Modern Apostles and Prophets?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Can an apostle or a prophet deny the truths of the faith? I'm doubting that. Do I need Scripture to prove to you that any apostle who denies truths of the faith is a false apostle or a false prophet?

You must be confusing Tradition with tradition ... in that case I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist can't be an apostle or a prophet."

"scripture please stating this is what the apostles and prophets taught."

"Can an apostle or a prophet deny the truths of the faith? I'm doubting that. Do I need Scripture to prove to you that any apostle who denies truths of the faith is a false apostle or a false prophet?"

You must be confusing Tradition with tradition ... in that case I have no idea what you are talking about.

It looked like you were asking for where the apostles and prophets taught that anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist couldn't be real apostles or prophets. Sorry, but to me it is essentially self evident that someone who denies the faith isn't a real apostle or a real prophet. No need to have Scripture to buttress that realization.

It dawned on me that your confusion might have been that you do not accept that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So maybe what you were asking is where that was in Scripture. Let me know if that is indeed the case and if you really can't find that teaching in Scripture. I don't want to derail this worthy thread in helping you find that, so maybe you could find a way of asking, if you really need to, without derailing it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"Anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist can't be an apostle or a prophet."

"scripture please stating this is what the apostles and prophets taught."

"Can an apostle or a prophet deny the truths of the faith? I'm doubting that. Do I need Scripture to prove to you that any apostle who denies truths of the faith is a false apostle or a false prophet?"


It looked like you were asking for where the apostles and prophets taught that anyone who denied that the real body and real blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist couldn't be real apostles or prophets. Sorry, but to me it is essentially self evident that someone who denies the faith isn't a real apostle or a real prophet. No need to have Scripture to buttress that realization.

It dawned on me that your confusion might have been that you do not accept that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So maybe what you were asking is where that was in Scripture. Let me know if that is indeed the case and if you really can't find that teaching in Scripture. I don't want to derail this worthy thread in helping you find that, so maybe you could find a way of asking, if you really need to, without derailing it.

M’bad for using sarcasm to refute the fleshly interpretations when a spiritual application is clearly the intent of both Paul and scripture. But that is the schism between T & t. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is between C/church. Setting restrictions on what communion is .... setting a boundary around the flesh to exclude the spiritual ... is really denominational and should be confined to proper denomination forum instead of prosylizing on an open forum. Jm2c cause I don’t really care. I’m sic of cf anyway.

Kumbaya

 

[chevyontheriver]

M’bad for using sarcasm to refute the fleshly interpretations when a spiritual application is clearly the intent of both Paul and scripture. But that is the schism between T & t. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is between C/church. Setting restrictions on what communion is .... setting a boundary around the flesh to exclude the spiritual ... is really denominational and should be confined to proper denomination forum instead of prosylizing on an open forum. Jm2c cause I don’t really care. I’m sic of cf anyway.

Kumbaya

Sorry I missed all your sarcasm in earlier posts. Not comprehending your latest post either except for the very clear sarcasm. But that's what I get for posting in the controversial forum.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So as He was saying all of that was He handing them symbolic items that meant that edification is in Him alone or did He hand them a chunk of lamb and some wine, the wine symbolizing living water consecrating the wedding feast? Same thing different word perhaps? Or just another form of exclusion? My guess is the latter.

He took bread, and said it was His body.
He took wine, and said it was His blood.

Fundamentally, it's that simple. Jesus says what it is, and it is what He says it is. He's not speaking in riddles, or metaphors, or parables here. Jesus says, "This is My body", and that's what He means.

So when we eat and drink the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, we are eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus. How is it possible that mere and ordinary bread can be the true, literal, flesh of Jesus Christ? God only knows, that's not our business, our business is to believe and confess what our Lord tells us.

