Irenaeus on transubstantiation

This does not mean that it changes from one thing to another but would mean that when we partake of the wine we partake of the blood of Christ.

Of course anyone can get the church fathers to say what they want the church fathers to say.

East Anglican said:

This does not mean that it changes from one thing to another but would mean that when we partake of the wine we partake of the blood of Christ.

Of course anyone can get the church fathers to say what they want the church fathers to say.

Click to expand...

Patricius79 only supplied quotes. Irenaeus's writings are clear enough.

Regarding the sacred meal / Eucharist in earliest Judao-Christian culture (of say, the first, and pre-first century writings). The ordinance was certain an authentic part of Judao-Christian culture as described in the first century writings though I think the doctrine of “trans-substantiation of bread and wine into actual body parts of Jesus” was NOT part of the earliest Christian doctrine, but the theory that the bread and wine Actually BECAME THE FLESH AND BLOOD of Jesus, was developed in later Christian theories, such as developed in some second and third century Christianities. Thus, one can benefit of the study of the type of Christianities that existed BEFORE IRENAEUS, and what sort of doctrines THEY taught.


1) I believe that in the earliest Christianities, it was more clear that the Bread and Wine was SYMBOLIC of the Body and Blood of Jesus, (rather than bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood of Jesus which was then eaten by his followers).


Many of the early Judao-christian texts speak of the sacred, communal meal as a TYPE, or a SYMBOL, by which Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement was to be remembered. For those christianities, the eucharist meal was in obedience to the principle

“... when I am to depart from you, remember me.” (The Apocryphon of James)

Click to expand...

“The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the TYPE of the blood for which thanks is given. “ (The gospel of Phillip)

Click to expand...

Thus the early and orthodox christian Didache, describes the Eucharist in clear SYMBOLIC terms as a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE of God’s son. For example :

“concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread” “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.” (The Didache 9:1-4)

Click to expand...

The symbolism regarding the eucharist continues in the next sentence : “ Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; The Didache 9:1-4. These are clearly symbolic principles (though they represent important realities)

In this context as a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE the didache relates

“Now, concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows”.

Click to expand...

And, after describing first the cup, and then concerning the bread it relates

“let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for the Lord has also spoken concerning this“ (The Didache 9:1-3 and 5)

Click to expand...

(Since the Eucharist involved an ordinance; a thankful remembrance; AND a covenant to live by Jesus’ teachings, then those who were NOT making the covenant, were NOT to partake of the eucharist, thus the line in the early christian Eucharist prayer said :

“If anyone is holy (i.e. had made the covenant), let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen (Didache 155:10:6)

Click to expand...

.
.
.
.
2) This Communal “meal”, in it’s context and symbolic connection to the messiah was an integral part of the Jewish remembrance of the expected messiah as well. Thus the dead sea Jewish Charter says :

“When gathered at the communal table, having set out bread and wine so that the communal table is set for eating and the wine poured for drinking, none may reach for the first portion of the bread or the wine before the Priest. For he shall bless the first portion of the bread and the wine, reaching for the bread first. Afterward the Messiah of Israel shall reach for the bread. Finally, each member of the whole congregation of the Yahad shall give a blessing in descending order of rank. This procedure shall govern every meal, provided at least ten men are gathered together.” (CHARTER FOR ISRAEL IN THE LAST DAYS 1QSa, 1Q28a Col. 1)

Click to expand...

(It was such “christian-like” descriptions that caused the Dead Sea Scrolls such discomfort among the Jewish Scholars after their discovery. Thus some Jewish scholars attempted to claim that these pre-70 a.d. scrolls were “christian”.)


In the same prohibition contained in the Christians Didache, the Jewish Charter prohibited unbelievers from partaking of ordinances without FIRST making the covenant central to the ordinance. In the context of baptism for example, they said regarding those who refuse to enter their society :

“Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity. Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered, and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean. Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow. (CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col. 3)

Click to expand...

Thus, of the Jewish Baptism it was taught

“...in the truth of Your covenant…to cleanse oneself from uncleanness…and THEN he shall enter the water (BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414)

Click to expand...

THE JEWISH “EUCHARIST” “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYMBOLICALLY, ANTICIPATED THE COMING MESSIAH had deep parallels to THE CHRISTIAN “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYBOLICALLY REMEMBERED THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH.

Not only were unbelievers prohibited from participation in the eucharist or baptism, but BOTH were to be done only under proper priesthood authority, Thus Ignatius taught

“Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomsoever he himself designates) is to be considered valid..... It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the Bishop. (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2)

Click to expand...

By the way, lest it seem to be simple “elitism” on the part of the Christians, who prohibited unbelievers from partaking of ordinances of baptism and eucharist, one might remember that there were individuals who professed to be Christian, but who had no “works of Christianity” (who were thus seen as counterfeits by early Christianities) who still wanted to engage in the authentic ordinances of authentic Christianity. Of those, Ignatius said :

“Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of god. They have no concern for love; none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty.” “They abstain from the Eucharist....Therefore those who deny the good gift of God perish in their contentiousness.” (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 6:2 and 7:1)

Click to expand...

