. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[One Bad Pig]

Having read more of Conybeare's work (I'm past his exposition of their beliefs and into the translation of the Key of Truth itself), I continue to stand by my initial assessment. The last Paulician owner of the manuscript also attempted to erase damning phrases, but was not always successful; the writer clearly believed that Jesus was created.

[One Bad Pig]

I had not seen that article. I find it interesting, but its use of sources is rather suspect. For example, it quotes John T. Christian as saying that Paulicians made constant use of the Old Testament. However, Conybeare states in his preface to the Key of Truth (the only extant witness to them from their POV) that it made "extremely sparse" use of the Old Testament. I've downloaded the latter onto my Kindle for reading at my leisure. A more recent scholarly work is The Paulician Heresy, but I can't afford the $100 Amazon wants for a copy at the moment. I rather prefer scholarly sources which do not show overt bias. The article you linked is clearly motivated to portray them as "baptist-like" as possible; it is no less polemic than the Greek sources it decries.

Having read the first 12% or so of Conybeare's work, I think I can safely say they were not very identical to today's Baptists.

- they believed that Christ was not God (confirmed by the Key of Truth, extant Greek sources, and written and verbal confessions of actual Paulicians)

- they believe that there is no intercession of the saints, for the dead rather need the prayers of the living

- newborn infants have neither original nor operative sin (they seem to have deferred baptism until the baptizand was 30 years old)

- they believed that their priests were Christ

- they believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist was changed into the body and blood of Christ (and that when orthodox priests consecrated the Eucharist it was changed into the flesh and blood of their own sinful bodies)

- their priest would hold his arms out in the shape of the cross with a lighted candle in each hand, and in that position the congregants would worship him

- the sole extant manuscript of the Key of Truth is missing 38 of 150 pages, because the last Paulician owner ripped them out as most damning if it were confiscated.

In sum, IMO Conybeare hurts your case more than he helps.

ETA: As I read further, it is evident that Conybeare was an Adoptionist, and sees the early church through that lens. Your author objects that Conybeare invariably reads Adoptionism into the lacunae of the Key of Truth, but that destroys the very foundation Conybeare uses to equate the Paulicians with the early church (and, as noted above, goes against the Christological evidence found everywhere else).

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry, I managed to miss this when it got posted.

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia had in the past misrepresented baptist beliefs. Their current article is much better. With it in mind, it is written from their Catholic belief perspective.

I'm not sure what that has to do with this.

PLease see this article, if you have not done so already: http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/paulicians.html

BTW, thank you for your comments. I will respond to some of the remaining remarks later.

I had not seen that article. I find it interesting, but its use of sources is rather suspect. For example, it quotes John T. Christian as saying that Paulicians made constant use of the Old Testament. However, Conybeare states in his preface to the Key of Truth (the only extant witness to them from their POV) that it made "extremely sparse" use of the Old Testament. I've downloaded the latter onto my Kindle for reading at my leisure. A more recent scholarly work is The Paulician Heresy, but I can't afford the $100 Amazon wants for a copy at the moment. I rather prefer scholarly sources which do not show overt bias. The article you linked is clearly motivated to portray them as "baptist-like" as possible; it is no less polemic than the Greek sources it decries.

[robrecht]

Here's the annotated bibliography for the paper I wrote in that class. I could try to dig up the syllabus, too, if you like: that would probably be more helpful.

Thanks! Syllabus would be great too. Do you recall anything from the Hebrew text that was used to support this claim?

[Spartacus]

Spartacus, do you have any notes or references you can share regarding this? Nothing elaborate, maybe an article or two or notes off the top of your head?

Here's the annotated bibliography for the paper I wrote in that class. I could try to dig up the syllabus, too, if you like: that would probably be more helpful.

