The Instigator
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 63362
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank Lupricona for suggesting the topic of this debate, and for providing the specific resolution.

Before I begin, I want to make clear that the first round is NOT for acceptance. My opponent should feel free to offer his contentions and/or rebuttals. The only other thing I'd like to add is that no new arguments will be allowed in the last round.

I won't be offering any scripture or historical references this round. Instead, I wanted.to give the voters a couple things to think about before casting their votes. Both my opponent and I are going to be offering many Bible verses (sometimes maybe the same ones). And both of us will be suggesting ways to interpret these verses. The key, I believe, is which interpretations coincide with what the early Christians believed....

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY

To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:

Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:

I never said you stole money.

Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote that meant

I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...

I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...

I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...

I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...

I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.

Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later?

Development of doctrine.

Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the difference between development versus departure is this... Is the teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip. Development versus departure.

I now turn it over to my opponent. Good luck!
Lupricona

Con

Thank you, dsjpk5, for allowing me to pick a topic and debate with you. As we are both Christians, despite having opposing views on certain issues, I look forward to an engaging conversation dedicated to uncover the true roots of our religion, and to earnestly seek out the intentions of the New Testament authors.

Opening

I agree with Pro as how he used an excellent analogy of the "I never said you stole my money" interpretations to show how many people can see different conclusions depending on how they view the context of the writing. And as we are far removed from the New Testament authors, we must look to the early Christians to see how they understood the passages regarding the Eucharist/Communion.

I suppose I should start us off with quoting one of the passages regarding the first communion (I hope that the NASB version will suffice):

Luke 22

14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15 And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.


There are two things of importance that I want to address. First, the Passover was a symbol that was completed in Christ, and so the Communion is a feast that completes, or replaces, the feast of the Passover. The second thing I want to address is that Jesus was eating with His disciples at a table. This was a meal that was meant to be shared in community, to build up relationships, and to create a sense of unity in family.

Arguments

Act of Community vs Superstition

My first argument is that the Eucharist, as now practised by the Catholic Church, does not meet the standards of the initial Communion. It was meant to be an entire meal, where a community of believers gathers together to honour and glorify our Lord. A community meal requires more than a small bite to eat; it requires that the members are engaging in conversation with each other. The Eucharist, as practised now, is treated as a dry and ritualistic experience devoid of meaningful interaction with the other members of the church.

In the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus(1), the author writes:

"But as to their [The Jews'] scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice... who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? I suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and Gentiles], and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God from any mortal. For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines."

The purpose of Christianity was to do away with the vain supersitions and pointless rituals of the pagans and the Jews. As most of the Jewish religion was centered around ritualistic symbols of what was to come, Christ, there was no need for them after He came. And this is why it was said that the early Christians could not be distinguised by the customs that they observed, because at that point they did not subscribe to any supersitious rituals. At this point, the Communion was a friendly gathering on Sundays where Christians would come together to an informal yet fruitful discussion.

Transmutation

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says(2),

"And this food is called among us uxaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Take notice that Justin says that "our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished." He is not saying that it is the bread and wine that are transformed, rather, he is saying that it is our blood and flesh that are transformed. As Christ died for our sins, so it is that the point of the eucharist is for our bodies to be transformed to be pure. But there is a major difference between our bodies being transformed, and the bread and wine being transformed.

The First Communion

The first communion was Jesus with his disciples. Jesus was living at this time, which shows that he meant the bread and wine to be taken symbolically. As with the first communion, the bread and wine were not transfomed, in order for consisteny, the subsequent communions must also not be transformed, but instead represent only symbols.

Analogies

There is a difference between a literal and figurative analogy. Jesus said, "I am the door." We do not take Jesus to be saying that He is literally a door, or that He was transformed into a door, etc. So, one must be careful when saying that a person was being literal when he was only using a figure of speech. No passage in any of the New Testament necessitates Jesus being literal when He said the bread and wine were His body and blood.

Conclusion

The point of the Communion was to help Christian communities come together and share in a meal and fruitful conversation together while remembering the purpose of their meetings. The way that the Catholic Church does it now is completely against the desire of early Christians wanting to stay away from superstitions and ritualistic nonsense.


I look forward to my opponent's responses.



References:

1- http://www.studylight.org...
2- http://www.studylight.org...


Debate Round No. 1
dsjpk5

Pro

As I predicted in round one, my.opponent has offered one of the
passages I planned on using to support MY claim. Below you will find my opponent's comments in quotas, and my rebuttals preceded with "Response"

"Luke 22

14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles
with Him. 15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never
again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And when
He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it
among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of
the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And when Hehad taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them,saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembranceof Me." 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten,saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in Myblood."

Response: Notice ,Jesus couldn't have been more clear: "This is my
body". This is not the language of symbolism.

