If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

[Cybophonia]

Absolutely NOT.

All the ECFs, unanimously, affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Perhaps differently in different times, or with different meanings. There were many great theological schools at that time (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, see f.e the different way this schools used ‘hypostasis’ in theology). Surely there were some fathers who at least in some parts of the Church are not taken as saints , fathers who drew apart and had different ideas, from different schools, etc… It’s been a while since I made this sort of discussions, but the unanimity of the fathers is a myth. Just look at how many councils local & ecumenical, how many religious battles there were, how many heresies , sprang and were “resurrected” , how regarded people of the Catholic Church converted into them.

Not a single quote has supported the view that John 6 is about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

The first two in particular mention directly John 6 and refute your pious opinion that there was no father who said that John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Did you even bother to read the above mentioned quotes, or do you have a sight problem? Here you have the first 2 again.

f the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."–(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."–(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

You may want to look at them again.

 

[Cybophonia]

I hope you do continue to keep giving money to the Church. The Church in Romania can certainly use it.

I am sure the Patriarchy can never have too many limousines. And yes “Catedrala Mantuirii Neamului” can always use 1 leu or 2. And Patriarch Daniel could always use another lake villa.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll3oeqQXbe1qbvaudo1_500.gif

Don’t you get it buddy? It’s all about the Benjamins. There are priests who bless tanks, weapons, who were willing to consecrate video chat business, and stuff like that. In Romania the majority of the people who are churchly are simple, ignorant, don’t even use internet , have suffered the censorship of communism and etc… They don’t even know the doctrines of the church. There are corrupted priests and monks who do immoral things, even bishops. Monetarly, sexually (it’s not like the RCC is so clean of sexual scandals itself ) . BOR is among the richest patriarchies in the world. Patriarch Kiril of Russia has a fortune of over 4 million $.

 

[zz912]

The problem or weakness with your interpretation is that baptism is not mentioned. You just assume that “water” must equal “baptism” . We’re not Catholic, so we can’t just accept it. Some proof is necessary.

Who does Scripture tell us to turn to when there arises disagreement like this between Christians?

 

[zz912]

Ok understand. But why did Jesus chide Nicodemus for not knowing this , as a rabbi, for this was something new that Jesus was talking about, according to you. At that time of the conversation you did not need to be baptized in water to be regenerated. The OT sign of new life (born again) and covenant was circumcision. Pentecost had not happened yet. How could Jesus expect him to know that ? This was early in Christ’s ministry.

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” Water baptism being regenerative has only been ascribed to our covenant , after pentecost.

John the Baptist had been baptizing people for quite some time. And Jesus had the Apostle baptizing people during His ministry.

It’s not the first time Nicodemus had heard about baptism.

 

[JMM1957]

John the Baptist had been baptizing people for quite some time. And Jesus had the Apostle baptizing people during His ministry.

It’s not the first time Nicodemus had heard about baptism.

This is the answer to the question of why Nicodemus should have known what Jesus was referring to by being baptized of water. This was not a foreign thing.

 

[zz912]

The first two in particular mention directly John 6 and refute your pious opinion that there was no father who said that John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Did you even bother to read the above mentioned quotes, or do you have a sight problem? Here you have the first 2 again.

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."–(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

You may want to look at them again.

Here’s a couple other Clement quotes that should clear up your confusion over his beliefs.

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

 

[zz912]

The first two in particular mention directly John 6 and refute your pious opinion that there was no father who said that John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Did you even bother to read the above mentioned quotes, or do you have a sight problem? Here you have the first 2 again.

f the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."–(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Here’s some other Augustine quotes…

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

 

[Cybophonia]

Here’s a couple other Clement quotes that should clear up your confusion over his beliefs.

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

No mention of the Eucharist.

What proof do you have that Origen, Cyprian, Clement, Tertulian, etc believed in the transubstantiation?

One can argue with contradictory quotes from the fathers ad-infinitum as they wrote in different circumstances. Do you know the context of all this quotes, of the meaning in the fathers of the word “symbol” when referring the Bread and Wine? The historicity and the framework?

It is pointless anyway as the OP was asking about John 6, the point is there are fathers who refute the literal interpretation of John 6 as referring to the Eucharist. Augustine even refer to it as a “crime and a vice”. So both you and the OP got Owned!

 

[JMM1957]

The problem or weakness with your interpretation is that baptism is not mentioned. You just assume that “water” must equal “baptism” . We’re not Catholic, so we can’t just accept it. Some proof is necessary. John uses" water" to illustrate the Spirit in ch.4 and 7 so it is also possible that" water" illustrates Spirit in Ch. 3.

Yes, being Catholic does have its advantages when trying to understand Scripture. John the Baptist was baptizing with water and said that one would come after him baptizing in the Holy Spirit. So we can see that there were two separate baptisms that would eventually be in order. Baptism of water didn’t end with the coming of Jesus ministry did it? Even Jesus disciples were baptizing.