1. Eval Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 51, fac. 2 (Apr. 2001), 243-261
An examination of static holiness in D vs dynamic holiness in P; the latter suggests that God may withdraw His presence, or at least that approaching the divine presence carries some danger.
2. Benjamin Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle”. Biblical Interpretation 9, 1 (2001). 41-63
Sommer explains that P’s theology is not tied to the Temple, that it was the site of an “unceasing and ever-accessible theophany.” He further argues that the tabernacle, like any other crafted receptacle of divine presence is “jerry-rigged”; this seems to push against theurgic interpretations of the tabernacle.
3. Mark K. George, “Review of M. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, volume 12 (2012).
Review of a book which is currently checked out of the library and was thus unavailable to me; explains that chapter 2 of reviewed book treats priestly language as deliberately circumspect. Although God is distinct from the ark, the “kabod” is present there; the glory of the Lord is revealed at the tabernacle, though what exactly that consists of is unclear.
4. G. E. Wright, The Rule of God. Doubleday, New York. 1960.
Wright draws parallels and distinctions between P, D, and pagan theologies, ultimately straying into unjustified anti-Catholic polemic, though he does argue that D’s name-centered presence in the temple is nominal, while P’s presence is “dwelling” in a more real sense.

[robrecht]

Liturgical studies... my closest encounter with liturgical theology in my class work came through Gary Anderson, an Old Testament scholar. I took his course, Creation and Liturgy, in which we explored, among other things, the way in which certain sources (especially the Priestly source) within the Old Testament portray God as strongly wishing to be present among His people. The creation and dedication of the tabernacle is portrayed and evidently understood as a continuation of God's original act of creation. ...

Spartacus, do you have any notes or references you can share regarding this? Nothing elaborate, maybe an article or two or notes off the top of your head?

[37818]

. . .

Even when I was a baptist I didn't think much of that work. Do you seriously think the Paulicians were proto-Baptists?

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte", Tübingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John 4:10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter's epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St. Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

© Copyright Original Source

. . .

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia had in the past misrepresented baptist beliefs. Their current article is much better. With it in mind, it is written from their Catholic belief perspective.

PLease see this article, if you have not done so already: http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/paulicians.html

BTW, thank you for your comments. I will respond to some of the remaining remarks later.

[robrecht]

Does not καθος / as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: indicate the possibility that the bread that Jesus is talking about isn't eaten in the same way that "your fathers did eat manna"? The only word in this sentence that καθος can modify is "eat."

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον· ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Overly literal ET:
This is the bread which from heaven came down, not as they ate, the fathers, and they died: the one eating this bread shall live into the eon.

καθώς (not καθος) is a conjunction introducing the whole subordinate clause, and the emphasized point of the contrast is between dying in the past and living for eternity.

[tabibito]

Does not καθος / as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: indicate the possibility that the bread that Jesus is talking about isn't eaten in the same way that "your fathers did eat manna"? The only word in this sentence that καθος can modify is "eat."

[One Bad Pig]

Because Jesus used the literal in contrast to convey the metaphor.

"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. " -- John 6:58.

* True or false? Did the children of Israel in the wilderness literally eat a manna?

True.

* True or false? Is Jesus being the true bread from which came down from heaven?

Jesus said, "I am the true bread which came down from heaven." I'm not sure if you're trying to paraphrase that or what here.

* True or false? Did Jesus teach coming to Him and believing in Him to be the meaning of the eating and drinking His blood? John 6:35, 41. John 6:47-48, 54. John 6:63-68.

This appears to be your interpretation of what Jesus taught.

Your question shows it makes a difference.

In what way?

Did Jesus use parables to confuse everyone? ". . . Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." -- Mark 4:11.

No. He used parables so people who wanted to understand Him could, but those who weren't interested in understanding Him would not. The salvific nature of believing in Jesus had already been made plainly clear (John 3:15 et al); thus there is no reason for Jesus to limit subsequent discussion to parables. Why obscure what has already been made clear?

But that conclusion is false. It is a false gospel. If it is not, what difference does it make, that I believe it to be metaphor?

That you believe it to be a metaphor may or may not make a difference; I don't presume to make my interpretations equivalent to scripture. You may be saved in spite of believing that; it's God's call to make, not mine.

That history has been expunged by the State church where ever it could. Check out the Waldensians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians.

Waldo appears to have started out as a typical devout Catholic who, like some, took a vow of poverty, distributed his wealth, and began preaching. Sounds much like St. Francis of Assisi. However, Waldo, unlike Francis, chose to rely on his own interpretations and break with the church than submit to their authority. Their doctrine and practices seem to have been significantly impacted by the Reformation (per the Catholic Encyclopedia article referenced by Wiki).

