A few days before Lent I had an interesting discussion with a certain Mormon gentleman who commented on my Facebook status 'Carmenn has now joined the group Ask A Mormon What They Really Believe'. In the spirit of the group I began asking Mormons questions and eventually got banned (can't imagine why though....and none of my questions got answered). Anyways, from this certain Mormon's commenting on my status, the discussion arose. Actually, it began with a good friend of mine Wyatt asking about Mormonism and what it teaches. When he and another good friend, Jaclyn, began commenting, the Mormon gentleman added in his 2 cents and what resulted is the following dialogue.
Am I the most perfect debater against Mormonism? Of course not! I have never claimed to be. However I'd like to post these dialogues and hope they will be educational if only in seeing how the cultist's mind functions. The smartest people on the planet can be the most irrational when it comes to the deceptive religion their being fed. I ask that you continue keeping this gentleman in your prayers.
DIALOGUE
Wyatt John-Ewen MacRae at 5:37am February 16
Well what is it what do they believe?
Carmenn Massa at 10:55am February 16
Everything contrary to orthodox Christianity. They use the same words, phrases, and language that we do, but they have changed the terminology to mean entirely different things. Salvation to them is exaltation to godhood, to be worshiped as a supreme deity over their own worlds. Jesus Christ as the Son of God is meant that He is merely our first born spirit brother in heaven, who God happened to choose to become the Savior and a god. The Virgin Birth means God had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus. Theres so much more, but i think you get the point :)
Wyatt John-Ewen MacRae at 10:58am February 16
That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. That is so not true; wow they need a serious wake up call.
Carmenn Massa at 11:09am February 16
This is what happens when people fellow men instead of Christ. It's leading them straight into hell. I'll give them this though, the doctrine of exaltation to godhood is quite biblical. unfortunately it originated with Satan.......
Wyatt John-Ewen MacRae at 11:12am February 16
Yeah, that is quite unfortunate. Yhe last thing we want to do is make the devil power hungry.
Jaclyn Langman at 10:17am February 17
mm.....that is interesting carm. I should really look into what other people believe...it'd help so much when defending and presenting the Christian faith. I've met a few Mormons at camp and counselled one.
Todd Swift
Wyatt, I would suggest if you want to know what a Mormon believes ask one of them. Carmenn would have you believe all sorts of half truths and distortions. I do not mind if he refuses to believe what we teach, but the man is seriously a straw-man fallacy when it comes to debating other people's faith. We may disagree on many points of doctrine, but he refuses to agree with the simple fact that we are on the same side with Christ fighting against Satan. I cannot understand how a person claims to be Christian yet refuses to accept allies. Christ taught us to love our enemies, Carmenn teaches you to make enemies out of His friends.
Todd Swift at 8:45am February 20
No we do not claim that God had physical sex with Mary. Carmenn has the mind of a three year old on this issue.
Carmenn Massa at 5:01pm February 20really pal then I'm sure Bruce mconkie, Brigham young, and the rest of your prophets had the minds of three year olds on this issue. its all from your own sources.
jayce, you'll find most Mormon don't know what their church teaches and many, if you tell them you have their own documents, wont bother looking into it. its sad actually. sadder still, is when Mormons claim to be Christian, which they most certaintly are not. so Todd, about loving your enemies, this is exactly why i go against Mormonism, because i love Mormons and your doctrines are sending to you to someplace other than heaven. it was your church who damned all other churches as the Devil's Church, so i find it ironic that now you demand all churches view yours as Christians. like i said, it is sad, but because we love you for Christ we'll continue doing what we do.
Carmenn Massa at 2:05am February 21just for clarification on the virgin birth thing:
"Christ was begotten by an immortal Father the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." - Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (1979), p. 547
"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 822)
When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven... Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50, 51)
Todd Swift at 2:05am February 21Carmenn demonstrates here exactly why you shouldn't take anything he says about us seriously. He is a bigot. He does not pray for those who need Jesus, but rather rails against those who believe they have found Jesus. His love for himself is greater than his love for God.
Carmenn Massa at 2:07am February 21"I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the only-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 238)
"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, 8:211)
Todd Swift at 2:08am February 21None of those quotes demonstrate that God had physical sex with Mary, but rather state that she was a virgin. Jesus was COMPOSED of a mortal mother and immortal Father, in the same way you are composed of both mortal parents. How you conclude that this means God had sex with Mary is evidence that your maturity level does not extend beyond the second grade.
Todd Swift at 2:10am February 21We believe His birth was of a virgin, though He was begotten of God. It was one of the many miracles by which God's Son glorified Him.
Carmenn Massa at 2:12am February 21Hmm i dont pray for those who need Jesus, todd? So now you know my heart and all that I do? If I didnt know any better Id say you were a bit "put out", pierced by a two edged sword of truth, perhaps? Let's see now, so far you have done absolutely nothing but use ad hominem in these comments, essentially calling me stupid, a bigot, a liar, and un-Christian. Now all I have done is present you with facts, both from the Scriptures and from your own sources to prove what i say is correct concerning the false doctrines of the LDS. For your information, Todd, a few of my friends as well as myself have been keeping you and other mormons in prayer ever since we met. My question is why are you mad at me? You dont call a man a bigot and a liar unless you're mad at him, and todd you can be angry and filled with hate as much as you want but that will not stop me from loving you for Jesus
Todd Swift at 2:13am February 21beget
verb 1. (Old-fashioned) cause, bring, produce, create, effect, lead to, occasion, result in, generate, provoke, induce, bring about, give rise to, precipitate, incite, engender
verb 2. father, breed, generate, sire, get, propagate, procreate
Modern science makes it possible for men to father children without ever having sex with the mother. If modern science can do it , why can't God?
Todd Swift at 2:13am February 21The truth is not in you. Otherwise you would not make blatant lies as I have revealed for your friends
Todd Swift at 2:15am February 21I do not have to be mad at you to know you lie. I am sad that in spite of my best efforts to speak reasonably with you, you refuse to properly represent my faith.
Carmenn Massa at 2:16am February 21"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, 8:211)
that doesnt demonstrate natural birth, todd? why not let the others decide who will most likely be getting emails in their inboxes that people have left comments after theirs. what about this one todd?
"God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him, 'Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' - Orson Pratt, (The Seer, pp. 158-9)
no matter how you look at it, this doctrine was taught explicitly in the LDS, and has never been denounced to this day
Todd Swift at 2:16am February 21Carmenn, we all need Jesus. Have you kept yourself in your prayers, or have you risen above the need?
Todd Swift at 2:19am February 21
Of course, I do not deny what our church teaches about Christ being the Only Begotten Son. If what we say is so repulsive, why do you deny it is in the Bible, that Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father? Once you have a definition for what that means, you will have a definition what our doctrine you've presented means.
Carmenn Massa at 2:21am February 21"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior." - "The Father and The Son; A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve"
the "blatant lies" i make are quoted verbatim from your own sources todd, so that should tell you something. im actually quite glad you are commenting the way you are in this status, because all ive done is quote your own authoritivate sources, which agree with what i say, and you have provided absolutly nothing in defense of your denial, except the definition of "begotten" which unfortuantly does not help your position.
Todd Swift at 2:21am February 21I never called you stupid. If you were stupid I would not be trying to set you straight. You are stubborn and prideful. That is a sin, stupid is not. I have declared your sins, not your shortcomings.
Todd Swift at 2:23am February 21You said, "God had physical sex with Mary". That is NOT quoted verbatim. Even in decrying your own lies, you lie.
Todd Swift at 2:24am February 21In all of this you are only denying what the Scriptures teach, that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God.
Carmenn Massa at 2:27am February 21todd, as ive explained once, ive explained a billion times, "only begotten" in the context of Scripture, concerning Christ, does not mean physical in any way. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Christ was ALWAYS there with the Father, never being created, never was there a time when He did not exist. In fact modern translations translate it more accuratly as "one and only Son", showing that Christ is the only true Son of God, being God Himself in the second Person. any Christian gets this without any problem
Carmenn Massa at 2:31am February 21You said, "God had physical sex with Mary". That is NOT quoted verbatim. Even in decrying your own lies, you lie.
oh please todd, you know exactly what i meant when i said i quoted verbatim your own sources. your apostles and prophets have said God had sex with mary to produce Jesus Christ. if you dont think my paraphrasing all those quotes into one sentence is inaccurate, then i cant help you. as for my being prideful, i can assure you there is no pride in my showing you the truth. if you choose to ignore it, thats your issue. you said i had the mind of a three year old, what exactly did u mean to iimply todd? so far you have not dealt at all with the issues, but continue in ad hominem. if you continue doing this then you'll be left to comment all you want, you wont be getting any responses from me until you actually decide to deal with the evidense presented
Todd Swift at 2:32am February 21Do you deny that Christ is the only begotten Son of God?
John 1: 14, 18
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
• • •
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 3: 16, 18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting ilife.
• • •
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Carmenn Massa at 2:36am February 21oh my goodness, look, plain a simple todd. "only begotten" - in greek, MǑNǑGĚNĒS, which simply means "unique, one of a kind, the only", look it up for yourself. So you see Todd, the Scriptures do indeed go against the LDS in this. we just killed two birds with one stone: Christ is the ONLY Son of the Father (guess Christ doesnt havent spirit brothers and sisters, eh?) and the word does not at all imply any physical reproduction. In english the meaning can be muddled
Todd Swift at 2:36am February 21The Book of Mormon teaches that Mary was a virgin both before and after Christ's birth:
1 Nephi 11
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
Notice how in verse 20 she is still a virgin. It cannot be more clear that what we teach is that Christ was begotten of a mortal woman and Immortal Father, though conceived by miraculous means that escape the human mind.
Carmenn Massa at 2:37am February 21You're the one who denies that fact that Christ was never begotten as a spirit child. He always was, having no beginning.
Carmenn Massa at 2:39am February 21you know just as well as i do the book of mormon does not contain the fulness of mormon teaching, you need your prophets as well for your doctrines, which is how you recieved many of your doctrines. face it todd, it was "divine revelation" that led them to believe God had sex with mary to produce Jesus Christ
Todd Swift at 2:39am February 21You still don't understand our teachings. We believe that ALL of us have no beginning as God's spirit children.
Todd Swift at 2:41am February 21
Face it Carmenn, you know we don't teach that, but it is convenient for your unbelief.
Todd Swift at 2:42am February 21
I didn't have a problem when your dishonesty was between you and me, but when you attempt to deceive others, I have to call you on it.
Carmenn Massa at 2:47am February 21
yeah ok, dishonesty, show everything from your own sources in context and somhow thats dishonesty. hmmm, interesting. so far todd youve just proved to anyone reading this that you dont care to face the facts from your own archives, and that goes unfortuabtly for many of your mormon friends. and you even misrepresent the theology on spirit children - God needed Heavenly Mother to produce as spirit children.
Todd Swift at 2:55am February 21
"Natural birth" means born naturally - medically this means a utero birth. Conception and birth are two entirely seperate actions. Christ was begotten of the Father. To "beget" a child means to create, father or sire a child. Christ was conceived miraculously, born naturally, and begotten of Divinity. Mary truly carried a Child in her womb, but her virginity was not voided by the Child being placed therein. Your inability to recognize this is why I discredited your maturity level.
Todd Swift at 2:55am February 21
No, Carmenn. I agree with the quotes, but very strongly with your deduction that they imply sexual intercourse.
Carmenn Massa at 3:13am February 21
but they didnt speak "medically" now did they todd? please, your scramblings for interpretations on very plain, clear, and presise texts are a little more than sad. you go ahead and believe whatever you want, but to anyone who can read, we know exactly what these gentlmen meant when they spoke of mary, God, and Jesus. and once again, never fails, you did not deal with any of the quotes.
Carmenn Massa at 3:14am February 21
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully...He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed.
Todd Swift at 3:15am February 21
And it is you who yet misrepresents our theology on spirit children.
We teach that we were all intelligences, without beginning, whom God organized in Heaven. This act of organization is how we are His spirit children.
Yes we do have a Heavenly Mother. For we all, male and female, are created in the image of God and "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
Reason tells the rational thinker that he cannot have Father without a Mother.
Carmenn Massa at 3:16am February 21
"...As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven" (The Seer, pp. 158-9)
yup, defintly doesnt give a hint of a clue that God and Mary had sex.....my my, Carmenn where do you get such ideas? silly me, i only read the LDS sources....
see todd? now please, for your own sake, look at what youre church is saying. love you for Jesus, may God save you before you drift so far that you dont want to come back.
Todd Swift at 3:18am February 21
Yes, and nowhere in that quote does it say God had sex with Mary, but rather that He overshadowed her, as it says in the Bible. You can only draw your conclusion if you reject our very clear teaching that she was still a virgin after Christ was born.
Todd Swift at 3:20am February 21
Thank you Carmenn, I have drifted, but I now stand upon the Rock who is my Redeemer, Jesus Christ. He is my Elder Brother and my Friend; my Advocate with the Father who's Firstborn in the Spirit and Only Begotten Son in the flesh He is.
Todd Swift at 3:32am February 21
You can lie to yourself, to me and your friends as you have done so today, in the very same manner that Satan presents a lot of facts then adds his own twist of lie, but you will not be able to lie to God when He asks you before His judgement seat why you rejected His servants who sought to correct you, but you refused to be corrected because of pride.
Todd Swift at 3:35am February 21
Or you can repent and become as a little child, humble and willing to follow God even when one of His teachings can be twisted ever so slightly by deceiving spirits to appear repulsive.
Todd Swift at 3:40am February 21
The method of conception was miraculous. The reason God acted in the capacity of husband to Mary was so that Christ could not by any means be perceived as a bastard.
None of this implies that God had to have sex with her. That is a logical fallacious error, especially considering our other teachings surrounding the miracle of His perfect conception and Mary's status of virgin even upon delivering the Son of God into the world.
