The Lord's Supper

[waquinas]

(marksman;60566)
What really works is when we understand what the scriptures say as the truth sets us free. After about 30 years of study, consulting with a myriad of writers and the original Greek, the last supper was just that, not a perpetual ritual.We don't make a doctrine out of one verse which is what we have done with communion as the words "do this in remembrance of me only appears once."In addition "do this" means once only, not continually.Breaking of bread in the NT means a meal. I asked my uni lecturer, a very godly Anglican "did they have communion in the NT."His reply was "no. They met for communal meals. It wasn't until the thïrd century that the ritual of communion began when Constantine legalised christianity and introduced the clergy class". Even if you insist on the ritual, becuase christianity was a sect of Judaism, they would have celebrated it only once a year, not every week or as the catholics do, every day. Also bear in mind that the last supper was a celebration of their deliverance from Egypt and the hope of a messiah. If Jesus was the Messiah, there would have been no need for them to have a meal to celebrate a coming messiah as he had already come. A bit like saying "I am your messiah but keep meeting in the hope I will come."The Corinthian record was not about communion. It was about those with money abusing the body of Christ at their communal meal.True communion is fellowshipping with your fellow saints around a meal as they did in the NT church (see acts 2). This meal more than anything else impressed people about their love for one another. Regardless of you standing in society, whether you were a Jew, gentile, male or female, slave or free, rich or poor, they all ate together. That did not happen in those days in general society.
So when the Apostles wrote:"Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) 1 Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. 2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. 3 And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. 4 Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. 5 But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6 "your friend said what about that?And what do the Angelicans think the first centuries disciples of the Apostles meant when they said things like:""Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such hereticsThey 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 death 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 you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of 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.IgnatiusOR several hundred years before there was a "Church in Rome" to make the changes as your friend alledges we have Justin Martyr writing (which BTW should sound strangely familar to any Angilcan that attends Church today)"Chapter 65. Administration of the sacramentsBut we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.Chapter 66. Of the EucharistAnd this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. "If 1st and 2nd century Christians were doing weekly rituals nearly identical to ones done daily and weekly in many Churches today, including the Anglicans, why would anyone claim that it did not start until the 4th century?

 

[marksman]

I have no idea because most of what you have written is man made mumbo jumbo and definitely not inspired by the Holy Spirit as it contradicts what is in the NT.

 

[waquinas]

(marksman;61079)
I have no idea because most of what you have written is man made mumbo jumbo and definitely not inspired by the Holy Spirit as it contradicts what is in the NT.
I thought you studied 30 years and consulted writers and your Anglican friend (who apparently did not realized Christians practiced a Lord's Supper at least weekly that is very close to what his own Church practices today centuries before he claims "Rome" invented it). So it is ok for you throw extra Biblical sources to make a point, but when someone else throws out a different view from early Christians, including the Apostles themselves it is "mumbo jumbo" . Interesting response.

 

[waquinas]

Also left wondering why someone studying 30 years and reading "other" writers would exclude early Christian writers (including the Apostles and thier disciples) from their studies or consider their work "mumbo jumbo".

 

[marksman]

Of course assuming that it was written by the apostles which you have no proof. :music:

 

[waquinas]

(marksman;61087)
Of course assuming that it was written by the apostles which you have no proof. :music:
Give you credit for either recognizing the Didache or being able to google.So are You saying someone wrote the Didache in the first century claiming to be an Apostle?Ok, guess it is possible, especially since it was common in that age (and not just among Christian writers) to write in the name of their teacher or teachers in this case. But even there, it does not mean that the teachers would not agree with the students writings or writing in their name.Before we toss the Didache as "mumbo-jumbo" because it only claims to be written by the Apostles because we have "no proof" it really was, we should at least be curious that we have no dispute regarding the contents of that writing or objections to it by the Apostles, some of whom had to be still alive when this written. Not a single Apostle saying this Didache is "mumbo-jumbo". You would think if someone claiming to be an Apostle was circulating a letter claiming to be Apostolic that a real Apostle would have objected. And if it was not from the Apostles, we should wonder why centuries before 'Rome" that we have centuries of early Christians quoting from the Didache or otherwise referencing it, a few even giving it Apostlic authorship. Apparently they did not think it was "mumbo-jumbo". A few of them, whom we should think would know the truth, claimed it was from the Apostles. While we could debate the authorship of the Didache, no reason has been given why we should dismiss other early Christian writings as "mumbo jumbo" and instead take the word of an Anglican who is apparently according to you oblivious to the similarities between the Lord Supper practiced in his Church and that of 1st Century Christians as recorded by many. To me the claim that this “ritual” started in forth century Rome sounds like anti-Catholic “mumbo jumbo” made up by men.