Yes, this is a "hard saying", even Jesus' own followers acknowledged that in the Gospel of John, and this was so outrageous of an idea that many abandoned Him--and yet when that happens, the Lord doesn't go on to explain that He was speaking in metaphors, simile, parable, or other figures of speech, He instead doubles down, and then asks His closest friends what they were going to do, would they leave Him too? To which they said, "Lord, where else would we go? You have the words of eternal life." We hear the Lord's word, and we believe His word, because His word is life; and so when He says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood shall be raised up on the Last Day.

-CryptoLuthean

 

[Fervent]

He took bread, and said it was His body.
He took wine, and said it was His blood.

Fundamentally, it's that simple. Jesus says what it is, and it is what He says it is. He's not speaking in riddles, or metaphors, or parables here. Jesus says, "This is My body", and that's what He means.

So when we eat and drink the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, we are eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus. How is it possible that mere and ordinary bread can be the true, literal, flesh of Jesus Christ? God only knows, that's not our business, our business is to believe and confess what our Lord tells us.

Yes, this is a "hard saying", even Jesus' own followers acknowledged that in the Gospel of John, and this was so outrageous of an idea that many abandoned Him--and yet when that happens, the Lord doesn't go on to explain that He was speaking in metaphors, simile, parable, or other figures of speech, He instead doubles down, and then asks His closest friends what they were going to do, would they leave Him too? To which they said, "Lord, where else would we go? You have the words of eternal life." We hear the Lord's word, and we believe His word, because His word is life; and so when He says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood shall be raised up on the Last Day.

-CryptoLuthean

Considering the last supper in John doesn't happen until chapter 13, he's not speaking of the breaking of bread and taking of wine done there in John 6. None of the disciples would have any conception of a modern eucharist in that verse and that's not what they were saying was a hard saying.

 

[Saint Steven]

Are there any modern apostles and prophets?

I'm looking for examples of genuine, authentic modern apostles and prophets. It could be anyone from the last few centuries, but it would be even better if they are alive today.

There were prophets in the NT times that were mostly unnamed. Some can be named with a Bible search. But I imagine there were many more. Especially if the churches at that time were following the model given by the Apostle Paul in first Corinthians chapters 12 and 14. Where prophets were being limited to two or three per gathering in order to give everyone a chance. (1 Corinthians 14:31)

Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

 

[fhansen]

Considering the last supper in John doesn't happen until chapter 13, he's not speaking of the breaking of bread and taking of wine done there in John 6. None of the disciples would have any conception of a modern eucharist in that verse and that's not what they were saying was a hard saying.

The modern conception of the Eucharist is essentially the same as observed by the early church, as attested to by the ECFs and continuous practice of the ancient chruches. Scripture can often be interpreted in more than one way, but we also have the historical understanding at hand.

 

[fhansen]

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

"And as they were eating, He took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is My body.' And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they al drank of it. And He said to them, 'This is M blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." - Mark 14:22-24

"And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' And he took bread, and when He had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'" - Luke 22:17-20

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.'" - John 6:53-56

"I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not partaking in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not partaking of the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" - 1 Corinthians 10:15-18

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, 'This is My body, whic his for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same way also He took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For a nyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

And from the testimony of the ancient fathers:

"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." - Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 7, c. 107 AD

"And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the one that believes the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the forgiveness 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 Savior, 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 change 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, 'Do this in remembrance of Me, 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." - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 66, c. 150 AD

"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, 'This is My body.' And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world," - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book IV, 17.5, c. 180 AD

"But in vain in every respect are those who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood, nor the bread which we break the partaking of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood He redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, 'In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.' And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is part of the creation) as His own blood, and which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that 'we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.' He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones" - ibid. Book V, 2.2-3

-CryptoLuthera

Thank you. That was worthy of copying.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Considering the last supper in John doesn't happen until chapter 13, he's not speaking of the breaking of bread and taking of wine done there in John 6. None of the disciples would have any conception of a modern eucharist in that verse and that's not what they were saying was a hard saying.

