Eat Me!

[Pegasus]

In the eastern Church, we are content to admit we do not know how God does what He does and refer to the "Sacraments" as "Mysteries."

A most humble approach. Which I do respect the Eastern Orthodox church admits they don't have it all figured out. Quite a rare approach in the Western churches.

 

[Pegasus]

The comments of the fathers whom I cited have nothing to do with transubstantiation which was an invention of the scholastics of the 11th and 12th century and had great influence in the west but none at all in the east.

Well you ruined my night! I had this long dissertation ready to refute transubstantiation.

 

[flyboy2610]

If partaking of the Eucharist is required for salvation, how then were those who had faith in Christ but died before the Eucharist was instituted saved? Such as the thief on the cross.
The only requirement for salvation is faith. Adding anything else to it as a requirement for salvation is adopt a works-based salvation plan, and hell is the only place that will get you.
When Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood all he meant was that we are to make him as much a part of our daily lives as our daily food and drink. We are to find our spiritual nourishment in Him, and in Him alone. Anything else will only leave us hungry and thirsty. And hunger and thirst, if not dealt with, will only lead to death. Physical hunger and thirst will produce physical death, neglecting the spiritual food and drink Christ offers us will lead to spiritual death.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If partaking of the Eucharist is required for salvation, how then were those who had faith in Christ but died before the Eucharist was instituted saved? Such as the thief on the cross.

That happened after the Last Supper......just to clarify.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

If partaking of the Eucharist is required for salvation, how then were those who had faith in Christ but died before the Eucharist was instituted saved?

What post are you referring to here?

 

[Jim Parker]

If partaking of the Eucharist is required for salvation, how then were those who had faith in Christ but died before the Eucharist was instituted saved?

The Eucharist is for those who believe AFTER it was instituted just like the Law of Moses was for those who believed AFTER it was given.
Jesus said: Jhn 6:53-57 “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me."
I didn't say that. Jesus did. Take it or leave it.
I'm really not at all interested in why you think it should mean anything other than what it says. I'm not here to argue.

The only requirement for salvation is faith. Adding anything else to it as a requirement for salvation is adopt a works-based salvation plan, and hell is the only place that will get you.

Yeah. I've heard that same preaching. Jesus did not agree.
John 5:28-29 (NKJV) … the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth
—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

And James, the brother of the LORD said the same thing:
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (Jas 2:17)
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jas 2:24)

Paul also said the same: (Ro 2:6-10 NKJV) (God) will render to each one according to his deeds; eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

And in the Revelation it says:
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Rev 22: 12 - 14 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you.
That's not what I said; it's what the scripture says.

It's totally up to you as to what you decide to do with it.

Have a great day.

 

[flyboy2610]

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus' words, not mine. What you decide to do with them is up to you.
And James was discussing a persons righteousness in the eyes of another man, not in the eyes of God.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Works are the evidence of salvation, not the cause.
You need to put the verses into context. When you do you will see that James is dealing with a man that is a hypocrite, who only SAYS he has faith, but has no works to back it up. That mans religion is all in his mouth, but the saving grace of God is totally absent from his soul. Reminds me of Talkative in Pilgrim's Progress.

James 2:14-18 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

And anyone standing before the Great White Throne in Revelation 20 is already lost. Their judgment is not to determine whether they will go to heaven or hell. Hell is their fate. The judgment is only to determine the degree of torment they will receive. How close to the fire will they be, so to speak.

Have a great day.

 

[stovebolts]

Except the writings of the ECF are not scripture. Perhaps it would be best to put that aside and look at what scripture says and what it does/could mean? (Not that we have not done this on more than one occasion......LOL)

I find it odd that you so easily dismiss a direct deciple of the Apostle John.... a man who sat at the feet of John.
If you could ask the Apostle John what he meant when he wrote John 6, what do you think he would say? I am sure Ignatious and John had many discussions on the matter.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I find it odd that you so easily dismiss a direct deciple of the Apostle John.... a man who sat at the feet of John.
If you could ask the Apostle John what he meant when he wrote John 6, what do you think he would say? I am sure Ignatious and John had many discussions on the matter.

I look to the Master first then to the Student.....by the time it gets to the Student's student.....not so much.

 

[stovebolts]

I look to the Master first then to the Student.....by the time it gets to the Student's student.....not so much.

Yet you yourself are a student, as was John. John sat at the feet of Jesus, and Ignatious at the feet of John.
I know of no other commentary this close to Jesus...