 

[marksman]

Considered lost, the Didache was rediscovered by Philotheos Bryennios, a Greek Orthodox metropolitan bishop of Nicomedia in 1873 in the Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus written in 1053. Bryennios published it ten years later. He had earlier published the full text of the Epistles of Clement from the same manuscript in 1875.NOTE: Nothing until the 19th century.Dr. J. Schlecht found in 1900 another Latin translation of chapters 1 through 5, with the longer title, omitting "twelve", and with the rubric De doctrina Apostolorum. Coptic and Ethiopian translations have also been discovered since Bryennios' original publication.NOTE: Coptic and Ethiopean not Greek."Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon." NOTE: A spurious work.The section Two Ways shares the same language with the Epistle of Barnabas, chapters 18-20, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barnabas iv, 9 either derives from Didache, 16, 2-3, or vice versaNOTE: The same language as the Epistle of Banabas which is considered spurious.Paul recalled this in view of the way in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated at Corinth: middle- and upper-class people, who could come early to the meetings of the Christians, feasted on their better food and drink in a way that shamed the slaves and peasants who could arrive only later. He pointed out that they were all participating in Christ's body and blood, not their own meal, and that to do so in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, profaned the meal, turning it from the Lord's Supper to a sham.NOTE: A mealThe Eucharist, also called Holy Communion or Lord's Supper and other names, is a Christian sacrament by which, in a common interpretation, those who celebrate it commemorate the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine.NOTE: This language is not in the NT. If that is the case, why did the apostles suddenly change their language?the fact is the NT has all we need to know the mind of God. If something does not agree with it, I am not interested.

 

[waquinas]

