In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[tom55]

You again refuse to deal with the meaning of a metaphor.

Still waiting for an answer and how you justify using Augustine when he said OPPOSITE of what you said...... opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

Are you at least going to TRY and defend your fallacious use of Augustine???

 

[tom55]

Still waiting for an answer and how you justify using Augustine when he said OPPOSITE of what you said...... opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

Are you at least going to TRY and defend your fallacious use of Augustine???

Hmmm....still no answer after 2 months.

 

[epostle1]

You again refuse to deal with the meaning of a metaphor.

The meaning of "metaphor" is not the point. What Jesus said is the point. Jesus did not say, "this is a metaphor of my body"
Within 60 years after the start of the Protestant revolt, there were 200 interpretations of "this is my Body".

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins. They sacrificed real lambs, not metaphorical ones and then pretend to eat it.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed. There was no such thing as metaphorical manna.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Separating the Passover seder from the Crucifixion is an error, because they are one and the same sacrifice.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.
scripturecatholic

Please find a verse where "trogo" and "sarx" are used metaphorically.

 

[epostle1]

St. Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions (Gnostics) 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

Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).
Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:

"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it."
—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

[OzSpen]

Separating the Passover seder from the Crucifixion is an error, because they are one and the same sacrifice.


kepha,


It is NOT an error. The Passover did not provide propitiation for the sins of the whole world: 'He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2 ESV).

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Separating the Passover seder from the Crucifixion is an error, because they are one and the same sacrifice.


kepha,


It is NOT an error. The Passover did not provide propitiation for the sins of the whole world: 'He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2 ESV).

Oz

I never said the Passover alone provided propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It's the beginning of the one and same sacrifice. You can't deal with the fact that Jesus only drank 3 cups of the required 4 cups of wine. You can't harmonize this with the 4th cup Jesus drank from the cross, which completed the Passover seder. Thus, you have unbiblically separated the Passover seder from the Crucifixion. I see you don't like Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 or 1 Cor. 10:16 so you ignore them, like you ignored post #283-284.

Now you have to read the following while wearing the usual Protestant welding goggles:

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

There is no point in waiting for a verse where sarx (body) and trogo (chew, gnaw, crunch) is used metaphorically. There aren't any.

Separating the Passover seder from the Crucifixion is an unbiblical man made Protestant tradition, because they are one and the same sacrifice. You have no plausible, coherent alternative explanation.

 

[epostle1]

St. Augustine on the Eucharist​

A REFUTATION OF DAVID GOFORTH'S SHODDY SCHOLARSHIP

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."
(Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY."
(Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."
(Sermons 272)

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS."
(Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)
"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof."
(Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church."
(Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

 

[OzSpen]

Separating the Passover seder from the Crucifixion is an unbiblical man made Protestant tradition, because they are one and the same sacrifice. You have no plausible, coherent alternative explanation.

Demonstrating that the Passover and the Crucifixion differ in content is a biblical responsibility for every child of God involved in hermeneutics. The Crucifixion and Resurrection demonstrate the following: This is taken from John Piper's article on ten results of the resurrection:

1. A savior who can never die again. "For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again." Romans 6:9
2. Repentance. "The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel." Acts 5:31
3. New birth. "By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Peter 1:3
4. Forgiveness of sin. "If Christ has not been raised, your hope is futile and you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:17
5. The Holy Spirit. "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear." Acts 2:32–33
6. No condemnation for the elect. "Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God." Romans 8:34
7. The Lord's personal fellowship and protection. "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matthew 28:20
8. Proof of coming judgment. "God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31
9. Salvation from the future wrath of God. "We wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Romans 5:10
10. Our own resurrection from the dead. "We know that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence." 2 Corinthians 4:14; Romans 6:4; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:20

These results were not provided by the Passover. While the Passover is connected with the Crucifixion because of the blood, the results of Christ's death and resurrection are far superior to that of the Passover.

Oz

 

[tom55]

The following clearly illustrates why tom55 of the RCC is eisegeting scripture instead of exegeting it properly.

27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The RCC hangs it's hat on verse 28 and wants to take it literally yet in the very next verse Jesus identifies what he is drinking by saying "this Fruit of the Vine".

Who are we to believe? The RCC with Tom as their proxy or Jesus? If Jesus meant verse 28 literally then why would he say what he doesn't verse 29? Simply enough Jesus was using metaphorical language in verse 28, then speaking in the literal sense in verse 29.