Thus, just as there exists a great deal of counterfeit christianity nowadays, there were counterfeit christians in the first century who neither understood nor partook worthily of the Eucharist.

One may certainly argue that the earlier Christians were incorrect in their belief that the bread and wine were SYMBOLS OF JESUS’s flesh and blood they were eating, rather than eating ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS of later christianities, still, for those Christians, the bread and wine were symbols.



Clearly
twactzcv

Why would you use gnostic gospels to support the idea that the Eucharist is symbolic?

Dark lite asked : Why would you use gnostic gospels to support the idea that the Eucharist is symbolic?

Click to expand...

The value in including SEVERAL sources, including gnostics; dead sea scrolls; Ignatius; the didache; is to show that multiple sources, separated by a great deal of space; and tradition believed in a single issue.

Religionists most often see their personal theories through their personal interpretations of a single source, mainly the Bible. The arguments they get into often simply involved a list of competing scriptures that competing christianities interpret the way they want.

Few individuals ask what the early Judao-christians themselves said that they themselves believed in their own writings. Often, obscure doctrines are made very clear in the early hymns; the diaries of the earliest Christians; and in their biographies and in their early histories.

For example Clement (a patrologic document) was written at the same time as Revelations and reflects the doctrines of the christianity of the time. Clement knew the Apostle Peter well and was taught Christian doctrine from the mouth of Peter; Clement was taught the current orthodoxy at THAT time in church history (though what is claimed by later christianities to be "orthodoxy" changes over time). When Clement asks Peter about the purpose of God's having created the world, the answer Peter gives is valuable and reflects the earliest teaching, through the eyes of it's writer. Peter's descriptions of Christianity to the "soon-to-be" Christian Convert Clement not only reflect early doctrines, but WHY certain doctrines were taught before other doctrines; why certain things became misunderstood and muddled; why there is so much confusion among christianities; etc.

In short, there are certain themes that are consistent in many, many of the early Judao-Christian texts; in their hymns; in their diaries; in their liturgies; and in their letters and other writings. If there are themes that ARE consistent among multiple early christianites, (especially if corroborated by multiple literatures of the time) then those consistent themes that have a higher chance of being authentic early teachings.

As I read the earliest literature of the period, I do NOT believe the early Judao-Christians believed that, by eating the bread and wine in the eucharistic communal meal, they were eating the actual body of Jesus, nor were they drinking the actual blood of Jesus. Rather I believe the earliest literature shows that they understood that the Bread and Wine SYMBOLIZED the messiah. I believe that the theory of "trans-substantiation" was a later invention closer to Irenaeus' type of christianity.


Dark Lite; I hope it makes sense why, historically, one would want multiple sources in trying to determine what individuals of these early periods believed so as to help avoid the tendency to simply reduce our arguments to a private interpretation of a single source. You are welcome to provide your own sources from the period I am writing from that show differently. However, I think you will find and demonstrate that it is the LATER documents in LATER christianities who started believing that they were eating and drinking the actual body and blood of Jesus.




Clearly
twacsees

I greatly respect your scholarship, Clearly,
But I have noticed that you tend to let non-canonical literature outweigh the Bible. I agree with you here that Transsubstantiation is refuted by testimony that the meal included the bread and the wine, but this does not argue against the Biblical witness that the Body and Blood were present as well. It's more that symbolic.

Hello Korah;

Korah said “.. I have noticed that you tend to let non-canonical literature outweigh the Bible.

Click to expand...

This is untrue Korah. I read and study and respect sacred biblical text as much as anyone I know. I do NOT let other texts “outweigh the bible”. I use early texts to SUPPLEMENT my understanding as to what early Judao-christians believed (just as you might use a book on biblical history to supplement your own understanding of the Bible itself).

"...as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt 26:26-27 (Lk 22:19-20)"

Click to expand...

Various christianities READ these words and come away with entirely different understandings as to what Jesus meant by them. The specific question in this context is NOT what the modern christianities think these words mean, but what did such words mean to the earliest Christians. (There are other historical issues underlying the question, such as the correctness of the current record. DID Jesus use these specific words, or were the original words somewhat different? Did the original instruction clarify symbolism more than the modern version we have of Jesus' words?, etc)

In my attempts to understand what the earliest christianities' doctrines must have looked like and what they believed, I certainly use the bible, but I will also use early texts which were sacred to these Judao-Christians; I will use early Judao-Christian diaries; I will use early Judao-Christian hymns; I will use early Judao-Christian liturgy, I will use just about any text I can to try to understand what early Judao-Christianities must have been like.