(marksman;61413)
Considered lost, the Didache was rediscovered by Philotheos Bryennios, a Greek Orthodox metropolitan bishop of Nicomedia in 1873 in the Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus written in 1053. Bryennios published it ten years later. He had earlier published the full text of the Epistles of Clement from the same manuscript in 1875.NOTE: Nothing until the 19th century.
Please do not confuse lost or rediscovered with "discredited" or "unknown" or "untrue". We lost many books and later rediscovered them, we have but one copy of the Illiad "rediscovered", but no one credible today doubts the authenticity of that copy. Knowing many early Christian writers and Church leaders (prior to the 4th century) referenced the Didache and supported it as being true it is misleading to begin the discussion with the suggestion that it just magically appears in the 2oth century.
Dr. J. Schlecht found in 1900 another Latin translation of chapters 1 through 5, with the longer title, omitting "twelve", and with the rubric De doctrina Apostolorum. Coptic and Ethiopian translations have also been discovered since Bryennios' original publication.NOTE: Coptic and Ethiopean not Greek.
Omitting the "twelve" makes it ................what? untrue, non-Apostolic????? Note: it still says Apostles! And again, many early writers and leaders reference it and even some that questioned the authorship none the less supported it as being true teachings.
"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon." NOTE: A spurious work.
Ok, I did not really wish to debate the authenticity of the DIDACHE here, but given you offer someone’s poor, flawed and unfounded attempt to discredit the DIDACHE as “spurious”, I am forced to respond.Note that if we take someone's word out of context that we can often make it appear to say something which THEY DID NOT MEAN AT ALL. Here is the full quote of Eusebius (late 3rd century), please note the bolded portions and that his intended meaning in regards to the DIDACHE is actually exactly the opposite of what your quote above implies."1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. 2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. 3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. 5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. 6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.Let us now proceed with our history."
The section Two Ways shares the same language with the Epistle of Barnabas, chapters 18-20, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barnabas iv, 9 either derives from Didache, 16, 2-3, or vice versaNOTE: The same language as the Epistle of Banabas which is considered spurious.
Heretics often copied portions of earlier writings to add authenticity to their work. As the Didache is dated much earlier than the Epistle in question and accepted by many of the early writers and leaders of the Church as being true, the point is moot.
Paul recalled this in view of the way in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated at Corinth: middle- and upper-class people, who could come early to the meetings of the Christians, feasted on their better food and drink in a way that shamed the slaves and peasants who could arrive only later. He pointed out that they were all participating in Christ's body and blood, not their own meal, and that to do so in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, profaned the meal, turning it from the Lord's Supper to a sham.NOTE: A meal
Note to support your view you allude NOT to SCRIPTURE but to an interpretation of scripture rather than an actual verse that equates Christians eating a meal to the Lord's Supper. If we stick our heads in the sand and ignore ALL the other hundreds of early Christians writers from the 1st to 4th century (before the Church in Rome) writing about a ritual, a sacrament called the Lord's Supper, then perhaps you would have a point. I can't bring my self to do that. Even if we call all these thousands of writers (including not a few heretics who wrote about it) wackos in regards to their DOCUMENTED views of the Lord's Supper, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reach the conclusion that the Church in Rome INVENTED this ritual in the 4th century. NOTE: as your Anglican friend did.
The Eucharist, also called Holy Communion or Lord's Supper and other names, is a Christian sacrament by which, in a common interpretation, those who celebrate it commemorate the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine.NOTE: This language is not in the NT. If that is the case, why did the apostles suddenly change their language?
the claim the words are not there is shallow - we clearly see the references. Trinity is not there either, yet few would argue that absence is a basis alone for rejecting the obvious references to it. The doctrine of the Trinity AGREES with the references the Apostles did make to it. The celebration of the Eucharist agrees with the references the Apostles made to it. Besides the fact it was called the Eucharist by other early writers in even the FIRST century (see Ignatius - contemporary of ST Peter, Paul and John) is evidence in itself to support there being such a practice ( as also mention in the DIDACHE) over 400 years before your Anglican friend suggests to us that it was "suddenly" invented by the Church in Rome. Again only if ignore the common language/usage of a man that was an intimate friend of several Apostles or suggest that this man FALSELY mentions a ritual and connects it with the Apostles without being rebuked by the Apostles still living is it possible to suggest the Apostles "suddenly changed" their language.You can't have first century leaders of the Church, obviously familiar with the Apostles and their teachings, referring to a Eucharist and it being fundamental to Christian worship without a single Apostle objecting or someone else arguing that it was not an Apostolic teaching. It is not like we do not have records of people arguing about what was Apostolic and what was not (see quote I posted above from Eusebius).
the fact is the NT has all we need to know the mind of God. If something does not agree with it, I am not interested.
I assume you believe in things like the Trinity, age of reason, worship on Sunday...etc, and you already stated your belief in an INTERPRETATION of Paul's writing (note: that interpretation is not part of the NT) that you believe in - so it is not really a FACT that you are not interested in things beyond what is stated in the NT.We obviously both believe there is bibilical support for our positions, the fact we do not agree simply means one of us is in error. We can agree to disagree. I just wanted to make it clear that it is naive - and pretty much modern anti-Catholicism - to suggest that the Church invented the sacrament of the Eucharist in the 4th century. Whether one believes it is right or wrong it was clearly being practiced in the first century in a manner similar if not nearly identical to the practice of many Christians today, including your Anglican friend's Church.