Carmenn Massa at 3:51am February 21
like i keep saying: read. so far all youre doing is interpreting, im just telling you what your LDS church has said, in context. and todd, got some news for ya buddy, i have repented, which is why i will never join the LDS cult. consistent denial will not help your situation Todd, but like i say, as long as you keep attacking Christendom with your false doctrines, we will continue fighting back. you should take your own advice. as for me, i will walk with Jesus Christ, who is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father, God the Son, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. If you ever want me to become LDS, todd, you will have to wait until i am dead, then get baptized for me :)
Todd Swift at 3:58am February 21
Again, you resort to lying. You know you have deliberately withheld context, particularly the one I just mentioned above. I never once denied any of the quotes you presented, but rather rejected the blatant lie you added to them. The problem with liars is that they often think of themselves honest. Ask yourself how Satan deceives people. He does it in the same manner you have, by presenting a whole lot of facts then adding a little tiny lie to destroy the true meaning. Dishonesty is a major character flaw. True repentance requires turning away from the sin, not indulging in it.
Carmenn Massa at 4:36am February 21
what lying, todd? you have quoted absoltuly nothing, all you have done is give your own personal interpretation of the text, hoping to God that it'll make the quotes sound more "Christian" in what they say, rather than the clear indication they give. so todd, in the greater view of things, you are the liar, the one trying to conceal the truth of your beloved prophets and apostles making heretical teachings and preaching them as God-revealed truth. you can view it any way you like, Todd, but that wont make the fact go away that your LDS church believes Mary had sex with the fleshly, tangible, God. Accusing me of liring wont do you any good at all whatsoever. Rather, you continually prove how blind you are and how un-Christian you are in your attitude. I have never seen any Mormon who adheres to the LDS church as my brother in the Lord, but only as a physical brother since we all came from Adam and Eve. Time and time again, not only your own personal words,
Carmenn Massa at 4:39am February 21
but the words of your prophets show that your church is far from Christian. All ive done is quote in context: all youve done is scramble for your own personal interpretation. So once again, thanks for proving the fallacy of mormon thought. While you condemn all Christian churches, especially the Catholic, we pray for yours, praying to God you come to Christ, because Todd you have not come to him, but have followed after the doctrine of the demons.
Todd Swift at 11:24am February 21
Here's your fundamental flaw:
You present teachings of church leaders which is well and good, but these are not our scriptures and you attempt to ignore the one simple scripture I quoted which refuted you and claim that their teachings trump our scripture, and then you twist their teachings in order to justify not following God's prophets. This would be like me trying to tell you that your Apocrypha trump your Canonized scripture. The teachings you present do not even come as close to scripture as apocrypha, yet you ignore that fact. If I were to point out instances where the apocrypha contradict the canon and say the apocrypha wins, you would consider me foolish at least, dishonest at worst.
None of the teachings you presented serve your twisted motives. You have not quoted in context once and saying so is another one of your lies that you yourself cannot see. The context you require yet fail to produce is the scripture upon which those teachings are predicated.
Carmenn Massa at 5:02pm February 21
Then i guess them apostles and prophets didnt really recieved revelation from the Lord about such teachings, eh Todd? Especially the prophets, they spoke as prophets, and their so called revelations are from God Himself. When they speak, the matter is settled. Yet the Book of Mormon doesnt contain many of the LDS doctrines thr prophets recieved. Now doesnt that disturb you? It doesnt disturb too many other Mormons because according to the LDS church the words of the prophets are from God Himself, and should not be questioned. They can deal with "contiinual revelation", it seems you dont understand that part of Mormon thought.
Carmenn Massa at 5:06pm February 21And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (D&C 68:4).
is a very basic example of what i said concerning revelation from prophets
Todd Swift at 2:33am February 22I knew you would say this, it is part of who you are.
Did you get anything from my point though? My point is that you rejected my quote, which is very clearly from our scriptures, which simply added clarity that the quotes you presented do not imply that God had sex with Mar. Yet you tossed that out as if it were less relevant, simply because it destroyed your perverted point.
Todd Swift at 2:35am February 22So now that you know the mind and will of the Lord, will you follow it?
Carmenn Massa at 6:19am February 23
they are irrelevent todd, you know why? because God gave a new revelation to the LDs prophets, and guess what? they all stated quite clearly God had sex with Mary. now if you cant see that then i feel sorry for you. im just taking your mormon theology concerning revelation to prophets and pushing it to the max. you dont seem to like that, because you point to former revelation (Book of Mormon) while you have newer revelation (the prophets) which say God had sex with Mary. this is your theology, not mine. im just uusing the exact same technique ive seen the missionaries use when i speak with them. or i could just use another missionary technique on the subject (the missionaries who actually admitted God had sex with mary, fyi) and they have no prob;em seeing her as still a virgin, because she did not have sex with a mortal man, but an immortal glorified God, which in no way takes away from her human mortal virginity. so im not quite sure what youre sturggling with.
Carmenn Massa at 6:20am February 23
im just making a point that the LDS preach God had sex with mary, even though theyve kept it quiet for the past little while. anyways Lent is beginning, so i will not be dialoguing with you for 40 days, but instead will keep you ever more in my prayers :) Pax Jesu
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
RESPONSE TO 'THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE' FROM JOHN ANKERBERG THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
(the link for the article to which this is a response can be found here)
In this particular article, Ankerberg Theological Institute promulgates the common Protestant objections against the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, usually referred to as the Apocrypha. Of these books there are seven, regarded as Scripture by the oldest Christian Churches in the world: the Roman Catholic, and the Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Bible says accurately:
"The Apocrypha contains valuable historical information of the 400 years between the Old and New Testaments. Early Christian writers quote the Apocrypha; and some, such as Augustine, considered portions of it to be inspired Scripture. Fourth century A.D. manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the third century before Christ, also include the Apocrypha. When the Apocrypha was appended to this translation is unknown."
I think it is vital that we make something perfectly clear here first before continuing. The above statement mentions that the Deuterocanonical books are found in the 4th century editions of the Septuagint (LXX). Some Catholic apologists wrongfully automatically assume that this is sufficient proof that Christ and the Apostles considered the Deuterocanon as Scripture, since it is the LXX which they used when quoting the NT (cf. Heb. 10:5, compare with Ps. 40:6-8; the writer of Hebrews follows the Septuagint renderring of the psalm). However, current research has shown that the earliest editions of the LXX we have (containing the Deuterocanon) are from the 4th century. In contrast, Baptist textual scholar Lee McDonald says,
"It is most likely that these [the Deuterocanon] books were considered by the Jewish community holy or sacred well before the time of Christ, and that they were simply received by the early Christians as part of the sacred collection they inherited from Judaism. There is evidence that at least some non-canonical books had their origin in the land of Israel and were translated and transported from Israel to Alexandria and probably wherever Jews lived in significant numbers in the Roman Empire . The grandson of Ben Sirach [the writer of the deuteroncanonical book Ecclesiasticus]…lets us know he was translating for the Jews in Alexandria . The NT also has many allusions to some [deuterocanonical] literature found in the LXX, and the oldest Christian collections of OT scriptures contain much of that literature” (The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon , p. 90)
But on the same note, Jews in Palestine, the place where Jesus lived, seemingly did not use the Greek Septuagint, thus not using the 'apocrypha' as Scripture. To the Protestant, this is strong proof that since the Apostles apparently did not use the books, therefore we in the Church should not regard them as Scripture.
The fallacy with this argument gives power to non-Christian authorities, namely the Jews post-Messiah, over a canon which was not theirs to close. It is said that one may view the Church as Judaism post-Messiah, so in the same way one may view Judaism as the Church pre-Messiah. Judaism is the Church in the OT, and the authority given over to it was fulfilled and made complete in the Christian Church. After the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the Church was henceforth now and forever the 'new Israel'. This was God's plan. However, mankind has free will, and has the ability to accept or to reject. In the case of the Jewish authorities, they rejected their Messiah, and continued on in Judaism. Those who confessed Jesus as the Messiah left Judaism and ministered in the Church, as is the case with St. Paul. Christ gave the authority of "binding and loosing" to the Church, first to Peter, then to all the Apostles, that they might discern what is the true doctrine as the Holy Spirit would lead them. Among the things to bind and loose, was the canon. It is commonly known that St. Peter regarded St. Paul's writings as Holy Scripture (cf. 2 Peter 3:16), yet how could Peter do this without "adding to the word of the Lord" if he and others in the Church considered the OT canon closed? In a few verses earlier, he regards the writings of "us the apostles" as authoritative as the words spoken by "the holy prophets" (2 Peter 3:2). This begs us to ask: was the Old Testament truly forever closed according to the Jews?
In his book, The DaVinci Deception, Pastor Erwin W. Lutzer writes:
"To be fair, we must report that the canonicity of five Old Testament books was questioned at one time or another, each for a different reason. For some, the Song of Solomon was too sensual; Ecclesiastes was too skeptical; and because Esther does not mention the name of God, some thought it too unspiritual. Some questioned Proverbs because some of the maxims seemed to contradict one another. And finally, some Jewish scholars thought Ezekiel was anti-Mosaic, and its visions were said to tend toward Gnosticism." (p. 84)
What we see from the above is that certain canonical books were looked upon with suspicion for various reasons. Had the canon been clearly and definitively closed, the status of those books would not have been called into question. It must also be stated the OT is a testimony of God's continual revelation. Books were added to the canon as the Jews received them from God. It is a known fact that the Jews considered the canon closed around 400 BC, after Malachi. Then the question begs again: what gave Peter, himself a Jew, the authority to 'add' Paul's writings to Scripture? Answer: the authority of the Holy Spirit through the Church. When Peter spoke, he spoke as the Church concerning this subject. Peter wrote his second epistle between AD 64 and 67. But in 90 AD the Jews met at a council at Jabneh to once again ratify forever the OT canon. In this same council they condemned Christianity and all writings associated with it, along with Gnostism and a few other heretical sects. Therefore, they also would have condemned Paul's writings, as well as all the NT Scriptures. The fact that the Jews established such a council during that time leaves us to wonder if all the Jews did was make a common assumption that the canon was closed after Malachi, when in fact God intended for it to remain open.
The Christian knows for a certainty God was not finished in revelation. He had yet to bring forth Christ. The OT was just the stepping-stones leading to their fulfillment in the NT. In truth, both the OT and the NT are not two separate canons, but are one continual canon, God revealing Himself and His Son throughout the ages. Thus, whatever pronouncement made on the OT canon by the Jewish authorities at Jabneh should not be considered as binding on the Christian Church, which had already established Paul's writings as Scripture. The question is not whether the Jews considered the Deuterocanon to be Scripture, but whether the Church in its earliest conception considered them Scripture.
There is evidence enough for us to believe this is the case. Lutzer writes:
"A document called the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to about AD 175, evaluates the various canonical books along with those that had been rejected by the church." (p. 91)
In this Fragment, we read:
"The Epistle of Jude, indeed, and two bearing the name of John, are accepted in the Catholic Church: also Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor." (as cited in Henry Bettenson & Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, new edition, p. 31)
The 'apocryphal' book of Wisdom, attributed to Solomon, was considered canonical by the Church according to this Muratorian Fragment. In addition, the Didache quotes a few lines from Sirach, as do other fathers quote from the Deuterocanon:
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 A.D. 70)
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Melito of Sardes, Fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical History, 4:26 (A.D. 177)
"Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna]. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay' [Daniel 13:52-53-Susanna]. Of whom also did the Lord say: "But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' [Matt 24:48]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:26:3 (A.D. 180)
"[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, 'Fasting with prayer is a good thing'[Tobit 12:8]." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 (A.D. 202)
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist'[2 Maccabees 7:28]." Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230)
'You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations." [The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible] But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses.' - Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386
'But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read,' Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)
'35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench[6] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave[7], and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings[8] are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle[9]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.' - Cyril of Jerusalem [315-386 AD], Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 4:35, p. 25.
'[T]he Old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books...so that of Moses there be five books...with the Lamentations and the Letter [Baruch 6-Epistle of Jeremiah], and Daniel...bringing the number of the books to twenty-two. It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks.' Hilary of Poitiers, Prologue to the Psalms,15 (A.D. 365), in JUR, 1:383
However, despite the vast amount of evidence from the Fathers we have concerning the Deuterocanon as Scripture, the final say on the matter comes from the Councils themselves. Therefore, we ask: Are there truly any councils preceding Trent that defined the 'Apocrypha' as inspired Scripture? Answer: Yes! Two councils will I now list for proof.
"It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books" (Hippo, Canon 36 [A.D. 393])
"It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." (III Carthage, Canon 47 A.D. 397)
To clarify, these councils were not Ecumenical, that is pertaining to the whole Church, but instead these pronouncements were only binding in the providential areas wherein they were held. Yet still we do clearly see that the early Church held as canonical the 7 'apocryphal' books of the OT. As Pastor Lutzer rightly tells us,
"The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were ratified by the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397)." (The DaVinci Deception, p. 98)
It is from these two councils that Protestants take their final say as to what the final canon of the New Testament should be. All these councils did was define what the Church already held as Scripture - both in the OT, and the NT. Should we make so absurd a claim that the Holy Spirit led the councils to correctly ratify the New Testament books, but failed to accompany them in their declaration of the Old Testament books? Never! The witness of the martyrs and the early saints for both the OT and NT are too numerous to ignore. In fact, renowned Protestant church historian J.N.D Kelly writes,
"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22 or 24 books of Hebrew Palestinian Judaism. It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…most of the scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew,...In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 53, 54).
The Roman Catholic Bible mentions:
"Even the Roman Catholic Church did not dogmatically declare the Apocrypha to be inspired until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholic priest Father. H. J. Schroeder, a translator of the decrees of the Council of Trent writes, 'The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.'"
The quote they refer to comes from The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P. The quote is taken from the tail-end of a footnote on page 17 of said book. Here I will provide the text to which this footnote further expounded, then the full footnote in its context for clarification.
"Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council." (Fourth Session)
Here now is the footnote which was attached to the above ending sentence.
