The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

Thank you. This is more than clear. So a person is born with God’s Life in him, right?

A person is born with physical life, a person is born spritually in baptism. Grace enters the soul at baptism, didn’t you read my previous posts?

YAQUBOS:

And so Jesus Christ was talking in vain about eating His flesh and drinking His blood so that we may have Life…

No he wasn’t, didn’t you listen to me before? Soil provides life to a tree, if the tree had no nutrients it would die. The Eucharist provides spritual nutrients to our soul (grace) and so it gives us life. If a tree did not feed off of the nutrients of the soil, then it would have no life in it, and would eventually die. Grace enters at baptism, but grace is strengthend each time the Eucharist is recieved. Grace does not stop at baptism, it builds and gets stronger each time the Eucharist is received and when a person does good works in faith of Christ. Grace is also infused through the sacraments of: confirmation, annointing of the sick, matrimony, and holy orders. Grace is restored through the sacrament of reconcilliation.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

Thank you. This is more than clear. So a person is born with God’s Life in him, right?

No, I already explained that before. When a person is born, they have physical life, not spiritual life. When a person is born again in baptism, they have spiritual life.

YAQUBOS:

And so Jesus Christ was talking in vain about eating His flesh and drinking His blood so that we may have Life…

No, didn’t you read my other posts? Anyways, a tree has life, but if it were to reject the nutrients given to it from the soil, then the tree will eventually die. Without the nutrients of the soil, life is not flowing through the tree; the tree has no life within it. The wind will continually blow at it and it will be uprooted and will dry up, die and will forever be a slave to the wind. The tree that accepts the nutrients of the soil will have strong deep roots and the winds will not be able to uproot this strong tree.

Grace enters the soul at baptism, but if the born again were to willingly commit a mortal sin, then grace will leave that person’s soul. Each time a person receives the Eucharist; God’s grace grows and becomes stronger in that person’s soul, making it easier to combat sin. If a person does not receive the Eucharist, that person is more vulnerable to sin. If a person is not in a state of grace when they die, they will not enter Heaven.

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Just like all the Fathers of the Church.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yeah…except where it obviously lines up with the NT as is the case here.

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

If they didn’t eat the flesh of our Lord and they didn’t drink His blood, then how did they have Life?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

You tell me…

 

[Church_Militant]

Quote:
Strange! Then why are some people feeling insulted when others burn the flag of their country? After all, they are not present in that flag!!!

NOPE! Let 'em burn it or whatever. I’m not there, nor is the United States. As a symbol their abuse does not fall on my body, therefore they are not guilty of my body & blood. Anyone who believed otherwise suffers some kind of delusion.

So then…St.Paul’s statement is a clear expression of his belief in the miraculous Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

P.S. Insult is far and away different than bodily attack or abuse.

 

[Berean]

Kurt G.:

Yaqubos, your “paraphrase” of Justin Martyr’s commentary sets the stage for the apparent contradiction, as you think you have found (but which really isn’t there):

Justin actually said “… no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins …”

This means that to participate in the Eucharist, one needs 2 conditions, for sure, to exist:

1. We must be baptized.
2. We must believe what the Church teaches.

There may be more denominations, but I can think of one Church for sure which teaches and practices this.

---

And to mention a small item once again, Justin documents

“…those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” [65]

This is what we call Homebound Ministry, in action in Justin’s time (150 AD), and still in action today… Maybe I’m the only one, but I just think that’s amazing!​

Yaqubos, just my opinion, but there have been some very good answers to your comments by some really sweet people, and you still seem to be grasping for any possible flaw in these Early Church Fathers.

I guess keep grasping, just don’t close your mind to the overall theme followed by these early folks. That theme looks pretty Catholic to me, Yaqubos.

GOD BLESS US ALL!

Kurt check out this site and see what you think? justforcatholics.org/a181.htm God bless you Brother.

 

[James224]

Hi YAQUBOS,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

You said: “So I want to know: Can a person be in a state of grace without being alive by eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?”