My opponent continues:

"There are two things of importance that I want to address. First, the
Passover was a symbol that was completed in Christ,

Response: The Passover wasn't completely symbolic. You had to
literally eat.the lamb. Much like we eat the literal lamb of God in the
Eucharist.
.
My opponent continues:

"and so the
Communion is a feast that completes, or replaces, the feast of the
Passover. The second thing I want to address is that Jesus was eating
with His disciples at a table. This was a meal that was meant to be
shared in community, to build up relationships, and to create a sense
of unity in family."

Response: The Passover meal was eaten at a table and was a full meal. But, as my opponent said, Communion/Eucharist COMPLETES/ENDS the needfor the Passover. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Eucharist to be a full meal in the same way.

My opponent's arguments are as follows:

"Act of Community vs Superstition

My first argument is that the Eucharist, as now practised by the
Catholic Church, does not meet the standards of the initial Communion. It was meant to be an entire meal, where a community of believersgathers together to honour and glorify our Lord. A community mealrequires more than a small bite to eat; it requires that the members are engaging in conversation with each other. The Eucharist, as practised now, is treated as a dry and ritualistic experience devoid of meaningful interaction with the other members of the church."

Response: Nowhere in round one did my opponent offer any evidence that first century Christians ever celebrated the Eucharist as a full meal.
The passage he offered above describes the Jewish Passover feast, and as such does not meet the requirements. Because he has offered no evidence for this specific claim, we should reject his claim out of
hand until such evidence is presented.

And I disagree with my opponent's claim that the Eucharist today is a
dry experience. That's pure opinion on my opponent's part that he has
not offered evidence about.

My opponent continues:

"In the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus(1), the author writes:

"But as to their [The Jews'] scrupulosity concerning meats, and their
superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about
circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which
are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice... who would deem this a
part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? I
suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians
properly abstain from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and
Gentiles], and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews;
but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of
worshipping God from any mortal. For the Christians are distinguished
from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which
they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ
a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any
singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been
devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do
they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human
doctrines."

Response:

Well, since the Eucharist is none of those things I don't see how this
writing is even relevant to our discussion. If my opponent is arguing
against religious rituals, he is going to have to explain why Jesus had
no problem with them. We've already seen my opponent admit Jesus
celebrated Passover (a religious ritual). We know from John 10:22-23
that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (a religious ritual). And we know from
Matthew 3:13-17 that Jesus chose to be baptized (a religious ritual).

He continues:

"The purpose of Christianity was to do away with the vain supersitions
and pointless rituals of the pagans and the Jews. As most of the Jewish
religion was centered around ritualistic symbols of what was to come,
Christ, there was no need for them after He came. And this is why it
was said that the early Christians could not be distinguised by the
customs that they observed, because at that point they did not
subscribe to any supersitious rituals."

Response:

I would agree that as Christians we are to do away with vain and
pointless rituals, but as we have seen, not all religious rituals are
vision and pointless.. I would like to ask my opponent if he has ever
been married in a church? That too is a religious ritual. Does he
think that a marriage ceremony is a "pointless ritual"?

"At this point, the Communion was
a friendly gathering on Sundays where Christians would come together to
an informal yet fruitful discussion."

Response:

No evidence of this has been presented.

He continues:

"Transmutation

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says(2),

"And this food is called among us uxaristia [the Eucharist], of which
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things
which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that
is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so
living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink
do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,
having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for
our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is
blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh
by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
who was made flesh."

Response:

I am surprised my opponent chose to offer this quote. I don't see how
he thinks it helps him. I, myself was going to use this quote, so I
guess I owe my opponent thanks for saving me the trouble. Now back to my opponent's claims:

"Take notice that Justin says that "our blood and flesh by transmutation
are nourished. He is not saying that it is the bread and wine that are
transformed, rather, he is saying that it is our blood and flesh that
are transformed. As Christ died for our sins, so it is that the point
of the eucharist is for our bodies to be transformed to be pure. But
there is a major difference between our bodies being transformed, and
the bread and wine being transformed."

Response:

With all due respect, my opponent seems to have misread the author's
writing. Although it is true that the author says our souls are
trasmutated and transformed, that's not ALL he says. Justin Martyr
ALSO clearly says the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. But don't take my word for it, let's read the
relevant partners of the passage:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these...
so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His word,...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
who was made flesh."

My opponent continues:

"The First Communion

The first communion was Jesus with his disciples. Jesus was living at
this time, which shows that he meant the bread and wine to be taken
symbolically. "

Response:

I don't see how Jesus being there with the disciples is a problem.
Don't we Christians believe Jesus can be in two places at the same time?

"As with the first communion, the bread and wine were not
transfomed, in order for consisteny, the subsequent communions must
also not be transformed, but instead represent only symbols."

Response: That's not what Jesus said. He said "This is my body." He
didn't say "This symbolizes my body." He went on to say "It shall be
shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." At this point,
I have to ask, what body did Jesus shed for our sins... His real body
or Hiis symbolic body? Because if you say "His real body", well that's
how Jesus describes what is in His hands at the Last Supper.

