RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st & 2nd centuries
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Another EPIC FAIL from RGS
As expected, RGS failed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted.
RGS, as an anti-Catholic, and poorly educated in all things about Christianity, is reduced to attcking me rather than dealing with what I posted. He is then dismissive about the evidence I posted because he can't refute it. This is what anti-Catholics MUST do to save face and protect their own wounded egos as they repeatedly fail to refute the evidence put before them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers.
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted, RGS is reduced to whining that the word Eucharist didn't mean THE Eucharist. This is a completely inept argument as anyone can tell since words naturally develop meanings when used in ***ociation with things. RGS, however, cannot admit this even though everyone knows it is how words organically develop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Clearly it did - as I posted and as RGS has now failed (again) to refute.
Vlad accuses others of the very thing he is guilty of
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vladimir998
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted,
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you. Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
RGS goas all paranoid again
RGS,
unable to actually deal with the irrefutable evidence I posted, went all paranoid:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you.
You're simply being dishonest. I already refuted your opening thread in the very second post of the thread. On that issue you did not recover. You just kept making excuses. I specifically rejoined the thread because I was shocked at how poorly you understood St. Ignatius of Antioch. You were easily refuted on that point as well. You have not recovered at all from that. And now you're just embarr***ing yourself by falsely claiming I, "Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you."
No, it is you who refuses to address the evidence put before you. About St. Ignatius, you can only lamely say you need to see the Greek - that's the excuse you use to get out of dealing with evidence that destroys your points or claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
No, actually I am quite successful, while you are not only failing but post things that echo a disturbing paranoia common to poorly educated, sciolist anti-Catholics: "Typical Jesuit approach."
It will only get worse. As your failure here becomes more manifest, the person you really are will become ever more clear in your posts. The hatred of God, His Church and Catholics that you feel, the bitterness and frustration over your own failings in life and your inability to post even the most basic arguments or refute even the most basic of truths will cause you to lash out ever more irrationally. The paranoia you express is just the beginning.
And please note, you still have entirely failed to deal with the your utter and complete failure on St. Ignatius.