It's been noted through the centuries that John doesn't have contain the traditional Institution narrative as the Synoptics, but rather it's Eucharistic passage comes here, in John 6. Likewise we see Baptismal language used in John 3, when speaking to Nicodemus about new birth.

Part of the trouble with John can be that it's chronological account of events in Jesus' ministry differs substantially from that of the Synoptics. For example, the cleansing of the Temple occurs much earlier in the Gospel of John than it does in the Synoptics. This has led some to argue that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice--a position that I think only adds further complication and makes the Gospel narrative confusing. Rather we can take some wisdom from the ancient Church, which recognized that that either the Synoptics or John are out of chronological order; some argued that John has the right chronology. Though I think it more sensible to recognize that the Synoptics contain a better chronology; whereas the Gospel of John is far less interested in the timing of Jesus' works and words, and so instead is ordered thematically rather than chronologically.

In any event, the Apostles would have been able to remember the Lord's words in John 6, and coupled with the Words of Institution as recorded in the Synoptics, we have the basis for the Eucharistic theology of the ancient and apostolic Church--the theology that we see expressed by St. Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. And which was continued to be believed ever since; this can be observed by the witness and testimony of the writings of the fathers and of the many theologians and various churchmen down through the centuries.

You say "modern Eucharist", but I'm just talking about the Eucharist, which has been the same since the earliest followers of the Lord met together and "broke bread", as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. The only difference is one of external format: Originally the Eucharist was celebrated as an agape (aka "love feast"), very likely in the format of complete meal in which the bread and wine were consecrated (e.g. "the cup of blessing which we bless" 1 Cor. 10: 16) and distributed. One of the unfortunate pitfalls of this early format was that, as Paul goes on to say (at least of the Church in Corinth) some arrived early and began to get drunk and eat until their fill while others arrived late and might go with nothing. Paul describes this as a complete disgrace and a sin against the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, because the Corinthians were not taking it seriously, but were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Sacrament and treating it with the very real seriousness it deserves.

It's the Eucharist. It was the Eucharist yesterday, it is the Eucharist today, it is the Eucharist tomorrow: It is always the very same Jesus Christ, the full Jesus in all His Deity and humanity, His real flesh and real blood.

And to bring this back on topic, my point really is simply this:

Any self-proclaimed prophet or apostle would know and confess this; if they don't, then they preach contrary to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and thus cannot be apostles; and they preach contrary to the whole testimony and witness of Scripture and the profession and confession of Jesus' Church, they cannot therefore be a prophet since they speak contrary to the Prophets.

To deny the basic and elementary teachings of the Christian faith, of which the Lord's Presence in His Holy Supper is one, is to disqualify oneself instantly from such bold claims.

I don't think that the real Apostles and Prophets of God were perfect by any stretch of the imagination, Peter was rightfully rebuked by St. Paul for displaying cowardice in the face of the envoys from Jerusalem. But this pales in comparison to the denial of the Eucharist, or of Holy Baptism, or of the faithful preaching of the Gospel, or the resurrection of the dead, etc.

If I believe that actively teaching false doctrine renders a self-professed pastor unfit for their duties, you can definitely bet that I think it completely negates any claim to being something more than that, such as an apostle or prophet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

The modern conception of the Eucharist is essentially the same as observed by the early church, as attested to by the ECFs and continuous practice of the ancient chruches. Scripture can often be interpreted in more than one way, but we also have the historical understanding at hand.

The question of historical practice is irrelevant to the passage, even if the propaganda were true.

 

[Fervent]

It's been noted through the centuries that John doesn't have contain the traditional Institution narrative as the Synoptics, but rather it's Eucharistic passage comes here, in John 6. Likewise we see Baptismal language used in John 3, when speaking to Nicodemus about new birth.

