RC Trinitarians say that their ‘one triune god’ is made up of three persons , the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and they say that without anyone of these ‘persons’ there is no God. They say that the Holy Spirit is one person because of the singular masculine pronoun used, yet they fail to accept this when God the Father, the one true God, is described with singular pronouns. For that matter, when they claim Jesus is God, what exactly do they mean? The mind boggles! On one hand they expect us to believe that God is three persons, and on on the other that he is one!! On one hand they accept a singular pronoun, and on the other they do not.

Tell me , how do you read this statement?

Tom is John’s Dad. John is Tom’s son. Tom is also the Boss, and his son John works for him. John is sent to another branch by his Dad to see if the staff are doing their work properly. Tom has given John his blessing and authority- he has given power to him, to act in his place, by way of a letter of authority. John arrives at the branch and the workers see the Boss’s son. John tells them his Dad has sent him to check on them, and that he will report back to him, and as a proof of this he shows them his letter of authority. The staff acknowledge John is their boss, and they call him their boss. Which is right and proper, because he is, however, John points out to them that although he is their boss and they are right to honour him as boss, the true Boss is his Dad, and that they should always remember this and that he must do what his Dad has asked him to do and return back and give an account to him.

Q. Who is the one true Boss?

RC Trinitarian answer:

“The one true Boss is Tom, John and the Letter of Authority. Each one is Boss and they are each the same, co-equal and co-eternal, and all-knowing, and without any one of them there is no Boss. However, it should be noted, they are not three Bosses, but one Boss. Capiche?”
O RC Trinitarian! Did you bang your head? But this does not make any sense…it does not say that at all!

“My son, this can easily be deduced from the text…ten scholars agree with me and I have a PhD in Finance and Science Fiction..but it is not for man to understand it…it is not for man to understand the deep things of Boss.”

But, RC Trinitarian, it says the one true Boss is Tom, and Tom only! In fact, John even says so! But you are saying the one true Boss is Tom, John and the Letter of Authority, and each one is the Boss, and if any one of these is not present, then no one is the Boss! How can this be?

“Foolish child, do not question this, you will never understand it, just believe…now do you understand why it is said that it is impossible to please the Boss without faith? Have faith, and believe! Your Salvation depends upon it!”

Ah yes…thank you, I see now, the one Triune Boss in all his splendour..in trinity with stupidity and ignominy, forever blessed by adoring and ignorant…et cetera, et cetera… and all things tripe.

“God The Son”

“God The Son”, they say.

“Co-equal and co-eternal”, they say.

What does this mean?

Didn’t Jesus say that he is “The Son of God”? -Which makes perfect sense, considering he says he has a Father who he claims is the only true God.

But “God the Son” and “Co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father”?

Didn’t Jesus say, “The Father is greater than I”?

Didn’t Jesus say, “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”

Yet some say he is God Almighty, others say he is equal to God Almighty…so why doesn’t he know? Even though he is at God’s right hand now, he still waits for his Father’s command.

Didn’t Jesus also say,

John 5:37 “Besides, the Father who sent me bears witness to me himself. You have never heard his voice, you have never seen his shape,
5:38 and his word finds no home in you because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.”

Didn’t the prophet Isaiah, speaking for God say, ” After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.”

My righteous servant?! What happened to “co-eternal and co-equal”??

Didn’t the apostle Paul also say:

1 Timothy 6:13-16 NJB

Now, before God, the source of all life, and before Jesus Christ, who witnessed to his noble profession of faith before Pontius Pilate, I charge you
to do all that you have been told, with no faults or failures, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who at the due time will be revealed by God, the blessed and only Ruler of all, the King of kings and the Lord of lords,
who alone is immortal, whose home is in inaccessible light, whom no human being has seen or is able to see
: to him be honour and everlasting power. Amen.
One can go on and on with examples,

And yet still these people still say,

“God the Son”,

“Co-equal and eternal”

What these people are saying is that Christ did not really die. Think about it.

 

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Their teaching denies the testimony the Father gives of the Son and the testimony the Son gives of the Father.