Thanks for your response and your interest in this topic StanJ.

Can you explain to me how YOU are exegeting scripture properly and the RCC isn't?

The RCC hangs it's hat on verse 28?? Really?? <_<

You left out Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71

AND

Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Marty, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria etc. etc. (who should I believe, them or you?)

Walk away.....others have walked away when he said it. After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him...John 6:66 (how interesting 666, the plot thickens) :unsure:

Love.......Tom

PS....I apologize for not answering your questions earlier. I just realized this is an old post of yours, however, I try to answer every post to me that has a question in it.

 

[epostle1]

Demonstrating that the Passover and the Crucifixion differ in content is a biblical responsibility for every child of God involved in hermeneutics. The Crucifixion and Resurrection demonstrate the following: This is taken from John Piper's article on ten results of the resurrection:

1. A savior who can never die again. "For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again." Romans 6:9
2. Repentance. "The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel." Acts 5:31
3. New birth. "By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Peter 1:3
4. Forgiveness of sin. "If Christ has not been raised, your hope is futile and you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:17
5. The Holy Spirit. "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear." Acts 2:32–33
6. No condemnation for the elect. "Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God." Romans 8:34
7. The Lord's personal fellowship and protection. "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matthew 28:20
8. Proof of coming judgment. "God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31
9. Salvation from the future wrath of God. "We wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Romans 5:10
10. Our own resurrection from the dead. "We know that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence." 2 Corinthians 4:14; Romans 6:4; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:20

These results were not provided by the Passover. While the Passover is connected with the Crucifixion because of the blood, the results of Christ's death and resurrection are far superior to that of the Passover.

Oz

I am not talking about the Resurrection, The Resurrection is not a sacrifice. I am saying the Passover/seder and the Crucifixion is one and the same sacrifice. How many cups of wine in your average Passover/seder meal? 4. When did Jesus drink the 1st cup? At the beginning of the Passover/seder meal. When and where did Jesus drink the 4th cup? On the cross. The Cup of Consummation. It's all the same sacrifice. Why does Paul tie in the 3rd cup, the Cup of Blessing, with the Eucharist? Because it is the one and same sacrifice.

"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.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)

This is not a sacrifice??? What do you think "my blood of the covenant" means??? What do you think poured out" means??? For what???

"metaphorical blood symbolically poured out"...what a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyOFHQzVRio

 

[Wormwood]

First, I would say the issue with the Gnostics was not that they rejected the concept of transubstantiation. This is a misuse of this quote. Ignatius is not making this point. HIs point is that the Gnostics rejected that Jesus died for sin which is why they rejected the Eucharist. You should do some more study on Gnosticism and their views.

Moreover, it is also faulty to argue that the concept of transubstantiation is drawn from the OT or the Passover. No, transubstantiation is based in Aristotelian philosophy. That is a fact.

Finally, Paul's warning to the Corinthians misdeeds during eating the bread and drinking the wine has nothing to do with transubstantiation. Paul's concern is how these believers are treating the other believers during this memorial meal. They are judging other believers and treating them terribly. Some were getting drunk while others were left out. Paul's concern is how they are mistreating the body of Christ/the Temple of the Holy Spirit (other believers) during this memorial.

“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.” (1 Corinthians 11:18–22, ESV)

So you see, the focus is not on some mistreatment of mystical elements. The focus is the mistreatment of other believers during this memorial meal. Paul's warning is that those who mistreat the body of Christ and do harm to the Temple of the Holy Spirit (the Church) will be judged. He speaks of this numerous times in this letter. Consider also this text with the same focus:

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17, ESV)

If you study this letter, the entire letter has to do with how Christians treat each other and how dangerous it is to harm, cause division or mistreat other believers who are the body of Christ. The gifts of God are for the building of this body which should be treated with great reverence and love. When we mistreat other Christians, we are mistreating the body of Christ and are in danger of God's judgment. That is the focus of the whole letter and if we miss this, we will fail to understand Paul's point in each of these scenarios in which he is offering these believers guidance.

 

[epostle1]

First, I would say the issue with the Gnostics was not that they rejected the concept of transubstantiation. This is a misuse of this quote. Ignatius is not making this point. HIs point is that the Gnostics rejected that Jesus died for sin which is why they rejected the Eucharist. You should do some more study on Gnosticism and their views.

