Question: Does desecrating the Eucharist "harm" God in any way?

It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH, the creator of the universe.

It is not reserved for God alone. The very first thing Christ ever said to Simon was to indicate that he - Simon - would be renamed 'Rock'.

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas”

Cephas is Aramaic for 'Rock'. This same word Cephas is used in the later passage. What Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church."

You said that Christ did not establish the Church. I replied by citing the famous passage where He specifies building His Church.

Will you now accept that Christ did indeed speak of and establish His Church?

And - returning to the thread - do you now accept that Christ did indeed command His disciples to eat His Body and drink His Blood?

U-2012> It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH, the creator of the universe.
It is not reserved for God alone. The very first thing Christ ever said to Simon was to indicate that he - Simon - would be renamed 'Rock'.
The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” Cephas is Aramaic for 'Rock'. This same word Cephas is used in the later passage. What Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church."
You said that Christ did not establish the Church. I replied by citing the famous passage where He specifies building His Church.
Will you now accept that Christ did indeed speak of and establish His Church?

And - returning to the thread - do you now accept that Christ did indeed command His disciples to eat His Body and drink His Blood?

You and I disagree on fundamentals.
I believe in ONE YHvH
I do not believe in two or three gods.
I do not believe in a panoply of gods.
I do not believe in one or more goddesses.
I believe in only ONE WORD from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22
YHvH says His NAME is the "ROCK" in twenty or more places
and you reject YHvH's assertions for one vague reference to Peter.
So vague as it must be in Aramaic despite not
a reference to it being in Aramaic.
YHvH is not a liar.
How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ?
The Law of First Mention
Is it all those called out by YHvH ?

A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.

Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
or

Did the "church" exist earlier ?

Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10
NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your God
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8
What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ?
Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No !
Was it to have a temporal head ? No !
It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ?
and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ?
And to teach their children the same ? Yes.
-------------
Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kof, hey, lamed)
(kof => The HOLY ONE
hey => grace, breath of G-d
lamed => teaching and learning)

which is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths)
NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

----Christians do not believe in 'two or three Gods' - nor in goddesses. The fact that you imply/seem to imply that Christians believe in 'two or three Gods' does indeed reveal a chasm of difference between us.
Would it be fair to say that you do not believe in the Trinity?

Also: would it also be fair to say that you do not believe in the divinity of Christ - you do not believe that He is God? ----

It would be a mistake to conflate catholics and christians.
Yah'shua said in Mark that there is only ONE YHvH.
He said He and the Father are ONE.
He said if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father
YHvH has presented Himself in difference appearances to mankind.
The Roman "church"'s concept of a trinity was made up out of whole cloth.
This includes re-writing Matthew 28:19 after it was documented by Eusebius.
Members of the Roman "church pray to dead people.
Yah'shua is in fact the Shekinah of YHvH in human flesh.
I pray that you become like the Bereans and search the
scriptures daily to see if what you are told is scriptural.
Mazol Tov
Have a wonderful journey on the wide road.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

The Roman "church"'s concept of a trinity was made up out of whole cloth. This includes re-writing Matthew 28:19 after it was documented by Eusebius.

Long before Eusebius, the Church baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The Diatessaron (c 160–175) is the most prominent early compilation of the Gospels. It was created by Tatian, a Christian from Assyria.

Let's see what Tatian records on this subject:

From Section LV of the Diatessaron:

Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world.

The Didache or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles' is a very early christian treatise dated at about 110 AD (c 40–150).

Let's see what the unknown writer of the Didache has to say:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

These are just two examples of early christian writings that clearly record the Trinitarian baptism. They were written long before Eusebius.

Eusebius got it wrong.

We can wonder why Eusebius got it wrong.

For one thing: Eusebius was not a disinterested observer. He was not a Trinitarian but a semi-Arian. He even presented a rival Arian-friendly version of the creed at Nicea.

He could well have knowingly refrained from citing clauses that mentioned “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

Alternatively: he was working from a Syriac translation of Matthew. If he had got his version of Matthew from some unitarian translator then the translator could have suppressed the Trinitarian clause.

And finally - of course - Eusebius may not have been referencing Matthew at all. After all he wasn't documenting Matthew 28:19. He was presenting an argument about Mosaic practices and cited words similar but not equivalent to Matthew 28:19.

This wasn't the Gospel according to Eusebius. He wasn't writing a careful line by line dissertation about Matthew. The only reason that anyone would regard this as Eusebius presenting Matthew 28:19 is your spurious addition of 16th century verse numbers to a 4th century document.