However ALL written texts must still be interpreted by the reader in order for any personal sense to be derived from the written words. This is true whether one is reading a Harry Potter novel or the Morning Newspaper or the Bible. It is important to understand that the EARLIEST Judao-Christians would NOT have interpreted the LATER biblical text * in the same way that modern Christians interpret them. (* the New Testament did not exist in this earliest time period)

Remember that the modern biblical text EVOLVED into it’s somewhat arbitrary modern forms. Thus certain books WERE included in early biblical texts (e.g. hermas, clement, enoch, barnabas and others) which were later excluded in the roman-influenced bible. This is why one can see many, many quotations from the Book of Enoch in the New Testament text which the writers of the early Biblical text obviously read, since they quoted from it as scripture. James, the great apocryphologist found more than 127 quotes from Enoch in the Western New Testament alone. Thus, if you read the Western New Testament, you ARE reading Enoch, you are just unaware of it.

The various biblical texts developed differently according to circumstance. For example, Western, Roman-dominated Christianity would not have favored the earlier descriptions of the trinity and thus enoch was excluded from their biblical text. Eastern Christianity (e.g. ethiopian) was more favorable to the earlier version of the trinity and thus they STILL retain Enoch in their Old Testament. (That is partly why The modern EASTERN Old Testament has more books in their bible than the west). This is an oversimplification since there were many other reasons for versions of and changes in biblical texts over the centuries. Luther’s intentional exclusion of the second commandment in his first version of the old testament is an obvious example of biblical text driven by personal or societal doctrinal perspective.

Korah said : “I agree with you here that Transsubstantiation is refuted by testimony that the meal included the bread and the wine, but this does not argue against the Biblical witness that the Body and Blood were present as well. It's more that symbolic.”

Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what you mean by your statement that “Transsubstantiation is refuted” yet Jesus' “Body and Blood were present”.

Still, I agree with you that no early Christian believed that they were eating the actual flesh of Jesus nor did they believe that they were drinking the actual blood of Jesus in some sort of cannabalistic eucharistis-communal-sacramental meal. THAT was my single and distinct point. I also agree that symbolism in this case, symbolizes something that is absolutely real and authentic and tangible.

Any other doctrine or theory stands on it’s own, independent of this single and distinct point.

Good luck in coming to your own understanding of these issues Korah



Clearly
drtzaccc

Jesus consecrated His Body and Blood at the Last Supper. This teaches the Real Presence. However, He did not teach Transsubstantiation that the bread and the wine are no longer present at all, that only Body and Blood are present. This was not believed in the early Church. Even RC and EO admit that the elements still look and taste like bread and wine.

Hi Korah; your statement is confusing to me.

Korah said : “Jesus consecrated His Body and Blood at the Last Supper. This teaches the Real Presence.” Post #9

Click to expand...

Your claim (if I understand it correctly) illogically attempts to forcefully combine two separate and distinct principles ("CONSECRATION" and “PRESENCE") into a relationship they do not have.

For example, the CONSECRATION of any item to the service of God such as a laver that is consecrated in the temple; or a sacrifice that is consecrated in the temple, or Aaron and his sons who were consecrated to God’s Service, or Jesus’ Body which is consecrated to God’s purpose, is a SEPARATE principle than whether the item is present at another time period. Consecration of any item to any purpose is unrelated to whether the item is PRESENT in another time and place.

The temple laver; the temple sacrifice; Aaron and his sons, and Jesus Blood are not automatically present at another time period, simply because they are consecrated to some purpose. Simple “dedication” of, or “consecration” of an object, does not relate to the objects presence in another time period nor do I think the first century Christians were confused about this simple and obvious point.


Also, remember, the context is NOT what the RC or the EO churches teach nowadays, but rather what the first century saints believed and taught.



Clearly
drdrtzhh

The Eucharist is a rememberance, it is symbol, and it is also the Body and Blood of Christ. It doesn't have to be one in opposition to the other.

OCA - The Orthodox Faith

"In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).

Hi Christos Anesti;

You have abandoned the context of first century DATA and are simply offering modern opinion instead. This will not do if one is attempting to maintain historical accuracy of the earliest Christianity. Remember, historical context is NOT simply telling us what the RC or the EO churches teach nowadays, but the historical issue is what the first century saints themselves believed and taught.

For example, you offer your personal opinion that the eucharist “is also the Body and Blood of Christ”. I gave some reasons from the early texts why I do NOT believe the early christians indulged in any type of cannabalistic activity, and yet you believe you are eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus. We are at an impasse if we are simply remain on the level of your personal opinion. If, you can offer ANY sacred writings or data from a period earlier than mine stating the Early Christians believed they were indulging in a cannabalistic ordinance, you are still free to offer that data. As I stated, I think you will simply end up proving my point : that it was a LATER christianity that came up with and spread the idea that they were eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood.

For example, you state :

"In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy.” - Christos Anesti in Post #11

Click to expand...

