101 replies

  1. Samuel was correct. Nothing but attacks on Christianity.


    • Paulus: nothing but attacks on Islam. Hypocrisy.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lol, Lassie barks and complains but never actually responds to the issue at hand.

      What can we expect from a rabid anti-Islamic hate mongerer?

      Hey Lassie, did the holy spirit yell you where I’m from yet? Hint again: it’s not Australia.

      Liked by 2 people

    • My “attacks” as you call them are only attempts to use your own standards applied to Islam. Be that scholarship, argumentation etc. Because you never apply or allow the same principles to be applied to your own new faith.

      It would be nice to see you actually engage in deep and meaningful conversation rather than moderating people and using cheap polemics when questioned.


    • Paulus: ‘cheap polemics’ perfectly describes your activity on this blog. Every time.

      Liked by 3 people

    • What do you call this post then? Academic inquiry? Genuine discussion starter?


    • Neither.

      It’s a wry look at some topical news.

      Paulus: you don’t like my blog? Go somewhere else. No one (least of all me) is forcing you to lurk here.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. ” it is not my intention to insult Christians”- Faiz


    • LOL, still stuck on that? Let me repeat:

      Gentile dogs like you don’t fit the bill.

      Your only purpose here is to demonize Muslims. You even have a problem with Muslims sitting on the ground! Why would I treat such a person with respect?

      Liked by 3 people

    • So your intention is to only insult *some* Christians. Right, got it.


    • Oh Lassie, do you have anything constructive to add for once or will you continue to deflect from your failures?

      Did you figure out where I’m from yet? 😉


    • Demonise Muslims? Talk about exaggerated rhetoric. But hey, if criticising your faith is demonising, so be it.

      By all means sit on the ground. I simply found it pathetic that your scholars need to justify it. That is what the Sunna does to otherwise normal people. Suddenly they need to defend the physiological and spiritual benefits of sitting on the ground- simply because they emulate a man. It’s hilarious and tragic all at the same time.


    • You are from Australia. You say your not, but you also said that you have no intention of insulting Christians. Hard to trust what a liar says…


  3. The problem with these so-called “visions” is that they have purportedly happened before in other places, yet they never offer any practical advice or warnings. I have heard that some Rwandan children had visions of violence in the 1980s. Naturally, some Christians believe these visions were a “warning” of the Rwandan genocide. My question would be why didn’t the Madonna actually make clear warnings? Why were these “visions” no different than the alleged “visions” of Nostradamus, which he then wrote down in deliberately cryptic prophecies? Sounds like a con to me. Or maybe these people are just hallucinating. Or maybe, just maybe, it is the work of the devil. Why not? These “visions” lead people to literally worship the Madonna. I think Satan would be happy with that.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Paul never had the types of symptoms Muhammad had during his episodes.”

      i don’t know which vision you are referring to , but can you tell me any prophet in the torah who was blinded for more than 1 day and needed to be carried away?


    • it is funny that hector avalos said that jesus used violence on paul by blinding him lol

      it is in the chapter “the violent jesus” from the book “bad jesus”

      For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.


      Liked by 2 people

    • i hate it when missionaries try to pull the “your prophet had symptom” apologetic
      these guys think they are very clever

      the funny thing is that jesus probably was calling out to ELI ya to SAVE him from the cross

      and it is these missionaries who say that god had no choice but to transfers sins, pour on himself and then people who heard their god, thought he was CALLING out to eli – yah

      this implies that catholicism has it RIGHT on INTERMEDIARIES for jesus himself was seeking help from a human being while he was on the cross


  4. I cannot understand how this post is critical of Paul for having a heavenly vision when Islam claims the same thing for Muhammad. For instance the hadith where Muhammad is told to pray five times a day.