 

[winsome]

(marksman;60566)
Breaking of bread in the NT means a meal. I asked my uni lecturer, a very godly Anglican "did they have communion in the NT." His reply was "no. They met for communal meals. His reply was "no. They met for communal meals. It wasn't until the thïrd century that the ritual of communion began when Constantine legalised christianity and introduced the clergy class".
That was the fourth century.Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He wrote in the second century:"How can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with his blood, goes to corruption?.....For the bread which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, once it has received the invocation of God; it is then the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the Euacharist, are no longer corruptible, but have the hope of resurrection to eternity."Writing, probably slightly earlier, around 155AD, Justin Martyr said:This food we call the Eucharist, no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that ourdoctrines are true, who has been washed with the bath for the remission of sins and rebirth, and who is living as Christ commanded.We do not receive these as common bread and drink. For Jesus Christ our Saviour, made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. Likewise, we have been taught that the food blessed by the prayer of his word - and from which our own blood and flesh are nourished and changed - is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh.Even earlier was Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch who dies in 107AD and on his way to his death wrote letters to various churches. In one he says:Let no man deceive himself. Fo both the beings of heaven , the glorious angels, and the rulers, both seen and unseen, incur condemnation if they do not beleive in the blood of Christ... Conside those who hold different opinions regarding the grace of Christ that has come to us....They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ...Take care, then, to have only one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, along with the priests and deacons, my fellow servants.Which incidentally shows that the "clergy class" was not instituted by Constantine.As to not having communion in the NT, we have several mentions:And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. (Lk 24:331)They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. (Acts 2:42)For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:23-27)AddedHmm. I didn't get to the third page of comments and I seem to have been duplicating what Waquinas has alread said.

 

[marksman]

Winsome.... Acts 2 and 1 Cor 11...Context pleaseActs 2 They met in homes and ate meals together not the eucharist. See a few verses later it says they ate their MEALS with gladness. Breaking of bread means food. The tradition was that a meal did not start until the host took a loaf of bread and broke it and gave everyone a piece. 1 Cor 11. The church came together for the communal meal. The passage is all about their conduct at the meal. The well off were bringing food and eating it without waiting for the poor to arrive which meant that there was little or no food for them. Paul was telling them to eat at home if they were hungry. It actually says it was NOT the Lord's Supper they were eating because of their conduct. What made it the Lord's supper was waiting for each other and sharing their food. Paul's final word is "So then my brothers, when you come together TO EAT, (not take communion) wait for each other.

 

[winsome]

(marksman;64877)
Winsome.... Acts 2 and 1 Cor 11...Context pleaseActs 2 They met in homes and ate meals together not the eucharist. See a few verses later it says they ate their MEALS with gladness. Breaking of bread means food. The tradition was that a meal did not start until the host took a loaf of bread and broke it and gave everyone a piece. 1 Cor 11. The church came together for the communal meal. The passage is all about their conduct at the meal. The well off were bringing food and eating it without waiting for the poor to arrive which meant that there was little or no food for them. Paul was telling them to eat at home if they were hungry. It actually says it was NOT the Lord's Supper they were eating because of their conduct. What made it the Lord's supper was waiting for each other and sharing their food. Paul's final word is "So then my brothers, when you come together TO EAT, (not take communion) wait for each other.
Your explanation only works if you set aside reason and chunks of scripture.

 

[marksman]

Your explanation only works if you set aside reason and chunks of scripture.
And yours only works when you ignore the totality of scripture especially in the orginal Greek and you prefer tradition to truth.

 

[waquinas]

Always find it rich coming from people who claim years of studies ( 30), believes "Rome invented" the Sacrament in the 4th century, disparage the first 400 years of writings by Christian leaders and instead offers as more support the word of a modern friend who apparently does not even recognize the similarity of the practice within his own Church and that described by first century Christian. Why would it matter if we were fluent in Greek if we were willing to ignore facts and take the word of blind friends?

 

[marksman]

Why would it matter if we were fluent in Greek if we were willing to ignore facts and take the word of blind friends?
THe last time I saw them all had very good eyesight.

 

[waquinas]

the Pharisees thought they could see too, hardly a claim to be proud of. Being really blind would be someone watching, and I say watching because the ignorance of the apparent statement suggests someone going through the motions; watching a Sacrament conducted in their own Church and not recognizing the same when it is described in the first century and for 300 years after.