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… Point #1 They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,
Point #2 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

Point 1 & 2 is a unity, you make a distinction. Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. (which transubstantiation flows directly from) If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

Moreover, it is also faulty to argue that the concept of transubstantiation is drawn from the OT or the Passover. No, transubstantiation is based in Aristotelian philosophy. That is a fact.

The concept is faulty when you ignore development of doctrine. Terms like "accidents", what you see, and "substance", what is there, are not chasing after Aristotelian philosophy. Platonism and Aristotelianism has permeated the early church's quest to understand the revelation of God in sacred tradition and in sacred scripture. This isn't something we need to be ashamed of. To jettison any understanding of Platonism and Aristotelianism would be a great loss in helping us understand very foundational thinkers like Augustine, Thomas, Bonaventure, and so on. And many of the official documents produced in church history are permeated with philosophical concepts, like the necessity of accepting God's simplicity.
St. Paul himself drew from many branches of Greek philosophy (especially Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics) when spreading the gospel to the Greco-Roman Gentiles, to show them how their own philosophy (not just the Jewish scriptures, which they would have been relatively unfamiliar with) pointed toward Jesus being the Christ. Not all philosophy is bad. Besides, Aristotle applied his 4 causes to everything.

Finally, Paul's warning to the Corinthians misdeeds during eating the bread and drinking the wine has nothing to do with transubstantiation. Paul's concern is how these believers are treating the other believers during this memorial meal. They are judging other believers and treating them terribly. Some were getting drunk while others were left out. Paul's concern is how they are mistreating the body of Christ/the Temple of the Holy Spirit (other believers) during this memorial.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin could result in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a memorial/symbol.

“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.” (1 Corinthians 11:18–22, ESV)

In the first 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "this is my body". What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15)

.So you see, the focus is not on some mistreatment of mystical elements. The focus is the mistreatment of other believers during this memorial meal. Paul's warning is that those who mistreat the body of Christ and do harm to the Temple of the Holy Spirit (the Church) will be judged. He speaks of this numerous times in this letter. Consider also this text with the same focus:

Paul is not talking about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:18–22.

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17, ESV) If you study this letter, the entire letter has to do with how Christians treat each other and how dangerous it is to harm, cause division or mistreat other believers who are the body of Christ. The gifts of God are for the building of this body which should be treated with great reverence and love. When we mistreat other Christians, we are mistreating the body of Christ and are in danger of God's judgment. That is the focus of the whole letter and if we miss this, we will fail to understand Paul's point in each of these scenarios in which he is offering these believers guidance.



Lets study Cor. further.
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
(BTW, the Cup of Blessing is the 3rd Cup in the Passover/seder meal.)

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

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.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.

WHY "MEMORIAL" IN ISOLATION DOESN'T WORK​

​

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). ......

The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied. (it does not mean re-crucified)

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself..

 

[Wormwood]

As you alluded to, the Gnostics scoffed at the concept of the "flesh" of Christ being of any value because they deemed all material things to be evil. Thus, their issue had nothing to do with transubstantiation vs. memorial views on the bread, which is how you are presenting the quote. No, the issue had to do with a rejection of the bread referring to the body of Christ because they believed "gnosis" or knowledge was all that mattered and the body and blood of Christ were of no value. This was the issue being debated. To argue this is about transubstantiation is an anachronistic reading of his ideas and nothing more.

Sure, Greek philosophy permeates a lot of our thinking today as well as perhaps influenced Paul and John to some degree. However, that is not the point and you know it. The point is that the concept of transubstantiation is not drawn from the Passover nor is it drawn from Hebrew thought. It is based in Greek thought. Of course, this doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean that trying to give validation to the doctrine out of the Egyptian Passover event or the practices in the Temple is terribly misguided. If anything, the entire tabernacle practices and procedures were mere symbols of what was to come (as the book of Hebrews clearly indicates). Arguing that transubstantiation is based in the OT is like trying to argue that the OT sacrifices literally became the body of Jesus in order to provide forgiveness. No, they were very important acts of worship that pointed to something other than themselves. And, in my opinion, Eucharist similarly points back to that eternity altering event. I just do not see any NT teaching that suggests that the means by which a person receives Christ comes through ingesting a priest-blessed Eucharist.