    Muhammad also had dreams:

    Narrated (told by) ‘Aisha (one of Muhammad’s wives): The start of the divine inspiration to Allah’s Apostle (Muhammad) was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. … (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 1, no. 3)

    And the manner of Muhammad’s inspiration is concerning:

    A hard and severe condition, the ringing of bells in his ears. (Muslim: bk. 30, no. 5765)
    He would faint and fall down. (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. viii, pp. 2-3)
    He would sweat even on a cold day. (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 462)
    His face would go red and he would breathed heavily. (Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 508)
    He would snort like a camel. (Bukhari: vol. 3, bk. 27, no. 17)
    And his mouth and lips would quiver. (Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 564)
    When Muhammad first began to experience this he was suicidal. (Bukhari: vol. 9, bk. 87, no. 111)

    Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660; see also Number 661)

    Paul simply had a vision from God which is quite acceptable and God ordained (Number 12:1-8). Paul never had the types of symptoms Muhammad had during his episodes. If you reject Paul for having a vision then you have to reject Muhammad many times over. Why believe one man who had these types of experiences?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Um, your question doesn’t make any sense. You obviously don’t believe Muhammad’s visions and yet you’re asking why we would reject Paul’s visions? Well,for one thing, the accounts of Paul’s visions are contradictory. Why should we believe them?

      Liked by 1 person

    • My comments make perfect sense. The original post casts doubt over Paul on the basis of him having a vision. Paul’s accounts of his calling are not contradictory though this changing the question.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m asking you, Sam!
      Why didn’t your prophet Paul substantiate his authority as an apostle to the orignal disciples by that vision!?
      Why didn’t he tell them as he wrote that he had taken the knowledge from the heveanly Jesus not like them from the earthly one?
      Also, why are there contradictions in your bible about that vision, and how it happened in book of acts? Also, why is it impossible for anyone among christians to claim that he takes the knowledge from the heavenly Jesus? Why is it only Paul who has this right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul’s “vision” was not really a vision. All he saw was a blinding light and heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus. Very different from any of the prophets in the Tanakh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Paul’s “vision” was not really a vision. All he saw was a blinding light and heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus. Very different from any of the prophets in the Tanakh.”

      and this is supposed to be the “earliest creed”
      in which no mention is mentioned of jesus predicting his death
      no mention of flesh and blood and wounded jesus walking around asking people to poke him
      no mention of j of a burying jesus
      no mention of “and he appeared on the 3rd day”

      and this same guy says people were preaching different jesus’

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Lassie barked:

    “Demonise Muslims? Talk about exaggerated rhetoric. But hey, if criticising your faith is demonising, so be it.

    By all means sit on the ground. I simply found it pathetic that your scholars need to justify it. That is what the Sunna does to otherwise normal people. Suddenly they need to defend the physiological and spiritual benefits of sitting on the ground- simply because they emulate a man. It’s hilarious and tragic all at the same time.”

    Lol, look at how this mook makes excuses for his behavior and then to finish off, makes another idiotic rant against Islam. What else can we expect from a rabid hate mongerer?

    So Lassie, anything constructive to add? Why don’t you ask the holy spirit?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Lassie barked:

    “You are from Australia. You say your not, but you also said that you have no intention of insulting Christians. Hard to trust what a liar says…”

    Rotfl!! Oh this is too funny! Lassie, you are very deluded dear boy! Holy Spirit fail yet again!

    I will continue to insult morons like you, thank you very much. If it’s too much for you, then go cry to someone who cares.

    Maybe if you lose your rabid anti-Islamic hate mongering, you would be worthy of a normal conversation. But I know that’s impossible. You are an idiot with whom a rational conversarion is an impossibility. I mean look at you. You are still convinced that I’m from Australia! I’ve never even been anywhere near Australia, you ding bat. But, believe what you will if it makes you happy. It makes it easier for me to embarrass you.

    Liked by 3 people

    • By all means continue the insults. All it does it turn people away from listening to you, and the religion you follow. After all, why would anyone want to be a muhammadan if your behaviour is the result?

      And it allows everyone following Bilal’s blog to see the hypocrisy of Islam as he allows people like you free reign while he moderates constructive criticism.

      In other words, you guys just make Islam look bad. And your own religion has some pretty dire warnings for people like you.


    • Thanks for those words Paulus. I think we have put up with your insults and lies long enough. You have earned your just reward: you are henceforth banned.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lol, oh the irony! All this is coming from Mr. Lassie, rabid anti-Muslim hate mongerer!

      Look, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for you. And thanks for the permission. I think I will continue to insult you. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Too bad. I was looking forward to him finally figuring out where I live? And it ain’t Australia!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. But the Pope travel so Fatima and “added two Portuguese shepherd children to the roster of Catholic saints Saturday, honoring young siblings whose reported visions of the Virgin Mary 100 years ago turned the Portuguese farm town of Fatima into one of the world’s most important Catholic shrines.”