Burncastle continues:

"Analogies

There is a difference between a literal and figurative analogy. Jesus
said, "I am the door." We do not take Jesus to be saying that He is
literally a door, or that He was transformed into a door, etc. So, one
must be careful when saying that a person was being literal when he was
only using a figure of speech. "

Response:

I agree that we need to be careful when dealing with a figure of
speech. But that leaves my opponent with a problem, because "This is
my body" has never been used as a figure of speech. Jesus being a door makes sense as a figure of speech because we go through Him, like a door, to get to Heaven. On the other hand, this is my body makes no sense as a figure of speech. Especially since Jesus used literal language (see my last response) to describe it.

He continues:

"No passage in any of the New Testament
necessitates Jesus being literal when He said the bread and wine were
His body and blood."

Response:

I've just shown this claim to be inaccurate.

My opponent says:

"Conclusion

The point of the Communion was to help Christian communities come
together and share in a meal and fruitful conversation together while
remembering the purpose of their meetings."

Response:

Again, no evidence has been offered to support this claim.

"The way that the Catholic
Church does it now is completely against the desire of early Christians
wanting to stay away from superstitions and ritualistic nonsense."

Response:
Again, he hasn't offered any evidence.

New arguments:

The idea that the early Church believed the Eucharist was more than a
symbol - that it was what the Catholic Church claims (the real body of
Christ) is not just what the Catholic Church claims. Renowned
PROTESTANT church historian J.N.D. Kelly agrees: "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). [1]

Besides the quote my opponent offered from Justin Martyr, here are some other quotes from the early Christians that support my claims:

Ignatius of Antioch:

"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]). [2]

Hippolytus

""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]).
[3]

St Paul also uses literal language when describing the Eucharist.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29:
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."

Paul doesn't say the Corinthians are sinning against a symbol (is that even possible?). He says they are sinning against the"body and blood of the Lord."

I look forward to reading my opponent's responses.

Sources:
1.https://archive.org...
2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.newadvent.org...
Lupricona

Con

Thank you, Pro, for your arguments.


Literal Vs Metaphor

One of my main problems with Pro is that he admits that it is obvious that when Jesus said, "I am the door" it is so plain that he is being metaphorical. Yet, he states that it is obvious that when Jesus says "This is my body" he is being literal. I fail to see how my opponent justifies interpreting these two statements in two different ways. He is being inconsistent, and is only doing so to save his doctrine.

Communion as a Meal

My opponent argued that there is no evidence that the Communion was supposed to be a meal, and the fact that it completed the Passover means that it does not have to be a meal. However, Jesus' last supper with his disciples was the first Communion, which was a meal. Why then are we not supposed to follow suit?

Epistle of Mathetes

My opponent fails to see the relevance of this epistle. I apologize for the inability to have made it clear. This epistle refutes the idea that we can somehow please God with the ritualistic services that we do. Catholics think they please God with the Eucharist, but they are acting just like the Jews did. This is the comparison I am making.

Original Sunday Worship

The discourses of the clergy were generally meant to explain the Scripture lessons which had been read. At first these discourses were very plain, and as much as possible like ordinary talk; and from this they got the name of "homilies", which properly meant nothing more than "conversations". (1) In the early church, the members would have fruitful discussions with each other, instead, it changed into people flocking to hear one guy preach while the Communion went from a full meal that brought together people into the stale experience that it is nowadays, where people go up and take a tiny bite of a cracker and sip a tiny bit of wine.

Justin Martyr

My opponent does not prove that Justin Martyr teaches that the wine and bread transform into the body and blood. I have already shown how Justin states it is our body and blood that are transformed, so this source works against my opponent.

Jesus in Two Places at Once

My opponent argues that, during the first communion, even though Jesus was present with them, He also transformed the bread and wine into his body and blood. I ask that the readers use their own common sense with this argument.

Other Church Fathers

None of the other quotes from the church fathers says anything about the bread and wine magically transforming into Jesus' blood and wine. All of these passages can be taken in a symbolic understanding. These quotes do nothing to prove his point. He would need a church father specifically saying that the bread and wine are transubstantiated by the priest after he utters the magic words (which Jesus apparntely forgot to say during the Last Supper.)

I look forward to Pro's responses.


References

1- http://www.studylight.org...


Debate Round No. 2
dsjpk5

Pro

Thanks Lupricona for the interesting response. Unfortunately, I regret to say I don't have only positive things to say:

DROPPED ARGUMENT:

My opponent, Lupricona, did not respond to my new argument concerning the historical claims of a renowned Protestant historian (J.N.D. Kelly) As such, my argument has been dropped by my opponent, and is to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. [4]

In the last round...

My opponent said:

"Literal Vs Metaphor

One of my main problems with Pro is that he admits that it is obvious
that when Jesus said, "I am the door" it is so plain that he is being
metaphorical. Yet, he states that it is obvious that when Jesus says
"This is my body" he is being literal. I fail to see how my opponent
justifies interpreting these two statements in two different ways. He
is being inconsistent, and is only doing so to save his doctrine."