My Comment: Yes. Baptized babies are in a state of grace. Yes if you are an adult and are in ignorance of it through no fault of your own and living the Christian life. Yes if you are a Catholic if it’s received worthily and no if received unworthily as it says in 1 Cor 11:29. I think the question you really have is the last part that says “,you shall not have life in you.” Christ said this because He knew of the jews prohibition on drinking blood (Lev 7:26, Lev 17:14). The next verse states the same thing in a positive manner: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” To show that Christ means literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood in verse 53 (Douay), Christ changes the word “Eat” to “Trogo” which means to “gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)” (Strong’s #5176 - look under “Eateth”) So you can see this is quite literal. Prior to this, Christ uses the word “Phago” (Strong’s #5315) which can be used symbolically or literally. Even Phago is used literally when Christ says in John 6:49-50 which says, “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

You said: If the bread and the cup are the SAME flesh and blood about which the Lord was talking in John 6:53, then why can’t the Eucharist give life, and “will do nothing for them”, as you say?"

My Comment: If you mean the jews, it’s because they had not the Spirit, therefore, they didn’t discern the Body of the Lord. (v64)

Good questions!

May God bless,

James224

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Sarah Jane:

Yes, I’m sure.

Ok. So if you are sure you are quoting a Protestant, a “heretical” as you call them, then it seems that Protestants are not heretical concerning the Eucharist, right?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Kurt G.:

I truly feel you are missing something about the very Church that Jesus Christ promised to build for us, but this thread is not the place to discuss it.

God Bless Us All!

Jesus Christ didn’t promise to build a Church for us, as if we are out of that Church. Jesus is building us as a Church, His Body.

Just a comment. Not personal.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobis Cvm!

A person is born with physical life, a person is born spritually in baptism. Grace enters the soul at baptism, didn’t you read my previous posts?

I read you very well before. You talked about us being born with life and that we must do our best so that we may not lose this life. You said also that the Eucharist helps us stay alive after being born in Baptism.

Were you just talking about physical life??? Oh, then sorry! It seems that I am very weak in English… I asked you why the Eucharist cannot give life if it is one and the same with the flesh and blood about which the Lord was talking in John 6, and you talked about being born in Baptism!!! As if someone can have life in Baptism before eating the flesh and drinking the blood!!!

And by the way: if grace enters the soul at Baptism, then how did many Muslims have LIFE by believing in Jesus Christ, even before being baptized?
Psalm45:9:

No he wasn’t, didn’t you listen to me before? Soil provides life to a tree, if the tree had no nutrients it would die. The Eucharist provides spritual nutrients to our soul (grace) and so it gives us life. If a tree did not feed off of the nutrients of the soil, then it would have no life in it, and would eventually die. Grace enters at baptism, but grace is strengthend each time the Eucharist is recieved. Grace does not stop at baptism, it builds and gets stronger each time the Eucharist is received and when a person does good works in faith of Christ. Grace is also infused through the sacraments of: confirmation, annointing of the sick, matrimony, and holy orders. Grace is restored through the sacrament of reconcilliation.

Believe me, I am reading you. I understand when you say that Eucharist helps us stay alive. But what about a pagan? Can’t he have Life by eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?

If a pagan cannot eat the Bread and drink of the Cup worthily, then how can he have Life that he will afterwards maintain…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

Dear Church Militant, please try to follow the idea:

I asked:

YAQUBOS:

How can he be in a state of grace?

You answered:
Church Militant:

Baptism

I asked you again:

YAQUBOS:

Can someone who is NOT baptized be in a state of grace?

I know some Christians from a Muslim background who believed in Jesus Christ. If they are not yet baptized, do you think they have already eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drank His blood?

You answered my question “do you think they have already eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drank His blood?” by saying:
Church Militant:

Nope.

I understood that you believe those Muslims who received Life by believing in Jesus Christ didn’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man and didn’t drink His blood. And as the Lord says that we cannot have Life UNLESS WE EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, and as I read in Acts 10:44-48 that Gentiles received LIFE before Baptism, so I asked:

YAQUBOS:

If they didn’t eat the flesh of our Lord and they didn’t drink His blood, then how did they have Life?

To which you answered:
Church Militant:

You tell me…

Well, Jesus Christ tells you:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

So those Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 and those Muslims who believed in the Lord, ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood when they believed, before being baptized! It is not the water thrown on your body that gives you Life, but the Spirit!

So eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood is not Baptism nor Eucharist. Thinking otherwise would make all the pagans who became alive by faith AN EXCEPTION to the truth that Jesus Christ declared in John 6:53… And if we go to the first century, this exception would be the MAJORITY!

The majority who is being alive would be an exception…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

As if someone can have life in Baptism before eating the flesh and drinking the blood!!!