    Liked by 1 person

  8. That’s easy – one is inspired Scripture (Acts 9, 22, 26, etc.)

    The other is not – so called apparitions and appearances of Mary are all untrue and part of the problems of Roman Catholicism, which has been a heresy and false church, since the Council of Trent condemned the heart of the gospel message, falling under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9.


    • what a shameless christian. the catholics gave you trinity and canon. they are the ones who are receiving visions from mother of yhwh and you dare to question those visions?


    • No they did not – the first 5 Centuries were not Roman Catholic, and all Protestants have always believed that we are ‘catholic” also, in the sense of “universal, apostolic, and agree that the first 4 creeds/councils were Biblical. They did not give us the canon. The canon is the result of being God-breathed/inspired first century documents. Romanism / Papalism was not in existence in the first 4-5 centuries. The Eastern Orthodox are right on that also (they also know that the bishop of Rome was never meant to be “bishop over all other bishops” or “infallible”; though wrong on many other things.


    • The first 5 centuries were much more Roman Catholic in theology and ecclesiology than your evangelical church

      Liked by 1 person

    • John Henry Cardinal Newman was wrong. Ignaz Von Dollinger and lord John Acton were correct against the infallibility dogma of 1870.

      Some of the pious beliefs and practices started slowly in late 4th Century, but the early church is not infallible, whereas Scripture is infallible. as James White says, “we can let the early church be the early church”; it was neither Roman Catholic, nor Protestant, nor EO;
      Irenaeus was right on many things; but wrong on some things;
      Tertullian was right on some things,wrong on some things;
      Athanasius was right on many things; wrong on a few things.
      Augustine was right on many things; wrong on some things;
      Cyprian was right (as also 86 other bishops from all over Empire) to oppose bishop of Rome Stephen’s claim to be “bishop over all other bishops” around 257-258 AD.
      Jerome was right on Apocrypha books, but wrong on Perpetual virginity of Mary.


    • Yes, I dare and in your face say that all those apparitions are false and heretical and the only true Mary, mother of Jesus, is the Mary in the NT. One of the grossest things is the way they over-exalted her and even “worship” her, although they claim they are not worshiping her.


    • the visions came centuries after canon was already in existence; the false doctrines, prayers to Mary, statues, icons are wrong and came centuries later; the dogmas came centuries and some millennia later (1854 – dogma of Immacute Conception; 1950 the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary) Totally unbiblical, heretical, wrong, and ugly. Because of the early practices of those piety that had begun before Islam (praying to mary, icons, statues), the whole Muslim world and the Qur’an misunderstood true Christianity – Surah 5:72-78; 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-92. All of that stuff is based on false practices about Mary that slowly began after 340s into 600s AD. Your whole religion of Islam got “Son of God” wrong and got the Trinity wrong because of the false Marian practices and piety of late 300s into 600s AD. But no dogmas about her were in existence then, except that she was a true virgin before Jesus was born (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke chapters 1-2) and the Theotokos of Council of Ephesus in 431 AD (and to Chalcedon in 451 AD) was meant to be about Jesus as Deity from conception in the womb of Mary – it was not about her so much as about Jesus.


    • Roman Catholics of the 800s AD to 2017 AD are not the same people as the first century Christians or 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th century Christians. It is silly and stupid to project 18 and 19th and 20th century apparitions of Mary onto believers in the first 5 centuries. That is called “anachronistic”.


    • “The other is not – so called apparitions and appearances of Mary are all untrue and part of the ”

      mary is the wisdom /sophia which carried yhwh in her womb. the yhwh carrier carried 1 person, 2 natures. all those appearances are genuine according to the catholics. they touch her, communicate with her and even see her moving about.


    • “Roman Catholicism, which has been a heresy and false church”

      what a lie, catholicism has its roots in 1st century judaism. the catholics genuinely believe this .


    • The issues are: 1. Was a Papal office of bishop over all other bishops in authority around in the first 5-6 centuries or more? NO, even the Eastern Orthodox know this. 2. Was a doctrine of Transubstantiation with it’s Aristotelian philosophy around in the first 5 centuries? No. 3. Was purgatory around in the first 4 centuries?. No.