Their teaching is false.

Their teaching is antichrist.

And where did this false teaching originate, which has been promoted through torture, bloodshed and death and is now taught in the majority of churches?

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church, the false church of Revelation.

And no wonder, its leaders claim to be ‘Vicars (meaning ‘substitute for’ or ‘in place of’) of Christ’. In other words, Antichrists.

Against Roman Catholicism – Understanding the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist (Thanksgiving Meal) by looking at its context and meaning within the New Testament

 

As always, one looks to the Bible, the source book for all matters of doctrine. Thankfully, the meaning is very easy to discern and requires only reading the relevant passages in the Bible. How Roman Catholic’s manage to make such a mess of it with their Doctrine of Transubstantiation beggars belief.

Please take the time to prayerfully read through the following passages. To be read with my other related post, ‘Against Roman Catholicism – Refuting Transubstantiation’.

We look at the key statements by Jesus and others in the Gospels:

The Gospel of John-The Meeting with Nicodemus

John 3:3-7 KJV

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Now, we all know that Jesus did not mean that we should ‘enter the second time into the mother’s womb, and be born’- he was talking spiritually. He was stating that a man must be spiritually renewed with the spirit of God, not that he must be physically reborn.

From this we can see that Jesus does not always explain himself, but he allows the hearer to consider his statement.

The Gospel of John-The Woman at the Well

Continuing with the Gospel of John, not long after Jesus meeting with Nicodemus, the account moves on to his meeting the woman at the well:

John 4:10-14 KJV

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If though knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11The women saith unto him, Sir thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

 

As we read the extracts from John 4 above, it becomes crystal clear that Jesus is talking spiritually. He speaks of ‘Living Water’. He does not mean literal water, he is speaking of the spirit. Do we really believe that he means that a literal well of water will be found inside the person’s belly? Of course not!

John 4:23 KJV

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Immediately after this, his disciples came to him.

John 4:31-36 KJV

31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Again, in John 4:31-36, Jesus makes himself crystal clear:

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

As we continue with John’s Gospel, we find that salvation is found simply by hearing Jesus’ word and believing on his Father who sent him:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death unto life.

No talk of eating literal flesh and literal blood as per the Roman Catholic formula here!

Continuing with the Gospel of John, we discover that John 5:24 is repeated at John 6:29 below; the work of God (hence our ‘meat’ or ‘food’ or ‘bread’ is the work of God) is to believe on him whom he has sent. We know from John 4:34 that Jesus saith unto them, My meat (food) is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work’.

Gospel of John cont’d:

John 6:26KJV Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might do the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30They said unto therefore unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

John7:16 KJV

Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

From the above, we now understand the meaning of John 6:55 from John 4:31-36, Matthew 16:6-8, 11-12 and Luke 12:1. We can see that it is absolutely false to say that the Eucharist is the literal physical flesh and the literal physical blood of Jesus Christ.

Again, note the similarity of the account of the Woman at the Well and the Bread of Life narrative. In John 6:51 above, Jesus says he is the Living Bread.  So if Roman Catholic’s are to take this literally and not symbolically, then they must decide what he is- is he the Living Water or the Living Bread?

We’ve all heard the expression, ‘Food for thought’, and we all know what it means. Roman Catholic’s, however, have great difficulty grasping this concept.

John’s Gospel is unique among the four gospels in that there is no account of the Last Supper and yet he says:

John 20:30-31 KJV

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ: and that believing you might have life through his name

 

The Gospel of Matthew- The leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees

Similarly, Jesus was talking spiritually in:

Matthew 16:6-8, 11-12 KJV

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And they reasoned amongst themselves, saying, it is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Here, Christ himself unequivocally equates bread/leaven with DOCTRINE, not physical bread/food/ literal flesh/literal blood. In this instance, he explains himself to his disciples.

