Do you do this?

  • 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!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you wormwood for your thoughtful input. I agree with you that we need Jesus to sustain us. That is why He said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Further saying This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Which means the bread we eat at communion, that came down from heaven, is NOT bread, it is Jesus. If it is just a symbol, it won't sustain us.

1 Cor. 10:16–17 says it is the communion of the blood and body of Christ. Do you believe what the early Christians believed?

The early Christians also called communion Holy. Do you believe what they believed?

Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, said that the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup is His blood. Is Ignatius wrong or are the people who believe it is a symbol wrong?

IHS....Mary

Mary,

The passage you are citing from Ignatius says:

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet prefer this world to Him. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me,4 and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 77.

I think it is a real mistake to argue that the "bread of God" and "blood" is Eucharist. Clearly he is yearning throughout these entire chapters to be with Christ. He wants to die and be in Christ's presence and desires nothing of the world other than to know and be with Christ. I think it is very contextually inaccurate to say he is talking about wanting to take communion when clearly he is speaking of death and wanting no desire in the world to be in him as he prepares for martyrdom.

Do I believe communion is holy? Yes. I believe Christians are holy too. I also believe the Scriptures are holy. Holy simply means to be set apart. What we do when we remember Christ is a special time. No, it is not ordinary bread and juice/wine. But what makes it unordinary is not that the elements mysteriously change, but because they mean something more. The same is true with Scripture. Scripture is just letters on a page like any other book. However the meaning of those words, when understood and applied to our lives, has immense meaning. So, its not the molecules of the page or the bread or the water in baptism that make those things holy and powerful. It is the recognition of what they mean and "remembering" God's promises associated with them that causes those things to be unique.
 

Truth

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2017
1,737
1,797
113
70
AZ, Quartzsite
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Lest we forget what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:16–17. Paul was taught by the Apostles and he knew when he did what Jesus commanded him to do that he was sharing in the body of Christ. Paul later goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 if you do this in an unworthy manner YOU will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord further saying all who do this without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves. In Acts 20:7 we find out that Paul and his fellow Christians did what Jesus asked us to do on the first day of the week.

No disrespect, please lead me to where Paul was Taught by the Apostles, I am totally ignorant of this information. Rely I have never read about this. Thank You
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The point is the pagan Romans MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians were cannibals, which is plenty of proof what the early Christians believed.

Again, they MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians to be atheists. Is that proof that Christians did not see Jesus as divine?

Can you proof text where the Bible says everything must be proof text?

You were the one who said Jesus claimed FOUR times that Eucharist was necessary for salvation. I simply asked you where those passages are. None of those passages say what you claimed Jesus said (i.e. taking communion is essential for salvation).

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

I know Koine Greek. That is not what the phraseology means. It simply says, "this is the body of me." There is no "actually" here nor is it implied. In fact, estin can mean "it signifies" as well. The use of sarx or soma has no bearing on whether or not it is literal. Also, Luke uses "soma" NOT "sarx." Either way, it doesn't matter if one is used more often in a literal sense. Of course sarx is often literal. Trogo often means literally to eat. Same thing in English. When we say flesh, we often are talking about flesh. When we talk about chewing or eating, we are usually being literal. The symbolism of a given passage is based on context. Saying "flesh" is used instead of "body" proves the Jesus is being literal is just not true. No different than English. Just because I use the word flesh rather than body does not mean I am certainly not being symbolic. Symbolism and metaphors are understood through context, not specific noun choices. Consider the following Greek scholar's comments:

There would be no Aramaic verb corresponding to ἐστιν (Jeremias, Words, 201); the verb can mean ‘it signifies’ rather than ‘it is identical with’. The meaning assigned to σῶμα depends on the meaning of the underlying Aramaic word (cf. Schürmann, op. cit., 119 n. 416).

I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 802.

So, the issue here is not with the Greek. The Greek is somewhat ambiguous and to say the Greek specifically teaches transubstantiation here is just flat out untrue. The real question is what Aramaic word did Jesus use when he spoke with his disciples (as Jesus would not have been speaking Greek to begin with so the sarx/soma argument seems fairly invalid).

