Eucharist scripture challenge

[genesiusj]

Part 3 of 3
The non-Catholic Christians on this thread think they are right; it’s just a symbol. However, the Catholics at this site think they are right, this is Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Shouldn’t we ask ourselves, "Why some non mainstream Christians believe in the real presence, while others don’t? Who is correct?” It is even to a point where a friend of mine asked the waiter for 1/4 shot glass of wine and a small piece of bread so he could GIVE himself communion.

Toward the end of John 6 we see many (but not all) of Jesus’ disciples walking away from Him. “After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.” John 6:66 (6:67 in DRB). And in the next verse, Jesus doesn’t make the meaning any clearer, because He has explained it 3 times with ever more emphasis: ***trogo ***vs phago.
“Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?” John 6:67. And what does the spokesman for the Apostles say, “Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (KJV) 6:68. Wouldn’t it have been easier for future readers/followers to understand (and interpret) if the Gospel writer wrote, “No, we wish to stay with Thee Lord, for thou hast the words of eternal life.”? No! Peter was saying, *“Lord, we don’t understand how we can eat Your body and drink Your blood, but we will, because every word that comes from Your mouth is the truth.” *This is called faith.

Remember Thomas after Jesus’ resurrection: “Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.” John 20:28-29.

Besides John 6, is there another verse that can we look to for context? (This is by no means all of the verses.)
(KJV+) “ForG1063 as often asG3740 ye eatG2068 G302 thisG5126 bread,G740 andG2532 drinkG4095 G302 thisG5124 cup,G4221 ye do shewG2605 theG3588 Lord’sG2962 deathG2288 tillG891 G3757 he come.”G2064 1 Corinthians 11:26
G2605
καταγγέλλω
kataggellō
kat-ang-gel’-lo
From G2596 and the base of G32; to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, shew, speak of, teach.

Why if St. Paul states the above, do non-Catholic churches have Communion so infrequently? Wouldn’t these Christian communities want to proclaim and promulgate this great event of the Gospel, even if the very act of Eucharist is believed to only be a symbol?

It is not difficult, or rather it is difficult, for the human mind to comprehend that Jesus was both God and Man when He was born unto the earth almost 2000 years ago. If you saw Jesus at that time you would have seen a man. You would have seen flesh and hair and teeth and nails. At His crucifixion you would have seen blood and water pouring out from his side. But with the outward appearance of a man, He was still God. Could God’s Divinity be seen? No. But the Apostles and many of His disciples knew His Divinity was there.

For a Christian while it is still difficult, we believe the Jesus was/is both fully God and fully man, because we trust on faith. Faith and Scripture. Faith, Scripture and Tradition. The Bible did not drop out of the sky.

So if a Christian can believe that the man Jesus was also God, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity walked the earth; why is it such a fantastic leap to see, to believe, to have faith that this little Communion wafer, after it is offered up to God the Father, and is blessed by the priest, becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior? Why is it that the host cannot become the Word Incarnate? Protestants have little difficulty in believing that the Word was humbly made flesh in Mary’s womb. But they cannot see that the Word is made incarnate again in the humble Eucharistic Host.

Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7

“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD

 

[bona_fides_1]

So if a Christian can believe that the man Jesus was also God, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity walked the earth; **why is it such a fantastic leap to see, to believe, to have faith that this little Communion wafer, after it is offered up to God the Father, and is blessed by the priest, becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior? **Why is it that the host cannot become the Word Incarnate? Protestants have little difficulty in believing that the Word was humbly made flesh in Mary’s womb. But they