Either Eusebius read a corrupt version of Matthew, or he suppressed the bits he didn't like, or he was writing to a purpose that didn't involve going into Trinitarian baptism.

Regardless of which it is: the Didache and the Diatessaron (among other early christian writings) show clearly that baptism was being carried out in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this was helpful.

U-2012> The Roman "church"'s concept of a trinity was made up out of whole cloth. This includes re-writing Matthew 28:19 after it was documented by Eusebius.
Long before Eusebius, the Church baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
The Diatessaron (c 160–175) is the most prominent early compilation of the Gospels. It was created by Tatian, a Christian from Assyria.
Let's see what Tatian records on this subject:
From Section LV of the Diatessaron:
Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world.
The Didache or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles' is a very early christian treatise dated at about 110 AD (c 40–150).
Let's see what the unknown writer of the Didache has to say:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. These are just two examples of early christian writings that clearly record the Trinitarian baptism. They were written long before Eusebius.
Eusebius got it wrong. We can wonder why Eusebius got it wrong. For one thing: Eusebius was not a disinterested observer. He was not a Trinitarian but a semi-Arian. He even presented a rival Arian-friendly version of the creed at Nicea.
He could well have knowingly refrained from citing clauses that mentioned “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
Alternatively: he was working from a Syriac translation of Matthew. If he had got his version of Matthew from some unitarian translator then the translator could have suppressed the Trinitarian clause.
And finally - of course - Eusebius may not have been referencing Matthew at all. After all he wasn't documenting Matthew 28:19. He was presenting an argument about Mosaic practices and cited words similar but not equivalent to Matthew 28:19. This wasn't the Gospel according to Eusebius. He wasn't writing a careful line by line dissertation about Matthew. The only reason that anyone would regard this as Eusebius presenting Matthew 28:19 is your spurious addition of 16th century verse numbers to a 4th century document.
Either Eusebius read a corrupt version of Matthew, or he suppressed the bits he didn't like, or he was writing to a purpose that didn't involve going into Trinitarian baptism.

The Diatessaron is at best a para-phase of scriptures.
Seen as a "harmony" or commentary.
Do you base your salvation and faith on non-canonical works ?
Eusebius wrote Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio)
The Didache is spurious at best.
Lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript
of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873
I prefer to base my faith on the WORD of G-d.
When you use the word "Church",
I assume you are referring to the Roman
"church" created and promulgated as
syncretic at Nicea in 325CE by the
Pagan Constantine.
As I have demonstrated YHvH's church began in
Deuteronomy 4:10 with His definition of same.
"Baptism" or Mikvah is scriptural from the Tanach.
It comes from the Koine Greek as to dye cloth.
I.e. full immersion in order to change.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

Do you base your salvation and faith on non-canonical works ?

No. That would be you.

Eusebius's work is not canonical: it is not a Gospel. Yet you are trying to retask a note in Eusebius to rewrite the Gospel of Matthew.

You are apparently basing your salvation and faith on Eusebius. Is he canon?

Please tell the thread: which book of the Bible is Eusebius?

On the other hand: I don't treat the Didache or Diatessaron as Gospel. I merely treat them as historical documents that predate Eusebius.

They show beyond a shadow of a doubt that - contra your gloss of Eusebius - very early Christians baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I would normally just appeal to the Gospel of Matthew - which also predates Eusebius. But I can't very well do that if you won't accept it as canon.

Hope this is helpful.

Here are other examples of early christian writers who predate Eusebius and who explicitly mention the Trinitarian form of Baptism.

This from Justin Martyr ( c. 100 – 165 AD) in his 'First Apologia'

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

This from Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD. 107-112): the 'Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians'

For those things which the prophets announced, saying, "Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles," have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.ix.html

Also in the 'Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians'

There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvii.ii.html

This from Irenaeus (ca. 130-200): 'Against Heresies' Book III Chapter XVII.

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xviii.html

This from Tertullian (ca. 160-220): 'The Prescription Against Heretics' Chapter XX.

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost."

Tertullian again: 'On Baptism' Chapter VI.

Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, "make the paths straight" for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains.

Same book, same chapter.

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

This from Victorinus (ca. 270-303): 'Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John'

"The many waters are understood to be many peoples, or the gift of baptism that He sent forth by the apostles, saying: "Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

These multiple historical sources - not to mention the Didache and the Diatessaron - emphatically demonstrate that the Trinitarian baptismal formula was originally part of Matthew’s Gospel and was in use long before Nicea.

Sincerely hope this was helpful.

May Jesus Christ lead us into all truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.