LOOK at the dating of these “various” attempts to explain this strange doctrine. You will find the explanations are LATER inventions and not authentic first century beliefs. There is no data indicating that the FIRST century Christians felt obligated or attempted to explain drinking the actual blood of Jesus nor eating his actual flesh. THEY did not feel the need to explain any doctrine they did not believe in. It is only the LATER christianities who came up with this doctrine who felt obligated to explain the doctrine they created.


I very much agree with you that it is a tragedy that many things that were real became symbolic. But it is no more tragic than something symbolic becoming real. Both processes involve an apostasy of Christianity from original doctrine and understanding. This shows up in the way we improperly analyze ancient christianity.

For example, you seem to believe that the canabalistic eating of Jesus flesh and drinking of Jesus blood is “communion” with Jesus. It is NOT simply the eating of animal flesh that produces the religious experience any more than we “commune” with a pig when we eat a ham sandwich. If you think that original christians, experiencing a “non-canabalistic” eucharist were merely experiencing a psychological “recollection” of Jesus, then I do not think you understand the ordinance and nature of the sacrament/eucharist/communal meal as the early christians experienced it.

When Barnabas asks us to “inquire whether the Lord took care to foreshadow the water and the cross.” he was clearly discussing the symbolism within ordinances. In this regard he explains “it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Barnabas) The evolution of and substitution of ordinances among Israel is no different than the same process of change occurring in later Christianities. This process of change is what Levi spoke of when he testified “you shall wander astray” in the testimony of the 12 patriarchs. When Jubilees says “they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” (Jubilees 1:12-14) it was NOT speaking of an intentional veering off doctrinal course but of unintentional errors concerning ordinances and how they will change.

Consider YOUR logic regarding WHY you believe the eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus : You say :

“the eucharist ...is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols”. - Christos Anesti in post #11

Click to expand...

To claim something is “real because it is symbolic” is nonsensical. This is the type of language that belongs in a philosophical forum rather than an authentic historical discussion. It is not just a shifting of boundaries and definitions, but it is a careless lapse in logic.

Epiphanius, in Panarion reminds us regarding of early changes in Jesus’ instructions, that “they abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the saying, as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the disciples say: Where will you have us prepare the Passover? And him to answer to that: Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with you?” (THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4) Secret Mark also reminds us that such changes have gone on from almost the time the gospels were written down in a relatively stable form..

In the revelation that “his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith ( Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31) it is important to understand that he’s not speaking of anti-christians abandoning sound doctrines, but of “his disciples” who will abandon correct teachings. It is as Clement said, “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts.” (Stromateis 5.113) Anciently, such shifting of doctrinal boundaries has always happened. In the ancient version of illogic and doctrinal carelessness regarding covenants and ordinances it was said “all the boundary shifters and all of it will be done in the age of evil.....they went about spreading lies about His laws and from God’s covenant they strayed... (THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT – Geniza A+B 4Q266 Frag. 1:1-17) Instead of remaining with the simple covenants, they changed them, “they ...[chose] travesties of true religion”... and “overstepped covenant” (4Q266). It’s not only true that “Men create God” (i.e. false versions of him) as is said in Phillip, but “men create ordinances” (or false versions of them).



Unless you have earlier and better data than I have offered, then you and I will simply have to disagree on this subject. You can convince me that I am wrong, but you will have to give me authentic early DATA in order for me to change my mind.

I do not believe first century christians thought they were eating Jesus’ body, nor do I think they believed that they were drinking Jesus’ blood..

I DO agree that the Holy Spirit was very deeply involved in this ordinance and that the Spirit’s influence was part of the profound nature of what was happening in the original and authentic ordinance.

I have given you some of my data from early judao-christian writings as to my reasoning why I believe that the eucharist and communal meal of early Judao-Christianity was NOT a canabalistic meal of Jesus actual blood Nor were they eating the actual flesh of Jesus’ body. If you have no real data to show otherwise, then I think we will remain at an impasse regarding opinions regardless of how many times we repeat our positions.


Clearly


drsedrrr

LOOK at the dating of these “various” attempts to explain this strange doctrine.

Click to expand...

The early Christians simply took the Lords words at face value that the bread and wine was the Body and Blood of Christ. They had no need to come up with a strict philsophical definition of exactly how this took place. Look at the quote from St Ireneaus at the start of this discusion. He simply notes that the bread and win IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He has no need to use the vocabulary of "essence" vs "accidents" or anything of that nature. Those debates came later. The fact that those debates came later in no way implies that the early Christians didn't accept the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ it simply shows that there was no real debate on the nature of how this took place and it was held to be a mystery beyond easy definition.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

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

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

"For anyone who eats of the bread and drinks of the cup without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself""
1 CORINTHIANS 11:29

To claim something is “real because it is symbolic” is nonsensical

Click to expand...

Why?

Christos claimed in post #11 : “the eucharist ...is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols”.
Clearly pointed out in post # 12 : To claim something is “real because it is symbolic” is nonsensical
Christos asked in post #13 : Why?