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13–14, NIV)

Notice how inclusion "in Christ" does not come by injecting the body in blood through a sacramental act. It comes "when you believed." Faith is what puts us in Christ and makes us apart of the church, not participating in Eucharist. We participate in Eucharist because Christ is in us and we fellowship with him and one another as his people, not in order to get him in us or become/remain his people.

In the first 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "this is my body". What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15)

You make it sound like the Church was without issues prior to Luther. The church has always had schism, division and debates over various ideas. The solution to the problems of the Church is not to have one person be the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. The solution is that we love one another in spite of our differences. Spend a little time reading the NT and you will see that the Church has always had differing opinions and Christians dividing over differing ideas and doctrines...even when Peter, himself, was still alive. Luther didn't unlock Pandoras box. In fact, I think he did both Protestants and Catholics a huge favor by shining a spotlight on severe wickedness taking place among the so-called clergy that needed to be rooted out.

Ok, I dont have time to go into great depth on 1 Cor. 10 at the moment, but let me make a few brief comments.

1. I dont know where you get your Greek information, but I really question the scholarship you are taking these points from. First, Greek words, like English words, are defined from their context. There is no single word that determines whether or not something can be understood as metaphorical or actual. To say the use of koinania proves one way or the other is nonsense. It is no different from me saying that because someone used the word partnership rather than fellowship that it proves they weren't being metaphorical. That is not how Greek, or English work.

2. I am not arguing that Paul is suggesting mere symbolism with his language here. The Israelites, when they celebrated the Passover and shared the cups and the children asked their fathers about the meaning of the meal, they were ACTUALLY reenacting and participating in the ongoing covenant God had made with their forefathers. The meal and the remembering was a way that they took upon themselves the call and partnership with God's covenant with Israel. So yes, it was actual fellowship with God through the covenantal promises He had made. If they didn't fellowship or partake in the cups and the Passover, they were not considered part of the people of God. So yes, it was actual fellowship with God and partnership with the covenant God established. The important thing to note is that this does not mean the food they ate was anything beyond food. Paul's point is that through the Eucharist, we are participating in this covenant Christ has established. Yes, our interaction with Christ is very real through this act. Conversely, those who were engaging in idolatrous meals were interacting in a very real way with demons. That is Paul's point. To say that what Paul is saying means that the bread actually becomes the flesh of Jesus must also mean that the food idolaters eat actually becomes the flesh of demons.

No, the point here is fellowship. Just as Israel took upon themselves the covenant of God through the Passover meal and became part of a community through this act, so also Christians are proclaiming this covenant and establishing their distinct covenantal community that is made possible by the body and blood of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Paul's REAL point here is that these Christians should not eat at the Lord's table and fellowship with Christ in this unique covenant community and then go fellowship with demons at idolatrous feasts. Lets not lose the forest for the trees. Again, Paul does not have transubstantiation in mind here. He is dealing with this community of people who are supposed to be set apart and distinct to God through the body and blood of Christ (as displayed in the Lord's supper) but are acting very much like the world in their behaviors and in their feasting in pagan temples. That is the point.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why worry about it?
Just be true to your faith, say what you believe when you feel inclined, and leave the heartache of intervention to those who feel that they should.
There is not a man alive who will dictate what I believe which remains as per my profile explanation.
Whether it disqualifies me from membership won't lose me any sleep.
Each should work out their own salvation with awe and trembling.....sufficient to the day is the task thereof.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean neither unto your own, nor to any other man's, understanding.

Actually - your statement is not relevant to the person who is seeking the truth and has not yet found it. There are many who come to these discussion boards who are looking to find out what the truth is - and they read a Statement if Faith like the one here. To say that the case is "closed" because CB has declared it so is narrow-minded and false.

YOU can be true to YOUR faith and I can be true to MINE - but what are the less-knowledgeable supposed to do when they read false statements like this and don't know how to discern them??
An open forum is supposed to be open-minded.

 

[epostle1]

As you alluded to, the Gnostics scoffed at the concept of the "flesh" of Christ being of any value because they deemed all material things to be evil. Thus, their issue had nothing to do with transubstantiation vs. memorial views on the bread, which is how you are presenting the quote. No, the issue had to do with a rejection of the bread referring to the body of Christ because they believed "gnosis" or knowledge was all that mattered and the body and blood of Christ were of no value. This was the issue being debated. To argue this is about transubstantiation is an anachronistic reading of his ideas and nothing more.