"For earlier lists, cf. Synod of Laodicea (end of IV cent.), c.60, the genuineness of which canon however is contested (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des conciles, I, 1026); Synod of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 84); Synod of Hippo (393), c.36, which the III Synod of Carthage (397) made its own in c.47 (idem, no. 92); Innocent I in 405 to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (idem, no. 96); Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (Mansi, XXXI, 1736; Hardouin, IX, 1023 f.). The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures." (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 17; footnote 4)
Rev. Schroeder lists the two councils we mentioned earlier, but among them also the Ecumenical Council of Florence. What's especially noted about this Council is the fact that it is indeed Ecumenical. To understand the force of this fact, we must first learn what the Catholic Church's understanding of an Ecumenical or General Council is. The Catechism states it thus:
891...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme authority of the Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through her supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed', and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence listed in Session Eleven the books of the Bible which the Catholic Church saw as canonical. Among these books were the Deuterocanonicals. This listing of the books is in the papal Bull Catante Domino, which sets the record straight on what the Church teaches, proclaims, and professes in opposition to the heretics at the time. Furthermore it rejoices in its union with the Copts. So the Council of Florence was especially precise and clear when again defining the fundamentals of Catholic faith, one of which is the canon of Scripture.
“It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows: Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.” (Council of Florence, Session 11)
The difference between Florence's mention of the canon and Trent's mention was that Florence made no formal binding decree that no one should add nor remove the books of the Bible. The object at hand was not the canon, but the Persons of God and Christ. The heretic Manichees taught that there was a God of the OT, and a different God of the NT. The canon, though not called into question by the heretics, was still mentioned as one of the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. Albeit, the list was not infallibly, dogmatically, and forever binding on the Church. This provided Luther with a loop-hole to take away the Deuterocanon, as well as some NT books which he did not consider on par with Scripture. However in Trent we are given a precise warning:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema." (Session Four, after the listing of the Biblical books)
It is now beyond the shadow of a doubt that no man may take away or add to the books of Holy Bible, according to Trent. The anathema is promised to anyone, Catholic or no, who reject any one of the sacred books: whether it be Genesis or Tobit, Matthew or Maccabees, Jude or Wisdom. However the Council explicitly says one must 'knowingly' and 'deliberately' reject them. That is, one must first know for certain that the Bible is composed of 73 books before he rejects any of them. One cannot 'knowingly' and 'deliberately' reject the Deuterocanon if first he is sure above all that the Bible is only composed of 66 books, and out of his devout fear and love for Christ has rejected the Deuterocanon, thinking it to be a gross addition made by apostates to the Holy Word. Only God knows the heart, and only He knows why people today reject certain parts of the Bible. Some reject the letters of Paul, others the Gospel of Luke, others the Acts.
Now that it is firmly established with explicit documentation that the early Church has through the witness of saints and councils, generally accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture long before the decree of Trent. But what about the books themselves? What does The Roman Catholic Bible have to say about them?
"The Roman Catholic Church’s claim that these writings of the Apocrypha are inspired must be rejected for the following reasons:
• The Apocrypha does not present itself as inspired. The author of 2 Maccabees says that his book is the abridgement of another man’s work (2 Maccabees 2:23). He concludes the book, saying, "If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do" (2 Maccabees 15:38). Mediocre is a good description of the Apocrypha. Despite its historical value, it promotes questionable ethics, fanciful legends, and doctrine that contradict Scripture.
• The Jews of Palestine never accepted the Apocrypha as part of sacred Scripture. Neither was there a Jewish prophet living during the time in which the Apocrypha was written (300-30 B.C.).
• Jesus and the New Testament writers did not treat the Apocrypha as inspired. Though the New Testament quotes virtually every book of the Old Testament, there is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha.
• The early church as a whole never accepted the Apocrypha as inspired. Moreover, many Christian leaders spoke against the Apocrypha, including: Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem."
I'm amazed first of all at the reasoning provided in point 1. "The Apocrypha does not present itself as inspired", just how exactly is a book from the Bible supposed to present itself as inspired? Esther doesn't present itself as inspired, which was solely why it was called into question by the Jews! Martin Luther called Jonah a comical story. 3 John doesn't make any claims that is divine writing. The list continues. The fact that 2 Maccabees is an abridgement does not make it any less inspired than the passages in Kings, Samuel, or Judges where the passages refer us to longer works such as The Book of Jasher, the Kings of Judah, etc. Therefore, these specific accounts mentioned in the Bible are abridgments themselves of longer and detailed works! This does not at all mean the books are uninspired. God only wanted us to know a few specific facts, the rest was irrelevant to His special Word. 2 Maccabees is no different.
As for questionable ethics, no examples are given. But if any ethics are, at first glance, 'questionable', one need only look at the protocanonicals which speaks of parents killing children if they rebel, avengers of blood seeking retribution against the foes of their clans, the circumsission of newborn boys, etc. Of course these 'questionable' ethics are not questionable at all once you dig deeper and research the Bible and its surrounding history, such as the culture of the Jews. The same accounts for the so-called 'questionable ethics' of the Deuterocanon.
Fanciful legends is another interesting accusation. Could anything seem more 'fanciful' than the plagues of Egypt, the Flood, the talking donkey, or most of all, the Virgin Birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Yet all these things, as incredible as they are, did indeed happen. So what kind of 'fanciful legends' do Protestants have in mind concerning the Deuterocanon? The appearances of Raphael? the concealing of the Ark of the Covenant by Jeremiah? the conquest of Judith? None of these would come even close to, say for example, the assumption of Elijah into heaven by a fiery chariot.
As for doctrine that contradicts Scripture, the Bible always appears to contradict itself if you don't look at it carefully and in context. The Deuterocanon does not contradict the Protocanon or the NT in any way, shape, or form, if one need only be willingly to dig deeper into its writings, its context, and compare.
Point 2, as we have already shown, is irrelevant. We may conclude that God did not wish for the Jews pre-Messiah to consider the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but intended for it to be used in the Christian Church, that is, Judaism post-Messiah. Perhaps God's intended use of it for was to better understand the life and times of His people, Israel, during their 400 years of silence. Maccabees is prophesied in Daniel, and is can be seen as pre-figuring the end-times concerning Antichrist, the Abomination of Desolation, and the deliverance of Israel and the Church from Satan. Tobit contains within it an account of a demon being cast out by the burning of a fish's entrails. Interestingly enough, Christ is referred to as the FISH in Sacred Tradition, whose sacred Heart was pierced for the forgivness of sins. And it was the FISH who cast out demons by the very sound of His voice. Through the fish's death and the burning of its entrails evil was cast out and fled to Egypt. Through the death of Jesus and the piercing of His heart, the gates of hell were forever crushed.
Lest the accusation be raised that this particular incident in Tobit is 'witchraft', with the burning of the fish's entrails, it is no less 'witchcraft' than David playing the harp to cast out the demon that tormented Saul. Music is often used in demon meditations and incantations, as is the gutting of animals. Nor is the situation any less 'evil' than Christ using His saliva to heal a blind man. God's use of matter or sound to perform miracles is all throughout the Bible, and should not be objected to unless it is used to summon demons or use them for satanic means.
Point 3 in insufficient and just plain erroneous. K. Aland's The Greek New Testament provides us with numerous quotes and allusions of the Deuterocanonicals in the NT, totalling 87. Even if not one quote or allusion existed, proof from silence would not prove solid for this or any other case. However, even though we do have proof that the 'Apocrypha' was used by the NT-writers, the Protestants will raise the objection that the writers quoted from other documents as well, and therefore this proves nothing concerning inspiration or non-inspiration. The reason Catholics point to the fact the NT quotes the Deuterocanon is precisely because things like The Roman Catholic Bible make these incredible standards which even they themselves do not hold to. It's a staw-man from the start. Even so, the Catholic may use the straw-man as a solid foundation to prove accuratly the truth of the matter. For the sake of argument, consider these examples: Esther is a protocanonical book that is neither alluded to nor quoted in the NT. But this in no way makes Esther less-inspired or un-inspired. Yet in Hebrews 11:35 we read:
"Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." (KJV)
The context of the entire chapter is of the Old Testament saints. The first half of the verse alludes to 1 Kings 17:22, when Elijah raised the widow's son to life. The second half of the verse is found no where in the Protestant OT canon. No where, not once, is there any description of people being tortured but refusing to surrender in order that they might see the resurrection. But the senerio is found in 2 Maccabees 7:9,14:
"(7) And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws. ...(14) When he was near death, he said, "One cannot choose but to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!" (NRSV)
A woman and her seven sons are tortured because they will not surrender to the pagan king. Thus, being pius Jews, they endure death, for, as they said, the hope of "an everlasting renewal of life." So even though the Deuterocanon is not quoted directly in the NT, it is at times alluded to. Incidentally, in the original 1611 KJV, a footnote appeared over the Hebrews 11:35 text, pointing the reading to 2 Maccabees 7.
Point 4 has been covered and proven faulty. Though it must be said, Athanasius and Cyril were among some of the fathers who did not look upon the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Jerome, however, though even he questioned it, said:
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Even in his personal oppinion he surrendered to the will of the Church.
For a broader scope dealing with various historical Protestant objections of the Catholic canon, the reader is invited to view the work of St. Francis De Sales treating this very subject.
CONCLUSION
Christ said He would build His Church on apostles and prophets, Himself being the chief corner-stone. Christ identifies Himself with the Church when He cried to Saul, "Why are you persecuting Me?" Not only are we called the Body of Christ, but we are guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you in all truth." After all, the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth", of which "the powers of hell shall never prevail," so why should any question be raised after when the Church has solemnly declared, whether by the witnesses of the saints, or the word of the councils, the canon of Scripture? Who would dare to doubt the decision of the Church, the Church which Christ Himself builds, points to it, and says, "I am one with you,"? Whoever does not listen to the Church does not listen to Christ. It must however be said here, in order for that person to be guilty, that the person must be rejecting the Church because he hates God. If he rejects the Catholic Church out of his love for God, because he has been told the Church is an abomination, and based on facts made available to him rejects the Catholic Church, God knows the heart, and just as innocent babies are not held accountable for wrongs if they die, so this person will not be held accountable. Just as all Scripture is God-breathed, so the Church is Christ-built, and every word of the Church when teaching doctrine is Christ-breathed. For Protestants though, they question whether the earliest church was indeed Catholic. Many deny it, and say the Catholic Church grew out of the true early church (an issue we will deal with in another Response). Nevertheless, being baptized into one Spirit, they are our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, professing the same Jesus the Church professes, accepting the same Atonement of Salvation the Catholics accept. Even though many Protestants do not view the earliest church as Catholic, they are faced with the dilemma that the earliest Christians approved the Deuterocanon, as did early councils, long before Trent. Their Bibles are indeed the Word of God - but the Catholic Bible is the Word of God as it was originally assembled through the Church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
END
In this particular article, Ankerberg Theological Institute promulgates the common Protestant objections against the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, usually referred to as the Apocrypha. Of these books there are seven, regarded as Scripture by the oldest Christian Churches in the world: the Roman Catholic, and the Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Bible says accurately:
"The Apocrypha contains valuable historical information of the 400 years between the Old and New Testaments. Early Christian writers quote the Apocrypha; and some, such as Augustine, considered portions of it to be inspired Scripture. Fourth century A.D. manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the third century before Christ, also include the Apocrypha. When the Apocrypha was appended to this translation is unknown."
I think it is vital that we make something perfectly clear here first before continuing. The above statement mentions that the Deuterocanonical books are found in the 4th century editions of the Septuagint (LXX). Some Catholic apologists wrongfully automatically assume that this is sufficient proof that Christ and the Apostles considered the Deuterocanon as Scripture, since it is the LXX which they used when quoting the NT (cf. Heb. 10:5, compare with Ps. 40:6-8; the writer of Hebrews follows the Septuagint renderring of the psalm). However, current research has shown that the earliest editions of the LXX we have (containing the Deuterocanon) are from the 4th century. In contrast, Baptist textual scholar Lee McDonald says,
"It is most likely that these [the Deuterocanon] books were considered by the Jewish community holy or sacred well before the time of Christ, and that they were simply received by the early Christians as part of the sacred collection they inherited from Judaism. There is evidence that at least some non-canonical books had their origin in the land of Israel and were translated and transported from Israel to Alexandria and probably wherever Jews lived in significant numbers in the Roman Empire . The grandson of Ben Sirach [the writer of the deuteroncanonical book Ecclesiasticus]…lets us know he was translating for the Jews in Alexandria . The NT also has many allusions to some [deuterocanonical] literature found in the LXX, and the oldest Christian collections of OT scriptures contain much of that literature” (The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon , p. 90)
But on the same note, Jews in Palestine, the place where Jesus lived, seemingly did not use the Greek Septuagint, thus not using the 'apocrypha' as Scripture. To the Protestant, this is strong proof that since the Apostles apparently did not use the books, therefore we in the Church should not regard them as Scripture.
The fallacy with this argument gives power to non-Christian authorities, namely the Jews post-Messiah, over a canon which was not theirs to close. It is said that one may view the Church as Judaism post-Messiah, so in the same way one may view Judaism as the Church pre-Messiah. Judaism is the Church in the OT, and the authority given over to it was fulfilled and made complete in the Christian Church. After the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the Church was henceforth now and forever the 'new Israel'. This was God's plan. However, mankind has free will, and has the ability to accept or to reject. In the case of the Jewish authorities, they rejected their Messiah, and continued on in Judaism. Those who confessed Jesus as the Messiah left Judaism and ministered in the Church, as is the case with St. Paul. Christ gave the authority of "binding and loosing" to the Church, first to Peter, then to all the Apostles, that they might discern what is the true doctrine as the Holy Spirit would lead them. Among the things to bind and loose, was the canon. It is commonly known that St. Peter regarded St. Paul's writings as Holy Scripture (cf. 2 Peter 3:16), yet how could Peter do this without "adding to the word of the Lord" if he and others in the Church considered the OT canon closed? In a few verses earlier, he regards the writings of "us the apostles" as authoritative as the words spoken by "the holy prophets" (2 Peter 3:2). This begs us to ask: was the Old Testament truly forever closed according to the Jews?