My response:

I already explained why we shouldn't take "This is my body" as merely
figurative. It makes no sense as a metaphor."I am the door" makes
sense a a metaphor because.we.go.through Jesus to get to the Father.
Also, after saying "this is my body", Jesus said "which will be given
up for you." Jesus gave up His REAL body, not some metaphorical body.

My opponent said:

"Communion as a Meal

My opponent argued that there is no evidence that the Communion was
supposed to be a meal, and the fact that it completed the Passover
means that it does not have to be a meal. However, Jesus' last supper
with his disciples was the first Communion, which was a meal. Why then
are we not supposed to follow suit?"

My response:

Because the meal was the eating of the Passover lamb. But in the New covenant, Jesus is our lamb... which we receive under the appearance of bread and wine. There's no need for anything else.

My opponent said:

"Epistle of Mathetes

My opponent fails to see the relevance of this epistle. I apologize for
the inability to have made it clear. This epistle refutes the idea that
we can somehow please God with the ritualistic services that we do."

My response:

Again, I would assert the epistle wasn't saying that. My opponent may
not approve of religious rituals, but Jesus does. As I pointed out
last round, Jesus was baptized, and celebrated Passover and Hannukah.

My opponent said:

"Catholics think they please God with the Eucharist, but they are
acting
just like the Jews did. This is the comparison I am making."

My response:

We know we are pleasing Him because He told us to do so. He said, "Do this in remembrance of me."

My opponent said:

"Original Sunday Worship

The discourses of the clergy were generally meant to explain the
Scripture lessons which had been read. At first these discourses were
very plain, and as much as possible like ordinary talk; and from this
they got the name of "homilies", which properly meant nothing more than
"conversations". (1)"

My response:

The same thing happens in the Catholic Church today, so I don't see the point Con is trying to make.

My opponent said:

" In the early church, the members would have
fruitful discussions with each other, instead, it changed into people
flocking to hear one guy preach while the Communion went from a full
meal that brought together people into the stale experience that it is
nowadays, where people go up and take a tiny bite of a cracker and sip
a tiny bit of wine."

My response:

The source my opponent offered does NOT mention the above practices. Again, Con has made a claim without any evidence.

My opponent said:

"Justin Martyr

My opponent does not prove that Justin Martyr teaches that the wine and
bread transform into the body and blood."

My response:

I don't know how Justin Martyr could have been more plain.
He clearly said that besides us being transformed, the bread and wine
are ALSO transformed. But don't take my word for it, let's re-read his
letter:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;..."

Here Justin Martyr says that what they receive is NOT common bread and drink. He goes on to say what he receives is:

"the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Pretty clear.

My opponent said:

"Jesus in Two Places at Once

My opponent argues that, during the first communion, even though Jesus
was present with them, He also transformed the bread and wine into his
body and blood. I ask that the readers use their own common sense with
this argument."

My response:

Again, I have to ask my opponent why he doesn't believe Jesus could do this? Isn't Jesus able to do exactly that?

My opponent said:

"Other Church Fathers

None of the other quotes from the church fathers says anything about
the bread and wine magically transforming into Jesus' blood and wine
All of these passages can be taken in a symbolic understanding."

My response:

That is not accurate. Ignatius of Antioch's quote is not symbolic.
Let's go over it again:

When speaking about unorthodox people..

"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" So AGAIN, which flesh suffered for
our sins.. real or metaphorical?

Here Ignatius calls the Eucharist"the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ,
flesh which suffered for our sins"

My opponent continued:

"These
quotes do nothing to prove his point. He would need a church father
specifically saying that the bread and wine are transubstantiated by
the priest after he utters the magic words (which Jesus apparntely
forgot to say during the Last Supper.)"

My response:

I'd be happy to oblige my opponent with a quote from Ireneas:

""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). [5]

Here we see an early Church Father saying the wine and bread becomes the body of Christ. Just as my opponent asked. And I would like my opponent to explain what he means by "magic words" Jesus forgot before I can fully respond to it. I contend Jesus said those words.

NEW ARGUMENT:

In John 6 Jesus said me must truly eat His flesh and drink His blood. His audience didn't believe He was being metaphorical, and thousands of them left Him. He didn't stop them. If He was speaking metaphorically, wouldn't He have stopped them from leaving? Every other time Jesus was using a parable, He explained to His followers what the parable meant. He didn't do that here. That's pretty strong evidence He actually meant what He said.

I look forward to Con's response.

Sources:
4. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)
5. http://www.catholic.com...
Lupricona

Con

"Dropped Argument"

I agree that of course there were Christians that believed in the Eucharist being literal. There are Catholics that believe this nowadays. The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct teaching. There were Christians teaching false doctrines even in the first century, so we must be careful to believe a doctrine just because that a couple of early Christians believed it.

Literal Vs Metaphor

My opponent says that "this is my body" makes no sense as a metaphor. This is completely false. Of course it can be taken metaphorically, and it can make sense, even more sense, when done this way. If my opponent wants to argue that Jesus meant it literally, that is one thing, but to say that it isn't even possible to interpret it metaphorically is just dishonest. And my opponent does not justify is inconsistency with the door vs body analogy.