Let's take another look at St. Ignatius quote
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions (Gnostics) 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
How can it be anachronistic if what the Church teaches today is the same as Ignatius, who wrote this a mere 11 years after John wrote Revelation?

Sure, Greek philosophy permeates a lot of our thinking today as well as perhaps influenced Paul and John to some degree. However, that is not the point and you know it. The point is that the concept of transubstantiation is not drawn from the Passover nor is it drawn from Hebrew thought. It is based in Greek thought.

It's based on the clear words of Jesus.

Of course, this doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean that trying to give validation to the doctrine out of the Egyptian Passover event or the practices in the Temple is terribly misguided. If anything, the entire tabernacle practices and procedures were mere symbols of what was to come (as the book of Hebrews clearly indicates). Arguing that transubstantiation is based in the OT is like trying to argue that the OT sacrifices literally became the body of Jesus in order to provide forgiveness. No, they were very important acts of worship that pointed to something other than themselves. And, in my opinion, Eucharist similarly points back to that eternity altering event. I just do not see any NT teaching that suggests that the means by which a person receives Christ comes through ingesting a priest-blessed Eucharist.

I am not arguing that transubstantiation is based in the OT, however, I would argue that the entire OT is for preparing for the coming of the Messiah. The Eucharist is heavily foreshadowed in the OT and that cannot be denied. All you can see is a priest-blessed Eucharist, we see it flowing from the Incarnation. Now YOU are being anachronistic
.Notice how inclusion "in Christ" does not come by injecting the body in blood through a sacramental act. It comes "when you believed." Faith is what puts us in Christ and makes us apart of the church, not participating in Eucharist. We participate in Eucharist because Christ is in us and we fellowship with him and one another as his people, not in order to get him in us or become/remain his people.

It doesn't make sense to receive the Eucharist without believing in Christ, does it?

ou make it sound like the Church was without issues prior to Luther. The church has always had schism, division and debates over various ideas.

That's why the Church had councils, and still does. We have one set of doctrines. And we both have our share of idiots.

The solution to the problems of the Church is not to have one person be the sole interpreter of the Scriptures.

The Pope simply approves what the whole Church interprets when she needs to to resolve disputes. This idea of the Pope acting on his own as some kind of scriptural dictator is an anti-Catholic myth.

The solution is that we love one another in spite of our differences. Spend a little time reading the NT and you will see that the Church has always had differing opinions and Christians dividing over differing ideas and doctrines...even when Peter, himself, was still alive.

Paul condemned division and Peter was a unify-er, not a divider.

Luther didn't unlock Pandoras box. In fact, I think he did both Protestants and Catholics a huge favor by shining a spotlight on severe wickedness taking place among the so-called clergy that needed to be rooted out.

I've read Luther and Calvin and both of them grossly exaggerated "excessive piety". Corruption existed, but not as much as Protestants have been screaming about for 500 years. The Council of Trent did much to clean up the mess. BTW, Trent is misrepresented by virtually all Protestants. The Church is in a perpetual state of renewal. Again, that's why we have councils.

1. I dont know where you get your Greek information, but I really question the scholarship you are taking these points from. First, Greek words, like English words, are defined from their context. There is no single word that determines whether or not something can be understood as metaphorical or actual. To say the use of koinania proves one way or the other is nonsense. It is no different from me saying that because someone used the word partnership rather than fellowship that it proves they weren't being metaphorical. That is not how Greek, or English work.

Then provide the appropriate context. I get a lot of the exegesis from scripturecatholic.com, by John Salsa who has a Ph.D.

2. I am not arguing that Paul is suggesting mere symbolism with his language here. The Israelites, when they celebrated the Passover and shared the cups and the children asked their fathers about the meaning of the meal, they were ACTUALLY reenacting and participating in the ongoing covenant God had made with their forefathers. The meal and the remembering was a way that they took upon themselves the call and partnership with God's covenant with Israel. So yes, it was actual fellowship with God through the covenantal promises He had made. If they didn't fellowship or partake in the cups and the Passover, they were not considered part of the people of God. So yes, it was actual fellowship with God and partnership with the covenant God established. The important thing to note is that this does not mean the food they ate was anything beyond food. Paul's point is that through the Eucharist, we are participating in this covenant Christ has established. Yes, our interaction with Christ is very real through this act. Conversely, those who were engaging in idolatrous meals were interacting in a very real way with demons. That is Paul's point. To say that what Paul is saying means that the bread actually becomes the flesh of Jesus must also mean that the food idolaters eat actually becomes the flesh of demons.