In his book, The DaVinci Deception, Pastor Erwin W. Lutzer writes:
"To be fair, we must report that the canonicity of five Old Testament books was questioned at one time or another, each for a different reason. For some, the Song of Solomon was too sensual; Ecclesiastes was too skeptical; and because Esther does not mention the name of God, some thought it too unspiritual. Some questioned Proverbs because some of the maxims seemed to contradict one another. And finally, some Jewish scholars thought Ezekiel was anti-Mosaic, and its visions were said to tend toward Gnosticism." (p. 84)
What we see from the above is that certain canonical books were looked upon with suspicion for various reasons. Had the canon been clearly and definitively closed, the status of those books would not have been called into question. It must also be stated the OT is a testimony of God's continual revelation. Books were added to the canon as the Jews received them from God. It is a known fact that the Jews considered the canon closed around 400 BC, after Malachi. Then the question begs again: what gave Peter, himself a Jew, the authority to 'add' Paul's writings to Scripture? Answer: the authority of the Holy Spirit through the Church. When Peter spoke, he spoke as the Church concerning this subject. Peter wrote his second epistle between AD 64 and 67. But in 90 AD the Jews met at a council at Jabneh to once again ratify forever the OT canon. In this same council they condemned Christianity and all writings associated with it, along with Gnostism and a few other heretical sects. Therefore, they also would have condemned Paul's writings, as well as all the NT Scriptures. The fact that the Jews established such a council during that time leaves us to wonder if all the Jews did was make a common assumption that the canon was closed after Malachi, when in fact God intended for it to remain open.
The Christian knows for a certainty God was not finished in revelation. He had yet to bring forth Christ. The OT was just the stepping-stones leading to their fulfillment in the NT. In truth, both the OT and the NT are not two separate canons, but are one continual canon, God revealing Himself and His Son throughout the ages. Thus, whatever pronouncement made on the OT canon by the Jewish authorities at Jabneh should not be considered as binding on the Christian Church, which had already established Paul's writings as Scripture. The question is not whether the Jews considered the Deuterocanon to be Scripture, but whether the Church in its earliest conception considered them Scripture.
There is evidence enough for us to believe this is the case. Lutzer writes:
"A document called the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to about AD 175, evaluates the various canonical books along with those that had been rejected by the church." (p. 91)
In this Fragment, we read:
"The Epistle of Jude, indeed, and two bearing the name of John, are accepted in the Catholic Church: also Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor." (as cited in Henry Bettenson & Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, new edition, p. 31)
The 'apocryphal' book of Wisdom, attributed to Solomon, was considered canonical by the Church according to this Muratorian Fragment. In addition, the Didache quotes a few lines from Sirach, as do other fathers quote from the Deuterocanon:
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 A.D. 70)
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Melito of Sardes, Fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical History, 4:26 (A.D. 177)
"Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna]. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay' [Daniel 13:52-53-Susanna]. Of whom also did the Lord say: "But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' [Matt 24:48]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:26:3 (A.D. 180)
"[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, 'Fasting with prayer is a good thing'[Tobit 12:8]." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 (A.D. 202)
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist'[2 Maccabees 7:28]." Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230)
'You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations." [The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible] But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses.' - Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386
'But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read,' Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)
'35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench[6] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave[7], and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings[8] are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle[9]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.' - Cyril of Jerusalem [315-386 AD], Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 4:35, p. 25.
'[T]he Old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books...so that of Moses there be five books...with the Lamentations and the Letter [Baruch 6-Epistle of Jeremiah], and Daniel...bringing the number of the books to twenty-two. It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks.' Hilary of Poitiers, Prologue to the Psalms,15 (A.D. 365), in JUR, 1:383
However, despite the vast amount of evidence from the Fathers we have concerning the Deuterocanon as Scripture, the final say on the matter comes from the Councils themselves. Therefore, we ask: Are there truly any councils preceding Trent that defined the 'Apocrypha' as inspired Scripture? Answer: Yes! Two councils will I now list for proof.
"It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books" (Hippo, Canon 36 [A.D. 393])
"It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." (III Carthage, Canon 47 A.D. 397)
To clarify, these councils were not Ecumenical, that is pertaining to the whole Church, but instead these pronouncements were only binding in the providential areas wherein they were held. Yet still we do clearly see that the early Church held as canonical the 7 'apocryphal' books of the OT. As Pastor Lutzer rightly tells us,
"The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were ratified by the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397)." (The DaVinci Deception, p. 98)
It is from these two councils that Protestants take their final say as to what the final canon of the New Testament should be. All these councils did was define what the Church already held as Scripture - both in the OT, and the NT. Should we make so absurd a claim that the Holy Spirit led the councils to correctly ratify the New Testament books, but failed to accompany them in their declaration of the Old Testament books? Never! The witness of the martyrs and the early saints for both the OT and NT are too numerous to ignore. In fact, renowned Protestant church historian J.N.D Kelly writes,
"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22 or 24 books of Hebrew Palestinian Judaism. It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…most of the scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew,...In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 53, 54).
The Roman Catholic Bible mentions:
"Even the Roman Catholic Church did not dogmatically declare the Apocrypha to be inspired until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholic priest Father. H. J. Schroeder, a translator of the decrees of the Council of Trent writes, 'The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.'"
The quote they refer to comes from The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P. The quote is taken from the tail-end of a footnote on page 17 of said book. Here I will provide the text to which this footnote further expounded, then the full footnote in its context for clarification.
"Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council." (Fourth Session)
Here now is the footnote which was attached to the above ending sentence.
"For earlier lists, cf. Synod of Laodicea (end of IV cent.), c.60, the genuineness of which canon however is contested (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des conciles, I, 1026); Synod of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 84); Synod of Hippo (393), c.36, which the III Synod of Carthage (397) made its own in c.47 (idem, no. 92); Innocent I in 405 to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (idem, no. 96); Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (Mansi, XXXI, 1736; Hardouin, IX, 1023 f.). The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures." (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 17; footnote 4)
Rev. Schroeder lists the two councils we mentioned earlier, but among them also the Ecumenical Council of Florence. What's especially noted about this Council is the fact that it is indeed Ecumenical. To understand the force of this fact, we must first learn what the Catholic Church's understanding of an Ecumenical or General Council is. The Catechism states it thus:
891...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme authority of the Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through her supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed', and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence listed in Session Eleven the books of the Bible which the Catholic Church saw as canonical. Among these books were the Deuterocanonicals. This listing of the books is in the papal Bull Catante Domino, which sets the record straight on what the Church teaches, proclaims, and professes in opposition to the heretics at the time. Furthermore it rejoices in its union with the Copts. So the Council of Florence was especially precise and clear when again defining the fundamentals of Catholic faith, one of which is the canon of Scripture.
“It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows: Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.” (Council of Florence, Session 11)
The difference between Florence's mention of the canon and Trent's mention was that Florence made no formal binding decree that no one should add nor remove the books of the Bible. The object at hand was not the canon, but the Persons of God and Christ. The heretic Manichees taught that there was a God of the OT, and a different God of the NT. The canon, though not called into question by the heretics, was still mentioned as one of the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. Albeit, the list was not infallibly, dogmatically, and forever binding on the Church. This provided Luther with a loop-hole to take away the Deuterocanon, as well as some NT books which he did not consider on par with Scripture. However in Trent we are given a precise warning:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema." (Session Four, after the listing of the Biblical books)
It is now beyond the shadow of a doubt that no man may take away or add to the books of Holy Bible, according to Trent. The anathema is promised to anyone, Catholic or no, who reject any one of the sacred books: whether it be Genesis or Tobit, Matthew or Maccabees, Jude or Wisdom. However the Council explicitly says one must 'knowingly' and 'deliberately' reject them. That is, one must first know for certain that the Bible is composed of 73 books before he rejects any of them. One cannot 'knowingly' and 'deliberately' reject the Deuterocanon if first he is sure above all that the Bible is only composed of 66 books, and out of his devout fear and love for Christ has rejected the Deuterocanon, thinking it to be a gross addition made by apostates to the Holy Word. Only God knows the heart, and only He knows why people today reject certain parts of the Bible. Some reject the letters of Paul, others the Gospel of Luke, others the Acts.
Now that it is firmly established with explicit documentation that the early Church has through the witness of saints and councils, generally accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture long before the decree of Trent. But what about the books themselves? What does The Roman Catholic Bible have to say about them?
"The Roman Catholic Church’s claim that these writings of the Apocrypha are inspired must be rejected for the following reasons:
• The Apocrypha does not present itself as inspired. The author of 2 Maccabees says that his book is the abridgement of another man’s work (2 Maccabees 2:23). He concludes the book, saying, "If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do" (2 Maccabees 15:38). Mediocre is a good description of the Apocrypha. Despite its historical value, it promotes questionable ethics, fanciful legends, and doctrine that contradict Scripture.
• The Jews of Palestine never accepted the Apocrypha as part of sacred Scripture. Neither was there a Jewish prophet living during the time in which the Apocrypha was written (300-30 B.C.).
• Jesus and the New Testament writers did not treat the Apocrypha as inspired. Though the New Testament quotes virtually every book of the Old Testament, there is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha.
• The early church as a whole never accepted the Apocrypha as inspired. Moreover, many Christian leaders spoke against the Apocrypha, including: Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem."
I'm amazed first of all at the reasoning provided in point 1. "The Apocrypha does not present itself as inspired", just how exactly is a book from the Bible supposed to present itself as inspired? Esther doesn't present itself as inspired, which was solely why it was called into question by the Jews! Martin Luther called Jonah a comical story. 3 John doesn't make any claims that is divine writing. The list continues. The fact that 2 Maccabees is an abridgement does not make it any less inspired than the passages in Kings, Samuel, or Judges where the passages refer us to longer works such as The Book of Jasher, the Kings of Judah, etc. Therefore, these specific accounts mentioned in the Bible are abridgments themselves of longer and detailed works! This does not at all mean the books are uninspired. God only wanted us to know a few specific facts, the rest was irrelevant to His special Word. 2 Maccabees is no different.
As for questionable ethics, no examples are given. But if any ethics are, at first glance, 'questionable', one need only look at the protocanonicals which speaks of parents killing children if they rebel, avengers of blood seeking retribution against the foes of their clans, the circumsission of newborn boys, etc. Of course these 'questionable' ethics are not questionable at all once you dig deeper and research the Bible and its surrounding history, such as the culture of the Jews. The same accounts for the so-called 'questionable ethics' of the Deuterocanon.
Fanciful legends is another interesting accusation. Could anything seem more 'fanciful' than the plagues of Egypt, the Flood, the talking donkey, or most of all, the Virgin Birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Yet all these things, as incredible as they are, did indeed happen. So what kind of 'fanciful legends' do Protestants have in mind concerning the Deuterocanon? The appearances of Raphael? the concealing of the Ark of the Covenant by Jeremiah? the conquest of Judith? None of these would come even close to, say for example, the assumption of Elijah into heaven by a fiery chariot.
As for doctrine that contradicts Scripture, the Bible always appears to contradict itself if you don't look at it carefully and in context. The Deuterocanon does not contradict the Protocanon or the NT in any way, shape, or form, if one need only be willingly to dig deeper into its writings, its context, and compare.
Point 2, as we have already shown, is irrelevant. We may conclude that God did not wish for the Jews pre-Messiah to consider the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but intended for it to be used in the Christian Church, that is, Judaism post-Messiah. Perhaps God's intended use of it for was to better understand the life and times of His people, Israel, during their 400 years of silence. Maccabees is prophesied in Daniel, and is can be seen as pre-figuring the end-times concerning Antichrist, the Abomination of Desolation, and the deliverance of Israel and the Church from Satan. Tobit contains within it an account of a demon being cast out by the burning of a fish's entrails. Interestingly enough, Christ is referred to as the FISH in Sacred Tradition, whose sacred Heart was pierced for the forgivness of sins. And it was the FISH who cast out demons by the very sound of His voice. Through the fish's death and the burning of its entrails evil was cast out and fled to Egypt. Through the death of Jesus and the piercing of His heart, the gates of hell were forever crushed.
Lest the accusation be raised that this particular incident in Tobit is 'witchraft', with the burning of the fish's entrails, it is no less 'witchcraft' than David playing the harp to cast out the demon that tormented Saul. Music is often used in demon meditations and incantations, as is the gutting of animals. Nor is the situation any less 'evil' than Christ using His saliva to heal a blind man. God's use of matter or sound to perform miracles is all throughout the Bible, and should not be objected to unless it is used to summon demons or use them for satanic means.
Point 3 in insufficient and just plain erroneous. K. Aland's The Greek New Testament provides us with numerous quotes and allusions of the Deuterocanonicals in the NT, totalling 87. Even if not one quote or allusion existed, proof from silence would not prove solid for this or any other case. However, even though we do have proof that the 'Apocrypha' was used by the NT-writers, the Protestants will raise the objection that the writers quoted from other documents as well, and therefore this proves nothing concerning inspiration or non-inspiration. The reason Catholics point to the fact the NT quotes the Deuterocanon is precisely because things like The Roman Catholic Bible make these incredible standards which even they themselves do not hold to. It's a staw-man from the start. Even so, the Catholic may use the straw-man as a solid foundation to prove accuratly the truth of the matter. For the sake of argument, consider these examples: Esther is a protocanonical book that is neither alluded to nor quoted in the NT. But this in no way makes Esther less-inspired or un-inspired. Yet in Hebrews 11:35 we read:
"Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." (KJV)
The context of the entire chapter is of the Old Testament saints. The first half of the verse alludes to 1 Kings 17:22, when Elijah raised the widow's son to life. The second half of the verse is found no where in the Protestant OT canon. No where, not once, is there any description of people being tortured but refusing to surrender in order that they might see the resurrection. But the senerio is found in 2 Maccabees 7:9,14:
"(7) And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws. ...(14) When he was near death, he said, "One cannot choose but to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!" (NRSV)
A woman and her seven sons are tortured because they will not surrender to the pagan king. Thus, being pius Jews, they endure death, for, as they said, the hope of "an everlasting renewal of life." So even though the Deuterocanon is not quoted directly in the NT, it is at times alluded to. Incidentally, in the original 1611 KJV, a footnote appeared over the Hebrews 11:35 text, pointing the reading to 2 Maccabees 7.