Why? ALL the evidence down to this current day is that the reformer’s selective double-standards on when they wanted to accept the historical Christian teaching and when they wanted to depart from it hinge on exactly one common principal - REJECTION OF ALL THINGS BLATANTLY AND UNIQUELY CATHOLIC. The simple motive - THEY WANTED TO CREATE A NEW CHRISTIANITY - a NEO-CHRISTIANITY. To do that they had to find things that were unique to core Catholic belief (Eucharist, papal authority, priesthood, apostolic succession, teaching authority of the magisterium, veneration of the saints, sacramental grace etc.) and which were not explicitly spelled out in strong and clear “legalistic” language in the bible. So they picked Catholic doctrines and principals that a good salesman could attack and refute by using an all new shallow-context interpretation of scripture as a means to usurp Catholic teaching authority. They playedon the evolving zeitgeist of “democratic processes” and personal freedoms and contempt for all authority other than self. This was all about catering to the “do it yourself” and "self-sufficency idealism. The new clerics of neo-Christianity would now rather than teach truth “sell” the lie to the gullible (who could not even read their new Protestant bibles). It was now a matter of “trust my teaching not the Church’s teaching” with an illusion that it was “bible taught” - pure snake oil and deception.

The motive was two fold - reshuffled political power and also to craft an easier Christianity where one could do one single “initiating event” and never again have to worry about the obligations and duties of a Christian from concern of losing one’s salvation. A new “easier” Christianity would mean that new financial opportunities were available to those to teach a write about the new Christianity and profit by it as well . But the big popular draw was it meant that one could be a secularist and enjoy the material world at the same time would could be convinced one was saved in the next world so one could go back to the pattern of "eat, drink, be marry for tomorrow we die - but we are saved ". An easier Christianity removed the obligation to be pious, devout, suffering joyfully, saintly and holy like the bible calls us to be. The sponsors of the new reformed Christianity wanted to have their cake and to eat it too - to feel the comforts in a certainty of “salvation by formula” judicial declaration so that after one “instant” “saving event” (decision to “believe” - in Reformed theology) one never had to worry again. But it quickly sowed its own seeds of conflict not only against the divine truth but against each other - for there is never any concept of unity or honor among illegitimate revolutionists…

Thus, men like Calvin tried to turn the neo-Christianity into something more exclusive - where only those not destined to hell could “be saved”. So now Protestants had a just means to persecute those who were not subscribing to their club and scare the gullible into their church. That in turn kicked off a retaliation in kind of every new “variation on a theme” and preaching simony for hire. Entire nations and kingdoms starting partnering with it (England, Scandinavia, Germany etc.) to integrate a new “easy” Christianity where the state could bypass the Church to collect its vig up front in a “church tax” then pass down what it wanted to the new secular churches.

It was nothing but a pure power grab from the Catholic Church and usurping of truth and a means to extract wealth from centuries of pious Catholic sacrifices (lands, churches, cathedrals, monasteries, hospitals etc.) and give all the wealth to the new state religions and their politically appointed clerics and the 2nd born princes. It was a means to consolidate political power and reduce teh risk of insurrection. And today the house of cards is falling fast…

No Protestant has ever even tried to explain to me how a group of quite ordinary men with many vices (murder, fornication, drunks, calumny etc.) who largely opposed each other except on 4 things (sola scriptura, sola fide, contempt for the pope/Catholic-Church and the ‘total depravity of fallen man’) were able to escape their own fallen & depraved intellects to give us the new perfect blue print for reforming Christ’s Church? It’s all supreme hubris and arrogance that goes hand in hand with a false “by faith alone” belief in reformation theology rather than in The Lord. Who are they kidding? Protestantism is irrational in its own genesis and formative concept. And worse - there is not one single example in all of scripture where God ever authorizing a revolt in His church. There is Korah’s Rebellion ( Num 16) - but he was swallowed into the bowels of the earth and all his men were incinerated into a pile of ash!

Woe to the secularist who think they can teach all new myths as Christian doctrine and to all their kind who think they have a guarantee of salvation. There is not one shred of evidence from the other side of the grave that a single Protestant has ever collected on his self-taught and self-sold “guarantee” of salvation - not one. Compare that to the thousands of Catholic saints and massive numbers of post-death miracles attested to by credible witnesses and thoroughly researched and scrutinized evidence.

BF

 

[genesiusj]

Amen, BF.

You are right on track. Catholicism (true Christianity) is not a one shot deal. Why does St. Paul tell us to “work out our salvation”? DRB Philippians 2:12 "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation."

Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7

“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD

 

[Tomb54]

11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11 KJ)

Jesus came to fullfill the OT Prophecies as He stated so I often wonder how the Protestants explain what their Pure Offering is to the Father that they offer every day across the entire world?

 

[panevino]

…

"Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. **For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity/ B].” (Irenaeus, A.H. 4:18:5)

It is clear that Irenaeus believed that the substance of the bread remained unchanged after it received the blessing. According to him the bread received a spiritual characteristic in addition to its nature. It became something more than common bread; it became the body of Christ, but obviously not in the literal sense.
**

hey Brian,
regarding irenaeus I note that he is refuting those that believe that Jesus only had a spiritual presence and was not truly present in the flesh( ie his flesh was an illusion) AH book4 ch33.2*"…and how supposing that he was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance…".* My limited understanding is that to this group all flesh is evil and god would not /could not literally take on flesh. And that all flesh is corrupt and incapable of salvation, ie it is our spiritual selves that is important and what is saved…

another/same group appear to also partake in thier version of the Eucharist, while denying that Jesus is the son / His word…AHbk4ch18:4"…but how can they be consistent with themselves when they say that the bread over which thanks is given is the body of thier lord… If they do not call Himself the son of the Creator …"

then irenaeus writes*" how can they say that the flesh *( ours!?) *which is nourished with the body of the lord and with his blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them either alter thier opinion or cease from offering the things mentioned." *AHbk4ch18.5

back in ch17&18 irenaeus went to some length to describe how the created things “bread and wine” are offered to god with our thanks and faith through the oblation of the new covenant ch 17:5. Not that he stands in need of these things but that he desires that we should render them for our own benefit lest we be unfruitful (ch 18:5)" therefore it his will that we too should offer a gift at the altar frequently and without intermission. The altar then is in heaven for towards that place are our prayers AND oblations directed…"

"…For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.
**For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity/ B].” (Irenaeus, A.H. 4:18:5)

I see the red word as a strong statement by irenaeus to the other group that the gifts offered are both “flesh & spirit” of a Jesus who was indeed “flesh & spirit”
not only "spirit ".

can you let us know if you disagree with anything Irenaeus says? or have you reconciled it all.

from reading your posts you appear to accept that Irenaeus is at least saying jesus is present “spiritually” within the bread/wine. is this right?

do you accept that Irenaeus views about the effects of partaking in the eucharist? (ie: *"…so also our bodies when they reciev the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the ressurection to eternity…"***AH4ch18.5

 

[Brian_Culliton]

11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11 KJ)

Jesus came to fullfill the OT Prophecies as He stated so I often wonder how the Protestants explain what their Pure Offering is to the Father that they offer every day across the entire world?

Through him (then) let us continually offer God the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. (Heb. 13:15)

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 117)

 

[Brian_Culliton]

"…For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.
**For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity/ B].” (Irenaeus, A.H. 4:18:5)

I see the red word as a strong statement by irenaeus to the other group that the gifts offered are both “flesh & spirit” of a Jesus who was indeed “flesh & spirit”
not only "spirit ".

can you let us know if you disagree with anything Irenaeus says? or have you reconciled it all.**

I disagree with your interpretation of Irenaeus (with all due respect). Take a closer look at the context of what you are quoting.

“For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (4:18:4)

Do you see what he is saying? “… Offering the first-fruits of His own created things.” Is Jesus a created thing?

From reading your posts you appear to accept that Irenaeus is at least saying jesus is present “spiritually” within the bread/wine. is this right?

 

[panevino]

I disagree with your interpretation of Irenaeus (with all due respect). Take a closer look at the context of what you are quoting.

“For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (4:18:4)

Do you see what he is saying? “… Offering the first-fruits of His own created things.” Is Jesus a created thing?

thanks for replying.
honestly - your great to interact with. I wont learn anything without someone like you pushing…

i notice that Irenaeus in AH4:17:5 refers to the Eucharist as the “first fruits”.