In any event, three things need to be made clear here. 1) The Greek certainly does not clearly articulate transubstantiation and to say it does is simply false. 2). Jesus is clearly using words of remembrance concerning his sacrifice for them indicating this is to be an ongoing memorial. 3) Jesus is giving this bread and cup PRIOR to his sacrifice on the cross, thus it seems clear to me that this is symbolic. How can they eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus before he ever offers himself on the cross? I think it is evident that Jesus is pointing to the act on the cross as the event that is to be remembered and it is to be remembered through this memorial meal. Thus, the event on the cross is the truly efficacious work and communion is simply a reminder of that work.
 
Last edited:

Truth

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2017
1,737
1,797
113
70
AZ, Quartzsite
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, they MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians to be atheists. Is that proof that Christians did not see Jesus as divine?



You were the one who said Jesus claimed FOUR times that Eucharist was necessary for salvation. I simply asked you where those passages are. None of those passages say what you claimed Jesus said (i.e. taking communion is essential for salvation).



I know Koine Greek. That is not what the phraseology means. It simply says, "this is the body of me." There is no "actually" here nor is it implied. In fact, estin can mean "it signifies" as well. The use of sarx or soma has no bearing on whether or not it is literal. Of course sarx is often literal. Same thing in English. When we say flesh, we often are talking about flesh. The symbolism of a given passage is based on context. Saying "flesh" is used instead of "body" proves the Jesus is being literal is just not true. Consider the following Greek scholar's comments:

There would be no Aramaic verb corresponding to ἐστιν (Jeremias, Words, 201); the verb can mean ‘it signifies’ rather than ‘it is identical with’. The meaning assigned to σῶμα depends on the meaning of the underlying Aramaic word (cf. Schürmann, op. cit., 119 n. 416).

I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 802.

So, the issue here is not with the Greek. The Greek is somewhat ambiguous and to say the Greek specifically teaches transubstantiation here is just flat out untrue. The real question is what Aramaic word did Jesus use when he spoke with his disciples (as Jesus would not have been speaking Greek).

In any event, three things need to be made clear here. 1) The Greek certainly does not clearly articulate transubstantiation and to say it does is simply false. 2). Jesus is clearly using words of remembrance concerning his sacrifice for them indicating this is to be an ongoing memorial. 3) Jesus is giving this bread and cup PRIOR to his sacrifice on the cross, thus it seems clear to me that this is symbolic. How can they eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus before he ever offers himself on the cross? I think it is evident that Jesus is pointing to the act on the cross as the event that is to be remembered and it is to be remembered through this memorial meal. Thus, the event on the cross is the truly efficacious work and communion is simply a reminder of that work.

Thank You, I never claimed to be the brightest bulb on the tree! It is an Honer to read a good Refute, I know in My Heart that it is a Symbolism, May God Bless you and Keep You, May God make His Face to Shine upon You and Be Gracious to You, and May God LIFT His Countenance Upon You and Give You Peace, In the Name Of the Prince Of Peace, Yashua [ Jesus] AMN
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pisteuo and Helen

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank You, I never claimed to be the brightest bulb on the tree! It is an Honer to read a good Refute, I know in My Heart that it is a Symbolism, May God Bless you and Keep You, May God make His Face to Shine upon You and Be Gracious to You, and May God LIFT His Countenance Upon You and Give You Peace, In the Name Of the Prince Of Peace, Yashua [ Jesus] AMN

Thank you Truth. I appreciate the kind words. May God bless you as you grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pisteuo

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you.

Paul says Wafers or wine CAN bring damanation on those that eat or drink of them in an unworthy manner. I agree with Paul.

The Christians who walked and talked with the apostles agreed with Paul and Jesus. So do I.

It has been believed for 2,000 years. To believe opposite is a 500 year belief.

I don't expect you to agree but that is how scripture sees it, Paul sees it and the Christians who walked with him see it.

Thank you for the lively discussion.;)

Mary

Thank you for your gentle responses. I have been wrong more often than I care to admit. This could be one of those occasions. If I may suggest something for you to consider.

1 Corinthians 11:24
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Yet, not a bone on Him was broken. If you are going to eat of His body and since there is relationship there...should you not at least want to ask Him why while, taking from His body and eating?

John 14:26
[26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Psalm 34:20
[20] He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, they MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians to be atheists. Is that proof that Christians did not see Jesus as divine?