Christos, I cannot tell if you honestly do not know the concept involved here or are being obstinate. By definition, the SYMBOL of something is NOT the actual and real object itself. The 4 alphabet symbols “S”, “E”, “J’, and “U” can be constructed into the word symbol, “JESUS”. However, it should be plain that these five letters are NOT the actual person Jesus. Whether Jesus is REAL is independent of the SYMBOL.

We have symbols for fictional things. The words “HARRY POTTER” do not symbolize a REAL person, but a fictional person. The letters making up his name (ie the literary “symbol&#8221 are NOT the real Harry Potter, nor does the existence of a literary symbol for an object or person automatically mean the person is real. Please Christos, If you are being honest with me, do not force us to delve into painstaking and time consuming matters of philosophy or rhetoric which has little value and little application to the issue at hand.
.
.
.
.
The Issue at hand is whether the Earliest Judao-Christians believed THEY were eating Jesus actual Flesh and drinking Jesus Actual Blood when THEY partook of their communal sacrament / eucharistic meal. We can quote various versions of multiple scriptures and transliterate the words in various versions of New Testament texts all we want. This still won’t tell us what the earliest Christians believed the words meant.

You simply continue to attempt to justify your own modern belief that you are drinking the actual blood of Jesus and eating the actual flesh of Jesus in your modern version of this ancient communal meal rather than asking what THE ANCIENT Judao-Christians believed THEY were doing. I do NOT think the early Judao-Christians engaged in any sort of canabalistic rituals. And, I've pointed out from the early texts why I believe this.

I’ve pointed out the injunction to the early saints by Jesus that they were to remember Jesus and what he did for them : “... when I am to depart from you, remember me.” (The Apocryphon of James)

I’ve pointed out from multiple sources that early Judao-Christians themselves said that the wine was SYMBOLIC for the blood of Jesus:

“The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the TYPE of the blood for which thanks is given. “ (The gospel of Phillip)

Click to expand...

I've pointed out from the very orthodox and very, very early christian Didache, describes the Eucharist in clear SYMBOLIC terms as a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE of God’s son.

“concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread” “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.” (The Didache 9:1-4)

Click to expand...

The symbolism regarding the eucharist continues in the next sentence : “ Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; The Didache 9:1-4. The broken bread is NOT the church, nor is it the actual gathering, (as your logic suggested, the “bread” is simply “bread&#8221, but the broken bread and what is done with it, is a TYPE of, an example, symbolizing the gathering that was to take place in the church.

These are clearly symbolic principles (though they represent important realities)


I gave, I think, obvious examples from early Judao-Christian texts why I believe that, in this context, the sacrament / eucharist / communal meal was a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE. I quoted the didaches description :

“Now, concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows”.

Click to expand...

I described from the early texts, the prohibition of non-believers; non-disciples partaking of ordinances such as baptism and the eucharist and why the early saints precluded non-disciples from experiencing these ordinances.


I pointed out that even the parallel Judo-Christian ordinance as it is described in the dead sea scrolls was always described in a symbolic context. For example, the description of their eucharist is as follows :

“When gathered at the communal table, having set out bread and wine so that the communal table is set for eating and the wine poured for drinking, none may reach for the first portion of the bread or the wine before the Priest. For he shall bless the first portion of the bread and the wine, reaching for the bread first. Afterward the Messiah of Israel shall reach for the bread. Finally, each member of the whole congregation of the Yahad shall give a blessing in descending order of rank. This procedure shall govern every meal, provided at least ten men are gathered together.” (CHARTER FOR ISRAEL IN THE LAST DAYS 1QSa, 1Q28a Col. 1)

Click to expand...

It makes no sense for the Messiah to eat and drink of his own flesh, nor those present to be eating and drinking of the actual flesh and blood of the person sitting at the head of the table. It was clearly a symbolic ordinance and a type of the atonement that was to be accomplished. Once the atonement was accomplished, the ordinance served exactly the same purpose, but it then looked BACK to the atonement that had then been accomplished.


Thus I pointed out that the MESSIANIC JEWISH “EUCHARIST” “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYMBOLICALLY, ANTICIPATED THE COMING MESSIAH paralleled the THE JUDAO-CHRISTIAN “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYBOLICALLY REMEMBERED THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH.


Again, you are welcome to argue that your personal theories are better or more correct than the early Christian beliefs were, or that these earliest Christians were wrong in their belief that the bread and wine were SYMBOLS OF JESUS’s flesh and blood they were eating, rather than eating ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS of your, more modern christianity. Still, for these Judao-Christians, the bread and wine were obviously symbols of a very real Atonement.


Do you have ANY first century data written by Judo-Christians themselves explaining what they were thinking and doing when they partook of the communal meal / eucharist / sacramental meal?


If you do not have any early data then we remain at an impasse if we are to simply rely on each other's opinions. We are allowed to allow the forum readers to look at the data we've offered and make their own limited and preliminary judgement as to what sounds correct. I am perfectly comfortable to allow the data we've offered to speak for itself.