 

[Jim Parker]

I look to the Master first then to the Student.....by the time it gets to the Student's student.....not so much.

So you think that your personal interpretation is better than someone who was taught by the apostle John.
I think that's absurd but, apparently, it floats your boat.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So you think that your personal interpretation is better than someone who was taught by the apostle John.
I think that's absurd but, apparently, it floats your boat.

I don't know how you got there from what I said but now that you mention it IIRC even the Apostles got their understanding of Messiah's teaching through the Holy Spirit. Last time I checked that path is still available to us.....My boat is floating quite well, thank you.

 

[Pegasus]

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church.

“And this food is called among us Eujcaristiva [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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”

How do you explain Justin Martyr's shift in the blue bolded above. No doubt he is an advocate with regards to what the Anglican term adopted by many others as Real Presence. However, he still refers to the bread as bread and cup (wine) as cup (wine). I was under the impression the Eastern Orthodox also held that the elements change when the prayer of thanksgiving is offered.

Justin Martyr seems to clarify this in his Dialogue with Trypho:

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

Why I mentioned earlier why it is important to know the context of these quotes and that heretics or their doctrines were addressed.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't know how you got there from what I said but now that you mention it IIRC even the Apostles got their understanding of Messiah's teaching through the Holy Spirit. Last time I checked that path is still available to us.....My boat is floating quite well, thank you.

I didn't expect you to get it but, I thought it was worth a try.

 

[Jim Parker]

How do you explain Justin Martyr's shift in the blue bolded above. No doubt he is an advocate with regards to what the Anglican term adopted by many others as Real Presence. However, he still refers to the bread as bread and cup (wine) as cup (wine). I was under the impression the Eastern Orthodox also held that the elements change when the prayer of thanksgiving is offered.

Justin Martyr seems to clarify this in his Dialogue with Trypho:

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

Why I mentioned earlier why it is important to know the context of these quotes and that heretics or their doctrines were addressed.

Read the line above that one: "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."

 

[civilwarbuff]

I didn't expect you to get it but, I thought it was worth a try.

So you don't dispute that understanding scripture comes through the Holy Spirit?....and that path is available to all believers then?
1 Cor 2:14

 

[Jim Parker]

So you don't dispute that understanding scripture comes through the Holy Spirit?....and that path is available to all believers then?
1 Cor 2:14

That is a different subject.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is a different subject.

You went down this rabbit hole, not me. The least you can do is answer the question......

 

[Pegasus]

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD); On Prayer, Chapter XIX: Of Stations.

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. If the “Station” has received its name from the example of military life—for we withal are God’s military —of course no gladness or sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the “stations” of the soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more carefully.

It is surprising someone from the Eastern Church would use the 'father of Latin Christianity.' I think both the Eastern and Western churches found some of his doctrines a bit controversial and probably why he is not recognized as a Saint in either of the One True Churches.

I digress. Tertullian also was quoted as saying:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

Of course the context is he is refuting those who would deny the humanity of Jesus Christ.

I think if we put a lot of these quotes in full context, we find out these giants of early Christian theology were pointing at The Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11) and emphasizing Jesus did indeed have a human body and human blood, and thus their doctrine of a "phantom Jesus" devoid of human properties was in serious error and not the tradition handed down.

Others on the elements:

Clement of Alexandria:
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen:
“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian:
“I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
[Edit as left out quote from Eusebius previously]
Eusebius of Caesarea:
We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)

Probably not as popular with your Eastern sensibilities St Augustine said thus:

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Where Augustine gets very close at is proper biblical exegesis. He is clearly teaching Jesus used direct metaphors and parables to teach literal truths. In the Bread of Life discourse, like others, Jesus is using eating and drinking which is critical to life and survival of the human flesh to teach a spiritual truth----Those who come to and believe in the Son of Man will have eternal life.

In John chapter 6, Jesus sets up the crowd with a very clear message about Him coming down from Heaven. He is the Bread of Life. This is the part they could not comprehend:

John 6: NKJV
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"

32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The above is the teaching. The crowd still could not get out of the mindset of physical eating and drinking---God providing for them physically as in Torah. Jesus was teaching them the Promised Land is not a physical land of milk and honey, but resurrection and everlasting life.

Not understanding the context set forth by Christ in verses 26-40 sets up many for the literal errors assumed in the remainder of the discourse.

 

[Pegasus]

On the contrary, I see them saying that the apostles had taught them that the flesh and blood of Jesus became the bread and wine, and "the how" is, as in remembrance of him and his death.

Indeed:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.(1 Corinthians 11:26)