Check out the booklet called, "The Trail of Blood." Where baptist minster James Milton Carroll, attempts to present the history of such groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood http://www.baptistbecause.com/Tracts/TrailBlood.pdf

Even when I was a baptist I didn't think much of that work. Do you seriously think the Paulicians were proto-Baptists?

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte", Tübingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John 4:10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter's epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St. Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

© Copyright Original Source

Fine. Then what is the point of arguing for some kind of "real presence" in the Eucharist?
If those differences in interpretation are not matters of salvation (soteriology) what difference does it make?

You're the one arguing that it's a matter of salvation. I disagree with that. Am I only allowed to argue for my beliefs if they are matters of salvation?

The true apostolic succession are the New Covenant documents we call the New Testament. That is what all who make claims to be Christian have in common.

Your opinion is noted.

Hmm . . . . I cannot honestly say there is no God, or that I do not know God. Is that some kind of feeling? Maybe. I know God because of my belief in His Christ (John 17:3; 1 John 5:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

That seems to be a negative answer to my question.

Hmm . . . Are we to compare it to the Mormon "burning in the bosom?"

Eh? No. Typically it's nothing so dramatic; think of Elijah's encounter with God (1 Kings 19). It's not something I can easily explain. It's mostly a quiet sense of presence. The Mormons take that verse completely out of context.

So which is more important? The word of God or our feelings about the word of God? Or are we to count them equal in some way?

What? Your central question doesn't make any sense. We are not discussing my feelings about the word of God.

". . . Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 13:5, ". . . He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. . . ." -- 1 John 5:12. Would you qualify "knowing" as a type of feeling?

No.

Or would you make some kind of "feeling" a prerequisite?

If I were looking for a new church, and I felt a distinct lack of the presence of the Spirit there, I would not join - regardless of the church's professed beliefs. I've only felt that lack in a handful of places, however.

On the other hand, a church that believed something that goes against scripture (like the Paulicians), I would not even bother visiting. If the church believed something that disagreed with my interpretation of scripture, I would investigate it; my interpretation might be wrong.

[robrecht]

Individual communion service on the moon:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5600648.html

[tabibito]

Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25 - "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood" - The wine, or (contents of) the cup are not declared to be Jesus' blood. And assuredly, the cup is not literally the New Covenant.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? - The bread and the wine are not stated to be blood and flesh - it is stated that partaking of them is κοινωνιαcommunion/participation/fellowship of the blood and body of Christ.

1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The bread and cup are not identified as being the body and blood of the Lord. Partaking of them unworthily makes the person who does so guilty of the flesh and blood of Christ. The person is one with those who executed Christ.

Mat 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Jesus own blood it isn't. It is stated to be His blood of the New Covenant. What was Moses' blood of the Old Covenant?

Mat 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now ....” And having just finished saying that the wine is blood, Jesus now calls it "the fruit of the vine": it remains what it was before proceedings began. As attested twice by the Old Testament, wine is the blood of the grape. (and here contrasted with the blood of the sheep, the blood of the Old Covenant.)

Mark 14:24-25 as for Matthew 26:28-29

Mat 26:26, Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Given the foregoing, the claim that this is a literal statement of truth cannot be supported. Jesus has a record of using metaphor - "I am the true vine" for example, but whether this is a metaphor, or perhaps Jesus' flesh of the New Covenant as opposed to the Moses' flesh of the Old Covenant (sheep) is a matter for conjecture perhaps.

[37818]

"This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which you ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." Jn. 6:58 How is one act of eating literal and the other not?

Because Jesus used the literal in contrast to convey the metaphor.

"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. " -- John 6:58.

* True or false? Did the children of Israel in the wilderness literally eat a manna?

* True or false? Is Jesus being the true bread from which came down from heaven?

* True or false? Did Jesus teach coming to Him and believing in Him to be the meaning of the eating and drinking His blood? John 6:35, 41. John 6:47-48, 54. John 6:63-68.

Your question shows it makes a difference.

If Jesus simply meant "believe in me" he didn't need to use figurative language that only confused everyone.