Clearly
dractwgk

The gospel of Phillip

Click to expand...

The rejection of the Eucharist being His body and blood certainly has antecendents in the gnostic millue. I don't consider the gnostics to be representatives of the authentic Christian tradition though. If many of the Protestants who reject the Orthodox understanding of Eucharist really knew the true origin of their doctrine I think they might change their mind! In gnostic thought matter is evil and the creation of a lesser counter-god. Of course they would look down on a literal understanding of the Eucharistic rite that made use of "profane" matter.

Even so... that statement really doesn't say anything that would rule out the bread becoming His body. If bread is a type of his body than it is the perfect substance to actually become His body in the Eucharistic rite. If bread has symbolic value then it makes sense that the Lord would choose that to become His body in the Eucharist.

I have a quesiton though. St Irenaus lived before the Gospel of Phillip was even written so why would the Gospel of Phillip be an example of early Christian teaching and not St Irenaus ?

“concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread” “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.”

Click to expand...

Yes, the Eucharist is a rememberance and a thanksgiving. I've never argued against that. If you wish to extrapolate from that text that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ thats fine but it's certainly not demanded by the words themselves.

Still, for these Judao-Christians

Click to expand...

Jeudo Christians like whom? The Ebionites? Jewish-"Christian" Gnostics?

What are "Judao-Christians"? Are they better then just plain old "Christians"?

Iaconicstudent asked in post # 16

“What are "Judao-Christians"? Are they better then just plain old "Christians"?”

Click to expand...

Hi Iaconicstudent

There are multiple answers depending upon the context -

For example, most of the early converts to “Christianity” were Jewish. They did not give up all doctrines to become “Christians” since there were many shared doctrines and traditions. (Both groups believe in the 10 commandments for example)

Other individuals we label as “Jews” also believe in Jesus. For example, New Testament Simeon, who see’s the Christ Child in the temple is Jewish, yet he believes in the Child Jesus as the very Messiah the Jews have awaited. He is a messianic Jew who believes in Jesus as the “christ”. He is a Judao-Christian mixture.

Much of the dead Sea Jewish text describe a Judaism that is also Messianic to the extreme. And the lines between Christian doctrines and Jewish doctrines become blurred in many such groups. They baptized, they were lead by 12 leaders (of which three were presiding), they described a meal that clearly parallels and predates the traditional christian eucharist. It is these “christian”-like characteristics which made the early Jewish scholars so very uncomfortable with the dead sea scrolls. (To the point that some Jewish Scholars disavowed their jewish orgins and claimed they were christian). The Christians, who should have been excited by them, did not like them since there was so much “christianity” in them that they felt that it detracted from their claim that Christianity originated with Jesus. The doctrinal discomfort for both sides increases if the copper scroll is genuine, since it would place the group in the center of Jewish Temple Orthodoxy.


Many early Judao-Christian writings are also difficult to place into a single and simple category of “Jewish” or “Christian”.

For example, BOTH Jews AND Christians use similar versions of the Old Testament. This particular library is NOT simply “Jewish”, nor is it “Christian”. Many of the texts that started out as Jewish productions (such as the Old Testament) became very popular and adopted by and for christians for their usage. Enoch is another good example. It is a syncretic document that is much older than the New Testament but which was extemely popular in early christianity before Roman influence dominated the various Christian Churches. Jude quotes from it, james, the apocryphalogist points out more than 127 quotes from Enoch in the New Testament. Esdras was very popular. Though it's origins are Jewish, still, it was very popular among the Christians. For example, when Columbus uses a scripture to determine how much water is on the earths face (and thus how long he might have to travel before coming to land again), he uses Esdras, which is nowadays part of the pseudoepigrapha. However much Jewish in origin, such texts might be, they were still very “christian” in their usage.

There are certain themes that are independent of being “Jewish” or “Christian” or even “Islamic” in origin. The early Abrahamic Youth histories are a good example. The “christian” texts; the “Jewish texts” and the “Islamic texts” all have certain areas of great agreement. The value of using such texts that differ in religious background, and are separated by a great deal of time and space is that one can say that a single doctrine was truly orthodox for a huge number of individuals over a long, long, period of time.

Another example of shared beliefs between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are found in the various texts regarding the fall of Lucifer from heaven and the controversy between Pre-creation Adam and the Pre-fallen Lucifer. Such text corroborate each other and reveal early orthodox doctrines (which may no longer BE orthodox in the more modern versions of these religions).

Just as the themes within various texts are not in a historical sense, “owned” by a single religion such as christianity, the useage of Terms is no longer adequate to label early Christianities and their various connections. For example, most of the various groups that have been dumped under the inadequate, but umbrella term “gnostics”, used the same scriptures as other christians, though they interpreted them differently. It is no different than christianity today. We have multiple competing christian groups who use similar writings, but interpret them very differently. Christos Anesti and I are good examples of this. We read the same verses from the same book and come away with entirely different ideas as to what is meant by the texts.