You were the one who said Jesus claimed FOUR times that Eucharist was necessary for salvation. I simply asked you where those passages are. None of those passages say what you claimed Jesus said (i.e. taking communion is essential for salvation).



I know Koine Greek. That is not what the phraseology means. It simply says, "this is the body of me." There is no "actually" here nor is it implied. In fact, estin can mean "it signifies" as well. The use of sarx or soma has no bearing on whether or not it is literal. Also, Luke uses "soma" NOT "sarx." Either way, it doesn't matter if one is used more often in a literal sense. Of course sarx is often literal. Trogo often means literally to eat. Same thing in English. When we say flesh, we often are talking about flesh. When we talk about chewing or eating, we are usually being literal. The symbolism of a given passage is based on context. Saying "flesh" is used instead of "body" proves the Jesus is being literal is just not true. No different than English. Just because I use the word flesh rather than body does not mean I am certainly not being symbolic. Symbolism and metaphors are understood through context, not specific noun choices. Consider the following Greek scholar's comments:

There would be no Aramaic verb corresponding to ἐστιν (Jeremias, Words, 201); the verb can mean ‘it signifies’ rather than ‘it is identical with’. The meaning assigned to σῶμα depends on the meaning of the underlying Aramaic word (cf. Schürmann, op. cit., 119 n. 416).

I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 802.

So, the issue here is not with the Greek. The Greek is somewhat ambiguous and to say the Greek specifically teaches transubstantiation here is just flat out untrue. The real question is what Aramaic word did Jesus use when he spoke with his disciples (as Jesus would not have been speaking Greek to begin with so the sarx/soma argument seems fairly invalid).

In any event, three things need to be made clear here. 1) The Greek certainly does not clearly articulate transubstantiation and to say it does is simply false. 2). Jesus is clearly using words of remembrance concerning his sacrifice for them indicating this is to be an ongoing memorial. 3) Jesus is giving this bread and cup PRIOR to his sacrifice on the cross, thus it seems clear to me that this is symbolic. How can they eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus before he ever offers himself on the cross? I think it is evident that Jesus is pointing to the act on the cross as the event that is to be remembered and it is to be remembered through this memorial meal. Thus, the event on the cross is the truly efficacious work and communion is simply a reminder of that work.



next time you run into the Catholicism Eucharist this might help, and there won't be any need for one to be wiser than a team of translators. here Jesus speaks of eating His blood and body and what He means by it, and its not symbolic at all the which is of Heaven is nt flesh flesh doesn't exist in heaven it exists in the earth. so what Jesus is talking about is His existence. our presence is flesh. and the life of that is blood. the Life He gave us the Presence is Spirit and the Life of that Is God's Word. Jesus speaks literally all the time, He use our situation to explain His.


Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Mary,

The passage you are citing from Ignatius says:

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet prefer this world to Him. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me,4 and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 77.

I think it is a real mistake to argue that the "bread of God" and "blood" is Eucharist.
Why can't it be both?
Clearly he is yearning throughout these entire chapters to be with Christ. He wants to die and be in Christ's presence and desires nothing of the world other than to know and be with Christ. I think it is very contextually inaccurate to say he is talking about wanting to take communion when clearly he is speaking of death and wanting no desire in the world to be in him as he prepares for martyrdom.
That's not all he says:
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

THIS HAS NEVER CHANGED.

"For 1500 years all Christendom was united in the literal understanding of the Savior's words. In the sixteenth century it became the fashion to give new and arbitrary interpretations to passages in the Scriptures in accordance with one's private whim and fancy. The amount of religious anarchy and confusion which was brought about by this practice is evident from the fact that within seventy-five years [after the Protestant Reformation] over 200 different interpretations were given to the clear, simple words of Christ: 'This is My body.'"
You can have your post reformist confusion, I'll go by what Jesus and the Apostles plainly taught.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
Bottom line: you are taking a natural approach to supernatural faith, you are still ""in the flesh" and haven't enough faith to accept the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
John 6:68 Simon Peter replied, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life.
What words? The entire NT, or the words in context of what Jesus just said?