      4. Were statues and icons as part of worship context with ideas of dulia and latria? No. 5. Were prayers to Mary or statues to her or icons or doctrines or dogmas of over-exalting her in the first 3-4 centuries? No. “New Eve” was around, but by itself, it does nothing to add to the later dogmas. Theotokos of 431 – 451 AD was there, but it meant that Jesus was Deity in the womb (and before as eternal Son and eternal Word) – it was not about Mary, but about Jesus.
      6. Tertullian was right against infant baptism and 7. he was right against “perpetual virginity of Mary” – only with Jerome and Augustine (400 AD) did perpetual virginity begin to be defended; and they were wrong on that.

      8. Indulgences? no
      9. the “treasury of merit” in heaven? no

      So you see, there was no Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries. “catholic” (Universal throughout the known world – Roman Empire and beyond – yes, as it was spreading out in missionary enterprise; but “Roman Catholic” – NO.


    • The early Catholics believed that at the epiclesis the bread and wine turned into the literal body and blood of Jesus, a doctrine you reject.


    • There were several views in the early church. Even “real presence” is not the sole view of the early centuries, and when it is clear, it is more like the Lutheran “con-substantiation” – Jesus’ presence comes, but the wine and bread still remain wine and bread.
      There is no “Transubstantiation” where the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. But of course, the key is Scripture; since Jesus is still in His physical incarnational body at the Lord’s supper before the Cross even happened, when He said “this is My body” and “this is My blood”, it could not have meant what RCs anachronistically read back into it; it obviously mean “this represents My body” and “this represents My blood” – obvious symbols.

      Excellent article on early church and the Eucharist: (even refuting so called “real presence” as it can be taken different ways)



    • you are obsessed by the word ‘transubstantiation’.

      Like I said, the early Catholics believed that at the epiclesis the bread and wine turned into the literal body and blood of Jesus, a doctrine you reject. So you are the heretic judging by the teaching of the Catholic church that gave you the NT.

      J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

      “Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).

      Ignatius of Antioch

      “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

      “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

      Justin Martyr

      “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


      “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

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

      Clement of Alexandria

      “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


      “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


      “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
      the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).


      “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

      Cyprian of Carthage

      “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

      Council of Nicaea I

      “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

      Aphraahat the Persian Sage

      “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

      Cyril of Jerusalem

      “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

      “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

      Ambrose of Milan

      “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

      Theodore of Mopsuestia

      “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


      “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

      “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

      “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

      Council of Ephesus

      “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).


    • that article I linked to refutes all that. Ignatius was refuting Gnostics/Docetics who denied Jesus had a real physical body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


    • “In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me you will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes….He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.”

      ” The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world….” (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).

      “Who is the bread of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.”

      “This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. ” (Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).


    • A Catholic has easily refuted your Protestant twisting of their history:

      Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration. The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well. Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ’s presence at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.

      Thus, I decided to research what the Early Christians believed on this issue. I searched the indices for “Eucharist” in many volume sets on Early Christian writings, and I was astonished at my discovery. The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn’t even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search. Some Christians, e.g. St. Augustine, had very much to say about the Real Presence of Our Lord, so I did not include everything. Also, I want you to know that I did not include other Christians who believed in the Real Presence in this article because they later fell away from the Church for different reasons. Therefore, even though these Christians defended the Real Presence, e.g. Origen, Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuetta, etc., I did not include their statements.

      I pray that this research article will inspire lukewarm Catholics to become excited about their Faith which has faithfully been passed on for over 2000 years. I pray that the Holy Spirit will grant you Faith to believe in Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to receive Him at Mass and visit Him in the tabernacle. He is patiently waiting for you because he loves you and wants you to come home.

      Also, I pray that this research article will motivate non-Catholics to ask questions about the Blessed Sacrament to learn more. Our Lord is still with us in the flesh, and He is awesome! I pray that someday you will be able to experience the joy of receiving Him in the Mass and of praying at his feet.


      “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

      -1 Cor. 10:16-17

      “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

      -1 Cor. 11:23-27


      The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

      “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred'”.

      -Ch. 9:5

      “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'”

      -Ch 14


      St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

      “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

      Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

      “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

      Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]


      St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

      “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

      “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

      “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

      -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

      “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

      -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

      “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

      -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.