Communion as a Meal

Jesus is the Lamb, but the bread and wine are taken symbolically to represent what He did for us. This is proven by Jesus being physically present during the first Communion. No part of His body was changed, and His disciples would have noticed some kind of transformation, or would have written something special like that in the Gospels.

Original Sunday Worship

In the book that I quoted, it did explain how the early church had "homilies" which originally meant discussions, as in, the Christians would have discussions to learn about the religion. Over time, "homilies" changed into one guy preaching. This is a difference. A major difference. It changed from a more social and meaningful dynamic to a 'go to a ritualistic service and listen to one guy give a message.'

Justin Martyr

My opponent is being dishonest when he claim that Justin Martyr teaches the bread and wine are also transformed. He does not say this. He only claims that our blood and body are transformed. Justin states that they do not take the bread and wine as common, because the symbolism helps them to see it in a different light.

Other Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria says, "Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk." (1)

Clement specificially describes the blood and flesh as figurative. One must realize that this is probably the view of the other church fathers. Clement was a a teacher at the Catechetical school of Alexandria, so it's definitely true that many people were taught this doctrine growing up.

John 6

There were many times where the Pharisees didn't understand Jesus' parables, so they left, and only when the weak were weeded out, Jesus would then explain the true meaning afterwards. There is no reason to believe that just because Pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying (just like how later gentiles would misunderstand the doctrine of Communion) does not mean that this is the correct interpretation.


Back to Pro.



References
1- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...
Debate Round No. 3
dsjpk5

Pro

Lupricona said:

"Dropped Argument"

I agree that of course there were Christians that believed in the
Eucharist being literal. There are Catholics that believe this
nowadays. The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the
earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct
teaching. There were Christians teaching false doctrines even in the
first century, so we must be careful to believe a doctrine just because
that a couple of early Christians believed it."

My response:

As my opponent acknowledges, he is now responding to an argument he dropped in the previous round. Well, the fact that it is a dropped
argument means it's too late to respond to it. Once my opponent
dropped my argument, my argument is presumed true for the rest of the debate. The source I provided concerning dropped arguments says as much.

THE POINT OF THE DEBATE:

It appears by Con's comments above that he has forgotten what we are debating. The resolution HE CHOSE is "The sacrament of the Eucharistis reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences."Notice the part that says "historical evidences". Therefore, quoting what early Christians believed is an important piece of.this debate. And to quote Con from round one, "And as we are far removed from the New Testament authors, we must look to the early Christians to see how they understood the passages regarding the Eucharist/Communion." With this in mind, it seems Con is singing a different tune now when he says, "The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct teaching." No sir, that's not what we're debating. You can't change the resolution of the debate in the middle of the debate.

Con said:

"Literal Vs Metaphor

My opponent says that "this is my body" makes no sense as a metaphor.
This is completely false. Of course it can be taken metaphorically, and
it can make sense, even more sense, when done this way. If my opponent
wants to argue that Jesus meant it literally, that is one thing, but to
say that it isn't even possible to interpret it metaphorically is just
dishonest. And my opponent does not justify is inconsistency with the
door vs body analogy."

My response:

Notice how AGAIN my opponent has made a claim without offering any
evidence whatsoever. If Con thinks it can be understood metaphorically let him explain how. Until then, we should reject his claim automatically since it is without support.

Con said:

"Communion as a Meal

Jesus is the Lamb, but the bread and wine are taken symbolically to
represent what He did for us. This is proven by Jesus being physically
present during the first Communion. No part of His body was changed,
and His disciples would have noticed some kind of transformation, or
would have written something special like that in the Gospels."

My response:

I've already refuted this argument a number of times, but I'd be happy
to do it again: Jesus, since He is God, can be in two places at the
same time. It wasn't Jesus that was changed; it was the bread and wine that were changed. So of course the disciples didn't notice any change in Jesus.

Con said:

"Original Sunday Worship

In the book that I quoted, it did explain how the early church had
"homilies" which originally meant discussions, as in, the Christians
would have discussions to learn about the religion. Over time,
"homilies" changed into one guy preaching. This is a difference. A
major difference. It changed from a more social and meaningful dynamic
to a 'go to a ritualistic service and listen to one guy give a
message.'"

My response:

I don't see what this has to do with the Eucharist. What difference
does it make if more than one person speaks or not? Regardless if it
originally included discussion doesn't mean they didn't receive the
Eucharist. We already know from Acts 20:7 that original Sunday
worship included receiving the Eucharist.

Con said:

"Justin Martyr

My opponent is being dishonest when he claim that Justin Martyr teaches
the bread and wine are also transformed. He does not say this. He only
claims that our blood and body are transformed. Justin states that they
do not take the bread and wine as common, because the symbolism helps
them to see it in a different light."

My response:

I find it rather curious that my opponent doesn't quote Justin Martyr
here. And I am NOT being dishonest. Justin Martyr specifically says
what he receives is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. But don't
take my word for it,; let's read the quote from Justin Martyr again:

" For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in
like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

So, he says the food which is blessed by the prayer "is the flesh and
blood of Jesus..." Case closed.