Paul's point is that through the Eucharist, we are participating in this covenant Christ has established. Yes, our interaction with Christ is very real through this act. You seem to be contradicting yourself. With 10's of thousands of different teachings on the Eucharist, it's hard to tell where each Protestant is coming from. You guys have no consistency.

No, the point here is fellowship. Just as Israel took upon themselves the covenant of God through the Passover meal and became part of a community through this act, so also Christians are proclaiming this covenant and establishing their distinct covenantal community that is made possible by the body and blood of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Paul's REAL point here is that these Christians should not eat at the Lord's table and fellowship with Christ in this unique covenant community and then go fellowship with demons at idolatrous feasts. Lets not lose the forest for the trees. Again, Paul does not have transubstantiation in mind here. He is dealing with this community of people who are supposed to be set apart and distinct to God through the body and blood of Christ (as displayed in the Lord's supper) but are acting very much like the world in their behaviors and in their feasting in pagan temples. That is the point.

I think you are stepping around what Paul is saying.
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” -

that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice.

. But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

The Gentiles ate whatever they wanted, this upset the Jews. Put your "Idolatrous practices" into perspective. If I recall correctly, the Council of Jerusalem dealt with the problem with the eating of strangled meats.

The CHURCH is an EXTENSION of the INCARNATION, untied by the EUCHARIST.

Protestants view the Eucharist the same as Jews and Muslims view the Incarnation, God couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't become man.

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks for your reply.

Let's take another look at St. Ignatius quote
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions (Gnostics) 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
How can it be anachronistic if what the Church teaches today is the same as Ignatius, who wrote this a mere 11 years after John wrote Revelation?

No, it is anachronistic because you are imposing modern theological debates on Ignatius who was not dealing with the issue of transubstantiation. Ignatius was dealing with people who did not believe the cross had any value and the Jesus came to give knowledge rather than offer his body on the cross. THAT is what Ignatius is addressing and to suggest he is arguing about Eucharist as a memorial vs transubstantiation is to insert a theological debate that didn't even exist in his day or in the context of this writing.

Have you read the letter? It is very clear that he is not dealing with transubstantiation in any way. Rather he is dealing with the issue of whether or not Jesus really suffered bodily on the cross or not. I am going to quote a large section of the letter so we can look at the context more fully so you can see what he is talking about...

2. For He suffered all these things for our sakes [that we might be saved]; and He suffered truly, as also He raised Himself truly; not as certain unbelievers say, that He suffered in semblance, being themselves mere semblance. And according as their opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they are without body and demon-like.
3. For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; 2and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body. And straightway they touched Him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. 3And after His resurrection He [both] ate with them and drank with them as one in the flesh, though spiritually He was united with the Father.
4. But these things I warn you, dearly beloved, knowing that ye yourselves are so minded. Howbeit I watch over you betimes to protect you from wild beasts in human form—men whom not only should ye not receive, but, if it were possible, not so much as meet [them]; only pray ye for them, if haply they may repent. This indeed is difficult, but Jesus Christ, our true life, hath power over it. 2For if these things were done by our Lord in semblance, then am I also a prisoner in semblance. And why then have I delivered myself over to death, unto fire, unto sword, unto wild beasts? But near to the sword, near to God; in company with wild beasts, in company with God. Only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ, so that we may suffer together with Him. I endure all things, seeing that He Himself enableth me, who is perfect Man.
5. But certain persons ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the truth; and they have not been persuaded by the prophecies nor by the law of Moses, nay nor even to this very hour by the Gospel, nor by the sufferings of each of us severally; 2for they are of the same mind also concerning us. For what profit is it [to me], if a man praiseth me, but blasphemeth my Lord, not confessing that He was a bearer of flesh? Yet he that affirmeth not this, doth thereby deny Him altogether, being himself a bearer of a corpse. 3But their names, being unbelievers, I have not thought fit to record in writing; nay, far be it from me even to remember them, until they repent and return to the passion, which is our resurrection.
6. Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly beings and the glory of the angels and the rulers visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ [who is God], judgment awaiteth them also. He that receiveth let him receive. Let not office puff up any man; for faith and love are all in all, and nothing is preferred before them. 2But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. 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.
7. 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. 2It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such, and not speak of them either privately or in public; but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished.
8. [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God’s commandment. Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. 2Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 156–158.