      St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

      “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

      “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

      “God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

      “Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

      Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”

      -“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]


      St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

      [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”

      Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

      “So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

      -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

      Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”

      -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.


      St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

      “The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

      -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

      “The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

      -“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,


      St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,

      “So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb – slain as a type of Christ – should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,

      -“The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,

      Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.

      “Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,

      -“The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,

      “The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”,

      Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

      “There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”,

      -“The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,

      As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.”,

      Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,


      Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life.,

      He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,

      “But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before he was crucified He gave His blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.”,

      – “Treatises” [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,


      “‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,

      To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.’ On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.,

      We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!,

      For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: – after the mentioning of their names: – Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.”,

      -“The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],


      St. Ephrem was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the ‘lyre of the Holy Spirit’. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,

      “Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.,

      And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.”,

      -“Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,

      “After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”,

      -“Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,

      “‘And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.”,

      -“On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.


      St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

      “‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”,

      -“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,


      St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,

      “`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

      -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

      “Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]

      -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

      “Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

      -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”

      “9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

      Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:

      “Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need.”

      “Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]

      “Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out.”

      -Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]

      “After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good.’ Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate – no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

      -“Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D

      “Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.”

      -“Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]”


      St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.

      “When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously – had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”

      -“The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.


      St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.

      “What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.”

      -“The Morals” Ch. 22

      “He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

      -“Concerning Baptism” Book I, Ch. 3.

      “To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’ Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”

      -“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.


      “We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”

      -“The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.


      St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.

      “Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”

      -“Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.


      “Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.”

      -“The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]”

      “He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”

      -“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.

      “The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”

      -“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.


      From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.

      “When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!”

      -“Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 A.D.

      “I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.”

      Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.

      “It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”

      Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

      “‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: ‘What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.’ He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us.”

      -“Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians” [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.


      “You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.”

      -“The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

      “Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.”

      -“On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

      “His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.”

      -“The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38

      “Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.”

      -“Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.


      “Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the Cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the Cross save on this day alone.”

      -“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 35.

      Describes a Mass held in front of Mt. Sinai.

      “All of the proper passage from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the prescribed manner, and we received Communion.”

      -“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 3.


      “Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus’ body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard.”

      -“Hymns for Every Day” Hymn 170.

      ST. JEROME (Alt)

      “After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”

      -“Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.


      “A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he offers the Sacrifice”

      “Apostolic Constitutions [8, 28, 2:9]”


      “Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”

      Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:

      “We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”

      Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:


      “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

      -“Sermons”, [227, 21]

      “He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen'”.

      -“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

      “For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

      Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

      “The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

      Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:


      “[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”

      -“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.

      ST. LEO I, THE GREAT (Alt)

      “When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”

      -“Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.


      “As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

      -“Sermons [13 (265), 3]


      “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”

      -“The Rule of Faith [62]”


      “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul W. wrote: “The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood.”

      Can you show me in the NT a church office called “priest”?
      Where in the NT is anything about calling upon the HS to change the wine into blood and bread into the body of Christ?

      Since Christ was there in His incarnational body at the Lord Supper when He said, “this is My body” and it was before the cross, He obviously meant, “this bread represents/symbolizes My body”


    • NB Acts does not claim to be inspired scripture and I see no evidence Luke thought he was writing scripture.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Does not matter how you try to interpret Luke’s intension.

      both Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts are God-breathed Scripture -2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18 – he even puts Luke’s gospel on same par as holy Scripture as the torah by quoting Deut. and Luke 10:7/Matthew 10:10. All Christians have always believed this. Acts 1:1-8 shows this, and connects the book to the gospel of Luke, which is intended to show both the teachings and actions of Jesus that He began to do and teach while alive, and which continue through the apostles and early church by the Holy Spirit, and shows the unity of the Holy Spirit and Jesus the eternal Son working spiritually through the apostles and early church of the first century. “All that Jesus began to do and teach” – the verb tense is significant there.


    • “…the only true Mary, mother of Jesus, is the Mary in the NT.”

      Which one? The one who knows Jesus is “divine son of God” or the one who doesn’t?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Why didn’t your prophet Paul substantiate his authority as an apostle to the orignal disciples by that vision!?
      Why didn’t he tell them as he wrote that he had taken the knowledge from the heveanly Jesus not like them from the earthly one?
      Also, why are there contradictions in your bible about that vision, and how it happened in book of acts? Also, why is it impossible for anyone among christians to claim that he takes the knowledge from the heavenly Jesus? Why is it only Paul who has this right?

