I usually just skim your posts,
.
Likewise...
Uh, it's their forum, so they are entitled to disagree
Duh - and as such, it's why other Messianic have disagreed with those other Messianics claiming anything pertaining to the world of Christianity in any form cannot be mentioned or discussed in a Messianic forum - seeing that's not the history of the forum or the experiences of numerous Messianic Jews/Messianic Gentiles and what life is like for other Messianics who work in the Church. And that goes in addition for those noting what CF has said when it comes to what the mods have laid out - that no Messianic ceases to be "Messianic" when discussing the Church since that's what occurs in the Mainstream MJish movement and CF sees Messianics as Christian. That was the way it was in the early Jewish body of believers - and that is also what has been the case in the Messianic Jewish movement for decades - never divorcing itself from the Church. And it is why that is the case here.
If you don't see yourself as a Christian, fine - but the forum was not meant for that, nor was the forum ever for those trying to say other Messianics cannot identify as Christians
Whatever ... you still eat the Eucharist, which by definition means you accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Otherwise, you are just eating maza or a cracker representing the body He allowed to be broken for you. The later is ok (except the cracker probably has some yeast), while the former is absolutely in error.
None of that is at any point verifiable - and it is an indication that one really doesn't understand what the Eucharist was even about since there were always differing views on it.
For a basic review, one can go to
"Eastern “Blind Spot” or “Cross-Pollination”? | Orthocath" . The Byzantine, Oriential and Coptic Traditions had a differing perspective than others. As it concerns Jewish history and the mystical aspects behind the Eucharist that the Jewish people valued in the early Church, I'd highly recommend investigating
"Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism" as well as here in
"Temple and Righteousness in Qumran and Early Christianity - Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism" - as well as
"Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture"
Moreover, one well-recommended book
throughout the Messianic Jewish movement (especially UMJC) one can consider is by
Oskar Skarsaune in his book entitled In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity - Page 28 ..for he did an excellent job tackling the reality of how Jews in the early Church saw the Eucharist.
The OO (as well as the Orthodox world in general) NEVER supported Transubtantiation and it'd be ignorant of facts/ history to clain otherwise - as Transubstantiation came with the Council of Trent - centuries after the concept of REAL Presence which the early body of believers accepted, since that Trent Council was pertaining to Roman Catholicism ....not all other camps within the Body.
Byzantine, Syrian, and Coptic Christian writers from the Early Church (many of which were Jewish) on the Real Presence are routinely ignored by many who stereotype anything in the Church - and the average Evangelical believes that the idea of Real Presence dates from the thirteenth century and was one of those “Roman inventions" like many do with Eucharist....and that has spillled over into parts of the Messianic Jewish world when others coming from Christian backgrounds carry some of the bagage they learned before being in the Messianic movement - and claim things against Eucharist which Jewish believers never held central for centuries. The fact that the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a universal belief of the Ancient Church is lost on most Evangelicals, often because many of them don’t even know about the Eastern Christian Churches - and many Evangelicals confuse Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, let alone Coptic, Syrian or Armenian Orthodoxy.
And the concept of Real Presence differed from the later concepts of consubstantiation - which is what is held by the Lutherans when they believe a transformation of the elements happen and Christ is physically present....even though it cannot be explained. Real Presence and the issue of transubstantiation get brought up together by others who generally don't know the nuances of the terms - with others saying Christ was not fully present in the act of Communion and saying that to do so would promote cannibalism amongst other things.
Many who argue such tend to be within the Protestant world and react toward that which they see with the actual term "transubstantiation" when it comes to what the Roman Catholic Church described at the Council of Trent. But it seems Ancient Christendom had a view saying Christ in His FULLNESS (Body, Being, Spirit, etc) was somehow there during Communion just as the Lord can be all places at once because of His supernatural ability as God.
It is in the attempt to logically explain how Christ is present that it seems a LOT of misunderstanding can occur - including in making ideologies against others who seem to cross the ideas of others they set up to protect their image of who the Messiah is when in fact they limit Him by keeping out the concept of Mystery. The Early Body of believers (including the Early Fathers) expressed things well when sharing on the issue....as the Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view.