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

Those are the words of eternal life that Peter is talking about.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28)

It looks like salvation to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
Bottom line: you are taking a natural approach to supernatural faith, you are still ""in the flesh" and haven't enough faith to accept the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
John 6:68 Simon Peter replied, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life.
What words? The entire NT, or the words in context of what Jesus just said?

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

Those are the words of eternal life that Peter is talking about.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28)

What Jesus meant has not changed in 2000 years.



kepha31, what is your presence in the earth, the place God gave you to be? now in Heaven what is God's Presence seeing Jesus said God is Spirit?

you can use what ever justification to others all you want, but Jesus speaks of Spirit and Life all the time oh yea He also spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. of which only Spirit can inherit. the Word of God is the meat, the living water the Light the Door so on and so forth. not the flesh nor the blood. because what is flesh to you is Spirit in the Kingdom of Heaven and what is blood to you is The Life in the Kingdom of Heaven.

therefore if you eat of the Word of God then you live, anything else does not support the Life that is in the Kingdom of God. and you know just as well as I do that many partake of the Eucharist that certainly are not of the Lord therefore the Eucharist saves no one, proves no one to be in Christ. but the Word of God is for ever. and let there be no mistake we are not talking about the physical body and blood of Christ that was bled out on the Cross and raised the third day, and what that means in our salvation. so you have no need to go there.

actually its there to remind use, that we should consume all that is of Him to live the Life He has restored to us. hence Spirit and Life. no one is questioning someone parting in the bread and wine, what is a problem is what Catholicism says it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truth

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why can't it be both? That's not all he says:
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

THIS HAS NEVER CHANGED.

"For 1500 years all Christendom was united in the literal understanding of the Savior's words. In the sixteenth century it became the fashion to give new and arbitrary interpretations to passages in the Scriptures in accordance with one's private whim and fancy. The amount of religious anarchy and confusion which was brought about by this practice is evident from the fact that within seventy-five years [after the Protestant Reformation] over 200 different interpretations were given to the clear, simple words of Christ: 'This is My body.'"
You can have your post reformist confusion, I'll go by what Jesus and the Apostles plainly taught.

I don't have much time so I will try to be brief and respond more later.

Why can't it be both? Well it just seems peculiar to me that a man awaiting martyrdom is thinking about taking communion as he speaks of his longing to be with Christ. Maybe you're right, but its just not as simple as it was made to sound regarding the reference.

As far as the Letter, the entire context says:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death9 in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of11 them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua14 the son of Josedech, who sought to “sift the faith” of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now “worketh in the children of disobedience;”16 from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with18 them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 89.

So again, I think the issue here is these heretics view regarding Jesus in general, the purpose and work of the cross and the resurrection. He is not arguing against those who see the Eucharist as a memorial act as it is being made to sound. He is arguing against heretics who reject the cross, the atonement and the resurrection. Their view on Eucharist was clearly that it had nothing to do with atonement, the death of Jesus or the resurrection and mocked such notions. So again, my view is this is more of an overarching opposition to the basic work of the cross, and not intended to be an argument for transubstantiation vs memorial act. I think this is a classic example of an anachronistic reading of this text.

Anyway, I have to go, but I want to end by saying I am not trying to offend or be argumentative. I just want to show that there are different ways to view this and we are all trying to be honest with the texts, church history and honor God. I am not trying to undermine your beliefs at all. I am just trying to say that those who do not see things the same way are also trying to be faithful and I believe we have valid reasons for our understanding as well. I hope we can disagree on the issues but also be gracious to one another as fellow servants of Christ.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@VictoryinJesus , @Wormwood, @amadeus, @Bygrace, @ScottA

Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me”. All or most of you do as he asked. You believe what He said and do what he asked.

None of you believe and do what he stated Truly! This IS my body and unless you eat it you have no life in you.

We have both presented our interpretation of scripture to support our beliefs. We call each others interpretation wrong.

Instead of relying on what WE believe based on OUR interpretation of scripture I would like to present the credentials of the men who hold an interpretation opposite of yours.

Clement, bishop of Rome, ordained by the Apostle Peter and who’s writings were considered scripture in the early Church: When we offer the Eucharist to God each one should keep to his own degree.

The Didache, a first century catechism for Christians that was required reading for new Christians into the 4th century: Assemble on the Lords day, break bread and offer the Eucharist. Do not give what is Holy to dogs (unbaptized).