Part of the trouble with John can be that it's chronological account of events in Jesus' ministry differs substantially from that of the Synoptics. For example, the cleansing of the Temple occurs much earlier in the Gospel of John than it does in the Synoptics. This has led some to argue that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice--a position that I think only adds further complication and makes the Gospel narrative confusing. Rather we can take some wisdom from the ancient Church, which recognized that that either the Synoptics or John are out of chronological order; some argued that John has the right chronology. Though I think it more sensible to recognize that the Synoptics contain a better chronology; whereas the Gospel of John is far less interested in the timing of Jesus' works and words, and so instead is ordered thematically rather than chronologically.

In any event, the Apostles would have been able to remember the Lord's words in John 6, and coupled with the Words of Institution as recorded in the Synoptics, we have the basis for the Eucharistic theology of the ancient and apostolic Church--the theology that we see expressed by St. Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. And which was continued to be believed ever since; this can be observed by the witness and testimony of the writings of the fathers and of the many theologians and various churchmen down through the centuries.

You say "modern Eucharist", but I'm just talking about the Eucharist, which has been the same since the earliest followers of the Lord met together and "broke bread", as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. The only difference is one of external format: Originally the Eucharist was celebrated as an agape (aka "love feast"), very likely in the format of complete meal in which the bread and wine were consecrated (e.g. "the cup of blessing which we bless" 1 Cor. 10: 16) and distributed. One of the unfortunate pitfalls of this early format was that, as Paul goes on to say (at least of the Church in Corinth) some arrived early and began to get drunk and eat until their fill while others arrived late and might go with nothing. Paul describes this as a complete disgrace and a sin against the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, because the Corinthians were not taking it seriously, but were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Sacrament and treating it with the very real seriousness it deserves.

It's the Eucharist. It was the Eucharist yesterday, it is the Eucharist today, it is the Eucharist tomorrow: It is always the very same Jesus Christ, the full Jesus in all His Deity and humanity, His real flesh and real blood.

And to bring this back on topic, my point really is simply this:

Any self-proclaimed prophet or apostle would know and confess this; if they don't, then they preach contrary to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and thus cannot be apostles; and they preach contrary to the whole testimony and witness of Scripture and the profession and confession of Jesus' Church, they cannot therefore be a prophet since they speak contrary to the Prophets.

To deny the basic and elementary teachings of the Christian faith, of which the Lord's Presence in His Holy Supper is one, is to disqualify oneself instantly from such bold claims.

I don't think that the real Apostles and Prophets of God were perfect by any stretch of the imagination, Peter was rightfully rebuked by St. Paul for displaying cowardice in the face of the envoys from Jerusalem. But this pales in comparison to the denial of the Eucharist, or of Holy Baptism, or of the faithful preaching of the Gospel, or the resurrection of the dead, etc.

If I believe that actively teaching false doctrine renders a self-professed pastor unfit for their duties, you can definitely bet that I think it completely negates any claim to being something more than that, such as an apostle or prophet.

-CryptoLutheran

While that may be an accepted traditional interpretation, it shows the flaw with going with tradition. John is absent the institution of ordinances/sacraments/whatever you want to call them. John 3 is not about baptism, it is only through bringing in an understanding of baptism that it can be read as such. John 6, also, has no indication within the text that there is any sort of Eucharistic thought. No aside by the narrator, no mention of the practice at all. The "hard teaching" is directly related to the earlier miracle, as most of the audience followed him because he filled their stomachs. Understanding it as indicating a liturgical institution is to add to what is present in the text.

 

[fhansen]

The question of historical practice is irrelevant to the passage, even if the propaganda were true.

It should be at least more relevant than your own propaganda, aka private opinion/interpretation, as the understanding and lived experience of the early church should certainly hold more weight.

 

[Fervent]

It should be at least more relevant than your own propaganda, aka private opinion/interpretation, as the understanding and lived experience of the early church should certainly hold more weight.

There are no intermediaries needed in my relationship with God. The Holy Scriptures by the light of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.

 

[fhansen]

There are no intermediaries needed in my relationship with God. The Holy Scriptures by the light of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.