Con said:

"Other Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria says, "Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively
described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and
milk." (1)

Clement specificially describes the blood and flesh as figurative. One
must realize that this is probably the view of the other church
fathers. Clement was a a teacher at the Catechetical school of
Alexandria, so it's definitely true that many people were taught this
doctrine growing up."

My response:

To begin with, this is the first time Con has offered a quote that uses
the word "figuratively", so I find it rather odd that by this one
quote, my opponent expects us to believe this was the majority view.
Having said that, I have no problem with this quote from Clement of
Alexandria, because as I am about to show, Clement didn't believe the
Eucharist was only a symbol. He also believed it was truly the body of
Christ. The Bible is full of teachings that involve BOTH symbol and
reality. For example, I would assert that Adam and Eve really existed,
and they really sinned, but that we don't exactly know what it was.
Eating from the tree in the garden may have been symbolic of something else. Now, as promised, here are quotes from Clement of Alexandria showing he didn't only think the Eucharist has symbolic elements:

"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. [6]

Here we have Clement of Alexandria saying the cup contains BOTH "drink and the Word". The Word, as we know from John 1 is Jesus Christ.

Con said:

"John 6

There were many times where the Pharisees didn't understand Jesus'
parables, so they left, and only when the weak were weeded out, Jesus
would then explain the true meaning afterwards. There is no reason to
believe that just because Pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying
(just like how later gentiles would misunderstand the doctrine of
Communion) does not mean that this is the correct interpretation."

My response:

But that's my point; Jesus DIDN'T explain what he meant to his
disciples here. In every parable the Bible records, Jesus either
explains His parable immediately, or later on to his disciples
privately. He DIDN'T do that here. After thousands of people left
because they understood Him to be serious, Jesus looks at the Apostles and asks them if they're going to leave too. He didn't say It was parable. That's pretty good evidence that Jesus meant what He said when He said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood".

New arguments:

Here's more quotes from early Christians who believed the Eucharist is
exactly what the Catholic Church says it is:

Hippolytus

""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]). [7]

Origen

"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]). [7]

Sources:
6.http://www.therealpresence.org...
7.http://www.catholic.com...
Lupricona

Con

"Dropped Argument"

My opponent cites wikipedia as a source that states that a dropped argument is a concession. However, this is not the case. First, I deemed this particular argument irrelevant, as my opponent cited a protestant historian. If the Protestant historian has evidence that is supposed to convince others of the Eucharist, then why does that historian remain Protestant? It's a non-argument. Secondly, I have the entirety of the debate to refute all of his arguments. I need not refute all of them in a single round. If, on the other hand, I had never addressed the argument throughout the entirety of the debate, only then could my opponent claim my concession. But this is not the case.


The Point of the Debate

We are debating the resolution "The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences."

It is true that we must look to the early Christians to see how they interpreted Scripture. But the resolution states two purposes- the scriputral and historical. So just because there are evidences of early Christians practicing something, it does not mean that it is based on Scripture. Many early christians did many things that were not scriptural. So, this debate focuses on both, not just one aspect.

Literal Vs. Metaphor

It is simple how this can be viewed metaphorically. Jesus is the door, and this metaphorically means that he is the way to God. It does not literally mean that he transforms into a door and we must open him. So also is it that Jesus is the bread and wine, and this metaphorically means that these two substances represent his body and blood and the price that he paid for us. My opponent cannot make the argument that the Eucharist is real without also arguing that Jesus is a literal door, lest he remain inconsistent.

Communion as a Meal

In order for Jesus to be two places at once, it would have to be noticed by people. However, nowhere in the Gospels do we see anybody writing down the miraculous event of Jesus being in two places at once during the first Communion. You would think this would be very important. Why would all the writers fail to remember this? This would be even bigger than the Transfiguration!

Original Sunday Worship

Not only was there a true discussion in the early church, but we must also realize that they did not all go up to sip a tiny sip of wine or eat a piece of a little cracker. The early christians truly broke full loaves of bread, had wine, and shared meals together while they had discussions. This is nothing like how the Catholic church worships today. This is the point that I am making- the orignal christians worship nothing at all like the Catholics nowadays do. This is important because Catholocism has taken simple and wonderful things and turned them into superstitious rituals devoid of real human interaction.

Clement of Alexandria and other Church Fathers

My opponent seems convinced that because the church fathers say that the body and bread is the blood and wine, then they believed it was literally true. But if we go back to Jesus saying he is the door (and Jesus doesn't use the word figuratively, we just must use our common sense to realize that he is talking figuratively), we know that people can say things that are only meant to be taken metaphorically, even if they don't use the word literally.

So even though my opponent continually shows church fathers saying they believed it was the body and blood, it is because they did, but only figuratively.

Clement of Alexandria is a big deal. He specifically uses the word figuratively. Something cannot be both literal and phsyical. It is either one or the other. A literal thing can have philosophical implications, like Adam and Eve sinning, but that is different than metaphor. And, as Clement was a teacher of Christians, that is, he taught doctrines to the children, and his writings were passed around for many to read, it is major that this Christian who specifically teaches a figurative interpretation is definitely somebody who reflects the whole of belief at his time. If he believed it was metaphorical, yet everyone else believed it literal, as you claim, why did nobody challenge Clement? Why wasn't there an uproar in the Church about this? It's because all the Church fathers understood it to be metaphorical, even if they didn't specificially use the word "figuratively" or "metaphorically" just as Jesus did when he claimed to be the door. Jesus expected mankind to have common sense.


John 6

This is not the only time where Jesus doesn't explain something. He does this multiple times throughout the Gospels. He does this to weed out those who are not strong enough in their faith. John 10 is an example of this. Jesus says he is the door, and the good shepherd, and the Pharisees think he is crazy, and Jesus lets him leave. Because Jesus didn't explain himself to them, does this mean that Jesus is literally a shepherd, and literally a door? No, Jesus expects people to have common sense.

New Arguments/ More of the Same Early Church Father Quotes

Hippolytus calls the Communion a memorial, this is symbolic language.

Origen is comparing Old Testament baptism and manna with New testamen baptism and manna (communion). In order to compare them, they must both be symbolic. Origen is only saying that we understand these two concepts better.
Debate Round No. 4
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank Lupricona for an interesting debate. I
appreciate the fact that he took the time to debate this issue. Now on
to my final round:

On the subject of Dropped Arguments, Con said:

"My opponent cites wikipedia as a source that states that a dropped
argument is a concession. However, this is not the case."

My response:

Actually it is the case. Notice how my opponent, as he I prone to do,
has AGAIN made a claim without providing any evidence or source. He just says it's so. While on the other hand, as he points out, I DID
give an unbiased source to support my claim. And this source says you must rebut an argument the very first time you have a chance.
Otherwise, if you don't, the argument is presumed true for the
remainder of the debate. And don't just take my word for it.
Debate.org says the very same thing:

"Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round."[8]

So ,as we can clearly see, Con's claim that he can respond whenever he wants is simply false. All the arguments I made that he dropped are
presumed true.

Con continued:

"First, I
deemed this particular argument irrelevant, as my opponent cited a
protestant historian."

My response:

With all due respect, that makes no sense. The very fact that the it's
a protestant historian shows that it's not only Catholics who claim the
first Christians believed as Catholics do today. This fact lends much
credence why belief in the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is
reasonable given the historical evidence.

On The Point of the Debate, Con said::

"It is true that we must look to the early Christians to see how they
interpreted Scripture. But the resolution states two purposes- the
scriputral and historical. So just because there are evidences of early
Christians practicing something, it does not mean that it is based on
Scripture. Many early christians did many things that were not
scriptural. So, this debate focuses on both, not just one aspect."

My response:

And that's why I have also been offering scripture passages that also
show the teaching on the Eucharist is reasonable.

On the subject of Literal Vs. Metaphor, Con said:

"It is simple how this can be viewed metaphorically. Jesus is the door,
and this metaphorically means that he is the way to God. It does not
literally mean that he transforms into a door and we must open him. So
also is it that Jesus is the bread and wine, and this metaphorically
means that these two substances represent his body and blood and the
price that he paid for us. My opponent cannot make the argument that
the Eucharist is real without also arguing that Jesus is a literal
door, lest he remain inconsistent."

My response:

Again, simply saying something doesn't make it so. I challenge my
opponent to explain how bread compares to a person's body.

On the subject of Communion as a Meal, Con said:
"In order for Jesus to be two places at once, it would have to be
noticed by people."

My response:

Says who? Based on what? We already know from Luke 24:16 that
sometimes His disciples didn't recognize Him. So this is nothing new.
They actually did record Jesus being in two places at once when they
recorded Him saying "This is my body."

On the subject of Original Sunday Worship, Con said:

"Not only was there a true discussion in the early church, but we must
also realize that they did not all go up to sip a tiny sip of wine or
eat a piece of a little cracker. The early christians truly broke full
loaves of bread, had wine, and shared meals together while they had
discussions. This is nothing like how the Catholic church worships
today. This is the point that I am making- the orignal christians
worship nothing at all like the Catholics nowadays do. This is
important because Catholocism has taken simple and wonderful things and
turned them into superstitious rituals devoid of real human
interaction."

My response:

Unfortunately, my opponent has again made a claim without offering any evidence whatsoever. As such, his arguments should be rejected, and regarded as baseless claims. Even IF he could somehow prove that this is how early Christians used to worship, it would be an irrelevant issue based upon my second contention in round one (one that my opponent dropped). We should expect worship to develop over time. An acorn becomes an oak tree, and mustard seeds become mustard plants. Nothing stays the same. Maybe in the early days, a discussion could've been a reasonable undertaking, but it's not now. My church is not the biggest one in town, but every service is attended by hundreds of people. A discussion that included everyone would take a ridiculous amount of time.

On the subject of Clement of Alexandria and other Church Fathers, Con said:

"My opponent seems convinced that because the church fathers say that
the body and bread is the blood and wine, then they believed it was
literally true. But if we go back to Jesus saying he is the door (and
Jesus doesn't use the word figuratively, we just must use our common
sense to realize that he is talking figuratively), we know that people
can say things that are only meant to be taken metaphorically, even if
they don't use the word literally.

So even though my opponent continually shows church fathers saying they
believed it was the body and blood, it is because they did, but only
figuratively."

My response:

In that last paragraph, my opponent admits that I have shown "church
fathers saying they believed it was the body and blood [of Jesus]." I
rest my case. The early Christians believed what they said it was-
Jesus.

Con continues:

"Clement of Alexandria is a big deal. He specifically uses the word
figuratively. Something cannot be both literal and phsyical."

My response:

Yes it can. My body is a physical body, and it is literally my body.

Con continues:

"It is
either one or the other. A literal thing can have philosophical
implications, like Adam and Eve sinning, but that is different than
metaphor."

My response:

How is that different?

Con continues:

" And, as Clement was a teacher of Christians, that is, he
taught doctrines to the children, and his writings were passed around
for many to read, it is major that this Christian who specifically
teaches a figurative interpretation is definitely somebody who reflects
the whole of belief at his time. If he believed it was metaphorical,
yet everyone else believed it literal, as you claim, why did nobody
challenge Clement? Why wasn't there an uproar in the Church about this?
It's because all the Church fathers understood it to be metaphorical,
even if they didn't specificially use the word "figuratively" or
"metaphorically" just as Jesus did when he claimed to be the door.
Jesus expected mankind to have common sense."

My response:

No one challenged him because they knew he believed the Eucharist was BOTH the real body of Christ, and ALSO had symbolic elements. I showed this in the previous round with the additional quotes I offered from him.

On John 6 and parables, Con said:

"This is not the only time where Jesus doesn't explain something. He
does this multiple times throughout the Gospels. He does this to weed
out those who are not strong enough in their faith. John 10 is an
example of this. Jesus says he is the door, and the good shepherd, and
the Pharisees think he is crazy, and Jesus lets him leave. Because
Jesus didn't explain himself to them, does this mean that Jesus is
literally a shepherd, and literally a door? No, Jesus expects people to
have common sense."

My response:

To say that Jesus didn't explain that parable to them is absolutely
false. He did so here:

"7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I
am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep
did not hear them."

Like I said, EVERY time Jesus used parables, he explained them
eventually. My opponent has not given any evidence to counter this.
It is because Jesus always explained the parables that we should know
that he wasn't using a parable when in John 6 He said we needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He wasn't being symbolic.

On New Arguments/ More of the Same Early Church Father Quotes, Con said:

"Hippolytus calls the Communion a memorial, this is symbolic language."

My response:

A memorial isn't always symbolic. Jesus uses the phrase "in memory of me" with sacrificial overtones:

"His statement, "Do this in remembrance of me," may also be translated, "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice" " a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests.

In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as "Do this in remembrance of me," but this does not do full justice to the words.

First of all, the word poiein or "do" has sacrificial overtones. This
can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the
Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M.
Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,

"There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a
cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances."

He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:

"This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two
lambs . . . "

Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as "offer," as all
the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James,
the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it
as "offer."

Jesus" word anamnesis, usually translated "remembrance," also has
sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,

"But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins."

The word for "reminder" in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual
memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of
the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New
Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.

An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to
prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God"s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,

"Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets
over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a
memorial [LXX, anamnesis] for you before your God." [9]

Con continues:

"Origen is comparing Old Testament baptism and manna with New testamen
baptism and manna (communion). In order to compare them, they must both
be symbolic. Origen is only saying that we understand these two
concepts better."

My response:

Not true. They don't have to both be symbolic. The Old Testament baptism and manna were.physical realities, while New Testament baptism are spiritual realities.

Summary of the debate:

1. I refuted every one of Con's arguments, while he dropped several of mine. So, arguments should go to me.

2. He relied heavily on one source, while I had a diverse group of sources. I even quoted from a protestant historian So sources should go to me.

Please vote Pro!

Sources:
8.http://www.debate.org...
9. http://jimmyakin.com...
Lupricona

Con

Lupricona forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Thanks for the kind words!
Posted by ShadowHawk555 2 years ago
ShadowHawk555
As a Catholic I found this debate very interesting. Nice job guys:)
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Again, my opponent should be commended for suggesting and taking on such a difficult position.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I just realized I referred to you as the wrong name. I apologize. I am in the middle of two debates, and got you two confused. Sorry.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
dsjpk5LupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a good explanation of how scriptural references ought to be interpreted, and showed that the quoted verses supported the sacrament of the Eucharist. Con's arguments were not comparable. For example, he failed to provide justification for thinking that the Eucharist is not meant to be literal. 7 points go to Pro for better arguments as well as the forfeit from Con.