      Liked by 2 people

    • There are no contradictions once you study them deeply and properly in context, etc.

      He did just that (shared his experience with the risen Jesus and confirmed with each other that they preached the same gospel) when he went and visited Peter, James, and then the rest of the disciples in Galatians chapters 1-2 and they approved of his gospel.

      18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:18-19

      Galatians 2:7-10
      “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”

      Galatians 2:7-10



    • James was an enthusiastic follower of the Law. Paul was not. Why was this?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Galatians chapters 1-2″
      What are you saying man!? Those 2 chapters mentioned quite the opposite! He didn’t mention to them (((that vision))) , which is the source of his message!
      He was so arrogant, and he even cursed them.
      He was trying to correct the Rock of Jesus’ church! How satanic that man when he lied to Galatian people about his meeting with the original disciples! He didn’t mention that he was just a hypocrite ( as the book of acts mentioned) in front of the original disciples!
      If there’s a disagreement between them, Paul should have said ” I’m an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” or “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ”, yet he couldn’t say that since he’s a liar, and he knew it. If the message he got from the heavenly Jesus, there’s no need for his message to be approved by the original disciples.
      And who are those (((held in high esteem))) who can reject the message of Paul that he received from the heavenly Jesus?

      I give you the permission to explain:
      “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me”
      “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.”

      No idea why you didn’t answer the rest of my questions!

      Liked by 2 people

    • It is obvious that the apostle Paul is saying that he got direct revelation from the risen first, then later went and visited the disciples and James, who were eyewitnesses with Jesus when Jesus was alive and crucified and resurrected ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, etc.) and then when he explained the vision (that is recorded in Acts 9, 22, 26) to them in Galatians 1, and 2, they all agreed that they all were preaching the same message and they confirmed one another.

      On the apparent contradiction between Acts 9 and 22, see here:


    • It’s amazing that the very man who once said that ‘free style of transmission is the (best) way to preserve an ancient text’ tries desperately to return the text to its original language to understand what those texts exactly say! Why did he blame Bart then?

      James’ conclusion is this
      “He mentions to his Hebrew listeners that when Jesus called him, he called him in their own language – Hebrew. How do we know this? In both Acts 9:4 and in Acts 22:7 Saul is not spelled in its normal form, but is spelled in its Hebrew (or Aramaic) form Saoul.What does this tell us? It tells us that the “voice” spoke in Hebrew. Therefore, Acts 22:9 would he referring to the fact that the men who accompanied Paul did not understand what was said for they could not understand Hebrew!”
      Why would Jesus speak to Paul in Hebrew?

      “Paul is saying that he got direct revelation from the risen first, then later went and visited the disciples and James”
      Yet he didn’t mention anything about that vision to establish his claimed authority
      It seems you read another book!
      disciples and James have been addressed like this
      “And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)” !!!
      Well , mr Paul! Those people were with Jesus from the beginning, and that makes a big difference! One of them is the Rock even !
      Paul with no doubt was lying in that letter, which you consider ironically “the word of God”, to Galatians.


    • I meant Paul, the prophet of christianity! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  9. i find it funny how a guy who believes a woman brought out 1 person , 2 natures is talking about marian veneration.


  10. “Yes, I dare and in your face say that all those apparitions are false and heretical and the only true Mary, mother of Jesus, is the Mary in the NT. One of the grossest things is the way they over-exalted her and even “worship” her, although they claim they are not worshiping her.”

    explain what do you mean by “worship”
    you mean they trust her human nature more than her divine one?


  11. “Because of the early practices of those piety that had begun before Islam (praying to mary, icons, statues), the whole Muslim world and the Qur’an misunderstood true Christianity – Surah 5:72-78; 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-92”

    okay, so you are alright with worshipping a random unrecognisable man with holes in his hands and feet? icons, statues ? who told you that they worship/pray to the icons, statues? do you pray to the flesh of jesus?

    in islamic world view and jewish world view all sects of christianity are disgusting and polythiest, i agree with the jews when they said :

    “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

    but ofcourse, your god says, “no, no, no , you got it wrong about me…”


    • 1. Matthew 14:33 and Revelation 5:1-14 and John 1:1 and John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8

      2. Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9

      3. Therefore;
      Jesus is eternal God the Son, the word who became flesh/human through the virgin Mary, and God the Son and worthy of worship; and Mary and angels and other dead saints are not suppossed to be worshiped or prayed to or venerated with dulia or hyperdulia. Period.