Matthew clearly understood what the Eucharist was to signify, and he again makes it very clear in his account of the Last Supper:

 

The Gospel of Matthew-The Last Supper

Matthew 26:26-29 KJV:

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom

Clearly, Jesus is speaking symbolically here:

Verse 28 says ‘this is my blood,…which is SHED for many…’.

This cannot be literal blood as Jesus had yet to suffer on the Cross. This is ‘spiritual blood’, not physical, literal blood.

We are told in the Bible that Jesus came in the flesh, that is, he had a human body. From the gospel accounts, there is nothing to suggest that the bread which Jesus called his ‘Body’, was made by anything else but human hands.

For the Roman Catholic tale of literal blood to be even half believable, there would have to be an account in the gospels which says that Jesus tore a chunk of his own flesh from his own body (and which was not plucked out of mid air) in front of his disciples, immediately turned it into bread, and then informed them that this was now his body and blood in an ‘unbloody manner’- as per the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Of course, there isn’t such an account, because it just didn’t happen- the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a work of pure fiction.

Verse 29 says ‘I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine’

Just before he said this, he had called it his blood. So in verse 28 he calls it his ‘blood’ and in verse 29 he calls it ‘this fruit of the vine’. Clearly then, it is symbolic of his blood which would be shed on the Cross.

A virtually identical account is given in the Gospel of Mark 14:22-25 KJV.

In the Gospel of Luke 21:15-21KJV, Luke goes even further and in verse 19 says that Christ said ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ and in verse 20, he says ‘..This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’. If this is to be taken literally, shouldn’t RC’s be taking a nibble at the communion cup as well?

 

The Apostle Paul’s account of the Last Supper

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, before he gives his account of the Last Supper, he says:

1 Corinthians 10:1-5, 14-17  KJV:

1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness….

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

15 I speak to wise men: judge ye what I say.

16 The cup of the blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

 17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Here, Paul continues to say that ‘the cup of the blessing’ and the ‘bread which we break’ means fellowship with Christ.

The analogy comes after and clearly follows from verses 3 and 4, and is clearly referring to them, where the fathers are said to ‘eat the SAME spiritual meat’ and ‘drink the SAME spiritual drink’ of Christ.

Note also verse 17 ‘For we being many are ONE bread, and ONE body: for we are ALL partakers of that ONE bread.’

Hebrews 13:8 KJV

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

So what does the apostle Paul say about the Last Supper?

1 Corinthians11 KJV:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread;

24 And when he had given thanks. He brake it, and said., Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Paul clearly views the Eucharist as a celebration of Christ’s Passion, a thanksgiving and remembrance meal, in anticipation of his coming again.

Note, if the Body and Blood is to be taken literally and not symbolically, then verse 25 says that Jesus drank from the cup – if this is literal blood, then was Jesus drinking his own blood?

However, immediately after, in verse 26, Paul says Jesus referred to his body and his blood as this ‘bread’, and this ‘cup’. Clearly, the bread and the cup are symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice.

In verse 29,they are ‘not discerning the Lord’s Body’. What does he mean here? Why does he say it?

In all the physical attributes of the bread, it is corruptible- it is bread- it looks the same and tastes the same as any piece of bread, so the discernment must therefore be spiritual, not physical. He says it is not common bread because it has been blessed and is holy because. it symbolises Christ’s Passion/Sacrifice, and those partaking of it must eat it recognising the fact that it is a celebration and thanksgiving meal, in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, his resurrection and his coming again. We are spiritually nourished by this ‘spiritual meat and spiritual drink’ when we celebrate Christ’s Passion and recall to mind his teaching and do his will. Those who eat and drink unworthily are those who do not respect or believe the reason for the Eucharist and consider it common bread and not holy.

We already know from Matthew 16:6-8 above that when Jesus used the term ‘leaven’ or ‘bread’ it can also mean ‘Doctrine’ or ‘Teaching’. It is true to say that Jesus’ life contained the New Testament doctrine. When we follow his teaching, he dwells in us and we dwell in him.

