bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
ok, clear on that, ty
ah well tbh none i guess, you have said that you know pretty succinctly, ty
John 6:66 - Why did many disciples stop following Jesus?
- Thread starter Truthcampaign.org
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
A simple Google search shows this to be completely false. The early church fathers writings show us that they understood the elements to be symbols, not the reality of Christ's blood and body. In fact, your Catholic doctrine seems to have appeared about the 11th or 12 century.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
mmm, i doubt it, but it would be interesting if you did
interesting ref there @ Romans 9 btw, even if i dont quite get the debate there
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Genesis 25:23
As Paul says, before Jacob and Esau were born and had not done anything good or bad, and long before the giving of the law, God had already determined that the blessing is given to a person apart from any consideration of their works. For as Paul explains, the blessing is given on the basis of one's faith in the promise. Esau despised his birthright to the blessing. Jacob coveted it in faith. I'll stop there for now.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Here's an interesting search result that came up:
Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
Here's the search I did:
did the early church believe in transubstitution? - Google Search
Lot's of other stuff there. Look at the questions under the 'People also ask' section.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
I’ve read the first article quoting some of the early “church fathers” saying that the bread and wine symbolized Christ’s body and blood. Very informative!
An interesting thought occurred to me as I read this article. The doctrine of Transubstantiation required a priest to administer the elements of "communion." This gave the Catholic Church more control over people, who were taught that they had to partake of "communion" in the church in order to go to heaven. Likewise with confession to a priest. The scriptures do not indicate that the NT churches required a "priest" or apostle to oversee either of these practices!
Last edited:
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Using this line of reasoning
Jesus was a false messiah and the Jewish leaders who had Gods law 4 2000 years is right
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
ha but i mean practically speaking, when did it happen? Bc the story tells a quite diff story, yeh?
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
The NT church looks nothing like a catholic mass. There is not one iota if any gathering which even resembles it
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Yup, they "broke bread from house to house." No indication that an apostle or other church leader officiated over the process, certainly not a "priest." The following scriptures are the main ones that talk about "communion," aka the "Lord's Supper."
Acts 2:41-47--So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.
Then fear came over everyone, and many wonders and signs were being performed through the apostles. Now all the believers were together and held all things in common. They sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with a joyful and humble attitude, praising God and having favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved.
1 Cor 11:17-32--Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For to begin with, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore, when you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper. For at the meal, each one eats his own supper ahead of others. So one person is hungry while another gets drunk! Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I do not praise you for this!
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: On the night when He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.”
In the same way, after supper He also took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat the bread and drink from the cup. For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. If we were properly evaluating ourselves, we would not be judged, but when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord, so that we may not be condemned with the world.
Last edited:
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
It happened when Esau traded his right of birth for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:29-34). And later just before Isaac died their father Isaac passed the blessing down to Jacob (Genesis 27:37) making him Lord over Esau. Just as God told Rebekah would happen.
This illustrates God's will and purpose that the inheritance not be secured by works but through the grace of election given through faith in God's promise. That's how God ordained it to be from the beginning. The law that came later did not change the way a person secures the inheritance. This is the point of Paul's letters about faith vs. works. He uses the OT scriptures to prove the point to a people bent on securing the blessing through the merit of works rather than through the grace of election through faith-the way it's always been.
Last edited:
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hello PW,
What I was saying, is that it is demonstrable that the Church has believed and taught this from the very beginning.
For example Ignatius, Bishop of the Church in Antioch writes:
"They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up."
( St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Lightfoot translation) )
Now one could rightly say that this also demonstrates there were those who disbelived, what of them?
Where are their communities today? Lost, gone, forgotten,
perished just as Ignatius said they would be:
" They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again."
Because the Truth does not change. What was True for our brother s and sisters in 100 AD..200AD...500 AD... 1000 AD... Must still be True today.
Peace!
I didn't say it was Jesus' flesh and blood, Jesus did?
- Why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” 53
- Why did Jesus say, “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” 54
- Why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink? 55
- Why did Jesus say, “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him?” 56
- Why did Jesus say, “just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me?” 57
And Jesus said in John 6:63 that he feeds the spirit not the flesh:
Verse 63: “It is the spirit that gives life, while “the” flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
- What are the words he just spoke? Several times Jesus spoke, eat my flesh (7) and drink my blood (3) to obtain eternal life.
- What does “no avail” mean? It means “no help or benefit.”
- Did Jesus say “my” flesh is of no avail? No, he said “the” flesh is of no avail.
- Is Jesus’ flesh of no avail? No!
- The Lord is perfect and sinless. His flesh is holy and pure. His flesh and spirit rose from the dead. Was his flesh on the cross of no help or benefit? Jesus is referring to “our” sinful flesh. The Lord is saying, it is no help or benefit to feed “our” flesh that dies and withers away. “His” resurrected flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul), which gives life.
- Consuming his flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul) which gives life, not our sinful flesh which is of no avail. We transform into the Body of Christ by spiritually being fed, so we too rise from the dead.
You never answered my question? Why did the disciples stop following Jesus?
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Yes, I did answer your question in my first post in this thread. You obviously didn't read it! Instead, you spew what's on your site at me. I read some of it and responded. You haven't responded to my initial response.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your civility, Phillip. However, I must admit that I'm a bit frustrated that you and the OP have not addressed my specific comments about the bread and wine becoming the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. If it's literal flesh and blood, then it's going to taste like human flesh and blood. There's no getting around this!
We agree on one thing: the truth does not change.
I believe that the following article will shed some light on the views of the "early church fathers." (This is not the entire article.)
Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
1. We ought to interpret the church fathers' statements within their historical context.
Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and "This is My blood"). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord's words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“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).
Tertullian's explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ's physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian's explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord's Table.
We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. "This is My body" and "This is My blood") when describing the Lord's Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “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).
Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘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 [or symbol], 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 (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ's physical body.
At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord's Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Source: Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
Last edited:
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Ty. I also appreciate civil discourse. So that's at least two things we agree on
Kind of like no one can show a 2000 year old community that does NOT believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ?
I understand the frustration..
I will attempt to answer your question but first I think I need to address what I mean by terms like literal, symbolic, real, physical, spirtual and natural.. For the Eucharist is all these things (except natural)
Argh look at the time... I'll have to expand tomorrow..
Have a blessed night!
Similar threads