Sure, of course, with another partly flawed doctrine, Sola Scriptura.

We all have to determine for ourselves where our information comes from. For many, it comes via a tradition begun by the Reformers, supplemented by our own reading and understanding. Others, many of whom have been simple and illiterate folk down though the centuries, received the gospel from the church as was done at the beginning. Either way, we must all seek understanding for ourselves. Going by Scripture, alone, however, many Spirit-led people often come up with very different, yet plausible interpretations/understandings of the faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

While that may be an accepted traditional interpretation, it shows the flaw with going with tradition. John is absent the institution of ordinances/sacraments/whatever you want to call them. John 3 is not about baptism, it is only through bringing in an understanding of baptism that it can be read as such. John 6, also, has no indication within the text that there is any sort of Eucharistic thought. No aside by the narrator, no mention of the practice at all. The "hard teaching" is directly related to the earlier miracle, as most of the audience followed him because he filled their stomachs. Understanding it as indicating a liturgical institution is to add to what is present in the text.

Is there a reason to reject the historic interpretation--the one that those who directly knew and studied with the Apostles themselves subscribed to--as wrong? Why? Why is it wrong, and why is a modern, innovative interpretation better?

Because I was raised in a church environment that told me that the "water" in John 3:5 referred to embryonic fluid. And I believed that right up until I was almost in my mid-20's. But that positions just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, and seems to be the kind of thing someone just made up one day.

Except, here's the kicker, it really turns out that the most obvious meaning of "water" in John 3:5 is just that: water. The whole context of this makes far more sense when we understand Jesus' words to Nicodemus, that Nicodemus was a rabbi and yet didn't understand Jesus' words here. The strong implication being that Jesus wasn't saying something that should have left Nicodemus totally befuddled as to think Jesus meant re-entering the womb. And that's because Jesus' words make complete sense in the context of Judaism.

Ritual purification in water, in particular through the mikveh, was ubiquitous in Judaism, both in Jesus' day and our day. There were lots of reasons for washing in a mikveh, such as before going and entering the Temple. One of the reasons for the washing in a mikveh, however, was its function as part of process of conversion to Judaism.

When a Gentile converted to Judaism, while circumcision was required for male converts, all converts were to be washed in a mikveh. The washing in the mikveh washed away, as it were, the old life and brought in a new life: they are "born again" as Jews. You can even see this language in modern Jewish writers who talk about the meaning and significance of the mikveh in conversion. Noteworthy addendum: Conversion was not only of individual adults, but of whole families and households. So, yes, infants and small children were also being washed in the mikveh, and they were counted as converts to Judaism.

So when Jesus talks about new birth, and clarifies by speaking of that birth which is of water and the Spirit, Jesus isn't speaking in riddles to confuse Nicodemus. While the Lord does not institute the Sacrament of Holy Baptism until the Great Commission, we have that which points toward the Sacrament throughout the Gospels. We see it when Jesus Himself was baptized by St. John the Baptist, for there in the water God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are manifestly present--the image that would forever cement itself in the Church as the imagery of Holy Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What possible valid reason is there not to believe that "water and the Spirit" means, literally, water and the Spirit?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

Is there a reason to reject the historic interpretation--the one that those who directly knew and studied with the Apostles themselves subscribed to--as wrong? Why? Why is it wrong, and why is a modern, innovative interpretation better?

Because I was raised in a church environment that told me that the "water" in John 3:5 referred to embryonic fluid. And I believed that right up until I was almost in my mid-20's. But that positions just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, and seems to be the kind of thing someone just made up one day.

Except, here's the kicker, it really turns out that the most obvious meaning of "water" in John 3:5 is just that: water. The whole context of this makes far more sense when we understand Jesus' words to Nicodemus, that Nicodemus was a rabbi and yet didn't understand Jesus' words here. The strong implication being that Jesus wasn't saying something that should have left Nicodemus totally befuddled as to think Jesus meant re-entering the womb. And that's because Jesus' words make complete sense in the context of Judaism.