Point 4 has been covered and proven faulty. Though it must be said, Athanasius and Cyril were among some of the fathers who did not look upon the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Jerome, however, though even he questioned it, said:
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Even in his personal oppinion he surrendered to the will of the Church.
For a broader scope dealing with various historical Protestant objections of the Catholic canon, the reader is invited to view the work of St. Francis De Sales treating this very subject.
CONCLUSION
Christ said He would build His Church on apostles and prophets, Himself being the chief corner-stone. Christ identifies Himself with the Church when He cried to Saul, "Why are you persecuting Me?" Not only are we called the Body of Christ, but we are guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you in all truth." After all, the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth", of which "the powers of hell shall never prevail," so why should any question be raised after when the Church has solemnly declared, whether by the witnesses of the saints, or the word of the councils, the canon of Scripture? Who would dare to doubt the decision of the Church, the Church which Christ Himself builds, points to it, and says, "I am one with you,"? Whoever does not listen to the Church does not listen to Christ. It must however be said here, in order for that person to be guilty, that the person must be rejecting the Church because he hates God. If he rejects the Catholic Church out of his love for God, because he has been told the Church is an abomination, and based on facts made available to him rejects the Catholic Church, God knows the heart, and just as innocent babies are not held accountable for wrongs if they die, so this person will not be held accountable. Just as all Scripture is God-breathed, so the Church is Christ-built, and every word of the Church when teaching doctrine is Christ-breathed. For Protestants though, they question whether the earliest church was indeed Catholic. Many deny it, and say the Catholic Church grew out of the true early church (an issue we will deal with in another Response). Nevertheless, being baptized into one Spirit, they are our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, professing the same Jesus the Church professes, accepting the same Atonement of Salvation the Catholics accept. Even though many Protestants do not view the earliest church as Catholic, they are faced with the dilemma that the earliest Christians approved the Deuterocanon, as did early councils, long before Trent. Their Bibles are indeed the Word of God - but the Catholic Bible is the Word of God as it was originally assembled through the Church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
END
Sunday, April 12, 2009
WHAT DOES THE LDS CHURCH BELIEVE CONCERNING HOLY COMMUNION? A TRACT IN DEFENSE OF THE EUCHARIST AGAINST MODERN-DAY PAGANISM
On page 13 of the Mormon tract, entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ, a brief and presise explanation of holy communion is presented:
"The Sacrament. After you are baptized, you can renew you baptismal covenants each week by partaking of the sacrament. During the sacrament service, bread and water are blessed and passed to the congregation as a reminder of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The bread represents his body, and the water represents His blood."
The reason water is used instead of wine is because the use of any acoholic beverages were expressely forbidden in Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom, a set of guidlines every good Mormon must follow. In the above statement, the reader will notice a clever usage of Catholic language and phrasing, such as 'sacrament', the blessing of the bread and water, and the giving of communion only after baptism. However, on the same note, it is clearly stated that the bread and water do not change into the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ, according to Mormon theology, but rather they are mere representations of Christ's body and blood. The late Mormon Apostle, James E. Talmage, in his book Jesus the Christ (p. 342), expounds further. He speaks concerning Christ's words in John 6, wherein Christ makes the scandelous statement that men must "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to have everlasting life. The early martyrs and saints, the church fathers and theologians, even some of the reformers, up to this day, have always maintained that the Lord spoke of Holy Communion, or Eucharist. The Mormons hold a different view:
"There was little excuse for the Jews pretending to understand that our Lord meant an actual eating and drinking of His material flesh and blood. The utterances to which they objected were far more readily understood by them than they are by us on first reading; for the representation of the law and of truth in general as bread, and the acceptance thereof as a process of eating and drinking, were figures in every-day use by the rabbis of that time*. Their failure to comprehend the symbolism of Christ's doctrine was an act of will, not the natural consequence of innocent ignorance. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ was and is to believe in and accept Him as the literal Son of God and Savior of the world, and obey His commandments." (James E. Talmage, 'Jesus the Christ', p. 342)
In Note 10 (in reference to the asterik), on page 347 of the same book, reads:
"'The idea of eating, as a metaphor for recieving spiritual benefit, was familiar to Christ's hearers, and was as readily understood as our expressions - 'devouring a book', or 'drinking in' instruction."
Notice the slick blend of Catholiscm and Protestantism, with a slight twist of facts, and voila! you have a somewhat, on the surface, a hybrid belief concerning communion. With Catholic words and phrases, they appear to believe as we do that the bread and wine (water) become the Flesh and Blood of Christ. But in truth they believe as do the liberal Protestants of today, that the bread and wine are mere symbols, emblems of something that happened in the past. Not so with Christian orthodoxy: the bread and wine are not simply mere symbols, but are in actuality after the words of consecration and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the true Flesh and Blood of Christ. How this happens is a Mystery, and cannot be understood by mortal intellect. In this tract, we will take the Mormon understanding of communion, and break it down by using Scripture (the KJV), to show how erroneous their stance is on the matter.
The Beauty of Context!
To be certain we have a well-founded understanding of what Christ said, we have to look at the context. Context includes entirety of the passage, the original Greek or Hebrew autographs, the time it was written, who wrote it, and what was the author's intent. When context is not applied to any given Scriptural passage, the two fallacy belief categories usually are as follows: letterism, and gnostism. Letterism is when each and every word in the text is taken absolutly literally. I.E, Christ said 'I am the Door', now He's wood and hinges. 'He shall cover thee with His feathers and under His wings thou shalt trust,' now He's a chicken. Gnostisism is an attempt to symbolize everything that is to be taken literally in the passage. I.E, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain Christ didn't really physically resurrect from the tomb, but that He only arose spiritually. New Agers and persons of that like say God is simply a spiritual manifestation inside each and every one of us, that the concept of God is merely symbolic to explain who mankind really is on the inside. The doctrine of the Eucharist is situated perfectly between the two: it is a very literal understanding of the passage, while at the same time it has heavy spiritual elements. As we walk deeper into Scripture this will clearly be seen.
Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, United Methodists, and others from mainstream Protestantism look to John 6 as a fundamental proof text concerning Eucharist. In verse 35, Jesus tells His disciples, "I am the bread of life", in verse 51 He says, "...the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", and into verse 53 He states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." In verse 55 He erases any doubts as to the literalism or the symbolism of His words, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." This is important to note. The Greek word 'alethes' is used in verse 55 and it is defined as follows: true, loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful. There is no room for an allegorical defintion of 'alethes', and especially in the context given, must always according to Greek grammar must be taken literally.
To note, the Jews "strove amongst themselves" in verse 52. The KJV translation of this phrase waters down what the original Greek actually says. In the Greek, it says they "quarelled spitefully with each other". This was no ordinary discussion between them, but a loud, heated, perhaps even physically violent argument! They asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" In reply, Christ puts stress on eating His flesh and drinking His blood, offering no comforting explanation for them. Talmage says the Jews actually understood Christ spoke symbolically, meaning that one must believe in Him and follow Him, but they didn't want the responsibility nor to admit they were in the wrong doctrinally. He cites that in Jewry 'eating and drinking' were used metaphorically by rabbis all the time. Thus, Christ simply spoke in metaphor. True, 'eating and drinking' was a symbolic term in Jewry, and it did indeed mean to take in, or to fully believe. But 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' in Jewry, when taken symbolically, took on an entirly different meaning. We see strong examples of this in the ancient Jewish Scriptures:
Psalm 14:4 - "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord?"
Psalm 27:2 - "When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell."
Ecclesiastes 4:5 - "The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh."
Isaiah 49:26 - "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine..."
Micah 3:3 - "Who also eat the flesh of my people..."
And also in the New Testament such language is again presented:
Revelation 17:6,16 - "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints...these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."
As is seen, the Jewish term 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' meant severe judgment, persecution, blasphemy, and death. The term is still used among the Jews and Arabs of today. So essentially, if He were speaking metaphorically, Jesus would have been saying to His disciples, "Judge me, persecute me, condemn me, blaspheme me, and you will have eternal life." This is ludicrous to assert, and it is well certain the Jews did not understand Him to say this.
To complete the full picture, we must now look at briefly the Gospel of John, the bold title pronounced over Jesus by John the Baptist, and an ancient Jewish feast, which all ties into the Mystery of the Eucharist. Then we'll come back to John 6, and examine the Greek behind the English translation.
Mary had a little Lamb...
John 1:1 sets the awesome tone for the unfolding tale: "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Here we have a basic definition of who Jesus Christ is. The Word is God Himself, preparing to be spoken into the world. Verse 14 gives us a simple sentence that is fundamental to orthodox Christianity: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The Greek says that the Word was made flesh and "tabernacled among us", literally took a tabernacle of flesh and bone to dwell among men. Incidentally, this passage was so strong in defining that Christ was equal with Heavenly Father that Joseph Smith had to 're-translate' the verse to say: 'In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word...and the Son was of God.' Smith's perverted texts will be dealt with in another tract. For now, we will go with the abundant evidense made available to us that the first citing of John 1:1 is "translated correctly."
Around the time of St. John's writing of his Gospel, many heretics, called Gnostics, claimed that Christ's body was simply an illusion, a hologram if you will, that He didn't truly beget real flesh and blood. We see John lashing out in righteous anger against these people, whom he labels as "antichrists", in his letters. In the Gospel, he uses the most graphic Greek terms available to wipe away any doubt whatsoever that Jesus took a body to dwell in. He uses the Greek word 'sarx', translated as 'flesh.' 'Sarx' is the more graphic rendering of the Greek word 'soma', which simply means 'body.' 'Sarx' literally means: flesh [the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood] of both man and beasts, the body, the body of a man. Symbolically, the word refers to our sinful nature, depending on the context. Here, St. John makes use of 'sarx' to drive the point home that God the Son took on human flesh, and was made man, "God from God, light from light, true God from true God." Born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, for the first time in universal history, took on human form. His Deity He took from God the Father, and His humanity from Mary His mother.
John 1:29 calls to mind a very Jewish rite as we see the wildman in the desert, the Baptist, seeing Jesus and cries out: "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world!" The haunting phrase 'Lamb of God' must have brought upon Jesus a sort of heavy burden, and yet at the same time a peace and luminous joy. The phrase is haunting because it explains, if only implicitly, what Christ's purpose on earth is for. The lambs of the Old Testament covenant were used as sacrifices, killed upon stone altars for the covering of sins. The lambs had to be without blemish, having neither spot nor disease. With Christ, we see a sinless man, a perfect God in human flesh, without spot in any way. And at His baptism, we hear the grand announcment: "Behold! the Lamb of God..." Any good Mormon will agree that Calvary was the great Altar on which the Lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of world - and during Passover. The Priest and the Sacrifice were One and the Same Person, who was slain not to cover up sins, but to wash them away "white as snow."
The rite of the slaying of the Passover lambs was instituted by God in the Exodus.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying...take to them every man a lamb...Your lamb shall be without blemish..." (Ex. 12:1-5)
The purity of the lamb is stressed. Its purpose is explained:
"...and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it (the lamb) in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door part posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread: and with bitter herbs they shall eat it...And this day shall be unto you for a memorial: and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations, ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever...It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of children of Israel in Egypt...and delivered our houses." (Ex. 12:7a-8,14,27)
It is the memorial feast of freedom from bondage, life after living in death. Notice that the lamb's blood not only was to be shed, but also to be eaten? The Lord says that this shall be kept FOREVER. 'Forever' does not mean "only for a few centuries", it means FOREVER, never ceasing. And indeed, though the Jewish feasts have ceased, the Passover feast and the eating of the Lamb has continued up until this day. The Sacrifice has not left the earth, but has stayed as the Memorial from life out of sin. Interesting still, is in verse 46 of the same chapter it again says, "In one house shall it (the lamb) be eaten...", and adds to that, "...neither shall ye break a bone thereof." This is the same sign that was given as an attribute to the Jewish Messiah in Psalm 34:20, "He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken." It is again prounounced over Christ in the narrative in John 19:26 as He dies on the cross, "For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken."
We see the literal slaying and eating of the Passover lamb, just as we see the literal slaying of Jesus Christ our Pascal Lamb...but do we really see the literal eating of His flesh? Well, ironically enough, the time in which the John 6 discourse took place was at Passover, the same time Jesus later died at Calvary. John 6:4 says, "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh."
The Bread and the Fish
In orthodox Christendom the Church looks at the events of John 6 as a sort of implicit example of the Liturgical Celebration. Seeing the great mass of people gathered before Him, Christ says to Phillip, "Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?" (vs.5). Phillip's response is that they barely have enough to feed such a multitude. The point is made that there is hunger, a great hunger among the people, and the nourishment is no where to be found. Circumstances prevent the apostles from buying food for their company. An act of faith, literally that of a child's, gives Christ the materials needed to perform one of the greatest miracles ever recorded. A boy from the crowd brings forth gifts to St. Andrew. The gifts are "five barley loaves, and two small fishes" (vs. 9). It is interesting that the number of food items adds up to 7. In Hebrew thought, the number 7 signified completeness, in a way it was God's special number. The meal brought forth to the Apostle, though it seemed like nothing to him, was in fact all that was need: it was complete. Interesting still are the fish distributed with the bread. In early Christian symbolism, Jesus was identified by the symbol of the fish. In Greek, the initial letters of 'Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior', spelt FISH. Later in the passage, Christ identifies Himself with bread. Two earthly elements, symbolizing Christ, are passed to the crowd to satisfy their hunger. The implicit message here is that Jesus is enough to satisfy the spiritual hunger that burns in every person's soul. He is all we need. He is complete.
