Body and Blood - In History

patricius79 said:

I think that the historical Trinitarian Church teaches the same as the N.T.


23 11 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, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Offer this as my memorial offering." 25 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." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 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. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Click to expand...

I think it clearly and painfully obvious it does not.

Bump

Standing Up said:

IIRC, Cyprian is typically pointed to as the earliest reference to when the notion of a priest and resacrifice surfaced.

Basically we have two concepts that arose like lovers strolling through the garden planning their future.

1) Separate office of NT priest versus priesthood of believer.

2) Sacrifice daily of Christ Jesus versus done once for all.

The reason for this is that a sacrifice requires a priest and a priest requires a sacrifice. And it was a power/control thing.

As to priesthood of believer, we offer our bodies (not Christ's) as living sacrifices. Or as Peter instructed, fruit of our lips giving praise (thanksgiving).

So, as we'll discover if we can address the issues, rather than people, is the two concepts developed apart from and arose out of pagan notions, not apostles. Christianity was to be unique---all are priests, offering self, not something else, all may approach God, not just a select few, nothing was hidden, but all revealed.

Click to expand...

Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter.
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

They could have said "very shortly after" and we all could still draw the same conclusion; that is, not apostolic teaching.

But hey, what does orthodoxwiki know anyway

Rick Otto said:

They think it happened as the eucharist changed from a remembrance to a sacrifice supporting the non sequitur of a literalized metaphor.
Luke22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cor11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Click to expand...

Finally got my hands on a really good concordance of the Greek OT.

Other than the two references you provide, anamnésis is used only one other time in the NT, Hebrews 10:3 "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder(anamnésis) of sin year after year."

It's used only 4 times in the OT:
Leviticus 24:7 And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial(anamnésis) portion to be offered by fire to the LORD.

Numbers 10:10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance(anamnésis) before your God: I am the LORD your God."

Psalm 38:1 A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. O LORD, rebuke me not in thy anger, nor chasten me in thy wrath!

Psalm 70:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. Be pleased, O God, to deliver me! O LORD, make haste to help me!

Every single time the word is used in Scripture, it's in reference to a memorial, sacrificial offering. Could be a clue.

narnia59 said:

Finally got my hands on a really good concordance of the Greek OT.

Other than the two references you provide, anamnésis is used only one other time in the NT, Hebrews 10:3 "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder(anamnésis) of sin year after year."

It's used only 4 times in the OT:
Leviticus 24:7 And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial(anamnésis) portion to be offered by fire to the LORD.

Numbers 10:10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance(anamnésis) before your God: I am the LORD your God."

Psalm 38:1 A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. O LORD, rebuke me not in thy anger, nor chasten me in thy wrath!

Psalm 70:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. Be pleased, O God, to deliver me! O LORD, make haste to help me!

Every single time the word is used in Scripture, it's in reference to a memorial, sacrificial offering. Could be a clue.

Click to expand...

It is always used in reference to what we would call a "Liturgical" act.

It is a "making present".

What about the Didache? Does it have anything to say about the Eucharist?

Montalban said:

I hope that some evidence of an introduction of a novel teaching can be provided.

Click to expand...

it goes back to Paul...he was quite the innovator, apparently:

16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

Rick Otto said:

You did both. You invented & always believed it, but I'm prepared to see what you call evidence otherwise or else you could just let go of your inventions & stop claiming them as true or real.

Click to expand...

And it took Zwingli and Calvin to figure this out, 1500 years after the fact? Talk about being late to the party...



Since this non-physical understanding of the eucharist (as Calvin and Zwingli describe) was completely foreign to the understanding of the Church until they showed up on the scene, would they then qualify as prophets, who received new divine revelation (even though their understanding of it contradicted each other, as evidenced by their arguments on the subject)?

Montalban said:

I refer you yet again to the OP

Click to expand...

Well sorry, but that doesn't actually help me. The OP said this;

Montalban said:

Some have been claiming on another thread that the early church did not believe that the Eucharist was the real body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

What I am asking is, what do you mean by the REAL body and blood of Christ? What that phrase means to ME is that at the last supper the disciples were literally given part of Jesus' own real body to eat and drink. Clearly they weren't and I don't think you believe that either - that he cut off a limb and passed it round for them - so what DO you mean?

I'm also asking if the early church believed that this was what was happening - that they were eating the REAL, actual, body and blood of Christ. If so, where does it say this?

If they DID, then obviously at some point the canabalistic practice of eating a piece of human flesh was replaced by the practice of eating a piece of bread which they said represented the bread of life, i.e Jesus. In which case, I don't know when that practice of breaking bread, rather than eating Jesus' flesh, was brought in. My belief is that it never was - it was present from the word go.

narnia59 said:

Finally got my hands on a really good concordance of the Greek OT.

Other than the two references you provide, anamnésis is used only one other time in the NT, Hebrews 10:3 "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder(anamnésis) of sin year after year."

It's used only 4 times in the OT:
Leviticus 24:7 And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial(anamnésis) portion to be offered by fire to the LORD.

Numbers 10:10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance(anamnésis) before your God: I am the LORD your God."

Psalm 38:1 A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. O LORD, rebuke me not in thy anger, nor chasten me in thy wrath!

Psalm 70:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, for the memorial(anamnésis) offering. Be pleased, O God, to deliver me! O LORD, make haste to help me!

Every single time the word is used in Scripture, it's in reference to a memorial, sacrificial offering. Could be a clue.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean every time in OT scripture?
I think THAT is a clue.
Hos6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

The willing sacrifice of Christ is mercy.

quote=Montalban;Look up "always", unless you think our church 'begot' this doctrine, or are using it in a figurative sense perhaps

Click to expand...

Of course they did. I'm using the word in the same sense you do, lol.

If you could re-state that so it makes sense, that would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you could state how it doesn't make any, I could have a chance to appreciate what you mean by "sense"


It seems you're asking me for evidence for something; I've no idea what. Apparently if I can't produce this evidence for something I can stop claiming something unknown is either true, or real.
[/quote]Like a "real" presence?