Ignatius bishop of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ. They (the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that it is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. [Letter to the Smyrnaeans]

Justin Martyr, a 2nd century Christian who was a student of late 1st century early 2nd century Christian Church leaders: We call this food (bread) Eucharist and no one is permitted to partake of it except one who believes and has been baptized. For not as common bread or drink do we receive these. The Eucharist is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus [First Apology]

Irenaeus (Bishop of Gaul, France), a witness to the teachings of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John: When the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Jesus is made... [Against Heresies]

All of the aforementioned writings MIRROR what scripture says. All the aforementioned men had 1st or 2nd hand connections to the Apostles. Jesus said of the Apostles; If they hear you they hear me, if they reject you they reject me.

I now ask you to present the credentials and the words of the men that agree with your interpretation.

Respectfully, Mary
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,446
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The best credentials are of course those of Jesus, but perhaps you have read in the scriptures how many people rejected Him. In the end, they crucified Him.

The apostle Paul also had tremendous credentials, which were from men but after meeting Jesus he counted them as no better than dung. He was also rejected by great multitudes as we read in the scriptures. He was whipped and stoned by them.

If you are looking for men who received their credentials from men to follow them, you are likely to end up in a ditch with them:

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matt 15:14

Consider taking Jesus advice as to whom you should follow:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mary,

The passage you are citing from Ignatius says:

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet prefer this world to Him. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me,4 and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 77.

I think it is a real mistake to argue that the "bread of God" and "blood" is Eucharist. Clearly he is yearning throughout these entire chapters to be with Christ. He wants to die and be in Christ's presence and desires nothing of the world other than to know and be with Christ. I think it is very contextually inaccurate to say he is talking about wanting to take communion when clearly he is speaking of death and wanting no desire in the world to be in him as he prepares for martyrdom.

Do I believe communion is holy? Yes. I believe Christians are holy too. I also believe the Scriptures are holy. Holy simply means to be set apart. What we do when we remember Christ is a special time. No, it is not ordinary bread and juice/wine. But what makes it unordinary is not that the elements mysteriously change, but because they mean something more. The same is true with Scripture. Scripture is just letters on a page like any other book. However the meaning of those words, when understood and applied to our lives, has immense meaning. So, its not the molecules of the page or the bread or the water in baptism that make those things holy and powerful. It is the recognition of what they mean and "remembering" God's promises associated with them that causes those things to be unique.
Hi,


I think it is a real mistake to not fully quote Ignatius: Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6 (compare to John 6:51).

They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes...Ignatius s
ounds a lot like Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27;)

What Ignatius said mirrors scripture. As we would expect from a 2nd century bishop who was a friend of Polycarp who was also a disciple of John the Apostle.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you for your gentle responses. I have been wrong more often than I care to admit. This could be one of those occasions. If I may suggest something for you to consider.

1 Corinthians 11:24
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Yet, not a bone on Him was broken. If you are going to eat of His body and since there is relationship there...should you not at least want to ask Him why while, taking from His body and eating?

John 14:26
[26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Psalm 34:20
[20] He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
Thank you. I fail to understand what His bones have to do with the Real Presence. I don't see the connection.

If we are going to quote John about the Real Presence we should quote John 6, not one verse from John 14.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No disrespect, please lead me to where Paul was Taught by the Apostles, I am totally ignorant of this information. Rely I have never read about this. Thank You
Non taken.

Galatians 1 where he spends time with Peter and James.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The best credentials are of course those of Jesus, but perhaps you have read in the scriptures how many people rejected Him. In the end, they crucified Him.

The apostle Paul also had tremendous credentials, which were from men but after meeting Jesus he counted them as no better than dung. He was also rejected by great multitudes as we read in the scriptures. He was whipped and stoned by them.

If you are looking for men who received their credentials from men to follow them, you are likely to end up in a ditch with them:

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matt 15:14

Consider taking Jesus advice as to whom you should follow:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30
Are you suggesting your credentials and your interpretation of scripture is more stellar than the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers?

You know what you are talking about, 2000 years later, but they didn't?