The doubt of the Apostle Andrew - ironically enough, the very same Apostle who first believed in Jesus, and thus led his brother, Simon, surnamed Peter, to Him - is crushed as Christ takes what little food the child brought. As He takes these gifts, the Gospel narrative says He gave eucharista, literally, gave thanks. This is where we get the word 'Eucharist'. After He finishes consecrating the items to the Father, He calls His Apostles, the first bishops, and gives the food over to them that they may distribute it to the people. Neither the Apostles nor the people knew what they were experiencing. All they cared about was the satisfaction of their hunger. But Christ had something far deeper in mind. After the people eat their fill of the bread and fish, the Apostles are commanded by Christ to gather up the fragments. The fragments are enough to fill twelve baskets. Twelve, for the Apostles, and for the tribes of Israel. With these baskets filled with the consecrated food, the Apostles bring them before Christ, reserved and whole. The crowd, astonished by such power, rush to crown Jesus a king. But this was not His purpose for the miracle, so He 'departed again into a mountain himself alone.' (vs.15).
A God of Flesh and Bone
John 6:16-21 gives us an account of Christ's walk on the water, which in turn terrified His Apostles as they saw Him from the boat. A terrible storm nearly sank the boat, but in the midst of this, and their fear of His walking on the water, He says "Be not afraid, it is I." The Apostles thought they were seeing a 'ghost' walking on the sea (Matt.14:26). A ghost is a phantom, a spirit that "hath not flesh and bone" as Christ has. When Jesus tells them it is in fact Him upon the sea, verse 21 says that they "willingly recieved him into the ship." Contrary to their fear that He was a ghost, the Apostles see now that it was instead Jesus, a man as physical as they were. The contrast between this account and that of the following verses may have been St. John's way of further stressing the fact that Jesus' body was not a hologram, or an illusion, but in fact just as real and tangible as any man's. In Christendom, Jesus is indeed the God of flesh and bone.
'The work of God' - That's Greek to me!
When the people finally find Christ, He calls it like it is, "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." (vs.26). They probably hoped that He would supply them with multiple weapons for war against the Roman Empire, and at the same time keeping them fed so that they may never run out. However, whether they would admit it or no, the Jews were really searching for something deeper, so much deeper than what they supposed they sought. To this, Christ says in verse 27, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." Namely, Himself...but in reply, the Jews ask "What must we do to see the works of God?" And to this comes a very simply answer, so simple in fact it's shocking: "This is the work of God..." Christ says, as the crowd holds their breath awaiting this special secret, "...that ye believe on him whom God hath sent." Believe. Faith. Concerning the Eucharist, St. Augustine noted the stress of faith in the passage, and once wrote "Believe, and you have already eaten (of Christ)." This is the work of God: faith. Faith in Jesus Christ, without which the doctrine of the Eucharist, and all Christian fundamental teachings are void.
Continuing His discourse, Jesus speaks of the manna which God gave to Israel through the Prophet Moses. Then, He adds, "the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world" (vs.32). The startling comparison is made between the heavenly bread, namely the manna, which perpetually descended from heaven, and the Heavenly Bread, namely Jesus Christ, which "cometh" down. Not "has come", nor "will come", nor "at one time did come", but "cometh", continually, both into the hearts of all who trust in Him, and also at the consecration of the Eucharist.
In their excitement, the Jews beg, "Lord! gives us this bread always!" (vs. 34). And it is here where the "blasphemy" of Christ's words begin: "I AM the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst" (vs. 35). The horror! This mere carpenter, "whose father and mother we know", has claimed that He Himself came down from heaven! What arrogance! What pompous, sickening, arrogance! But this was nothing compared to what was coming. The Truth was being brought out, and like a two-edged sword Jesus had His mind set on dividing the crowd into two camps: the believers, and those who fall away. It must first be said that if the Mormon you encounter stops you after reading John 6:35, he will no doubt say: "There! Jesus has just explained that eating His flesh means coming to Him, obeying Him, and you will 'never hunger.' Drinking His blood simply means ' belieiving on Him', and you will never spiritually thirst."
The answer to this oft-made fallacy lies within the context of the passage. Of course, faith is required. Of course, one may 'eat' of Christ by believing in Him, as St. Augustine tells us. Our spirits do indeed eat the truth of Christ when we believe. But the mistake in interpretting this to mean 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' means to just believe and follow Christ is that the passage is not carefully examined. In the first part of His discourse, Jesus speaks of faith. In the second part of His discourse, His language changes dramatically to a scandelous literal understanding. To say "he that believeth on me shall never thirst" means drinking His blood is symbolic, is to take the meaning out of context. At this point in time, Jesus has not mentioned the drinking of His blood, so it is not affected by His words in verse 35. As a matter of fact if one cross-references John 6:35 with John 4:14, one finds Jesus saying to the woman at the well, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." The original manuscript of the Gospel had no chapters nor verses dividing it, so no doubt the ancient Jewish reader, upon reading aloud John 6:35, would easily make the connection that Christ is simply again reiterating what He said before. In fact, later in the Gospel of John we are told exactly and clearly what Jesus means when He says "he that believeth on me shall never thirst":
"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should recieve: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given..." (John 7:37-39a).
The quenching of thirst is actually the Holy Spirit, not the 'metaphorical' drinking of Christ's blood. Now as for the Jews hearing Christ speak in John 6:35, they no doubt would have noticed the startling nearly verbatim language He uses in comparison to God the Father's language in Isaiah 55:1,2:
"Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight in fatness."
Blatant still, is the fact that Christ makes mention of Moses and the manna in the preceeding verses of John 6:35. With this in mind, in contrast to Christ's words "...he who comes to me shall not hunger, he who believes...shall not thirst", the Jews most definetly would have had in mind the event briefly described in Nehemiah 9:15:
"And [He (God)] gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst..."
We see how the Mormon misinterpretation of verse 35 falls apart when looked at in simple English context. Now to get to the Greek. In John 6:53 Christ says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." The word in focus is "eat." The Greek word is 'phago', which means: to eat, literally or figuratively. The Mormon, if he knows a bit of Greek, will of course focus on the fact that 'phago' may be used FIGURATIVELY, and therefore the Christian concept of the Eucharist is faulty. It's no more than a metaphor, the Mormon will tell you, your precious Greek has disproven your belief!
Really? Humble pie is on the menu for the Latter-Day Saint, after a bountiful dish of crow. The Bible says that a fool boasts in his folly, but the wise man keeps silent until the opertune time. Suppose such a situation where to occur: the Mormon concentrates of the figurative usage of 'phago', but the Christian isn't finished yet. You see, 'phago' is the word used in verse 53, but in verse 54, there is an entirly different word used. Verse 54 says, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life,". In verse 54, the Greek word translated as "eateth" is 'trogo'. 'Trogo' literally means: to gnaw, crunch, to chew audibly. This is a word, in Greek, that is never used metaphorically in the New Testament, nor in ancient secular Greek. It is always used literally, and has a graphic definition. St. John could not have picked a better word to show Christ spoke of literally chewing His literal 'sarx', His flesh. This left no room for Gnostics to look at the text and try and reinterpret the words to a figurative meaning, as they could have done with 'phago', but certainly not with 'trogo'. Like the Mormons, and other cults, the Gnostics had to throw out context, throw out the meaning of the Greek words, perhaps even throw out the Gospel of John to support their erroneous belief!
No attempt to clear up a misconception
In answer to the crowd's question, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", Jesus does not even attempt once to clarify His graphic termonology. Instead, He adds more scandelizing language when He says not only must they literally eat His flesh, but they must also literally drink His blood! The drinking of blood was forbidden by God in Jewish law, but the point the Jews missed was that the Blood they would recieve gives life to the world: it is not common blood, but the sanctifying, glorified, Blood of Jesus Christ the Lord, without this Blood no human being can spiritually live, nor can we enter heaven.
While they had heard exactly right, Jesus goes on to explain that the spirit "quickenth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life" (vs. 63). In essence, He explained that they could not understand through mortal intellect, but needed to understand by the Holy Spirit, through the eyes of faith. "But there are some of you that believe not" (vs 64), and indeed there are many now in Christendom that do not believe. Outside Christendom the cults further the attempt at symbolizing Christ's graphic discourse.
The Mormon will no doubt point to verse 63 as absolute proof that Jesus' words were metaphorical: "it is the spirit that gives life...the flesh profits nothing." Therefore, the Mormon says, Jesus is saying to literally eat His flesh does no good, and He even says His words are symbolic!
Answer: the word "spirit" in ancient eastern thought was never synonomous with "symbolic". Today, modern thought has seen the two as synonyms, but never is it so in biblical understanding. There is a problem posed to the Mormon if he insists with this claim: in verse 62 Christ says "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend to where He was before?" Verse 63 says "...my words are spirit..." which would include all of Christ's words as mentioned in the discourse. Also, 1 Corinthians 10:3 speaks of the manna as 'spiritual meat', but this in no way indicates the manna was not true tangible bread. If verse 63 implies that Christ spoke metaphorically, then Christ's ascension into heaven is metaphorical too! The Mormon will never admit to that. He's stuck. It's either black or white - there's no room for gray. The context, the original Greek, and the intention of the author all support the clear doctrine of the Eucharist.
Explains other things which are misunderstood
We mentioned that Jesus made no attempt to clarify any misunderstanding concerning the Eucharist. The Mormon may mention that there were plenty of times when Jesus didn't clarify Himself. Not so in the Gospel of John. Let's look at another example in John, which also involves eating, and was mistakenly taken as literal.
"In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him out to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:31-34).
Notice the clarification given immedietly when the disciples misunderstood or took things literally? Let's look at another example from John:
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? ... Jesus answered...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:3-5)
Notice again the words of Christ, the literal misunderstanding of the listener, and the immediet clarification by Jesus. We see this pattern also in the second chapter of John. This time though, when Christ does not clarify for us, the narrative itself gives the explanation for the mistakenly-taken-literally symbolism:
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them..." (John 2:19-22)
We could continue giving more examples, but suffice it to say Jesus always clarified His speech when mistaken by either His Apostles, or His disciples.
The Last Supper
We can only imagine what went through the minds of the Apostles when they noticed there was no lamb for the Passover Jesus intended to celebrate. What a startling contrast this is to the inquiry Isaac gives his father Abraham...
"...where is the lamb for the burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb..." (Gen. 22:7,8a)
Abraham's answer could not have been anything less than inspired by God Himself. Indeed, God spared Isaac's life and provided a sacrifice for them. Abraham's answer may be spoken again in the New Testament with the slight interpolation of a word: it would read thus, "God will provide himself as a lamb..." which is exactly what happened during the holy hour of the Lord's Supper, and upon the altar of Calvary. As for Abraham, this patriarch seems to have two things in common with the Eucharist: the sacrifice of Isaac, and before that the offering of bread and wine by another Priest:
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God." (Gen. 14:18)
We are told in Hebrews 7 that Christ now holds the priesthood identical to that of Melchizedek's. However, contrary to the Mormon claim that they alone also hold the Melchizedek priesthood, the Bible (Heb 7:24) in the original Greek reads that Christ alone holds the priesthood, and that it is literally 'untransferrable.' This is not the place to expose the fallacy of the Mormon priesthood, but it is worth mention where Melchizedek is concerned.
During the Supper, having no lamb, Christ institutes the Eucharist by declaring of the bread, "This is my body", infusing both the eating of the lamb and the eating of bread into one substance: making the bread His own divine Flesh. In debate with Calvin and Zwingli, the great Reformer Martin Luther once said, "Since when does This is my body mean This is the symbol of my body?" The realism of Christ's words must be understood in light of what was usually pronounced over the meal by the head of the Jewish household: "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt." The literal bread the Jews ate was of the same substance, grain, and wheat, as that of the bread which Moses and Israel ate during the first Passover. In a sense, it truly was the exact same bread which was eaten all those centuries ago. Christ, now bringing the holy Passover to its fulfillment, said of Himself that He was the bread which was to be eaten. Not only would they mentally remember Him, but they would be in true communion with Him every time they partake of the Supper. Is it no wonder the earliest Christian records show a great reverence and honor for the Holy Eucharist, surrounded by liturgical celebrations of thanksgiving, glory, and praise to God. The first Mass, the first Divine Liturgy, was celebrated by Jesus Christ with His twelve Apostles in the upper room.
Paul's looming threat
The Apostle Paul, when speaking of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 says:
"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. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
In Jewry, to be 'guilty of the body and blood' of anyone meant to be guilty of a crime like murder. Contrast this with Matthew 27:25 when the angry mob shouts to Pontius Pilate "His blood be on us and on our children!" In response, Pilate says the exact opposite, and declares "I am innocent of this man's blood," showing them he would not be held responsible nor guilty of Jesus' death. Paul's threat is of no merit if the bread and wine during Sacrament are mere symbols. For such a threat to make sense in the context of the Lord's Supper, the 'body and blood of the Lord' must be understood in the most literal (yet at the same time spiritual) sense. This is precisely what a true sacrament is: an outward SIGN of an inward reality. The Eucharist is truly a mystery to human intellect. It combines the spiritual and the literal, just as Christ is the combination of God and Man.