So allow me to make a few comments here. It is abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with transubstantiation, nor does it have to do with catholic ecclesiology as it relates to bishops, etc. This letter is often misused to suggest as much. It is dealing with the false teaching that Jesus' suffering was only a semblance and was not real. Ignatius goes to great lengths to show that Jesus' suffering was real and that the Scriptures teach that he died bodily and rose bodily and that is why we as Christians follow in suffering in body as well. The comment about Eucharist is simply a supporting argument to show that true Christians believe in a bodily death and resurrection for our redemption. Allow me to outline the argument:

Main Point: Jesus really suffered. Those who say he suffered in semblance only are demonic and unbelievers.
Argument #1: He appeared bodily to Peter and ate.
Argument #2: Christians are called to suffer because Jesus really suffered.
Argument #3: These people, that I wont even name, dont believe the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets and therefore are unbelievers.
Argument #4: They dont participate in our Eucharist because they deny Jesus suffered in the flesh for our sins and was raised from the dead.
Conclusion: Do not fellowship with such people or allow them to cause divisions but stick with the leaders in the local church (bishops) and their teachings and fellowship.

Then provide the appropriate context. I get a lot of the exegesis from scripturecatholic.com, by John Salsa who has a Ph.D.

Well, I dont mean to be rude, but it could be that you are misunderstanding him as I believe you are misunderstanding the context of Ignatius' letter. Either that or John is wrong. I have also studied Greek, and I am telling you that context determines how words are understood. Suggesting special words are used to indicate metaphor or literal usage is just wrong. Now, there are occasions in which certain word combinations are used to indicate a metaphor is being used or that a comparison and contrast is being established. However, I have never read of anything that suggests the use of particular words like koinania prohibit the possibility of metaphors. I'll do some more looking into it to verify as much, but if you wouldn't mind providing the exact quote from John Salsa, that would also be helpful to try to understand his point.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. With 10's of thousands of different teachings on the Eucharist, it's hard to tell where each Protestant is coming from. You guys have no consistency.

I am not contradicting myself. I believe communion is a very sacred thing and that when the Church gathers for worship, Eucharist, etc....heaven is in our midst. Yet that is NOT to say that the elements become the actual body and blood of Jesus. Fellowship with Christ in communion and ingesting Christ are two very different concepts. I agree it makes it easier if you have one option for interpretation that cannot be questioned. Yet, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if 1 billion agree with you...I am concerning with agreeing with what Scripture teaches, not with winning a popularity contest.

I think you are stepping around what Paul is saying.

Well, I think I have shown that you engage in a lot of presuppositional hermeneutics. You read a lot into the text and then draw the conclusions you already accept based on the way you set up the text in your own mind. Most of the conclusions you draw, either from Scripture or Ignatius, are much more about what you assume about the statements being made rather than the actual statements themselves.

 

[Wormwood]

“Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις· τίς γὰρ μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ, ἢ τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; ;” (2 Corinthians 6:14, NA27)

I did a brief word study on koinonia. The above text is an example of Paul using it in a metaphor. Paul says, "May you not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship (koinonia) has light with darkness?" Clearly, Paul is using "light and darkness" metaphorically to compare and contrast believers with unbelievers. I mean, clearly "light" is not capable of "fellowship" nor is "darkness"...literally. Paul is not being literal here. He's using a metaphor for illustrative purposes and uses the word koinonia.

I could address a lot of other things you wrote about his Greek reflections, that I take issue with..but I think the point here is that a better understanding of the text can be had with a proper understanding of the Greek, yet we need to be cautious about our sources. I would try to find two or three scholars that agree on a linguistic issues before assuming they are true. It is too easy today with Google to take an assumption and search for someone with some letters behind their name to give credence to what we have already determined to believe. I would encourage you to look at legitimate, published sources rather than unknown people on the web (including myself).