I’ve got to quit for tonight guys. I’ll try to get back to the forum tomorrow evening late (Sunday) or Monday. I had to write this quickly before I left work, I'll try to correct errors within 36 hours.

Clearly
drnevitt

POST #1 OF 2

CHRISTOS ANESTI - Hi

Christos Anesti wrote

“ ... the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood....”

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

Click to expand...

Christos - thank you for the references and I also appreciate your patience since I have little time for posting (but I do enjoy the interaction of the forum...)


REGARDING TRANSLATIONS AND MEANING

I understand the temptation to attempt a critical analysis of one of many possible translations of words Jesus potentially spoke. However, please consider some of the profound disadvantages of attempting a study of church history through translations alone. I think we will not have to look too deeply to see that the Lord could not possibly have used these words your translator placed in his mouth.

Remember that the original language of Jesus used was neither Greek nor Latin. You are offering us one translation (of which many are available), which purports to represent one or more of the early manuscripts (of which there are also many different ones) that represent the words Jesus might have spoke. I am not faulting your logic. One can logically argue either for or against many textual translations, and despite your translators greek rendering, I might remind you that Jesus was speaking a SEMETIC language, NOT Greek, and thus he could NOT possibly have said “this IS really my body” nor could he have said “this IS really my blood” since “estin” does not exist in the semetic language Jesus spoke.

Attempting to translate between languages separated even a few centuries is troublesome. So completely does any one-to-one relationship vanish between differing cultures and their languages that it may become necessary to translate one line of a text by a whole page. Where synthetic languages are translated into analytic ones (or vice versa), the idea of literal translation is impossible. The great linguist Dieterici gives an appropriate example:

“In sentence structure the Semites employ short, disconnected utterances, expressed only by fits or starts, which reflect the subjective concept only in the most brief and sketchy form. The Indogermanic languages on the other hand move in well-ordered, easily-unfolding periods. The Semitic sentence is but the immediate reflection of a subjective idea (Affekt), it is only an opinion; the Indogermanic insists on the identity of the thought conveyed with actual reality. . . . At the institution of the sacrament, Christ cannot possibly have said anything but "this: my blood, this: my flesh," and no one present could possibly have misunderstood him. . . . Such a nominal sentence (the usual thing in Semitic) is utterly untranslatable into Greek without the word "esti" (is) which of course in the original language never existed.

Click to expand...

Yet, it is upon that artificially added “esti” that your doctrine of transubstantiation rests in this case. Luther made exactly the same mistake at the Marburg disputation by writing on a table with a piece of chalk: “Hoc est corpus meum”, with all the emphasis on the “est”, a word which, in the language of Jesus, had no equivalent.

Even the famous statement by Luther “Hier Stehe Ich, Ich Kann Nicht Anders” comes under the same translational condition. It cannot BE translated into english word for word literally, and still keep a clear meaning. The literal english equivalent words to “Hier Stehe Ich. Ich Kann Nicht Anders” are “Here stand I, I can no other” (There is no word "DO") The translators most often translate Luther’s statement as : “I can Do no other”. Luther never used the word “DO”. “DO” is merely implied, just as Jesus, never said “is” in Aramaic.


REGARDING CONTEXTS AND MEANING

After the rules of grammar and dictionary have been satisfied, the only basis for preferences of one rendering over another is an intuitive guess regarding the trend of the ancient writers mind and what context implies.

If Luther had been reading and lost his glasses, then if he’s asked, why he’s not reading, he may reply “Ich Kann Nicht Anders”, and the meaning might be “I can not do otherwise, i.e. I can’t read without my glasses”. If Luther had been speaking and his opponents shouted him down and he was asked “Why he’s no longer speaking”. He can again reply with the same words “Ich Kann Nicht Anders”, but this time the meaning might be “I can not do otherwise, meaning, “There is no use speaking since I can’t be heard”, etc.

The point is, that it is the context that gives much of the meaning to the very words from which we all attempt to derive meaning.


The rabbinical rule that says : "He who translates a verse quite literally is a liar," became popular for a reason. The precise meanings of many words in different languages do not fit concisely, they merely overlap loosely in limited areas. In Wilamowitz-Moellendorf’s book on the translations of Greek and Latin, his definition of a translation is : "a statement in the translator's own words of what he thinks the author had in mind." Since the translation can never describe what the author actually had in mind, he can only tell us what he thinks the author is trying to convey. Thus a translation is one person’s opinion of what another person had in mind. Often, the tradition-bound and culturally biased translator naturally falls into the vice of simply analyzing and translating the text in the way they have been taught to construe since childhood.

In Chapter 41 of Justin’s debate with Trypho the jew, he explains to Trypho the early Christian belief that the Jewish Oblation of Fine Flour Was Symbolic of the bread of the Eucharist. He is not arguing literality, but symbolism of the fine flour and bread “in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity”. Roman Catholics go beyond eating the symbols of Jesus’ Atonement, to eating the “actual body” of Jesus.