 

[zz912]

What proof do you have that Origen, Cyprian, Clement, Tertulian, etc believed in the transubstantiation?

Origen

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Tertullian

Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

Cyprian

And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ’s Body…

He Himself warns us, saying, “UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU.” Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord’s Prayer 18)

Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel’s] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF – then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)

 

[zz912]

No mention of the Eucharist.

Other than the direct quote where he says “Eucharist”. Other than that…

One can argue with contradictory quotes from the fathers ad-infinitum as they wrote in different circumstances. Do you know the context of all this quotes, of the meaning in the fathers of the word “symbol” when referring the Bread and Wine? The historicity and the framework?

There are no contradictory quotes. There are some that speak of the immense symbolism that exists in the Eucharist, which in no way diminishes the reality of the Real Presence. It really becomes the Body and Blood, and it also has immense symbolism.

It is pointless anyway as the OP was asking about John 6, the point is there are fathers who refute the literal interpretation of John 6 as referring to the Eucharist. Augustine even refer to it as a “crime and a vice”. So both you and the OP got Owned!

No, no Church Fathers reject or refute the literal interpretation of John 6. Only your warped reading of their writings arrives at that conclusion.

And “owned”? Are you 14?

 

[JMM1957]

One can argue with contradictory quotes from the fathers ad-infinitum as they wrote in different circumstances. Do you know the context of all this quotes, of the meaning in the fathers of the word “symbol” when referring the Bread and Wine? The historicity and the framework?

Look at what you are saying! You quote ECF’s to support your position, but then in the same breath say that they sometimes contradicted themselves depending on the circumstances. How is it that you are right and we are wrong then? I’ve said it a thousand times before, and I’ll say it again here, it all comes down to Church authority.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Look at what you are saying! You quote ECF’s to support your position, but then in the same breath say that they sometimes contradicted themselves depending on the circumstances. How is it that you are right and we are wrong then? I’ve said it a thousand times before, and I’ll say it again here, it all comes down to Church authority.

… it all comes down to Church authority.

So which “one true church” has such authority? You say the Catholic Church and no doubt Cybophonia would say the Eastern Orthodox. Maybe there are two “one true churches”?

 

[JMM1957]

So which “one true church” has such authority? You say the Catholic Church and no doubt Cybophonia would say the Eastern Orthodox. Maybe there are two “one true churches”?

I think “the one true church” deserves its own thread instead of straying further from the OP.

 

[In_His_Grace]

I think “the one true church” deserves its own thread instead of straying further from the OP.

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[Telstar]

Hi T,

Ok I understand but your explanation is new testament. It does not fit OT. The conversation with Nic was OT, before pentecost. Nic had problems seeing the kingdom, seeing Christ as Messiah then and there, not in the future. What was wrong with Nic and all others who did not believe ? They were not born of the spirit ,regenerated, or born again, which I believe is an OT and NT event/reality.

The context is OT and your explanations do not fit. They fit nicely somewhat in NT.

Hi, Ben.

I think one of your biggest problems in trying to understand the passage about Nicodemus is that you seem to be hung up on the hard break between the OT and NT, without considering the fact that the ministry and teachings of Jesus are the binder that slowly merges the two together, prior to the final break between them at Pentecost. While He walked the earth, there was a period of time where Judaeo-Christian beliefs were in a state of flux, or in a period of transition between the two Covenants. During the time of His ministry, Jesus was preparing the Jews to accept the New Covenant that He would offer to all mankind, and both Covenants were beginning to merge into the final stage.

You also try to interpret things differently according to who Jesus is talking to at the time. While this might help in some circumstances, it can also tend to make you overthink what Jesus means because of who that person is. We have to remember that Jesus is always teaching about the New Covenant and the things to come in the future, even though they are based upon and meant to fulfill the Old.

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" What things ? OT things of regenerating the fallen spirit we inherited from Eve. None of the OT saints were water baptized for regenerative purposes. Water must mean something else, and what you suggest would have been "new’’ to any Jew, and Jesus would not have criticized any Jew for not knowing something new . No, Jesus properly criticized Nic for not knowing something old.

Blessings

I tried to explain what “things” Jesus might have been referring to, before. Let’s look at the passage where Jesus says it:"[6] That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. [7] Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. [8] The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [9] Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? [10] Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?"
Jesus first explains the difference between that which is “born of the flesh” and that which is “born of the Spirit”. He shows that they are two very different and distinct things. He illustrates the way the Spirit moves, and those who hear His voice are those who are born of the Spirit. But, Nicodemus still doesn’t understand what Jesus means, so he asks, “How can these things be done?” I believe that Jesus asks him how he can be in his elevated position in the Temple and still not understand how God does things through the actions of His Priests. It’s through the actions of the Jewish Priesthood that sacrifices are made for the forgiveness of sins, and their sons are circumcised to be brought into the family of God through His Covenant with them.