Conclusion
Christians throughout the centuries have always held to the most fundamental doctrine of our faith: namely, the Deity of Jesus Christ as 'God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.' For Christians of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcepol churches specifically, the doctrine of the Eucharist is the greatest testimony to the all-glorifying Deity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Protestants and Evangelicals of other denominations most certaintly will not agree with us concerning Eucharist - however, because they proclaim just as boldly as we do the Gospel of Jesus as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word made flesh, the truly one and only begotten of the Father, they too are Christians and stand shoulder to shoulder with us against the growing heresies of Mormonism and other modern-day religious cults. Tracts like these are not about who has the right theology. You can be right in every area of theology, but if you have the wrong God, and the wrong Jesus, and the wrong Holy Spirit, you're in trouble! St. Paul warned of those who would come proclaiming a false 'Jesus' to the world. Today, Mormonism has done exactly that. They have substituted the Deity of Christ for the deity of all mankind; they have taken the Lord's Supper and made it into a memorial to a false god "whom your fathers did not know", namely the jesus-god of Mormonism; they follow prophets who command the worship of a false heavenly father, who is unlike anything the Heavenly Father of Biblical and orthodox Christianity (i.e. the God of Christendom does not have a body, He is not married, He is not one of many gods, etc). Together, arm in arm, Christians the world over will no longer tolerate the monstrous LDS blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His spiritual house. One day, when the pinnacles of the Mormon Temples fall forever, the Christian Church will still stand as a witness to Our Lord and Saviour, who redeemed us from our sins, who came to die for Mormons out of love for them, who came to free them from the spiritual tyranny that exists in their souls. Let us end this with a prayer for all Mormons everywhere, that they may come to know "the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent":
Almighty God our Father, we thank You for all You have done for us, we thank You for sending Jesus Christ Your Son to pay the price for our sins. Lord we thank you for the precious Mormons who are decieved by Satan's lies, and we pray that by Your grace You may draw them out of darkness and into Your marvelous light. By the merits of Jesus Christ Our Lord, they may come into Your Kingdom, bringing with them the Lord the Ransom in their lives, a true testimony to the grace He has shown to them. Bind all evil beings and forces that work against us O God we pray, open the eyes and hearts of Mormons everywhere that they may hear You calling to them. We ask this through the Name of Jesus the Lord, Amen. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
St. Michael, pray for us.
END
"The Sacrament. After you are baptized, you can renew you baptismal covenants each week by partaking of the sacrament. During the sacrament service, bread and water are blessed and passed to the congregation as a reminder of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The bread represents his body, and the water represents His blood."
The reason water is used instead of wine is because the use of any acoholic beverages were expressely forbidden in Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom, a set of guidlines every good Mormon must follow. In the above statement, the reader will notice a clever usage of Catholic language and phrasing, such as 'sacrament', the blessing of the bread and water, and the giving of communion only after baptism. However, on the same note, it is clearly stated that the bread and water do not change into the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ, according to Mormon theology, but rather they are mere representations of Christ's body and blood. The late Mormon Apostle, James E. Talmage, in his book Jesus the Christ (p. 342), expounds further. He speaks concerning Christ's words in John 6, wherein Christ makes the scandelous statement that men must "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to have everlasting life. The early martyrs and saints, the church fathers and theologians, even some of the reformers, up to this day, have always maintained that the Lord spoke of Holy Communion, or Eucharist. The Mormons hold a different view:
"There was little excuse for the Jews pretending to understand that our Lord meant an actual eating and drinking of His material flesh and blood. The utterances to which they objected were far more readily understood by them than they are by us on first reading; for the representation of the law and of truth in general as bread, and the acceptance thereof as a process of eating and drinking, were figures in every-day use by the rabbis of that time*. Their failure to comprehend the symbolism of Christ's doctrine was an act of will, not the natural consequence of innocent ignorance. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ was and is to believe in and accept Him as the literal Son of God and Savior of the world, and obey His commandments." (James E. Talmage, 'Jesus the Christ', p. 342)
In Note 10 (in reference to the asterik), on page 347 of the same book, reads:
"'The idea of eating, as a metaphor for recieving spiritual benefit, was familiar to Christ's hearers, and was as readily understood as our expressions - 'devouring a book', or 'drinking in' instruction."
Notice the slick blend of Catholiscm and Protestantism, with a slight twist of facts, and voila! you have a somewhat, on the surface, a hybrid belief concerning communion. With Catholic words and phrases, they appear to believe as we do that the bread and wine (water) become the Flesh and Blood of Christ. But in truth they believe as do the liberal Protestants of today, that the bread and wine are mere symbols, emblems of something that happened in the past. Not so with Christian orthodoxy: the bread and wine are not simply mere symbols, but are in actuality after the words of consecration and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the true Flesh and Blood of Christ. How this happens is a Mystery, and cannot be understood by mortal intellect. In this tract, we will take the Mormon understanding of communion, and break it down by using Scripture (the KJV), to show how erroneous their stance is on the matter.
The Beauty of Context!
To be certain we have a well-founded understanding of what Christ said, we have to look at the context. Context includes entirety of the passage, the original Greek or Hebrew autographs, the time it was written, who wrote it, and what was the author's intent. When context is not applied to any given Scriptural passage, the two fallacy belief categories usually are as follows: letterism, and gnostism. Letterism is when each and every word in the text is taken absolutly literally. I.E, Christ said 'I am the Door', now He's wood and hinges. 'He shall cover thee with His feathers and under His wings thou shalt trust,' now He's a chicken. Gnostisism is an attempt to symbolize everything that is to be taken literally in the passage. I.E, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain Christ didn't really physically resurrect from the tomb, but that He only arose spiritually. New Agers and persons of that like say God is simply a spiritual manifestation inside each and every one of us, that the concept of God is merely symbolic to explain who mankind really is on the inside. The doctrine of the Eucharist is situated perfectly between the two: it is a very literal understanding of the passage, while at the same time it has heavy spiritual elements. As we walk deeper into Scripture this will clearly be seen.
Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, United Methodists, and others from mainstream Protestantism look to John 6 as a fundamental proof text concerning Eucharist. In verse 35, Jesus tells His disciples, "I am the bread of life", in verse 51 He says, "...the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", and into verse 53 He states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." In verse 55 He erases any doubts as to the literalism or the symbolism of His words, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." This is important to note. The Greek word 'alethes' is used in verse 55 and it is defined as follows: true, loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful. There is no room for an allegorical defintion of 'alethes', and especially in the context given, must always according to Greek grammar must be taken literally.
To note, the Jews "strove amongst themselves" in verse 52. The KJV translation of this phrase waters down what the original Greek actually says. In the Greek, it says they "quarelled spitefully with each other". This was no ordinary discussion between them, but a loud, heated, perhaps even physically violent argument! They asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" In reply, Christ puts stress on eating His flesh and drinking His blood, offering no comforting explanation for them. Talmage says the Jews actually understood Christ spoke symbolically, meaning that one must believe in Him and follow Him, but they didn't want the responsibility nor to admit they were in the wrong doctrinally. He cites that in Jewry 'eating and drinking' were used metaphorically by rabbis all the time. Thus, Christ simply spoke in metaphor. True, 'eating and drinking' was a symbolic term in Jewry, and it did indeed mean to take in, or to fully believe. But 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' in Jewry, when taken symbolically, took on an entirly different meaning. We see strong examples of this in the ancient Jewish Scriptures:
Psalm 14:4 - "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord?"
Psalm 27:2 - "When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell."
Ecclesiastes 4:5 - "The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh."
Isaiah 49:26 - "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine..."
Micah 3:3 - "Who also eat the flesh of my people..."
And also in the New Testament such language is again presented:
Revelation 17:6,16 - "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints...these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."
As is seen, the Jewish term 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' meant severe judgment, persecution, blasphemy, and death. The term is still used among the Jews and Arabs of today. So essentially, if He were speaking metaphorically, Jesus would have been saying to His disciples, "Judge me, persecute me, condemn me, blaspheme me, and you will have eternal life." This is ludicrous to assert, and it is well certain the Jews did not understand Him to say this.
To complete the full picture, we must now look at briefly the Gospel of John, the bold title pronounced over Jesus by John the Baptist, and an ancient Jewish feast, which all ties into the Mystery of the Eucharist. Then we'll come back to John 6, and examine the Greek behind the English translation.
Mary had a little Lamb...
John 1:1 sets the awesome tone for the unfolding tale: "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Here we have a basic definition of who Jesus Christ is. The Word is God Himself, preparing to be spoken into the world. Verse 14 gives us a simple sentence that is fundamental to orthodox Christianity: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The Greek says that the Word was made flesh and "tabernacled among us", literally took a tabernacle of flesh and bone to dwell among men. Incidentally, this passage was so strong in defining that Christ was equal with Heavenly Father that Joseph Smith had to 're-translate' the verse to say: 'In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word...and the Son was of God.' Smith's perverted texts will be dealt with in another tract. For now, we will go with the abundant evidense made available to us that the first citing of John 1:1 is "translated correctly."
Around the time of St. John's writing of his Gospel, many heretics, called Gnostics, claimed that Christ's body was simply an illusion, a hologram if you will, that He didn't truly beget real flesh and blood. We see John lashing out in righteous anger against these people, whom he labels as "antichrists", in his letters. In the Gospel, he uses the most graphic Greek terms available to wipe away any doubt whatsoever that Jesus took a body to dwell in. He uses the Greek word 'sarx', translated as 'flesh.' 'Sarx' is the more graphic rendering of the Greek word 'soma', which simply means 'body.' 'Sarx' literally means: flesh [the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood] of both man and beasts, the body, the body of a man. Symbolically, the word refers to our sinful nature, depending on the context. Here, St. John makes use of 'sarx' to drive the point home that God the Son took on human flesh, and was made man, "God from God, light from light, true God from true God." Born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, for the first time in universal history, took on human form. His Deity He took from God the Father, and His humanity from Mary His mother.
John 1:29 calls to mind a very Jewish rite as we see the wildman in the desert, the Baptist, seeing Jesus and cries out: "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world!" The haunting phrase 'Lamb of God' must have brought upon Jesus a sort of heavy burden, and yet at the same time a peace and luminous joy. The phrase is haunting because it explains, if only implicitly, what Christ's purpose on earth is for. The lambs of the Old Testament covenant were used as sacrifices, killed upon stone altars for the covering of sins. The lambs had to be without blemish, having neither spot nor disease. With Christ, we see a sinless man, a perfect God in human flesh, without spot in any way. And at His baptism, we hear the grand announcment: "Behold! the Lamb of God..." Any good Mormon will agree that Calvary was the great Altar on which the Lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of world - and during Passover. The Priest and the Sacrifice were One and the Same Person, who was slain not to cover up sins, but to wash them away "white as snow."
The rite of the slaying of the Passover lambs was instituted by God in the Exodus.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying...take to them every man a lamb...Your lamb shall be without blemish..." (Ex. 12:1-5)
The purity of the lamb is stressed. Its purpose is explained:
"...and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it (the lamb) in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door part posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread: and with bitter herbs they shall eat it...And this day shall be unto you for a memorial: and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations, ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever...It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of children of Israel in Egypt...and delivered our houses." (Ex. 12:7a-8,14,27)
It is the memorial feast of freedom from bondage, life after living in death. Notice that the lamb's blood not only was to be shed, but also to be eaten? The Lord says that this shall be kept FOREVER. 'Forever' does not mean "only for a few centuries", it means FOREVER, never ceasing. And indeed, though the Jewish feasts have ceased, the Passover feast and the eating of the Lamb has continued up until this day. The Sacrifice has not left the earth, but has stayed as the Memorial from life out of sin. Interesting still, is in verse 46 of the same chapter it again says, "In one house shall it (the lamb) be eaten...", and adds to that, "...neither shall ye break a bone thereof." This is the same sign that was given as an attribute to the Jewish Messiah in Psalm 34:20, "He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken." It is again prounounced over Christ in the narrative in John 19:26 as He dies on the cross, "For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken."
We see the literal slaying and eating of the Passover lamb, just as we see the literal slaying of Jesus Christ our Pascal Lamb...but do we really see the literal eating of His flesh? Well, ironically enough, the time in which the John 6 discourse took place was at Passover, the same time Jesus later died at Calvary. John 6:4 says, "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh."
The Bread and the Fish
In orthodox Christendom the Church looks at the events of John 6 as a sort of implicit example of the Liturgical Celebration. Seeing the great mass of people gathered before Him, Christ says to Phillip, "Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?" (vs.5). Phillip's response is that they barely have enough to feed such a multitude. The point is made that there is hunger, a great hunger among the people, and the nourishment is no where to be found. Circumstances prevent the apostles from buying food for their company. An act of faith, literally that of a child's, gives Christ the materials needed to perform one of the greatest miracles ever recorded. A boy from the crowd brings forth gifts to St. Andrew. The gifts are "five barley loaves, and two small fishes" (vs. 9). It is interesting that the number of food items adds up to 7. In Hebrew thought, the number 7 signified completeness, in a way it was God's special number. The meal brought forth to the Apostle, though it seemed like nothing to him, was in fact all that was need: it was complete. Interesting still are the fish distributed with the bread. In early Christian symbolism, Jesus was identified by the symbol of the fish. In Greek, the initial letters of 'Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior', spelt FISH. Later in the passage, Christ identifies Himself with bread. Two earthly elements, symbolizing Christ, are passed to the crowd to satisfy their hunger. The implicit message here is that Jesus is enough to satisfy the spiritual hunger that burns in every person's soul. He is all we need. He is complete.
The doubt of the Apostle Andrew - ironically enough, the very same Apostle who first believed in Jesus, and thus led his brother, Simon, surnamed Peter, to Him - is crushed as Christ takes what little food the child brought. As He takes these gifts, the Gospel narrative says He gave eucharista, literally, gave thanks. This is where we get the word 'Eucharist'. After He finishes consecrating the items to the Father, He calls His Apostles, the first bishops, and gives the food over to them that they may distribute it to the people. Neither the Apostles nor the people knew what they were experiencing. All they cared about was the satisfaction of their hunger. But Christ had something far deeper in mind. After the people eat their fill of the bread and fish, the Apostles are commanded by Christ to gather up the fragments. The fragments are enough to fill twelve baskets. Twelve, for the Apostles, and for the tribes of Israel. With these baskets filled with the consecrated food, the Apostles bring them before Christ, reserved and whole. The crowd, astonished by such power, rush to crown Jesus a king. But this was not His purpose for the miracle, so He 'departed again into a mountain himself alone.' (vs.15).