Baptism washes away original sin. Original sin has put a seal on the soul, baptism washes away this sin and allows grace to enter.

YAQUBOS:

And by the way: if grace enters the soul at Baptism, then how did many Muslims have LIFE by believing in Jesus Christ, even before being baptized

?

If they are Muslims, they do not believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Are you talking about Christian Arabs? As a told you before there is also the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Although water baptism is the most common, it is not the only baptism (washing).

YAQUBOS:

But what about a pagan? Can’t he have Life by eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?

Not until he is baptized, no one who is not baptized can recieve communion. If he were baptized, then he would cease to be pagan, he will be born again a Christian.

YAQUBOS:

If a pagan cannot eat the Bread and drink of the Cup worthily, then how can he have Life that he will afterwards maintain…

The Church trusts in the mercy of God. If there is a pagan living in the middle of the jungle of Africa and he lived a good life, but the gospel never reached him, then the baptism of desire can save him. It is not this pagan’s fault that he did not hear the gospel. If a pagan were to hear the gospel message and were to remain a pagan, he put his salvation on the line. A pagan cannot recieve communion, only baptized people can.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

Quote:

Strange! Then why are some people feeling insulted when others burn the flag of their country? After all, they are not present in that flag!!!

NOPE! Let 'em burn it or whatever. I’m not there, nor is the United States.

Ok… Good citizen…
Church Militant:
As a symbol their abuse does not fall on my body, therefore they are not guilty of my body & blood. Anyone who believed otherwise suffers some kind of delusion.

I didn’t give the example of the flag as an example of guilt against your body and blood, but against you as a citizen of the country!
This example was to show you that when we don’t respect the symbol we are guilty against what it synbolizes!
Church Militant:
P.S. Insult is far and away different than bodily attack or abuse.

The Scripture doesn’t say that there is a bodily attack or abuse to Jesus Christ, but a guilt against His body and blood.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

YAQUBOS:
So those Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 and those Muslims who believed in the Lord, ate the flesh of the Lord and drank His blood when they believed, before being baptized!

Scripture does not say that the gentiles received the Eucharist before they were baptized.

YAQUBOS:

It is not the water thrown on your body that gives you Life, but the Spirit!

No one can desire to be baptized without receiving grace from the Holy Spirit, but there are different degrees of grace, the grace the Cornelius received was not nor equal to the sanctifying grace received in Baptism. What happened in Acts 10:44 was God was showing St. Peter the answer to the controversy of the early church, a gentile does not need to become Jewish in order to become Christian. Before hand there was the council of Jerusalem that stated gentiles do not need to be circumcised and St. Peter had a revelation showing that Kosher Laws are no longer necessary. This was God showing that indeed a Gentile does not need to be circumcised to become Christian, but baptism is all that is required. This is further shown by the immediate baptism of Cornelius and his household.

St. Paul teaches that baptism is the new circumcision: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)

St. Peter teaches baptismal regeneration: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:21-22)

Even Martin Luther believed in this.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Psalm45:9:

Before hand there was the council of Jerusalem that stated gentiles do not need to be circumcised

I’m sorry, the council of Jerusalem occured after this incident. Anyways, the council does show the authority of the church to bind and loose things. The church bound that a gentile does not need to become Jewish in order to become Christian.

 

[4_marks]

Journeyman:

I have just read a document published as part of a Rel Ed course (background for the sessions on the Eucharist) that state that the very early Church “believed that Jesus was present in the BREAKING of the bread, the SHARING of the cup, and in the community that gathered to pray. The focus had not yet shifted to Jesus present in the elements of bread and wine.”

The document later on states—“The passing centuries also witnessed a great shift in theology. Heresies denying the divinity of Jesus led to a great emphasis by the Church on Jesus as God. Eucharist became an object to be adored rather than a meal to be shared, as people felt themselves more and more unworthy. Jesus came to be understood as present in the bread and wine itself, rather than in the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the wine.”

I was surprised to read this. Is this true that the early Church did not really think of the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Jesus? If not true, then please give me references to show otherwise. Thanks.

It is likely that the early Eucharist took place in the wider context of an agape meal (so much for the fast for 1 hour before receiving rule). It is also likely that the earliest Christians did not recognize that Jesus was both God and man, or that the Holy Spirit was God. Such awareness came about through the context of revelation in the deposit of faith entrusted to us as Church.