This foreshadows the way the Priesthood of Christ will also continue to offer His one and only sacrifice to the Father (through celebrating the Holy Eucharist at Mass), and will bring all Christians into the family of God through their rebirth in the Spirit, in Baptism. This is when the Holy Spirit moves over the waters of Baptism and washes them in the Precious Blood of Christ, so their sins can be forgiven. This is how we become children of God, now.
[11] “Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. [12] If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?”
In this part, Jesus goes on to explain that Nicodemus doesn’t understand it because he doesn’t accept or understand what Jesus has been teaching about “earthly things”, so that’s why he can’t understand the “heavenly things” that He teaches, like how men can be “reborn in the Spirit” through Baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

I am sure the Patriarchy can never have too many limousines. And yes “Catedrala Mantuirii Neamului” can always use 1 leu or 2. And Patriarch Daniel could always use another lake villa.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Cybo. I rarely use it.

Don’t you get it buddy?

Careful, Cybo. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable, faithful Catholics, so I would turn down the rhetoric a bit.

You need to be here, clearly.

They don’t even know the doctrines of the church. There are corrupted priests and monks who do immoral things, even bishops

No doubt.

Monetarly, sexually (it’s not like the RCC is so clean of sexual scandals itself )

Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic.

And with only 39 posts to your name I think you win the dubious honor of being the poster with the lowest post counts to invoke my version of Godwin’s Law.

 

[Cybophonia]

Origen

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Sadly(for you) he didn’t believe in the RCC/EOC model of the Eucharist… Perhaps more like in a Lutheran(?)… He believed that in order for the Eucharist to become the body and blood it needed to be taken with faith. Here you have an excerpt of this : books.google.dk/books?id=riEdrWEDFq0C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=origen+symbolic+eucharist&source=bl&ots=jVoiMVWPI3&sig=oJah17U7t3WdnYsjxlKOQJxIOA0&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgKahUKEwiahdfJv8LHAhWDg3IKHZ2OCm8#v=onepage&q=origen%20symbolic%20eucharist&f=false

Tertullian

Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

I think even protestans who don’t believe in the real presence and have the wine and bread refer to it as the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

Unclear references.

And the practice (of the Orthodox Church at least) is that at death anniversaries we bring food and drink to be blessed or even clothes and give as alms for the death.

Another quote that is anti-real presence :

“Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

 

[Cybophonia]

"There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the (1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism; (2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation; (3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and (4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.

Jungmann admits early Christians didn’t offer mass as propitiatory sacrifice. In admitting the earliest fathers such as those who wrote the Didache, Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras and Minucius Felix did not teach the mass was the same propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, Catholic Jesuit scholar and priest Joseph A. Jungmann notes, “before Irenaeus . . . no offering was recognized in the Church except that which consisted in thanksgiving. . . . ‘God does not demand an offering of victim or drink, nor of any visible things’ [Aristides, Apology, 1]. He requires ‘not blood-oblations and drink, not the order of flowers or of incense, since He is the perfect perfume, without want or blemish.’ The highest sacrifice one can offer Him is to acknowledge Him and tender Him our spiritual service [Athenagoras, Legatio, c.13]. The only honor worthy of Him is to put His gifts to use for ourselves and for the poor, and to ‘be thankful and by our spirit send heavenward songs of praise and hymns of glory for our creation. . .’ [Justin Martyr, Apology, 1.13]. For this reason, the apologists explained, the Christians had no alter and no temple’ [Minucius Felix, Octavius, c. 32, 1]” (Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Volume 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, [Christian Classics, 2012], pp. 24-25 brackets mine)." - reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/historical-examnination-of-roman.html

 

[benhur]

John the Baptist had been baptizing people for quite some time. And Jesus had the Apostle baptizing people during His ministry.

It’s not the first time Nicodemus had heard about baptism.

So John was making people “born again” ? Can you show me OT support ? What was circumcision and barmitzvah ?

However, I will agree that water baptism was the sign used to designate preparation for the Messiah as per John. It was acknowledgement of sin , even need to be cleansed/in need of the Physician. This was lacking in many of Israel’s leaders (self righteous), including Nicodemus, and hence watched others being baptized but they themselves would not. The baptism was not about rebirth(they had representative rites for that already). But it certainly was the thing to do if you believed in either John’s message or Jesus’s/apostles- prepare yourselves , the kingdom of God is at hand.

Jesus was not saying to Nic, nor anyone else, be baptized so you can believe and receive new life, but rather believe, receive new life, and be baptized - these folks whom you have watched being baptized have it right!

That is as far as I will go pondering the good suggestion that “water” may have meant the preparatorial baptism of John/apostles. But again, this was all new, keeping the water of the womb just as possible an explanation.

Blessings