Jesus is refered to as the ‘firstfruits’
1Cor15:20 KJV - But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

The following is interesting (ie: lamb/firstfruits/bread/offering)

Lev 23:9 kjv *And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. 13And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. 14And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. *

“…bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest …”
jesus is refered to as a firstfruits…as above NT verse
he is the first fruits of the/our harvest…

correct me if i’m wrong but the group that Irenaeus is refuting not only consider flesh as evil, but also all earthly matter, including bread and wine.
when he states that jesus took "created things and “…He confessed to be his blood” AH4:17.5etc… i understand him to continually highlight that earthly things can be used for the divine.

It appears to me that Irenaeus believed in a spiritual sanctification of the Eucharist.

If you believe that Irenaeus was saying we receive the hope of eternal life by partaking of the blessed bread, you are mistaken. There is far too much evidence throughout his works that counter that idea. For example, read 3:19:1, 3:20:2, 4:24:2, and 5:8:2.

In book 5 he talks about the bread and the cup of the Eucharist nourishing us by means of the creation. He said, “He [Christ] has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from 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.” (5:2:2)

are you saying that Irenaeus only believes that the “increase to our bodies” is a physical reaction, ie: plainly eating bread, and not something “spiritual”.

Irenaeus continues,

“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the 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?”

The fact that Irenaeus never separates out that which is of the creation, i.e. the bread and cup, from the Eucharist is further evidence that he believed the elements are sanctified, not changed materially. This also clarifies what he meant when he said the Eucharist consists of two realities, earthly and heavenly.

i think this relates more to his dispute with the group who disagree in the ability of divine to dwell with matter/flesh.

 

[panevino]

If you believe that Irenaeus was saying we receive the hope of eternal life by partaking of the blessed bread, you are mistaken. There is far too much evidence throughout his works that counter that idea. For example, read 3:19:1, 3:20:2, 4:24:2, and 5:8:2.

no body will debate with u that the offering of the bread/wine and self and thanks/praise
requires belief and faith and confession. Or else we bring damnation on self.

What I am reading Irenaeus Is pretty clearly stating the need to participate in the NT oblation with a pure heart. Fantastic, clear catholic teaching here see CCC on sacraments.
And with out this we will not gain the fruits of the Eucharist.
But irenaeus seems to clearly say in two places that participation in Eucharist (regardless of real presence for the minute)
does the following

1. Our bodies… Are no longer corruptible having hope of the ressurection…4:18:5
   2 recievers…may obtain remission of sins and eternal life… (fragments xx xvii)

 

[panevino]

brian,
just found this to from Irenaeus
AH3:19:3
Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be" God with us," and descend to those things which are of the earth beneath, seeking the sheep which had perished, which was indeed His own peculiar handiwork, and ascend to the height above, offering and commending to His Father that human nature (hominem) which had been found, making in His own person the first-fruits of the resurrection of man; that, as the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining pan of the body–[namely, the body] of every man who is found in life–when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which existed by reason of disobedience, may arise

as reflected in
1Cor15:20 KJV - But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

something interesting also from Hippolytus
He did not protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer), mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Sonrefutation of all heresies CHAP. XXIX
*
And the fourth, viz. God, the Word Incarnate, passed in honour through the Virgin’s womb; and creating our Adam anew, he passed through the gates of heaven, and became the first-fruits of the resurrection and of the ascension for all.Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs.
*
2. In calling Him the first-fruits, he testified to that which we have said, viz., that the Saviour, taking to Himself the flesh out of the same lump, raised this same flesh, and made it the first-fruits of the flesh of the righteous, in order that all we who have believed in the hope of the Risen One may have the resurrection in expectation. fragments III.(5) Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, in a letter to a certain queen.(6))

 

[bona_fides_1]

Do you see what he is saying? “… Offering the first-fruits of His own created things.” Is Jesus a created thing?

Do you have the slightest doubt that God did not create the “man” Jesus in his full human being (human body & human soul) and through the mystery of His nature join His humanity with His uncreated Divinity? This is what we Catholics term the hypostatic union. If Jesus was uncreated in his human flesh he would not be human and could not die. This is the heresy of Docetism where Jesus is only Sprit with the illusion of humanity. I think that Clement of Alexandria had some Docetism influence. You need to remember too that the Christology, the study of “what” Christ is took a while for the Church to figure out. So when you read the ECF you need to understand that there was not yet a common ecclesial vocabulary as I have said before. Nor was there a 100% common understanding on the nature of Christ on day one.