Ritual purification in water, in particular through the mikveh, was ubiquitous in Judaism, both in Jesus' day and our day. There were lots of reasons for washing in a mikveh, such as before going and entering the Temple. One of the reasons for the washing in a mikveh, however, was its function as part of process of conversion to Judaism.

When a Gentile converted to Judaism, while circumcision was required for male converts, all converts were to be washed in a mikveh. The washing in the mikveh washed away, as it were, the old life and brought in a new life: they are "born again" as Jews. You can even see this language in modern Jewish writers who talk about the meaning and significance of the mikveh in conversion. Noteworthy addendum: Conversion was not only of individual adults, but of whole families and households. So, yes, infants and small children were also being washed in the mikveh, and they were counted as converts to Judaism.

So when Jesus talks about new birth, and clarifies by speaking of that birth which is of water and the Spirit, Jesus isn't speaking in riddles to confuse Nicodemus. While the Lord does not institute the Sacrament of Holy Baptism until the Great Commission, we have that which points toward the Sacrament throughout the Gospels. We see it when Jesus Himself was baptized by St. John the Baptist, for there in the water God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are manifestly present--the image that would forever cement itself in the Church as the imagery of Holy Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What possible valid reason is there not to believe that "water and the Spirit" means, literally, water and the Spirit?

-CryptoLutheran

If your prejudicial questions were accurate, perhaps there would be weight to it. But simply because an interpretation has come to be a traditional one does not mean it traces back to those who knew the apostles. Do you have an example of such an interpretation?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If your prejudicial questions were accurate, perhaps there would be weight to it. But simply because an interpretation has come to be a traditional one does not mean it traces back to those who knew the apostles. Do you have an example of such an interpretation?

It's ubiquitous throughout the writings of the early fathers, including the earliest fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, who learned under the Apostles and succeeded Peter and Paul's ministry in Antioch as bishop. Ignatius pretty explicitly says in his Epistle to the Magnesians, "[The heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch. 7). Irenaeus, though later had learned under Polycarp, who had learned under John and who was already bishop of Smryna when John wrote the Revelation (in other words, Polycarp was the pastor of the church in Smyrna, one of the seven churches to whom John wrote the Revelation). Here is what Irenaeus writes in his five volume tome against the Gnostic heretics of his day,

"It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith." - Against the Falsely-called Knowledge (aka Against Heresies), Book I, Ch. 21.1

I've chosen Irenaeus for Baptism not because his work is the earliest to be this clear, but because I specifically wanted to provide a clear connection between the Apostles, Ignatius, Polycarp, and finally Iraneaus. Both Ignatius and Polycarp, though many years apart in age (Ignatius was an old man at the time of his death by martyrdom in 107 AD, at the time Polycarp was still the pretty young bishop of Smyrna, and the two were close friends), and Irenaeus speaks of his time with the aged Polycarp in his youth. We are talking about men deeply committed to preserving the faith that they themselves had received from the generation before them. Ignatius preaches fidelity to the same faith he had received from the Apostles, so likewise does Irenaeus insist on holding to that same faith. The same teaching of the Apostles, which men like Ignatius and Polycarp dutifully continued to preach, and continued to be preached by the generation following them, and so on.

Let's put this another way: Where do you think these guys got all their ideas? Why do we have this unanimous position through all these writings from various individuals spanning across wide spans of geography, from Hispania and Gaul all the way to Egypt and Syria, we see the same position on the matter of Baptism and the Eucharist. Over and over and over again.