 

[marksman]

We don't have sacraments in my church, we have relationships and we spend a lot of time eating together. The word 'sacrament' is not in the NT but it is very obvious that they majored on relationships. Sacraments were part of the OT law, the cultic religions and the Roman Catholic Church. I am not informed by any of these three as my relationship is with God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't need a mediator because I already have one in Christ. What the church I attend calls itself is irrelevant to me. What they do is what I focus on.

 

[waquinas]

You repeat yourself, and it is ok with me that you believe as you do. We do not agree, so what.When I referred to a sacrament, it had nothing to do with you or your Church or your friends. From your 30 years of study you should have known what I was referring to just as you should have known when your lecturer said this:"Breaking of bread in the NT means a meal. I asked my uni lecturer, a very godly Anglican "did they have communion in the NT."His reply was "no. They met for communal meals. It wasn't until the thïrd century that the ritual of communion began when Constantine legalised christianity and introduced the clergy class". That such statements are an ignorant repeating of someone else's view of history and in no way relates to the truth. A "good" Anglican would know and recognize the SACRAMENT within their own Church resembles very closely that portrayed hundreds years earlier, even in the first century. So it would be impossible for a “good” Anglican to claim it was invented nearly 400 years later in the age of Constantine

 

[marksman]

Yes Waquinas, I should have known that my lecturer was an ignoramous and didn't know what he was talking about. After all, he was only a professor and what do they know?The last time I read my bible there wasn't a "good" anything as it says no one is good not one. if there was, Jesus would not have needed to have died on Calvary as we could claim salvation on the basis of how good we were and our good works. It also says the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. According to you that's not the case with a "good" anglican.

 

[epistemaniac]

(marksman;60566)
What really works is when we understand what the scriptures say as the truth sets us free. After about 30 years of study, consulting with a myriad of writers and the original Greek, the last supper was just that, not a perpetual ritual.We don't make a doctrine out of one verse which is what we have done with communion as the words "do this in remembrance of me only appears once."In addition "do this" means once only, not continually.Breaking of bread in the NT means a meal. I asked my uni lecturer, a very godly Anglican "did they have communion in the NT."His reply was "no. They met for communal meals. It wasn't until the thïrd century that the ritual of communion began when Constantine legalised christianity and introduced the clergy class". Even if you insist on the ritual, becuase christianity was a sect of Judaism, they would have celebrated it only once a year, not every week or as the catholics do, every day. Also bear in mind that the last supper was a celebration of their deliverance from Egypt and the hope of a messiah. If Jesus was the Messiah, there would have been no need for them to have a meal to celebrate a coming messiah as he had already come. A bit like saying "I am your messiah but keep meeting in the hope I will come."The Corinthian record was not about communion. It was about those with money abusing the body of Christ at their communal meal.True communion is fellowshipping with your fellow saints around a meal as they did in the NT church (see acts 2). This meal more than anything else impressed people about their love for one another. Regardless of you standing in society, whether you were a Jew, gentile, male or female, slave or free, rich or poor, they all ate together. That did not happen in those days in general society.
hmmm..... food errrr for thought, pardon the pun

blessings,Ken

 

[epistemaniac]

just a clarification... the Apostles did not write "Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) ...." "It is an anonymous work not belonging to any single individual...." (wikipedia)in response to the question
If 1st and 2nd century Christians were doing weekly rituals nearly identical to ones done daily and weekly in many Churches today, including the Anglicans, why would anyone claim that it did not start until the 4th century?
Maybe because all the theology that Rome now pours into the Lord's Supper, eg transubstantiation, did not exist in the early church in any codified way until much laterin church history... i any case, it certainly was not dogma, ie that which MUST be believed, as it is currently within Rome, until much later in church history."The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133) in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545) defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation", This Council thus officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding the literal truth of Christ's Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. (wikipedia)Certainly some form of celebration of the Lord's Supper has happened throughout church history, but this is not the same thing as saying that the Roman Catholic version or understanding of the Lord's Supper is that which has always taken place in church history. This is clearly not the case, if it was, it would not have taken so long for dogma to be pronounced by Rome on this issue.blessings,ken