Confused Mary
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,693
5,574
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@VictoryinJesus , @Wormwood, @amadeus, @Bygrace, @ScottA

Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me”. All or most of you do as he asked. You believe what He said and do what he asked.

None of you believe and do what he stated Truly! This IS my body and unless you eat it you have no life in you.

We have both presented our interpretation of scripture to support our beliefs. We call each others interpretation wrong.

Instead of relying on what WE believe based on OUR interpretation of scripture I would like to present the credentials of the men who hold an interpretation opposite of yours.

Clement, bishop of Rome, ordained by the Apostle Peter and who’s writings were considered scripture in the early Church: When we offer the Eucharist to God each one should keep to his own degree.

The Didache, a first century catechism for Christians that was required reading for new Christians into the 4th century: Assemble on the Lords day, break bread and offer the Eucharist. Do not give what is Holy to dogs (unbaptized).

Ignatius bishop of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ. They (the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that it is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. [Letter to the Smyrnaeans]

Justin Martyr, a 2nd century Christian who was a student of late 1st century early 2nd century Christian Church leaders: We call this food (bread) Eucharist and no one is permitted to partake of it except one who believes and has been baptized. For not as common bread or drink do we receive these. The Eucharist is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus [First Apology]

Irenaeus (Bishop of Gaul, France), a witness to the teachings of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John: When the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Jesus is made... [Against Heresies]

All of the aforementioned writings MIRROR what scripture says. All the aforementioned men had 1st or 2nd hand connections to the Apostles. Jesus said of the Apostles; If they hear you they hear me, if they reject you they reject me.

I now ask you to present the credentials and the words of the men that agree with your interpretation.

Respectfully, Mary
No need. You were wrong from your second statement.

If I have opened my mouth and taken of Christ, is He not in me - would you even know? But I have told you I have - and you as much as call me a liar, when you could not possibly know, but should, for it is evident and yet you neglect to recognize the evidence as one who does not see.

So, listen to your heroes, but we who have Christ in us have preferred to listen to God, for we heard Him and answered, and let Him in.

As for your list of silent partners, have you not read, that God sends strong delusion to those who do not love the truth? And of the seven churches, how many were found to be on track, that you should quote them as gospel? Have you not been warned of such - and still you persist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
kepha31, what is your presence in the earth, the place God gave you to be? now in Heaven what is God's Presence seeing Jesus said God is Spirit?

you can use what ever justification to others all you want, but Jesus speaks of Spirit and Life all the time oh yea He also spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. of which only Spirit can inherit. the Word of God is the meat, the living water the Light the Door so on and so forth. not the flesh nor the blood. because what is flesh to you is Spirit in the Kingdom of Heaven and what is blood to you is The Life in the Kingdom of Heaven.

therefore if you eat of the Word of God then you live, anything else does not support the Life that is in the Kingdom of God. and you know just as well as I do that many partake of the Eucharist that certainly are not of the Lord therefore the Eucharist saves no one, proves no one to be in Christ. but the Word of God is for ever. and let there be no mistake we are not talking about the physical body and blood of Christ that was bled out on the Cross and raised the third day, and what that means in our salvation. so you have no need to go there.
You are spiritualizing that which is physical and spiritual. Sacraments are not magic. There are seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which according to Catholic theology, were instituted by Jesus and entrusted to the Church. Sacraments are visible rites seen as signs and efficacious channels of the grace of God to all those who receive them with the proper disposition. The sevenfold list of sacraments is often organized into three groups: the sacraments of initiation (into the Church, the body of Christ), consisting of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; the sacraments of healing, consisting of Penance and Anointing of the Sick; and the sacraments of service: Holy Orders and Matrimony.

actually its there to remind use, that we should consume all that is of Him to live the Life He has restored to us. hence Spirit and Life.
I'm not going to repeat myself for the 3rd time.
no one is questioning someone parting in the bread and wine, what is a problem is what Catholicism says it is.
Catholicism knows what Jesus said and has consistently taught the same thing for 2000 years. You can have your post reformist chaos. I'll go with consistency.
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you. I fail to understand what His bones have to do with the Real Presence. I don't see the connection.

Ephesians 5:29-30
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Psalm 34:18-22
[18] The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. [19] Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. [20] He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. [21] Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. [22] The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.

1 Corinthians 11:24
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009