Luke 1:31-33 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

It appears to me that Irenaeus believed in a spiritual sanctification of the Eucharist.

The concept is “consecration” and it is applies to the ordinary bread and wine not to the “consecrated” Eucharist. Eucharist is the term we use for the converted/consecrated bread and wine. The consecration it self is spiritual but is directed toward the physical offering of bread and wine - fruit of the vine & work of human hands – the ordinary product of man cooperating through labor with God’s provisioning nature (sunshine, rain, wheat seed, fermentation etc.). The consecration is achieved by the invocation of the special words of consecration by an ordained apostolic priest (one who has been laid on of hands by an apostolic bishop in the apostolic succession) who effects the offering. But the effects of consecration are a miracle of God - the conversion or changing of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul an divinity of Christ. This is what we call “eucharist” and the “precious blood” (though both species are each the same full one body, blood, soul & divinity). The priest must have faith that what he does is in accord with Jesus’ instruction and with the intention and faith of converting from ordinary bread/wine into eucharist (proper matter, form and intention). Sanctification is what the Eucharist does to the soul who receives it worthily and in good faith.

BF

 

[Tomb54]

Through him (then) let us continually offer God the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. (Heb. 13:15)

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 117)

Need to look at the whole picture again

Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 44)

Justin: Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.(Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 117)

I can take things out of context in the same area and prove the opposite;

when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves:

Now let us take your verse and put it with the rest of it.

even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth
As you can see he is talking about lone Christians who do not have a priest but offer what they have (food and drink) in a type of Eucharist remembrance.

More to come as I have time.
God Bless
TomB

 

[panevino]

I disagree with your interpretation of Irenaeus (with all due respect). Take a closer look at the context of what you are quoting.

“For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (4:18:4)

Do you see what he is saying? “… Offering the first-fruits of His own created things.” Is Jesus a created thing?

…
.

AH4:17:5-6
Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first- fruits(5) of His own, created things–not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful–He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.”(6) 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, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the LORD Omnipotent;”(7)–indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.(8)
6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and man also?And because it is [the name] of His own Son, who was made man by Him, He calls it His own…

AH3:19:3

• Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be" God with us," and descend to those things which are of the earth beneath, seeking the sheep which had perished, which was indeed His own peculiar handiwork, and ascend to the height above, offering and commending to His Father that human nature (hominem) which had been found, making in His own person the first-fruits of the resurrection of man; that, as the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining pan of the body–[namely, the body] of every man who is found in life–when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which existed by reason of disobedience, may arise*

it seems to me Irenaeus is saying that the human flesh of man was made by God,
and this “manhood” of jesus was the firstfruits of believers.
this being reflected by Irenaeus when the eucharist/firstfruits is offered as the body/blood of jesus.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’” (Irenaeus, Fragment 13)

 

[curlycool89]

I find it quite ironic that a Eucharistic scripture challenge has devolved into an argument about ECFs.

 

[Tomb54]

I find it quite ironic that a Eucharistic scripture challenge has devolved into an argument about ECFs.

Yes it is but what is even more funny is while using these quotes from the ECF they ignore the parts of their letters that says Follow the teaching of the Catholic Church. There is more then enough prove that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Bible but many as during Jesus time just find this hard to believe.

 

[Tomb54]

Through him (then) let us continually offer God the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. (Heb. 13:15)

sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
1.
a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person

So while I admit the Eucharist fits this bill since it is the Todah of the OT what do you believe they are offering in the your verse for their sacrifice? Are you saying they are sacrificing their words to Him? The Jews believed that only one Jewish sacrifice will remain after the time of the Messiah so now I ask what sacrifice do you believe this is since it is to be sacrificed until the end of time by the people. You might need to read the definition of scarifice.