Speaking of those who have done "more" than Jesus commanded, Farrar comments:

"The 'transubstantiation' and 'sacramental' controversies which have raged for centuries round the Feast of Communion and Christian love are as heart-saddening as they are strange and needless. They would never have arisen if it had been sufficiently observed that it was a characteristic of Christ's teaching to adopt the language of picture and of emotion. But to turn metaphor into fact, poetry into prose, rhetoric into logic, parable into systematic theology, is at once fatal and absurd. It was to warn us against such error that Jesus said so emphatically, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' (John 6:63)" (Farrar, p. 608, footnote 2.)

Click to expand...

Jewish teachings concerning these principles are at least as often metaphor as they are literal. Speaking of ancient Israel, for instance, Paul says: They "did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 cor. 10:3-4.) In the case of Paul’s teaching, Jesus was not really, literally “meat”, nor was he literally a piece of stone that the Israelites could literally drink from. These are metaphors.

Jesus commands Peter to "feed my lambs" ("John 21:15). This does not mean that Jesus was the owner of a flock of Lambs, nor does it literally mean his followers ARE lambs but rather they are metaphors in a concise leadership parable. Since Jesus so regularly used metaphors as illustrations, one should not argue change of substance in the sacrament without Christ explaining such a strange doctrine. If Jesus uses metaphors so very frequently, it is even more easy to assume symbols of body and blood rather than any cannibalism within a Christian ordinance.

The metaphorical context of Jesus’ teaching are not merely “as easily” argued, but are “more easily” argued than literal meaning in this specific case. For example, if Jesus literally said “This : my body. This : my blood “ (there is no word “is&#8221, this is MORE easily construed as a metaphor in context rather than as a literal and cannibalistic ritual. When gathered together and partaking of the paschal meal, where Jesus instituted this holy ordinance, he is presumably in full health with blood circulating in his veins. It was not his blood in the cup, for Jesus calls it at the very same time, "this fruit of the vine." It was wine he gave unto them at that time. The wine represented his blood that was to be shed for the remission of sins. Why strain the simple metaphor, "This : my body," in an ineffectual attempt to make it mean more or less than the Savior intended it should mean?

I have wondered what the earliest Christians would think of this version of the sacrament/communal meal, if they could see how it has changed over the centuries. If a certain modern Christianity considers the bread and the wine through the prayer of consecration, to undergo a mystic change, by which they are converted into and become, no longer emblems for the Saviors’ body and blood, but the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus Christ, this is transubstantiation. Once that dogma became established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;" that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before it was distributed, so that it might be viewed and worshiped by the people. I have to think that this adoration of the symbols would be viewed by earliest Christians as a form of Idolatry; a worship of a God in the form of bread and wine.


Perhaps you could consider how is it that men might “eat the Lord's flesh and drink his blood?” One could certainly consider the larger context of John chapter 6 and see that Jesus’ teaching regarding the eucharist/sacrament/communal meal is the culmination of Jesus great discourse on the Bread of Life.



POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

POST #2 OF TWO

John 6:29 " Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Click to expand...

This discourse on the Bread of Life is obviously quite symbolic. No one takes the notion seriously that Jesus’ body might be made of Bread. This is symbolic. Since the translation says that he IS the Bread of Life (meaning the Son of God), which came down from the Father, and since men must eat this spiritual bread in order to gain salvation, it follows that eternal life is gained only by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God, or in other words, eternal life is gained only by accepting Jesus as the Christ and keeping his commandments.

In the context of this verbal symbolism, one can use the following example : Suppose one were to go into an art gallery, and the attendant in charge, pointing to a statue of Julius Caesar, should remark, “This is Caesar”; or, indicating a bust of Queen Nefetiti, should say, “That is Nefertiti”. Would the visitor logically conclude that Caesar and Nefertiti were literally there before him? (Even if a priest should tell him this was true?) Instead, isn’t it more logical to infer, that the statue and the bust were merely representations of those persons?

You might consider what a metaphor “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” might have meant to the earliest Christians. Consider that it might have meant to accept Jesus in the most literal and full sense, with no reservation whatever, as the personal offspring in the flesh of the Eternal Father; and, as a remembrance of his sacrifice.

Consider one of the earliest orthodox descriptions we have of the early Christian eucharist from THE DIDACHE

1. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they 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."

Click to expand...

The early Christian didache, as an early standard of Orthodoxy, certainly belies any literal meaning to the sacred symbols of the Bread and Water (or wine) but rather demonstrates the symbolic nature of this early Christian ordinance.


Christos, I do appreciate your logic and patience. Thank you

Clearly
vitwtwri

(i had to break the post in two due to character limits)

Jesus may not have been speaking Greek but the Gospels were authored by the Apostles in Greek. They felt it appropriate to use the phrase "Touto estin to soma mou". For that reason I think it does make sense to take into account the meaning of the phrase.