More important than looking back to determine what may have been believed in such and so an era of Church history is to consider what we believe in 2004 and where we may be headed in the future. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and other visionaries, modern day prophets if you will, have offered us a glimpse of the great “City of God” that is to be realized.

 

[Kurt_G]

Berean:

Kurt check out this site and see what you think? justforcatholics.org/a181.htm God bless you Brother.

Thanks for the site, Berean. I’m looking for a “modest” way to say this, since I have no doubt that I am probably the least qualified of all posters here to address our subjects at hand ( and I really mean that). Every single statement made in this posted site I honestly would love to comment on, in time. But for the present, may I take just a couple of them, and then you tell me who is bending the historical facts…

QUOTE # 1 (Tertullian)from your site address)
From your suggested site:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body” (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Our previous discussion of this quote (on this thread):
Originally Posted by YAQUBOS
***Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
*"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified!
In Love,
Yaqubos†

(The blue quote was originally done by Yaqubos, while the red quotes were emphasized by me)

Berean, your site authors have correctly (I believe) ascertained exactly who Tertullian’s statements were aimed at. However, they then make the “enlightened jump” of reasoning that what was literally said, and literally reinforced as literal, is not really literal, since Tertullian was just “aiming” at the Marcionites…
Amazing!

I would be embarrassed to quote only the blue above, while omitting the part about “pretending”. It is being dishonest, leaving out contextual quotes just to make their point (in my opinion).

Now, Quote # 2 - Justin Martyr writes:
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, [A.D. 151]).

(Below quote also from your site address):
“The change of which our body and flesh are nourished” is not a reference to transubstantiation. According to Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

Your authors, I believe, have done a tremendous dishonest disservice to William A. Jurgens, to suggest that he wrote refuting Christ’s Real Eucharistic Presence. Look in the back of your Volume I edition, Berean. On page 428 (my edition) Jurgens places these very quotes from Justin Martyr in his Doctrinal Index section titled “Eucharist - Real Presence”!

Jurgens’ footnote your authors use to refute Real Presence does not even address the Real Presence! I think it applies to the fact that this Eucharist which is now offered for us “is REAL food, and REAL drink” which would indicate the food is for our bodies. (Isn’t that a direct quote from our Lord Jesus, in John 6:55?)

Now,the quotes both in front of, and after, your chosen quote, which I have put in red/bold, DO support the doctrine. But of course your authors need to downplay those verses, because the verses do not lead to where those authors want to go…

Berean, I am temporarily out of time, and have no comment yet on Augustine.

Later, and GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Baptism washes away original sin. Original sin has put a seal on the soul, baptism washes away this sin and allows grace to enter.

Did you know that NO SIN can be washed away without the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
So if you don’t eat and drink that Sacrifice, you can’t have LIFE.

If Baptism is giving you that LIFE, so BAPTISM, not Eucharist, is the eating and drinking!

Are you ok?
Psalm45:9:

If they are Muslims, they do not believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Are you talking about Christian Arabs? As a told you before there is also the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Although water baptism is the most common, it is not the only baptism (washing).

It seems that you think that only ARABS are Muslims… Whatever, that’s not what we will treat here…

Those Muslims about whom I was talking are Christians from a Muslim background. I said clearly that they BELIEVED in the Lord.
Some of them are not baptized yet. Do you think that they have LIFE? And how did they have this LIFE? Without eating and drinking?
Psalm45:9:

Not until he is baptized, no one who is not baptized can recieve communion. If he were baptized, then he would cease to be pagan, he will be born again a Christian.

As we can’t have LIFE UNLESS we eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, so Baptism is the eating and drinking of the Sacrifice…

Are you ok?
Psalm45:9:

The Church trusts in the mercy of God. If there is a pagan living in the middle of the jungle of Africa and he lived a good life, but the gospel never reached him, then the baptism of desire can save him. It is not this pagan’s fault that he did not hear the gospel. If a pagan were to hear the gospel message and were to remain a pagan, he put his salvation on the line. A pagan cannot recieve communion, only baptized people can.

I am talking about pagans who heard the Gospel AND believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they alive?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Berean]

Kurt G.:

Thanks for the site, Berean. I’m looking for a “modest” way to say this, since I have no doubt that I am probably the least qualified of all posters here to address our subjects at hand ( and I really mean that). Every single statement made in this posted site I honestly would love to comment on, in time. But for the present, may I take just a couple of them, and then you tell me who is bending the historical facts…

QUOTE # 1 (Tertullian)from your site address)
From your suggested site:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body” (Against Marcion, Bk 4).Kurt: thanks for your time, ya know none of this has any bearing on salvation right? God bless you and merry Christmas.