Because if the immediate generation of Christians after the Apostles couldn't even manage to get even the most basic things right about Christianity, then the rest of us are in pretty terrible shape. That's why all forms of Restorationism fail; Restorationism requires there to have been some kind of widespread apostasy that resulted in the loss of fundamental Christian truth that needs to be restored. And that, that reckons the whole of Christianity unreliable. Because if the Church got everything so wrong that someone has to come later to "restore" the "true church", then first of all Jesus is a liar because He says His Church will prevail even against the gates of hell. Secondly it also makes even the Bible suspect, because the entire list of canonical books that make up the Bible depend on the fidelity of the Church in preserving Scripture. Why should we trust apostates on what is and isn't divinely inspired?

As I see it we have only a couple options:

Either the Apostles succeeded in faithfully handing down the faith they themselves speak about in the New Testament, and that is what we see confessed in the early writings of the Church. Or, alternatively, the Apostles failed, and it's impossible to know what the Apostles believed and taught.

I don't believe the Apostles failed. I don't believe the Church failed. Not because I believe the Church is infallible (it's not), but because I believe in the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

It's ubiquitous throughout the writings of the early fathers, including the earliest fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, who learned under the Apostles and succeeded Peter and Paul's ministry in Antioch as bishop. Ignatius pretty explicitly says in his Epistle to the Magnesians, "[The heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch. 7). Irenaeus, though later had learned under Polycarp, who had learned under John and who was already bishop of Smryna when John wrote the Revelation (in other words, Polycarp was the pastor of the church in Smyrna, one of the seven churches to whom John wrote the Revelation). Here is what Irenaeus writes in his five volume tome against the Gnostic heretics of his day,

"It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith." - Against the Falsely-called Knowledge (aka Against Heresies), Book I, Ch. 21.1

I've chosen Irenaeus for Baptism not because his work is the earliest to be this clear, but because I specifically wanted to provide a clear connection between the Apostles, Ignatius, Polycarp, and finally Iraneaus. Both Ignatius and Polycarp, though many years apart in age (Ignatius was an old man at the time of his death by martyrdom in 107 AD, at the time Polycarp was still the pretty young bishop of Smyrna, and the two were close friends), and Irenaeus speaks of his time with the aged Polycarp in his youth. We are talking about men deeply committed to preserving the faith that they themselves had received from the generation before them. Ignatius preaches fidelity to the same faith he had received from the Apostles, so likewise does Irenaeus insist on holding to that same faith. The same teaching of the Apostles, which men like Ignatius and Polycarp dutifully continued to preach, and continued to be preached by the generation following them, and so on.

Let's put this another way: Where do you think these guys got all their ideas? Why do we have this unanimous position through all these writings from various individuals spanning across wide spans of geography, from Hispania and Gaul all the way to Egypt and Syria, we see the same position on the matter of Baptism and the Eucharist. Over and over and over again.

Because if the immediate generation of Christians after the Apostles couldn't even manage to get even the most basic things right about Christianity, then the rest of us are in pretty terrible shape. That's why all forms of Restorationism fail; Restorationism requires there to have been some kind of widespread apostasy that resulted in the loss of fundamental Christian truth that needs to be restored. And that, that reckons the whole of Christianity unreliable. Because if the Church got everything so wrong that someone has to come later to "restore" the "true church", then first of all Jesus is a liar because He says His Church will prevail even against the gates of hell. Secondly it also makes even the Bible suspect, because the entire list of canonical books that make up the Bible depend on the fidelity of the Church in preserving Scripture. Why should we trust apostates on what is and isn't divinely inspired?

As I see it we have only a couple options:

Either the Apostles succeeded in faithfully handing down the faith they themselves speak about in the New Testament, and that is what we see confessed in the early writings of the Church. Or, alternatively, the Apostles failed, and it's impossible to know what the Apostles believed and taught.

I don't believe the Apostles failed. I don't believe the Church failed. Not because I believe the Church is infallible (it's not), but because I believe in the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

None of those seem to be comments on John, though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

None of those seem to be comments on John, though.

Irenaeus specifically addresses what Jesus says in John ch. 3 here:

"It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'" - Irenaeus, Fragment 34 of the Lost Fragmented Works of Irenaeus

Clement of Alexandria says the following, referencing Jesus' words in John 6, speaking of how we are nourished by His flesh and blood.