Therefore, if, as the Roman Catholic’s believe, Jesus was talking about his literal flesh and literal blood, they must then answer the following insurmountable problems:

1. How did Jesus shed blood and give it to his disciples before his crucifixion?

2. If it is his literal blood, Jesus drank his own blood with his disciples?

3. Will Jesus drink his own blood with his disciples when he comes into his Father’s kingdom?

4. Jesus and his disciples must be cannibals (On this issue, see Fragment 13- Irenaeus, in my post ‘Against Roman Catholicism – Refuting Transubstantiation’ )

Final Thoughts

Luke 23:39-43 KJV

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

We know that this criminal had not taken any eucharistic meal.

Matthew 4:1-11 KJV

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

 The Doctrine of Transubstantiation- How does it stack up in the light of the Bible?

We have studied the accounts of the Last Supper and the other related passages and we can see below that this doctrine is not found in the Bible.

Just like the Roman Catholic Trinity doctrine, it is a work of fiction. When scrutinized by anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Bible, it falls apart.

Let’s see what the Roman Catholic’s claim, by looking at catechisms from the Vatican’s own website:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

 

Critical Analysis

 

It does not take long to see that the Roman Catholic’s have departed from the true faith.

Their own Catechisms contradict each other (bold emphasis mine).

Catechism 1364 says ‘…”As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed‘ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”

Catechism 1365 says ‘…the Eucharist is also a sacrifice’

Catechism 1367 says ‘…The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:The victim is one and the same

If the victim is one and the same, then in Roman Catholic  doctrine, the victim is being sacrificed again each time the Eucharist is celebrated.

Catechism 1367 says ‘…the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

In this catechism, the Roman Catholic’s have out done themselves. If it is an ‘unbloody sacrifice’, then it cannot be the literal, physical blood of Jesus as they maintain, period.

In fact, if it is ‘unbloody’, then it is not even blood- whether literal or spiritual! Of course, they mean it is actual blood, which is not actual blood- rather like another one of their inventions- their Roman Catholic Trinity doctrine, which makes ‘three Gods equal to one God, but not one God equal to three Gods’. Or as one great Roman Catholic once told me,  1+1+1 = 1. Get it?

What the Bible says

No amount of artful dodgery and playing with words, can hide the fact that the Roman Catholic church makes the ‘once for all sacrifice’ of Christ into a farce- a daily sacrifice of Christ which must be repeated again and again continually at the altar for remission of sins. This is in complete contradiction to the Bible.

Hebrews 7:26-27 KJV

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but unto heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Final Thoughts and Conclusion

 

The choice is clear, to follow the teaching of Jesus in the Bible, or to depart from it and follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.

Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees!

Against Roman Catholicism – Refuting Transubstantiation

Against Roman Catholicism- Refuting Transubstantiation

Below follows my responses to three Roman Catholics on a Roman Catholic apologetic website, where I refute the Roman catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Names have been changed for the purposes of this article.

MY RESPONSE:

Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 KJV
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. John 6:56 KJV
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 KJV
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:61 KJV
What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? John 6:62 KJV
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 KJV

It is very clearly written in the Bible. Jesus clarified what he was saying for the benefit of those disciples who did not understand. Irenaeus merely affirms this in Fragment 13.
Quite simply, the Bread and the Wine are a symbolic and spiritual food and drink. Why else would Hippolytus note that Peter and Paul convinced two Jews, Mark the evangelist bishop of Alexandria and Luke the evangelist to come back and join them? They were disciples and of the Seventy, but left because they were offended at ‘eat my body and blood’ teaching.

Every time we eat the bread and drink the wine with faith and thankgiving, we feed on Jesus spiritually and become spiritually nourished, provided we remain in his teaching and do his will. In response to his disciples Jesus said, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing, my words are spirit and they are life’.
And so the bread is blessed with the word of God and by this act becomes holy.

John tells us that the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so the word is the spiritual body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and so we do not treat them as ordinary bread, but we respect what they represent.