A God of Flesh and Bone
John 6:16-21 gives us an account of Christ's walk on the water, which in turn terrified His Apostles as they saw Him from the boat. A terrible storm nearly sank the boat, but in the midst of this, and their fear of His walking on the water, He says "Be not afraid, it is I." The Apostles thought they were seeing a 'ghost' walking on the sea (Matt.14:26). A ghost is a phantom, a spirit that "hath not flesh and bone" as Christ has. When Jesus tells them it is in fact Him upon the sea, verse 21 says that they "willingly recieved him into the ship." Contrary to their fear that He was a ghost, the Apostles see now that it was instead Jesus, a man as physical as they were. The contrast between this account and that of the following verses may have been St. John's way of further stressing the fact that Jesus' body was not a hologram, or an illusion, but in fact just as real and tangible as any man's. In Christendom, Jesus is indeed the God of flesh and bone.
'The work of God' - That's Greek to me!
When the people finally find Christ, He calls it like it is, "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." (vs.26). They probably hoped that He would supply them with multiple weapons for war against the Roman Empire, and at the same time keeping them fed so that they may never run out. However, whether they would admit it or no, the Jews were really searching for something deeper, so much deeper than what they supposed they sought. To this, Christ says in verse 27, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." Namely, Himself...but in reply, the Jews ask "What must we do to see the works of God?" And to this comes a very simply answer, so simple in fact it's shocking: "This is the work of God..." Christ says, as the crowd holds their breath awaiting this special secret, "...that ye believe on him whom God hath sent." Believe. Faith. Concerning the Eucharist, St. Augustine noted the stress of faith in the passage, and once wrote "Believe, and you have already eaten (of Christ)." This is the work of God: faith. Faith in Jesus Christ, without which the doctrine of the Eucharist, and all Christian fundamental teachings are void.
Continuing His discourse, Jesus speaks of the manna which God gave to Israel through the Prophet Moses. Then, He adds, "the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world" (vs.32). The startling comparison is made between the heavenly bread, namely the manna, which perpetually descended from heaven, and the Heavenly Bread, namely Jesus Christ, which "cometh" down. Not "has come", nor "will come", nor "at one time did come", but "cometh", continually, both into the hearts of all who trust in Him, and also at the consecration of the Eucharist.
In their excitement, the Jews beg, "Lord! gives us this bread always!" (vs. 34). And it is here where the "blasphemy" of Christ's words begin: "I AM the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst" (vs. 35). The horror! This mere carpenter, "whose father and mother we know", has claimed that He Himself came down from heaven! What arrogance! What pompous, sickening, arrogance! But this was nothing compared to what was coming. The Truth was being brought out, and like a two-edged sword Jesus had His mind set on dividing the crowd into two camps: the believers, and those who fall away. It must first be said that if the Mormon you encounter stops you after reading John 6:35, he will no doubt say: "There! Jesus has just explained that eating His flesh means coming to Him, obeying Him, and you will 'never hunger.' Drinking His blood simply means ' belieiving on Him', and you will never spiritually thirst."
The answer to this oft-made fallacy lies within the context of the passage. Of course, faith is required. Of course, one may 'eat' of Christ by believing in Him, as St. Augustine tells us. Our spirits do indeed eat the truth of Christ when we believe. But the mistake in interpretting this to mean 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' means to just believe and follow Christ is that the passage is not carefully examined. In the first part of His discourse, Jesus speaks of faith. In the second part of His discourse, His language changes dramatically to a scandelous literal understanding. To say "he that believeth on me shall never thirst" means drinking His blood is symbolic, is to take the meaning out of context. At this point in time, Jesus has not mentioned the drinking of His blood, so it is not affected by His words in verse 35. As a matter of fact if one cross-references John 6:35 with John 4:14, one finds Jesus saying to the woman at the well, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." The original manuscript of the Gospel had no chapters nor verses dividing it, so no doubt the ancient Jewish reader, upon reading aloud John 6:35, would easily make the connection that Christ is simply again reiterating what He said before. In fact, later in the Gospel of John we are told exactly and clearly what Jesus means when He says "he that believeth on me shall never thirst":
"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should recieve: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given..." (John 7:37-39a).
The quenching of thirst is actually the Holy Spirit, not the 'metaphorical' drinking of Christ's blood. Now as for the Jews hearing Christ speak in John 6:35, they no doubt would have noticed the startling nearly verbatim language He uses in comparison to God the Father's language in Isaiah 55:1,2:
"Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight in fatness."
Blatant still, is the fact that Christ makes mention of Moses and the manna in the preceeding verses of John 6:35. With this in mind, in contrast to Christ's words "...he who comes to me shall not hunger, he who believes...shall not thirst", the Jews most definetly would have had in mind the event briefly described in Nehemiah 9:15:
"And [He (God)] gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst..."
We see how the Mormon misinterpretation of verse 35 falls apart when looked at in simple English context. Now to get to the Greek. In John 6:53 Christ says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." The word in focus is "eat." The Greek word is 'phago', which means: to eat, literally or figuratively. The Mormon, if he knows a bit of Greek, will of course focus on the fact that 'phago' may be used FIGURATIVELY, and therefore the Christian concept of the Eucharist is faulty. It's no more than a metaphor, the Mormon will tell you, your precious Greek has disproven your belief!
Really? Humble pie is on the menu for the Latter-Day Saint, after a bountiful dish of crow. The Bible says that a fool boasts in his folly, but the wise man keeps silent until the opertune time. Suppose such a situation where to occur: the Mormon concentrates of the figurative usage of 'phago', but the Christian isn't finished yet. You see, 'phago' is the word used in verse 53, but in verse 54, there is an entirly different word used. Verse 54 says, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life,". In verse 54, the Greek word translated as "eateth" is 'trogo'. 'Trogo' literally means: to gnaw, crunch, to chew audibly. This is a word, in Greek, that is never used metaphorically in the New Testament, nor in ancient secular Greek. It is always used literally, and has a graphic definition. St. John could not have picked a better word to show Christ spoke of literally chewing His literal 'sarx', His flesh. This left no room for Gnostics to look at the text and try and reinterpret the words to a figurative meaning, as they could have done with 'phago', but certainly not with 'trogo'. Like the Mormons, and other cults, the Gnostics had to throw out context, throw out the meaning of the Greek words, perhaps even throw out the Gospel of John to support their erroneous belief!
No attempt to clear up a misconception
In answer to the crowd's question, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", Jesus does not even attempt once to clarify His graphic termonology. Instead, He adds more scandelizing language when He says not only must they literally eat His flesh, but they must also literally drink His blood! The drinking of blood was forbidden by God in Jewish law, but the point the Jews missed was that the Blood they would recieve gives life to the world: it is not common blood, but the sanctifying, glorified, Blood of Jesus Christ the Lord, without this Blood no human being can spiritually live, nor can we enter heaven.
While they had heard exactly right, Jesus goes on to explain that the spirit "quickenth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life" (vs. 63). In essence, He explained that they could not understand through mortal intellect, but needed to understand by the Holy Spirit, through the eyes of faith. "But there are some of you that believe not" (vs 64), and indeed there are many now in Christendom that do not believe. Outside Christendom the cults further the attempt at symbolizing Christ's graphic discourse.
The Mormon will no doubt point to verse 63 as absolute proof that Jesus' words were metaphorical: "it is the spirit that gives life...the flesh profits nothing." Therefore, the Mormon says, Jesus is saying to literally eat His flesh does no good, and He even says His words are symbolic!
Answer: the word "spirit" in ancient eastern thought was never synonomous with "symbolic". Today, modern thought has seen the two as synonyms, but never is it so in biblical understanding. There is a problem posed to the Mormon if he insists with this claim: in verse 62 Christ says "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend to where He was before?" Verse 63 says "...my words are spirit..." which would include all of Christ's words as mentioned in the discourse. Also, 1 Corinthians 10:3 speaks of the manna as 'spiritual meat', but this in no way indicates the manna was not true tangible bread. If verse 63 implies that Christ spoke metaphorically, then Christ's ascension into heaven is metaphorical too! The Mormon will never admit to that. He's stuck. It's either black or white - there's no room for gray. The context, the original Greek, and the intention of the author all support the clear doctrine of the Eucharist.
Explains other things which are misunderstood
We mentioned that Jesus made no attempt to clarify any misunderstanding concerning the Eucharist. The Mormon may mention that there were plenty of times when Jesus didn't clarify Himself. Not so in the Gospel of John. Let's look at another example in John, which also involves eating, and was mistakenly taken as literal.
"In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him out to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:31-34).
Notice the clarification given immedietly when the disciples misunderstood or took things literally? Let's look at another example from John:
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? ... Jesus answered...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:3-5)
Notice again the words of Christ, the literal misunderstanding of the listener, and the immediet clarification by Jesus. We see this pattern also in the second chapter of John. This time though, when Christ does not clarify for us, the narrative itself gives the explanation for the mistakenly-taken-literally symbolism:
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them..." (John 2:19-22)
We could continue giving more examples, but suffice it to say Jesus always clarified His speech when mistaken by either His Apostles, or His disciples.
The Last Supper
We can only imagine what went through the minds of the Apostles when they noticed there was no lamb for the Passover Jesus intended to celebrate. What a startling contrast this is to the inquiry Isaac gives his father Abraham...
"...where is the lamb for the burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb..." (Gen. 22:7,8a)
Abraham's answer could not have been anything less than inspired by God Himself. Indeed, God spared Isaac's life and provided a sacrifice for them. Abraham's answer may be spoken again in the New Testament with the slight interpolation of a word: it would read thus, "God will provide himself as a lamb..." which is exactly what happened during the holy hour of the Lord's Supper, and upon the altar of Calvary. As for Abraham, this patriarch seems to have two things in common with the Eucharist: the sacrifice of Isaac, and before that the offering of bread and wine by another Priest:
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God." (Gen. 14:18)
We are told in Hebrews 7 that Christ now holds the priesthood identical to that of Melchizedek's. However, contrary to the Mormon claim that they alone also hold the Melchizedek priesthood, the Bible (Heb 7:24) in the original Greek reads that Christ alone holds the priesthood, and that it is literally 'untransferrable.' This is not the place to expose the fallacy of the Mormon priesthood, but it is worth mention where Melchizedek is concerned.
During the Supper, having no lamb, Christ institutes the Eucharist by declaring of the bread, "This is my body", infusing both the eating of the lamb and the eating of bread into one substance: making the bread His own divine Flesh. In debate with Calvin and Zwingli, the great Reformer Martin Luther once said, "Since when does This is my body mean This is the symbol of my body?" The realism of Christ's words must be understood in light of what was usually pronounced over the meal by the head of the Jewish household: "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt." The literal bread the Jews ate was of the same substance, grain, and wheat, as that of the bread which Moses and Israel ate during the first Passover. In a sense, it truly was the exact same bread which was eaten all those centuries ago. Christ, now bringing the holy Passover to its fulfillment, said of Himself that He was the bread which was to be eaten. Not only would they mentally remember Him, but they would be in true communion with Him every time they partake of the Supper. Is it no wonder the earliest Christian records show a great reverence and honor for the Holy Eucharist, surrounded by liturgical celebrations of thanksgiving, glory, and praise to God. The first Mass, the first Divine Liturgy, was celebrated by Jesus Christ with His twelve Apostles in the upper room.
Paul's looming threat
The Apostle Paul, when speaking of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 says:
"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. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
In Jewry, to be 'guilty of the body and blood' of anyone meant to be guilty of a crime like murder. Contrast this with Matthew 27:25 when the angry mob shouts to Pontius Pilate "His blood be on us and on our children!" In response, Pilate says the exact opposite, and declares "I am innocent of this man's blood," showing them he would not be held responsible nor guilty of Jesus' death. Paul's threat is of no merit if the bread and wine during Sacrament are mere symbols. For such a threat to make sense in the context of the Lord's Supper, the 'body and blood of the Lord' must be understood in the most literal (yet at the same time spiritual) sense. This is precisely what a true sacrament is: an outward SIGN of an inward reality. The Eucharist is truly a mystery to human intellect. It combines the spiritual and the literal, just as Christ is the combination of God and Man.
Conclusion
Christians throughout the centuries have always held to the most fundamental doctrine of our faith: namely, the Deity of Jesus Christ as 'God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.' For Christians of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcepol churches specifically, the doctrine of the Eucharist is the greatest testimony to the all-glorifying Deity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Protestants and Evangelicals of other denominations most certaintly will not agree with us concerning Eucharist - however, because they proclaim just as boldly as we do the Gospel of Jesus as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word made flesh, the truly one and only begotten of the Father, they too are Christians and stand shoulder to shoulder with us against the growing heresies of Mormonism and other modern-day religious cults. Tracts like these are not about who has the right theology. You can be right in every area of theology, but if you have the wrong God, and the wrong Jesus, and the wrong Holy Spirit, you're in trouble! St. Paul warned of those who would come proclaiming a false 'Jesus' to the world. Today, Mormonism has done exactly that. They have substituted the Deity of Christ for the deity of all mankind; they have taken the Lord's Supper and made it into a memorial to a false god "whom your fathers did not know", namely the jesus-god of Mormonism; they follow prophets who command the worship of a false heavenly father, who is unlike anything the Heavenly Father of Biblical and orthodox Christianity (i.e. the God of Christendom does not have a body, He is not married, He is not one of many gods, etc). Together, arm in arm, Christians the world over will no longer tolerate the monstrous LDS blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His spiritual house. One day, when the pinnacles of the Mormon Temples fall forever, the Christian Church will still stand as a witness to Our Lord and Saviour, who redeemed us from our sins, who came to die for Mormons out of love for them, who came to free them from the spiritual tyranny that exists in their souls. Let us end this with a prayer for all Mormons everywhere, that they may come to know "the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent":
Almighty God our Father, we thank You for all You have done for us, we thank You for sending Jesus Christ Your Son to pay the price for our sins. Lord we thank you for the precious Mormons who are decieved by Satan's lies, and we pray that by Your grace You may draw them out of darkness and into Your marvelous light. By the merits of Jesus Christ Our Lord, they may come into Your Kingdom, bringing with them the Lord the Ransom in their lives, a true testimony to the grace He has shown to them. Bind all evil beings and forces that work against us O God we pray, open the eyes and hearts of Mormons everywhere that they may hear You calling to them. We ask this through the Name of Jesus the Lord, Amen. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
St. Michael, pray for us.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)