Here it is again
Malachi 1:11 (New International Version)
11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
1.
a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person

So while I admit the Eucharist fits this bill since it is the Todah of the OT what do you believe they are offering in the your verse for their sacrifice? Are you saying they are sacrificing their words to Him? The Jews believed that only one Jewish sacrifice will remain after the time of the Messiah so now I ask what sacrifice do you believe this is since it is to be sacrificed until the end of time by the people. You might need to read the definition of scarifice.

Here it is again
Malachi 1:11 (New International Version)
11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

“O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise.” (Psa. 51:15-17)

 

[panevino]

“O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise.” (Psa. 51:15-17)

sure. But obviously their is the passion/Calvary .
This is the one and last sacrifice that the Eucharist is and continues to be.
This is the one sacrifice we show our faith in by participating in the Eucharist while offering praise and thanks. Rememberance/thanks/ praise / sacrifice of lamb / eating lamb and unleavened bread and drinking wine were parts of the Passover/firstfruits.
The Eucharist is rememberance/thanks praise / Jesus/lamb of eucharistic bread and wine.

 

[bona_fides_1]

“O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise.” (Psa. 51:15-17)

Psalm 4:5 **Offer right sacrifices **and trust in the LORD.

Psalm 20:3 May he remember all your sacrifices and accept your burnt offerings. Selah

Psalm 27:6 Then my head will be exalted above the enemies who surround me; at his tabernacle will I sacrifice with shouts of joy; I will sing and make music to the LORD.

Psalm 50:8** I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices** or your burnt offerings, which are ever before me.

Psalm 50:14-17 Sacrifice thank offerings to God, fulfill your vows to the Most High, 15 and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me." 16 But to the wicked [ed: those who sin], God says: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips? 17 You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you.

Psalm 50:23 He who sacrifices thank offerings honors me, and he prepares the way so that I may show him the salvation of God."

Psalm 51:19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar.He broke the bread.

Psalm 54:6 I will sacrifice a freewill offering to you; I will praise your name, O LORD, for it is good.

Psalm 66:15 I will sacrifice fat animals to you and an offering of rams; I will offer bulls and goats. Selah

Psalm 106:38 **They shed innocent blood **[ed: sons & daughters], the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.

Psalm 116:17 I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of the LORD.

---

Psalm 50:5 "Gather to me my consecrated ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice."

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Mark 13:34 My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? – a broken spirit.

John 19:29-30 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink [ed: the 4th Seder cup of taking/bitterness from passover], Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

John 19:34 one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side [ed: his heart broken] with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

From the above is it becomes exceedingly obvious through the psalms that Jesus was God giving humanity the perfect and acceptable offering to himself. God crushed Jesus spirit like grapes in a wine press then broke his body like he broke the bread at the last supper. His heart was broken too by sorrow for the people’s sins and by betrayal. The last of the pascal cups of wine at the Seder ritual was taken on the cross as bitter wine. Christ was a literal sacrifice and the pascal lamb. One had to eat of the lamb to be a partaker in the new Covenant just as the Jews had to partake of the pascal lamb to be Passover by the angel of death and not slaughtered in its place. It is good to perceive that from a God eye perspective humanity was desperate and sacrificing its innocent sons and daughters to pagan gods to attempt to gain blessings and food and good fortune. God would not have any human do such a deplorable act nor be “bested” by the highest offering a human could do - its own flesh and blood. So God exceeded man’s perverse offering of innocent blood of human infants to false gods by becoming man and sacrificing Himself as the perfect and acceptable innocent sacrifice. Man by sacrificing Christ committed the worst possible evil it could ever do - killing the innocent and blameless God in the flesh. Now that man has fallen to his most extreme state - God is restoring all mankind and draws all man to himself through Christ. Not all perceive yet what He has done but the spiritual truth is there for ALL of humanity to see - lifted high on the cross. That should be enough to bring everyone to their senses and to hold God in awe that even in committing our worst sin He is there hanging before our very eyes and offering to forgive us if we just stretch out our hand and choose our portion of the salvific fruit from the tree of life - the Pascal Lamb and living Son of God - Eucharist. We too are called to sacrifice with broken hearts and spirits - this is called repentance.

BF