    • “Jesus is eternal God the Son, the word who became flesh/human through the virgin Mary, ”

      “and God the Son and worthy of worship; ”

      this is idolatry and you are a hypocrite for accusing the catholics of idolatry.
      jesus eat, and needed oxygen even when performing miracles.
      you are a hypocrite and your words are those used by people who worship human beings.
      you took her son to another level, but you didn’t take the mother who looked after yhwh to another level, why not? forget your “Scripture” and use common sense and ask, why take a BREATHING and eating thing to another level?


    • “Jesus is eternal God the Son, the word who became flesh/human through the virgin Mary, ”

      tell me how this makes any sense

      invisible person who fully experiences divine powers became visible created thing

      then he (1 person) has ANOTHER invisible inside him

      isn’t A2 completely redundant ?

      you have a CREATED god AND an INVISIBLE god being CARRIED?

      they are BOTH 1 person?

      if you split them you break the person, so you must believe that jesus was doing idolatry with himself when he was worshipping himself


    • do you believe “god” worships himself “in his human nature”

      does the person “in his divine nature” say “i am worshipping my self in my human nature today”



  12. It is not hypocrisy when one is clear in Scripture – Matthew 14:33; Revelation chapter 5; Philippians 2:5-8; John 1:1, 1:14; 20:28

    and the other is NOT in Scripture and even warns against it:
    Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9

    It is amazing that you don’t get it.


    • Your other stuff, Mr. Heathcliff, your way of argumentation, is stupid and dumb.


    • “and the other is NOT in Scripture and even warns against it:
      Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9”

      but then it is like the author of revelations is a hypocrite. he warns against idolatry , but allows the worship of a jew who eat and slept.

      quote :
      Behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of prophecy in this book.” 8And I am John, the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things.

      who is john?
      this guy is giving you testimony that he likes to worship creatures because he quickly “fell down tto worship…”

      so you quote to me hypocrites who you think are writing “scripture”


    • “Your other stuff, Mr. Heathcliff, your way of argumentation, is stupid and dumb.”

      thanks .


    • Behold, I am coming quickly”

      2500 years and still counting….

      Liked by 3 people

    • why do you have problem with catholics when jews called your god out for his blasphemy and idolatry?
      for example :

      “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

      i agree with them.

      you just as hypocrite as jesus and the catholics.


    • ken, i would like to ask you one question

      according to all the gospels , it seems like the jews knew what blasphemy was, knew what a human was and knew what an invisible god was

      john wrote :

      “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

      does this mean that they thought that it was BLASPHEMOUS for them to accept that INVISBLE god BECAME created and visible?


  13. Faiz and Paulus were on the same level so I don’t see why one should get banned and the other not.

    A bit of invective spices things up.

    Without the likes of Paulus I personally will not find this blog worth visiting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think the likes of Paulus, Kev, and Shamoun constantly antagonize and insult Muslims and Islam with the intentional aim to drag the conversation into the mud, where they feel they have an even footing. It is not productive for anyone, and makes it hard to have an intelligent conversation that is beneficial for all involved. Their single minded hatred does not allow them to do anything other than attack Islam at every opportunity. They constantly rehash old arguments that have been refuted ad nausem and never move forward in the dialogue. Their strategy seems to be to defend Christianity by specifically derailing the conversation and deflecting any valid criticism by rabidly attacking Islam. Such a tiresome approach is unbecoming and entirely unproductive.

      We know that there are Christians and Jews who are willing to have a more polite, respectful and intellectual conversation and those are the people we should be dialoguing with, since they carry more influence and clout within their own respective communities.

      I think we would all like to see a more academic, scholarly, and adult conversation from which we can all benefit and learn from, inshallah.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Then this blog is not for you Madman.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Such a tiresome approach is unbecoming and entirely unproductive.