Our previous discussion of this quote (on this thread):
Originally Posted by YAQUBOS
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified!
In Love,
Yaqubos†

(The blue quote was originally done by Yaqubos, while the red quotes were emphasized by me)

Berean, your site authors have correctly (I believe) ascertained exactly who Tertullian’s statements were aimed at. However, they then make the “enlightened jump” of reasoning that what was literally said, and literally reinforced as literal, is not really literal, since Tertullian was just “aiming” at the Marcionites…
Amazing!

I would be embarrassed to quote only the blue above, while omitting the part about “pretending”. It is being dishonest, leaving out contextual quotes just to make their point (in my opinion).

Now, Quote # 2 - Justin Martyr writes:“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, [A.D. 151]).

(Below quote also from your site address):

“The change of which our body and flesh are nourished” is not a reference to transubstantiation. According to Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

Your authors, I believe, have done a tremendous dishonest disservice to William A. Jurgens, to suggest that he wrote refuting Christ’s Real Eucharistic Presence. Look in the back of your Volume I edition, Berean. On page 428 (my edition) Jurgens places these very quotes from Justin Martyr in his Doctrinal Index section titled “Eucharist - Real Presence”!

Jurgens’ footnote your authors use to refute Real Presence does not even address the Real Presence! I think it applies to the fact that this Eucharist which is now offered for us “is REAL food, and REAL drink” which would indicate the food is for our bodies. (Isn’t that a direct quote from our Lord Jesus, in John 6:55?)

Now,the quotes both in front of, and after, your chosen quote, which I have put in red/bold, DO support the doctrine. But of course your authors need to downplay those verses, because the verses do not lead to where those authors want to go…

Berean, I am temporarily out of time, and have no comment yet on Augustine.

Later, and GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[Berean]

Kurt G.:

Thanks for the site, Berean. I’m looking for a “modest” way to say this, since I have no doubt that I am probably the least qualified of all posters here to address our subjects at hand ( and I really mean that). Every single statement made in this posted site I honestly would love to comment on, in time. But for the present, may I take just a couple of them, and then you tell me who is bending the historical facts…

QUOTE # 1 (Tertullian)from your site address)
From your suggested site:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body” (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Our previous discussion of this quote (on this thread):
Originally Posted by YAQUBOS
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified!
In Love,
Yaqubos†

(The blue quote was originally done by Yaqubos, while the red quotes were emphasized by me)

Berean, your site authors have correctly (I believe) ascertained exactly who Tertullian’s statements were aimed at. However, they then make the “enlightened jump” of reasoning that what was literally said, and literally reinforced as literal, is not really literal, since Tertullian was just “aiming” at the Marcionites…
Amazing!

I would be embarrassed to quote only the blue above, while omitting the part about “pretending”. It is being dishonest, leaving out contextual quotes just to make their point (in my opinion).

Now, Quote # 2 - Justin Martyr writes:“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, [A.D. 151]).

(Below quote also from your site address):

“The change of which our body and flesh are nourished” is not a reference to transubstantiation. According to Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

Your authors, I believe, have done a tremendous dishonest disservice to William A. Jurgens, to suggest that he wrote refuting Christ’s Real Eucharistic Presence. Look in the back of your Volume I edition, Berean. On page 428 (my edition) Jurgens places these very quotes from Justin Martyr in his Doctrinal Index section titled “Eucharist - Real Presence”!

Jurgens’ footnote your authors use to refute Real Presence does not even address the Real Presence! I think it applies to the fact that this Eucharist which is now offered for us “is REAL food, and REAL drink” which would indicate the food is for our bodies. (Isn’t that a direct quote from our Lord Jesus, in John 6:55?)

Now,the quotes both in front of, and after, your chosen quote, which I have put in red/bold, DO support the doctrine. But of course your authors need to downplay those verses, because the verses do not lead to where those authors want to go…

Berean, I am temporarily out of time, and have no comment yet on Augustine.

Later, and GOD BLESS US ALL!

Kurt: thank you for your time. God bless you Brother and Merry! Christmas. P.S. I believe none of this has any bearing upon salvation, you?