Jesus said that his food was to do the will of the one who sent him and to finish his task, and so as we eat the bread and drink the wine as he commanded, we remember him, follow his doctrine, believe and do his will, so we too in our turn are spiritually nourished, feeding on his word in our hearts, the true leaven of Christ. So the food at thanksgiving is both earthly and heavenly, as Irenaeus also affirmed. As the bread and the wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ and are made holy by the word of God, by eating with thanksgiving, we partake of the spiritual body and blood of Christ- we receive spiritual meat and drink. Christ dwells in us, that is, he is spiritually present in our hearts. Remember, he said that when two or three are gathered together in his name, he is there amongst them. He was talking spiritually. And that is exactly what he was trying to convey when he said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. This is what Jesus meant when he said he is the Living Bread-do not labour for food which perishes but that which leads to eternal life.

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And they reasoned amongst themselves, saying, it is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Matthew 16:6-8 KJV
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Matthew 16:11-12 KJV

It is important to realise that the apostles, Irenaeus, and the early church fathers did not understand the eucharist in the terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation as formulated by the Roman Catholic church.

Roman catholic 1 says:
Yes, but Ireneaus also talks about the bread not longer being common bread. So it is more than symbolic…

MY RESPONSE:

It is no longer ‘common bread’ because it symbolises Christ’s Body, and that is why we are admonished to eat the bread worthily and with respect, recognising the sacrifice Christ made for us. This bread is not meant to be taken lightly and without due regard to this.

Roman catholic 2 response to me:

What do you mean by “symbolizes”? The point I think that is being made is that the bread and wine are not mere “symbols” but the real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Luke 22:19-22 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

Roman Catholic 2 says:

This change is made possible by the Holy Spirit together with God the Father, One God in essence and undivided.

Roman Catholic 2 says:

The bread and wine are consecrated at all Divine Liturgies before God and the community of the Church share Holy Communion.

Roman Catholic 3 says:

I agree that for early Christians the Eucharist is more than symbolic. Justin believes that the bread and the wine are “consecrated by the word of prayer” and become “flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus”. It is confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyon who in the same century states: “The mixed cup and the bread that has been prepared receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ.”The next century Apostolic Tradition tells us that the bishop gives the bread with the words: “The bread of heaven in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, we cannot say they believed in transsubstantiation…Early christians did not have a compultion to explain everything, like we have in contemporary times. Instead, they saw it as a mistery, comparing it to the mistery of Incarnation:They could say today: “We do not know how exactly it is happening, the same, we don’t know how Christ can be fully divine and fully human. But we receive it by faith, and just benefit from the presence of God in the elements of bread and wine.”.
Simple Eucharistic liturgies of the second century descended into different liturgical families around the Mediterranean. The East emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit who is invoked over the elements and “may come upon them…and make this bread the holy body of Christ.” Bishop Cyril reflected: “for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is sanctified and changed.” The West emphasized the power of the words of institution in the consecration moment: “the priest no longer uses his own words, but he uses the words of Christ. Therefore the word of Christ makes this Sacrament”, says Ambrose of Milan. Therefore the emphasis is on the second person of the Trinity, not as in the Eastern Church on the Third.
We see that even if the churches differed in their liturgies and emphasized different theological truths (Holy Spirit, the Word) they kept the Eucharist in the center of their worship believing that Christ is present among believers in the bread and wine.

Roman Catholic 1 says:

I agree. Thanks for you comment.

MY RESPONSE:

Roman Catholics 1, 2 and 3,

I’m afraid you missed the point I was trying to illustrate in Matthew 16:11-12 KJV above…

Christ is present in spirit when we break bread in his name, provided we believe his teaching and try and follow it. If we do not believe his teaching and follow other doctrines, yet still eat the bread, we do not respect him or his doctrine and may expect to be judged accordingly.

To believe that Christ is present in the actual wafer or bread itself, or that the actual wafer or bread is Christ crucified is to misinterpret the meaning intended in the Gospels.

Fragment 13 From the Lost Writings of Irenaeus (New Advent Translation):

13

‘For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”

Irenaeus makes it clear the bread is NOT the actual flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