"The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. 'Eat ye My flesh,' He says, 'and drink My blood.' Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh." - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I. Ch. 6

What exactly are you looking for? What would satisfy your question?

Because consistently the fathers talk about Baptism and the Lord's Supper; that Baptism is new birth, that the Eucharist is the very flesh and blood of Jesus.

Looking for direct scriptual references in the earliest fathers is difficult, because they wrote at a time after most of the books of the New Testament were written, but before there was a New Testament. Works were already in circulation, and the earliest "New Testament" probably looked mostly like a collection of Paul's letters, and maybe at least some of the Gospels (it's really impossible to say at this point in history).

The earliest mention of all four Gospels (and only those four Gospels) as Scripture is Irenaeus, though he treats it as a matter of fact, which indicates that the acceptance of only these four Gospels had been around already for a time and was common among the churches. And we see the earliest list of New Testament books in the Muratorian Fragment, which lists all four Gospels.

As such, we don't really start to see specific Gospel text references until the late 2nd and into the early 3rd century.

That isn't to say that references and quotes don't exist (they do), but it's uncommon.

The Church seems to have become highly motivated to canonize Scripture as a response to prominent 2nd century heretics, namely Marcion of Sinope and Montanus of Phrygia.

Marcion was the son of a wealth merchant family from Sinope, on the coast of the Black Sea. Without getting too bogged down in details, Marcion while visiting the Church in Rome came to the conclusion that that the God Jesus talked about was an entirely different God than the God mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures. Marcion taught that Jesus introduced a new god, "Abba", and that the old god, YHWH worshiped by the Jews was in fact a false god. Unsurprisingly, this got Marcion in trouble with the local clergy in Rome. He ended up being excommunicated for heresy, but instead of repenting he went on to create his own rival Marcionite Church. To that end, Marcion decided to create the first ever "Christian" Bible, consisting only of the Gospel of Luke (which Marcion edited and renamed "The Gospel of the Lord"), and most of the Epistles of Paul (again, edited to remove anything Jewish).

Marcion's movement was a big deal. And copies of Marcion's edited works of Paul's letters actually caused some trouble in the early Church, as both the authentic and the now manipulated letters of Paul existed at the same time. Marcion's "Bible" is often credited as being one of the impetuses for the Church to start having clearer boundaries over what is and isn't Scripture.

The second issue was the Montanist movement. In Phrygia a man by the name of Montanus along with two women began preaching that the new era of the Spirit had come, and that Montanus and his two prophetesses were the prophets and harbingers of this new era. Montanus' teaching (Montanism) was that history was to be divided into three epochs, the age of the Father, the age of the Son, and the age of the Spirit. According to Montanus, the age of the Father was the time before Christ, the age of the Son was the time of Christ until the time of Montanus, and now with Montanus the new era of the Spirit has come. Claiming to bear new revelations, and preaching a highly ascetical and moralistic rigor, Montanism became quite attractive, it even fooled Tertullian of Carthage, a formerly highly respected Christian theologian and considered the first of the Latin Fathers (that is, the earliest Christian writer who wrote in Latin, as opposed to Greek).

So between these two: Marcionitism which sought to produce a peculiarly Marcionite Bible; and the Montanists on the other who essentially claimed that Montanus and his companions were the literal mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit; the Church's response was to emphasize the received revelation and received Scriptures--and it is at this point that we start to see local Christian bishops and communities start to codify a Canon of Scripture (though there was already an emerging proto-New Testament at the time anyway).

So when dealing with this early history, it is important to temper our expectations. Instead we have to rely on the information we do have.

And you are free to see it for yourself. Here's a website where you can search any Bible reference you want and get a list of results from the writings of the fathers: Church Fathers Scripture Index and you can browse the fathers at here: CHURCH FATHERS: Home

-CryptoLutheran