However this is a serious error in anachronism because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work History of Dogma, what we nowadays understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept - for according to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized....and regardless of the views, the central thing being that other connecting with Christ in a Literal way in the elements whenever Divine Liturgy/Sacraments went down.
History truly does give the best example by which to see things...
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.
– St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66
Rightly then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been changed [Gr., metapoieisthai] into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was bread in power, but it has been sanctified by the dwelling there of the Word, who pitched his tent in the flesh. The change that elevated to divine power the bread that had been transformed into that Body causes something similar now. In that case, the grace of the Word sanctified that Body whose material being came from bread and was, in a certain sense, bread itself. In this case, the bread “is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer”7, as the Apostle says, not becoming the Body of the Word through our eating but by being transformed [Gr., metapoiumenos] immediately into the body by means of the word, as the Word himself said, ‘This is my Body.’ …
– St. Gregory of Nyssa The Great Catechism 37
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
It'd be good to learn history before speaking on it further...
Well, ok, thanks, as I still worship with, work with and generally still identify with Christians. But I tell them they are wrong about some things too. So don't feel all singled out here.
Not singled out as all - as nearly EVERY OTHER MESSIANIC HERE (myself included) has done the same when it comes to living life with Christians elsewhere. It's why others note where it's moot assuming without listening where Messianics identifying with the Church automatically do not call out issues within their Church felllowships....or recognize where some things in Mainstream Christianity at certain points are not in accord with the Christianity that Jewish believers accepted in the early body of believers.
Even Christians outside of the Messianic movement do this on a number of issues whenever other Christian churches do things against Biblical history (i.e. saying homosexuality is a good thing, allowing for divorce to be rampant, saying God does not love the Jewish people, etc.) and it is an illusion whenever others assume only those in the Messianic world address issues.
OK, one more time, but slowly:
I - am - not - saying - anyone, including MJ, are not "Christian." Believe in the Christ, you are, by definition, a Christian.
I AM saying that every Christian denomination is not the same.
I AM saying the forum is divided into different denominational groups. I AM saying that we should ALL have the decency, the respect, the honor and integrity to remain in our own area unless we either have a question or truly want to fellowship with members of another forum. Fellowship does NOT include going there and setting them straight about doctrine!
And one more time - No one has said that all Christian denominations are the same. What has been said is that you have ZERO basis assuming that others cannot be Messianic because they are involved with other denominations.
There is no decency or honor or respect in trying to say other Messianic Jews/Gentiles are automatically unable to live out a Messianic lifestyle in other demoninations - or claim that one cannot share what's shared in other denominations - because of being in a Messianic forum. Where there's commonality, others share freely - and what matters is that others are well able to participate in the forum itself in MJ without being counter to other denominations they work with.
That has been the case for years and it's why others come against others who either don't know the history - or ignore the history when it comes to noting that the forum was never room for others saying they cannot be Messianic if they also belong to other forums - as other forums have the same dynamics - and what matters is what you say when on the forum.
You already have had it where others addressed you for trying to set others straight about doctrine when it wasn't doctrine that other Messianic Jews or Messianic Gentiles held to ..as Contra noted best in previous discussion when it came to you projecting things onto others you yourself were doing ( #
139 #
116, #
100 #
85 )
And thus, it is inconsistent to only harp on doctrine when you've not shown yours to be consistent with the whole of the Messianic Jewish movement - but selectively say others disagreeing with you (if speaking on the Church) are the only ones trying to set others straight.
But, meantime I'll just use the ignore function and not sweat it. Never did that before, but here it is becoming my bestest friend. When the list gets so long I can no longer use the forum, then I'll just move on. It's not like any of this bothers me that much, though I would regret not talking with some here.
Dan (who?) C
Most people here use the ignore function at some point. I've done the same - specifically in using the button as well as ignoring others I don't agree with nor care to interact with. And it's what CF has noted when it comes to the MJ forum - if you cannot agree with someone, move on rather than trying to always engage them
Ya gotta luv th' ir'ny!