    • LOL, so notice how you madman doesn’t actually condemn Paulus’ rhetoric against, but seems to be flabbergasted as to why he was banned. Now, truth be told, I don’t want him banned, but it’s brother Paul’s blog so it’s up to him. But the fact that madman doesn’t actually find anything wrong with Paulus’ “invective” really speaks volumes. This is why there is no reason to hold back against these chumps. This is all they understand. A rational conversation is not possible with these people.

      Now madman, instead of wasting time with pointless posts, why not actually deal with the issue at hand? Why do you Christians always try to deflect? How many of my questions have you refused to answer so far? Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth and then running away like a coward when you’re confronted?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bye

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Paul Williams wrote:
    James was an enthusiastic follower of the Law. Paul was not. Why was this?

    Amazing how you don’t comprehend passages like Romans 7:12 or 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and make statements like above.


    • Paul most likely did not write 1 Tim.

      Amazing how you don’t comprehend that your own scholars know that and make statements like above.


    • Even so (putting aside the authorship of 1 Timothy for the moment), Romans 7:12 is clear, as is Romans 13:8-14; Romans 1:32; 2:12-16 and 3:31 are clearly among many passages of the apostle Paul’s positive take on the law of God.

      12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
      13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

      Romans 2:12-13

      Regarding those scholars on authorship of 1 Timothy:

      They are not “my scholars”. You should at least say, “some scholars” or “most modern scholars”, in order to be honest and intellectual.


    • 28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

      Romans 1:28-32

      clear positive view of God’s law


    • clear positive view of the law of God by the apostle Paul:

      Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Romans 3:31


    • Romans 7:12
      the law is holy, good, righteous

      you lost the argument

      Liked by 1 person

    • James lived under the Law, Paul did not. Why?

      Liked by 1 person

  15. you have a comprehension problem. all the above plus another – 1 Corinthians 9:21


  16. you are like the Pharisees in John 8:43 and 47

    Jesus said:

    “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word”

    John 8:43

    “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

    John 8:47


    • Brilliant stuff again, brother ken. I have been visiting this blog for sometime now and really pray that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ reveal himself to our lost Muslim brothers. Sort of feel sorry for Paul Williams as he’s badly struggling to refute your posts.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I always struggle to refute Kens posts 😉

      Liked by 4 people

    • “Badly struggling”? What planet are you living on? Anyone who is familiar with Ken’s tactics knows that he basically ignores anything that refutes him and simply responds with “nope, you’re wrong”. That might impress gullible Christians, but the rest of us are certainly not impressed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ reveal himself to our lost Muslim brothers”

      How many times?


    • how paul trashes yhwh guidance by equating it to sin

      quote :

      “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Romans 3:31”

      quote :
      under the written code” (7:6). So it seems that sin and Law are two sides of the same coin for Paul, which is a shocking argument from a Jewish point of view. And so Paul anticipates this objection and asks yet another rhetorical question (7:7), “What then should we say? That the law is sin?” Paul answers, “By no means!” but commentators (at least the ones I’ve read) see in the following verses (8-13) a rather unsatisfying attempt by Paul to extricate himself from he seems to have just done, namely equating law and sin, and thus potentially throwing the Old Testament under the bus. (It doesn’t help Paul’s case that earlier, in 5:20, he sums up the law’s value as revealing the depth of sin rather than being a solution.)

      Paul has a few other such moments in the letter where he seems to be backpedaling. By the force of his excitement to preach the gospel, perhaps Paul ran ahead of himself.

      Think about it. The more airtight Paul makes his argument (by citing the Old Testament) that it has been God’s plan all along to show no partiality (2:11; 3:21-31) to Jews, the more Jewish followers of Jesus might want to ask, “So, was all that back then about keeping the covenant just a big smokescreen? And what about all those Jews over the centuries who lived their lives according to Torah, some of whom were martyred—does that mean nothing?”

      Paul’s argument threatened to call into question the very faithfulness, justice, and righteousness of God. “If this is the kind of about-face God can pull, is this God trustworthy?” Which is to ask, “Is this God at all?”

      And so Paul finds himself having to defend God against that charge. His hand is forced by the resurrection of Jesus and he has to work it through—sometimes more clear and compelling, sometimes less so.


    • btw that quote came from an evangelical christian .



  1. Pope doubts visions – but where will it all end? | kokicat

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: