Tim Kauffman

@CrushnSerpents has accused me of lying in my opening statement during my debate with @ArchangeloRom yesterday. The public accusation provides an opportunity as entertaining as it is instructional. No, I did not lie, and he has yet to identify "the lie" of which I am accused. And by the way, there are no "hundreds of pages of context" in Fragment 37 of Irenæus. It's a paragraph. In my opening yesterday, I stated quite clearly that the ancient Church believed the Malachi 1:11 prophecy was a Eucharist offering of the first fruits of the harvest for the poor. After the Eucharist "sacrifice" was over, they would take some bread and wine from the Eucharist offering and consecrate it, as I said, either by saying'This is My Body,' and 'This is My blood' or by invoking the Holy Spirit to similar effect. But the Eucharist offering was over before the bread and wine were consecrated, and the consecrated bread and wine were not offered. There was no offering of "Jesus' body and blood" in the ancient church. That abominable novelty came along in the late 4th century. Evidence that first-fruits was the only Eucharist oblation of the ancient church is abundant: Justin Martyr said the ONLY honour worthy of God is for us to use the fruit of the harvest "for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks" (First Apology, 13) and that "prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the ONLY perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God" (Trypho 117). When he describes the ancient liturgy, there is an offering of thanks for food (First Apology 65, 67) with no mention of having consecrated the food before offering, and when there is a mention of a consecration (First Apology, 66), it is spoken over the food that had just been "eucharisted," and there is no mention of offering the now consecrated food. Thus does Justin rule out a liturgical offering of Jesus' body and blood. Unconsecrated food is offered to God. Consecrated food is given to the flock to eat. But consecrated food is not offered. Irenæus describes something similar when he says "We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation" (Against Heresies 4.18.1), and "the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation" (4.18.4). He then criticizes the Gnostics for offering the first fruits of creation to "the Father" while not even believing the first fruits had come from "the Father," then pronouncing the consecration over over food that had just been eucharisted: "But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood" (Against Heresies 4.18.5). Food is offered. Then it is consecrated. But consecrated food is not offered. Origen describes this exact same liturgical order in Against Celsus 8.34, noting that in the Eucharist "we offer first-fruits, we also send up our prayers," and in 8.57 "And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist." Thus, his liturgy is succintly summarized in 8.33 as a Eucharist offering of first fruits, followed by a meal of consecrated bread: "But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.” There is no offering of consecrated bread, and when the bread is consecrated, it is not offered. Unconsecrated food is offered to God. Consecrated food is given to the flock to eat. But consecrated food is not offered. And that gets us to Fragment 37, in which Irenæus says the Malachi 1:11 prophecy is fulfilled in the Church's oblation of first-fruits: "And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment." Once that oblation is complete—as I said in my opening remarks—the minister then performs the invocation, asking that the Holy Spirit "exhibit" to the recipients the bread and cup as the body and blood of Christ: "And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal." There is an oblation of first fruits, and then AFTER the oblation is already over, there is an invocation of the Holy Spirit to "exhibit" the offerings to the recipients, as in "the body of Christ," "the blood of Christ." What is offered is not consecrated, and what gets consecrated is not then offered. An interesting point of trivia: "exhibit" here is the Greek word "apophene" from which we get the English word "apophenia," which is a condition in which the mind forms an otherwise abnormal connection between unrelated objects. So Irenæus' liturgy of the Eucharist concludes with a prayer that the Holy Spirit would form in the mind of the recipient a connection between something that is not the body of Christ (the bread) and something that is the body of Christ (His actual body). Thus showing that Irenæus understood the bread and wine to be symbolic—antitypical—of Christ's body and blood, but NOT ACTUALLY His body and blood. In my opening remarks I said exactly what I believed about the ancient liturgy (an unconsecrated Eucharist was offered, and after the offering was over, the Eucharist of the bread and cup was called the body and blood of Christ, but was not then offered), I warned about the tendency of the Roman Catholic to miss that and assume that because the ancient Church offered the Eucharist (it did) and called the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (it did) that therefore the ancient Church offered the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (it didn't). As is now evident, @CrushnSerpents did exactly what I predicted: because after the Eucharist oblation Irenæus asks the Holy Spirit to "exhibit" the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, therefore THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST MUST BE WHAT IRENÆUS OFFERED IN THE EUCHARIST. But read Irenæus again and see what he offered: "For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment." And of course, Irenæue did not—in Fragment 37 or anywhere else—claim that the Malachi 1:11 prophecy was fulfilled in the liturgical offering of Jesus' body and blood. Note well: to the Roman Catholic, unless you interpret the ancient liturgy consistent with their late 4th century novelty, you're lying. To an ignorant man, truth is falsehood if it undermines the foundation of his ignorance. @CrushnSerpents has provided a timely illustration of this reality.

The Scripture says He was not Aaronic. The Scripture says the rod of Aaron signifies a genetic family line responsible for the ministry of the sanctuary. Jesus is the High Priest. Do you think because He is a high priest He is therefore of Aaronic lineage? or because He is a high priest He cannot be nonAaronic?

@whpub @pzj1801 @ThyRamMan @catholicfan2 That's it? That's a strange reason to include it in the Ark. Most Protestants say it was in the Ark to represent God's election of Aaron as the high Priest of Israel. I don't know what your group says about Jesus, but we claim that he is the ultimate high Priest of Israel.

Catholic apologists insist that Jesus "doubled down" on His literal meaning in John 6 by switching from a common term for "eating" to the graphic term for gnaw, chew and chomp, τρώγων (trogon), in John 6:54. As in, "Whoso chompeth (τρώγων) my flesh...". Their common refrain is that "trogon" is NEVER EVER used metaphorically in Greek, therefore Jesus must have been using the term to denote a LITERAL gnawing of His flesh. A couple examples just from yesterday: "to trogein (chew / gnaw — graphic, physical) This verb is never used metaphorically in Koine Greek." @denise_gil12468 "The Greek word 'Trogo' (to gnaw, to chew) used by Christ in reference to His Flesh is never used metaphorically in the Greek language." @imstillrich_eth The latter, Tyson, even says "this one Greek word makes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unavoidable," and "I couldn’t honestly stay Protestant" after learning this fact. Hey, I like these two folks, so don't take offense at me calling them out. They are genuine, thoughtful and considerate in their posts. But the claim is grotesquely erroneous and easily falsified. And Tyson unfortunately converted to Roman Catholicism based on a blatant falsehood that he received without thorough investigation: Barnabas (1st century): citing Deuteronomy 4, wrote that the command "You shall not eat (τρωγειν)" was meant metaphorically, as in "you shall not fellowship with certain men": "Now, wherefore did Moses say, 'You shall not eat (τρωγειν) the swine' ... Moses spoke with a spiritual reference ... He means, 'You shall not join yourself or be like to such men as are ungodly to the end'" (Epistle of Barnabas, 10). Barnabas not only says Moses meant the command metaphorically, but so did God, and that only people with uncircumcised ears take it literally, being unable to understand it metaphorically: "Behold how well Moses legislated. But how was it possible for them to understand or comprehend these things? We then, rightly understanding his commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For this purpose He circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might understand these things." (Epistle, 10). Macarius the Egyptian (early 4th century): citing John 6:54, says trogein is a metaphor for "devouring" the Words of the Old and New Testaments, "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Wisdom", which means that Jesus gave us His flesh and blood as food "allegorically": "Now the flesh and blood of Christ, or of Wisdom (for Christ and Wisdom are the same), are the words of the Old and New Testaments spoken with allegorical meaning, which men must devour (τρώγειν) with care and digest by calling them to mind with the understanding, and win from them not temporal but eternal life. Thus did Jeremiah eat when he received the words from the hand of Wisdom, and by eating he had life; thus did Ezekiel feel sweetness when he ate the roll of the words (Ezek. iii. 3), and the bitterness of this present life was cast away. Thus did the saints one by one, once long ago, and again and again, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Wisdom, that is, by receiving in themselves the knowledge and revelation of her, live for aye with a life that will never cease. It was not only to the disciples that He gave His own flesh to eat and likewise His own blood to drink (for He would not have done right in thus offering the life eternal to some at a certain season, but not supplying it to others); but it was to all men alike in whom was holiness and the spirit of prophecy, that He gave allegorically this supply of food." (Apocriticus III.23) So, yes, the literal word for chomping, "trogein," was known and used metaphorically in Greek from ages past, even in the first century when Jesus used it exactly the way Macarius depicted in his Apocriticus.

@Cee10William @pzj1801 @ThyRamMan @catholicfan2 "each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods" (Numbers 17:6). The Rod of Aaron signifies the house of Aaron. Jesus was not of the house of Aaron.

@pzj1801 @whpub @ThyRamMan @catholicfan2 Arron's Rod was placed in the Ark as a powerful symbol of divine authority. So let's recap: Mary contained the Word of God, the true Manna and true Divine authority. Just like the Ark. She was the Ark.

NFP is not "cooperating with the natural fertility cycle." It's decidedly uncooperative, an attempt to defeat it. Cooperation would be focusing intimacy on the most fertile part of the cycle instead of trying to avoid it. If I had an employee who was due for his performance review, and only came to work on days I wasn't there, I would not think he was "cooperating" with management. I would think (correctly) that he was "uncooperating" with management.

@Cee10William @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @whpub That is what NFP involves (periodic abstinence) but the purpose of it is to manage when pregnancies occur in order in ensure they happen in such a manner for the good of the family.

Y’all once thought Lucifer was the king of conception. What changed? “Lucifer … is king over all things that are in the waters— that is to say in the seat of pleasure and luxury, *of propagation of children, and of the fertilisation of the marriage bed*.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book II, chapter 4)

@ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @whpub In NFP you are doing everything natural and it's completely within the sacred bounds of the marital act. With contraception, you deliberately alter the sacred act. It's a sin. Y'all thought it was a sin 90 years ago too

@Cee10William @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 Vision is also sacred (Mt 6:22). Therefore glasses are immoral.

@whpub @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 Your reply shows that you folks don't view the sexual act as anything sacred. You used to though.

@Cee10William @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 The assumption dogma.

@ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @whpub All Protestants thought artificial contraception was a serious sin. They taught that sexual intercourse was a sacred act because it is how God designed life to enter the world. What happened between 1930 and now??

I can’t answer that. Not because I don’t know the answer, but because I believe in natural visual cognition (NVC), and that means I do not use artificial methods of vision or visual aids, and therefore I can’t even read your tweet because that would require glasses. It is the only possible way for me to be truly “open to the possibility of cognition.”

@ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @whpub The effectiveness isn't what makes artificial contraception a sin. It's outside the bounds of the natural act. Are you okay with mutilating your organs so you don't have to worry about a pregnancy?

@Cee10William @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 The sexual revolution followed the Assumption Dogma and Vatican 2. There are no coincidences.

@whpub @ThyRamMan @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 Can you explain why every single Protestant Christian thought it was a sin 100 years ago? One by one, y'all slowly caved in. It's no coincidence that the sexual revolution immediately followed.

Because no contraceptive is 100% effective, it is possible to be “open to the possibility of life” even as you use an “artificial” contraceptives. In that sense, someone could get a vasectomy or hysterectomy and still be as “open to the possibility of life” as Abraham and Sarah were.

@Cee10William @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @whpub NFP is not natural. It is extremely unnatural. Just because you call it natural doesn't change how distinctly weird and unnatural it is. Now, by contrast, both physical blocks (re: condoms) and chemical blocks have natural analogs in the animal kingdom.

@Cee10William @pzj1801 @ThyRamMan @catholicfan2 The Rod of Aaron represented the Aaronic line. Jesus was not of that line.

@pzj1801 @ThyRamMan @catholicfan2 @whpub She was the Ark because her body contained the Word of God made Flesh, the true Manna from Heaven (John 6:35), and the ultimate Priestly authority (Aaron's Rod). Do you seriously need a Bible verse for that

@ThyRamMan @Cee10William @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 This is a very big deal, often obscured in the translations and in academia: both Irenæus and Hippolytus have the Eucharist offering occurring prior to the epiclesis. The translators tend to conflate them.

@Cee10William @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @whpub It literally only takes minutes now. When I wrote my article on Hippolytus, I simply did a Google search and clicked on every link in the top 10. I still cite the three pro-Roman Catholic sources that I found as a demonstration of Catholic error. derekramsey.com/2024/04/09/the…

@Cee10William @pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @ThyRamMan Sarah’s response to Abraham is proof that Mary and Joseph had sex: “shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also” (Genesis 18:12). It’s “biblically self-evident”! 😉 Because types.

@pzj1801 @catholicfan2 @ThyRamMan @whpub They didn't need to state the obvious. Mary as the Ark is one of the most Biblically self-evident doctrines there is. Protestants can't have it be, because that would mean Joseph wouldn't have had sex with the Ark and she wouldn't have bore any other kids.

The Homilies attributed to Thaumaturgus are considered, even by Roman Catholics, to be spurious. Even Fr. Livius, who was attempting to find evidence of early devotion to Mary, conceded that the Homilies were “of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, p. 48n). Schaff, in his Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, lists them under doubtful or spurious works.

@ThyRamMan @Cee10William @pzj1801 @whpub St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his first (of four) homilies make reference to Mary as an Ark while commenting on Luke 1. He was a 3rd century father.

@nickuva Not sure there’s a name mentioned. But the whole conversation is here:

@whpub Who is the Catholic man in that video who's about to pop a vein?

"What we used to do with people like you is interrogate you and then hand you over to the civil authorities." Well, that's refreshing. Just a reminder to Protestants who collaborate with Roman Catholics to achieve Christian Nationalism, this is what they want to do to you when they get power. They'll start with "We just want to have public Marian and Eucharistic processions," and end with "We're handing you over to the civil authorities because of your obstinacy (after we interrogate you, of course)."

@BibleInContext1 Summary

These fake Catholic apologists and influencers are being used by the Roman cult to stir up dissension! Their hope is that they will discourage people from truly listening and examining someone's content! Sam, for the record I was a Catholic a lot longer than you have been a Catholic and I've been a Christian probably before you could read! ⭐️ Eager to be a better discipler and student of the Word or just grow in your relationship with God? I believe this book by book Bible summary will encourage you and bring you comfort found in the scriptures. It is not a course nor does it cost anything! Come journey with me on this summary through the entire Bible, from a Jewish perspective in chronological order. 👉🏼 Just comment “SUMMARY” below and I’ll send you the details to get started today!! #bible #christianlife #theology #christianapologetics

@petevaldezbc1 “No, YOU reject an ecumenical council!” 🤣

@whpub Lol. It's funny reading their comments 😆 "you reject an ecumenical council!"

Birth Announcement! We've got a new Roman Catholic Denomination. This time it's the Lateran IV and session 11 of Florence and Popes Innocent III and Eugene IV version of Roman Catholicism vs. the Vatican II and Francis I's Nostra Aetate, par. 4 version. These two men are citing their own preferred collections of ecumenical councils and ex cathedra papal statements at each other, each believing his personal interpretation of the Magisterium is authoritative. They both claim to be Roman Catholic, but in truth they are two different, irreconcilable denominations within Rome.

@HHaynin whitehorseblog.com/2015/06/21/sea…

@whpub Dear Tim did you write an article about Mary as the arc?

Yeah, and you would take the rope in your hand and say "this is our friendship," even though it is not literally your friendship. If you substitute your stipulated meanings, that "friendship is the bond between us" and "rope is the bond between," your original statement reduces to my position: "If I tie a rope between us, it can be symbolic of [friendship] but also a literal [rope] between us." What it doesn't get you is "the rope is both a symbol of our friendship AND IS REALLY our friendship."

@AutisticHODL @JamesDitto12 @thaddeusthought @whpub @ReformedToRome It’s “a real bond between us” it also symbolizes a figurative relationship bond. In the same way, the Eucharist is both literally Christ and also symbolizes things.

This interaction is instructional both for the ostentatious presumption of the Harvard Orthodox student and for the unfortunate naïveté of the Protestant pastors. The Harvard student repeatedly claimed (2:11) that "every single one of the early church fathers” believed in the "real presence" of Christ and that there are no extant records that anyone believed the Eucharist to be symbolic, and the Protestant pastor almost immediately conceded the point (1:52): "for the majority of the church fathers you’re exactly right.” But the Harvard student was just reciting talking points, and listing ancient writers as if they OBVIOUSLY support his position. It's a common rhetorical tactic to bury the unprepared Protestant in citations as if they all agree with him. They don't. Don't be taken in by the bluff and bluster of talking points that merely serve as a substitute for actual scholarship. When the Orthodox or Catholic argues that ALL the ancient fathers were UNANIMOUS on the real presence, what they are really saying is that all the early Fathers believed the Scriptural account of the Last Supper. But how did they understand those scriptural accounts? They believed that in some way the bread is Jesus body to us, and the wine is His blood to us, but the WAY they understood that was not that the the bread is REALLY Jesus' body and the wine is REALLY Jesus' blood. I'll post separately in response to the Harvard student's list of sources, but for the reader's reference, here are many ancient writers who said the bread and wine of the Supper are symbolically, figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically examples and similitudes and likenesses (but not really) Jesus' body and blood: Irenæus of Lyons (190 A.D.) Irenæus refers to “the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ” as “these antitypes (ἀντίτυπον).” (Fragment 37) Clement of Alexandria (202 A.D.) “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols (συμβόλων), when He said: ‘Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor (lit. allegory, ἀλληγορὤν) the drinkable properties of faith …” (Pædagogus 1 6) Tertullian of Carthage (208 A.D.) “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure (figura) of my body.” (Adversus Marcionem, 4 40) Hippolytus of Rome (215 A.D.) The Greek original of Hippolytus’ instructions on the thank offerings and the Supper is no longer extant, but the Verona Latin fragments helpfully preserve both the Latin translation and a Latin transliteration of the Greek. At the thank offering, prior to the blessing, the bread is called an example, “exemplum,” of the body of Christ, or in Greek “antitypum.” The wine is called an antitype, “antitypum,” of the blood of Christ, or in Greek, “similitudinem.” Yet, even after the consecration, the communicant is instructed to receive “the image (antitypum) of the blood of Christ.” (Anaphora 32) Origen of Alexandria (248 A.D.) “…it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical (τυπικοῦ) and symbolic (συμβολικοῦ) body.” (Commentary on Matthew 11 14) Adamantius (c. 300 A.D.) “If, as these say, He was fleshless and bloodless, of what flesh or of what blood was it that He gave the images (εικόνας) in the bread and the cup, when He commanded the disciples to make the memorial of Him by means of these?” (Dialogue 5 6) Eusebius of Cæsarea (325 A.D.) “Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, … and the mysterious symbols (σύμβολα) of the Saviour’s passion were dispensed.” (Historia Ecclesiastica 10 3.3) “…we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols (σύμβολων) of His Body and saving Blood” (Demonstratio Evangelica 1 10) “…the wine which was indeed the symbol (σύμβολον) of His blood … He gave Himself the symbols (σύμβολα) of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness (εικόνα) of His own Body. … bread to use as the symbol (σύμβολω) of His Body” (Demonstratio Evangelica 8 1) Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.) “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the body and blood of Christ: for in the figure (τύπω) of bread is given to you His body, and in the figure (τύπω) of wine His blood;” (Catechetical Lecture 22 3) “Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical (ἀντίτυπου) body and blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lecture 23 20) Sarapion of Thmuis (353 A.D.) “This bread is the likeness (ομοίωμα) of the holy Body, ... the cup, the likeness of the Blood, for the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his own disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my Blood,’ … .” (Eucharistic Anaphora) Gregory of Nazianzen (361-381 A.D.) In his preparation for the Supper, Gregory refers to the unconsecrated elements using the language of symbolism, calling them “the antitype (ἀντίτυπον) of the great mysteries” (Oration 2, paragraph 95), but also uses figurative language even after the consecration: “Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical (τυπικώς); though it is plainer than the old one. … :” (Oration 45, paragraph 23) Macarius the Egyptian (390 A.D.) The consecrated bread and wine are “the symbol (ἀντίτυπον) of His flesh and blood, … those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord…” (Homily 27 17)