Did Jesus use parables to confuse everyone? ". . . Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." -- Mark 4:11.

This is also in the immediate context of the feeding of the 5,000, which was also literal eating. Yes, Jesus is real. Yes, the "bread from heaven" is metaphor for Jesus. In the mystery of the Eucharist, literal bread becomes Jesus in some sense. Even the Church of the East, which was never under Roman control, believes that.

But that conclusion is false. It is a false gospel. If it is not, what difference does it make, that I believe it to be metaphor?

Which groups or individuals, before the Reformation, have an appearance of being saved?

That history has been expunged by the State church where ever it could. Check out the Waldensians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians. Check out the booklet called, "The Trail of Blood." Where baptist minster James Milton Carroll, attempts to present the history of such groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood http://www.baptistbecause.com/Tracts/TrailBlood.pdf

I'd rather not get into soteriology here.

Fine. Then what is the point of arguing for some kind of "real presence" in the Eucharist?

More precisely, what you believe the bible teaches. Get four Protestants in a room, and you'll have five different opinions on that. Must you be pedantic?

If those differences in interpretation are not matters of salvation (soteriology) what difference does it make?

The true apostolic succession are the New Covenant documents we call the New Testament. That is what all who make claims to be Christian have in common.

Christianity is not merely an intellectual exercise. Have you never felt the Spirit?

Hmm . . . . I cannot honestly say there is no God, or that I do not know God. Is that some kind of feeling? Maybe. I know God because of my belief in His Christ (John 17:3; 1 John 5:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Hmm . . . Are we to compare it to the Mormon "burning in the bosom?"

And you're offering a false dichotomy. I should modify my last statement somewhat, however; If Orthodoxy felt spiritless, I never would have converted.

So which is more important? The word of God or our feelings about the word of God? Or are we to count them equal in some way?

". . . Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 13:5, ". . . He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. . . ." -- 1 John 5:12. Would you qualify "knowing" as a type of feeling? Or would you make some kind of "feeling" a prerequisite?

[foudroyant]

TimelessTheist,

Please see Post #172.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-gospel/page18

[One Bad Pig]

You conflate what was real with what is metaphor. Jesus is real, the bread from heaven is metaphor for Jesus. Jesus is not literal bread. Jesus was making a point the manna the Israelites eat was not really the true bread from heaven. Jesus who came from heaven is the true bread (again metaphor). Now explain how you see it as opposed to what I just explained.

"This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which you ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." Jn. 6:58 How is one act of eating literal and the other not? If Jesus simply meant "believe in me" he didn't need to use figurative language that only confused everyone. This is also in the immediate context of the feeding of the 5,000, which was also literal eating. Yes, Jesus is real. Yes, the "bread from heaven" is metaphor for Jesus. In the mystery of the Eucharist, literal bread becomes Jesus in some sense. Even the Church of the East, which was never under Roman control, believes that.

Being "baptist" does not save any one. Just as being an "orthodox" church member does not save. Yet one can be either and be saved. (1 John 5:1. James 1;18.)

Now the typical requirement for a baptist church membership, is being saved and baptized. So if one is not really saved and is baptized. Being a member of a baptist church on that bases does not make an unsaved person who professes being saved, saved.

God does the saving, not any kind of church membership saves anyone. God's saved, are the ones who make up the real church body of Christ on earth. Not the church membership membership.

God knows of among them who are His. God saved them. The religious and lost, Christ never knew them. They are the ones who perish. (Matthew 7:21-23.)

We agree on something, more or less.

We can identify the ones who have an appearance of being saved.

Which groups or individuals, before the Reformation, have an appearance of being saved?

Teaching salvation by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. And ultimately it is God who solely saves and keeps those whom He saves saved.

I'd rather not get into soteriology here.

What the bible teaches.

More precisely, what you believe the bible teaches. Get four Protestants in a room, and you'll have five different opinions on that. Must you be pedantic?

So we are to go by our feelings? Why not on what God says? Which we seem to disagree on what He says and means.

Christianity is not merely an intellectual exercise. Have you never felt the Spirit? And you're offering a false dichotomy. I should modify my last statement somewhat, however; If Orthodoxy felt spiritless, I never would have converted.