Transubstantiation and John 6

[Cinette]

Hi, Cinette,

I don’t know how things are out your way … but over here, every public library has computers with internet access. Even if you are traveling, you can stop off at a library, let them hold on to your drivers license, and you can catch up on your e-mails, serf-the-web, and do all kinds of things.

When my wife and I go on vacation, there are these ‘Internet Cafe(s)’ in the vrious cities - essentially, you rent out the use in 15 - 30 minute blocks… and you have total access to everything you want.

In a very real sense - especially with e-mail - you can keep in touch with all the people you are used to receiving posts from. Amazing what this technology can do, if you just think about it.

So, do you have such internet access and availability out your way?

God bless

:yup::yup::whacky:

 

[Cinette]

I would like to chime in even though I am guessing this may have already been emphasized. For me, it is pretty straight forward because you have the support of the Synoptic Gospels, St. Paul, and Early Church Fathers.

Look at where the word “is” is placed in Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25. Jesus says, this is my body; this is my blood.

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the [a]covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Mark 14: 22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.

Luke 22:19 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.” 20 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.[a]

Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood. Jesus says it is his body; it is his blood.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Justin Martyr wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior 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 is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

John 6:55 “For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.” If Jesus did not mean it literally, why did he say “indeed?”

(The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373):

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

More and more non-Catholics seem to take the “parting meal” position.

*I had missed this post and went back and found it. Thank you for the information. I will file it in case I come across another stubborn Protestant.

*

 

[inkaneer]

There is no doubt that starting with the protestant revolt there was a fundamental change in the belief surrounding the Eucharist. That change in belief is still evolving [or maybe better stated as ‘still devolving’] to the point today that protestants in general fail to follow the Lord’s command to “do this…”. Yet for the first 1500 years of Christianity there was no controversy concerning the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Right from the start the followers of the Apostles taught the Real Presence as exemplified in the writings of Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch and disciple of the Apostle John.

But protestants could not hold onto this belief. It had to be discarded because it clashed with one of the major tenets of protestantism and that was sola scriptura. Sola scriptura, as first proposed, denied that there was any church authority. Therefore, neither the church nor anyone in it had the power [authority] to Transubstantiate the host into the Body and Blood of Jesus. That would be a contradiction of sola scriptura and an inherent flaw in protestant theology. So, despite what Jesus says in John 6 or at the Last Supper, protestants just can’t have it. And those who do ‘have it’ can’t remain protestant without having that major contradiction in their belief system.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I think you have given an excellent theoretical statement on the change away from the clear meaning of John 6 to the chaos in early Protestantism.

My approach is based on simple pragmatism! It takes consecrated priests to validly Consecrate the Eucharist. If one refuses to believe the ultimate source from where all priests come (Rome) then eventually the ones you have will die and without replacements! The only way (once Christ’s Church in Rome) is to come up with various view that essentially allow for anything you want (OK, a generalization … but, I think I am rather close to the mark…after all, there are 30,000+ groups and the ONLY THING they all agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong!..

Enjoyed your post.

God bless

There is no doubt that starting with the protestant revolt there was a fundamental change in the belief surrounding the Eucharist. That change in belief is still evolving [or maybe better stated as ‘still devolving’] to the point today that protestants in general fail to follow the Lord’s command to “do this…”. Yet for the first 1500 years of Christianity there was no controversy concerning the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Right from the start the followers of the Apostles taught the Real Presence as exemplified in the writings of Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch and disciple of the Apostle John.

But protestants could not hold onto this belief. It had to be discarded because it clashed with one of the major tenets of protestantism and that was sola scriptura. Sola scriptura, as first proposed, denied that there was any church authority. Therefore, neither the church nor anyone in it had the power [authority] to Transubstantiate the host into the Body and Blood of Jesus. That would be a contradiction of sola scriptura and an inherent flaw in protestant theology. So, despite what Jesus says in John 6 or at the Last Supper, protestants just can’t have it. And those who do ‘have it’ can’t remain protestant without having that major contradiction in their belief system.

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Cinette,

I don’t know how things are out your way … but over here, every public library has computers with internet access. Even if you are traveling, you can stop off at a library, let them hold on to your drivers license, and you can catch up on your e-mails, serf-the-web, and do all kinds of things.

When my wife and I go on vacation, there are these ‘Internet Cafe(s)’ in the vrious cities - essentially, you rent out the use in 15 - 30 minute blocks… and you have total access to everything you want.

In a very real sense - especially with e-mail - you can keep in touch with all the people you are used to receiving posts from. Amazing what this technology can do, if you just think about it.

So, do you have such internet access and availability out your way?

God bless

Well, Jesus said we should treat others the way we ourselves want to be treated. If I asked you to post a message with at least 100 words–all in your own words and without copying and pasting any text–would you do it?

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Onenow1

That is an excellent post.

God bless

Hi tqualey, Really very simple when Jesus says> IS >I believe He meant it,any other understanding would make Him a liar; Jesus was perfect and understood words better then anyone.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[spockrates]

There are a few keys in reading this part of John 6:

I find your response clear, concise and cogent, Jim. Thank you. Let me give you the best reply I might have given when I was an Evangelical:

1 - The most obvious is the reaction of those around him. Based on the addition of the figurative meaning, their reaction does not accurately correspond with what they are hearing. It is as if the two sides are having two distinctly separate conversations (i.e. one person is talking about the weather and another is talking about carpet fiber count).​

Yes, I agree some who heard him thought he was speaking literally. For they asked each other skeptically, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” But there were others in the audience who disagreed with their assessment of Jesus’ meaning. For they argued sharply with those who had this assessment.

2 - At the time Jesus spoke, what did it mean to those hearing him when he said eat my flesh and drink my blood? “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215).​

Yes, I also agree. Certain passages that come to my mind would have certainly come to some of their minds too:

"I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.”

(Deuteronomy 32:42)

16 So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the Lord. 17 “Far be it from me, O Lord, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it.

(2 Samuel 23)

The Lord is my light and my salvation—
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life—
of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When evil men advance against me
to devour my flesh,[a]
when my enemies and my foes attack me,
they will stumble and fall.
3 Though an army besiege me,
my heart will not fear;
though war break out against me,
even then will I be confident.

(Psalm 27)

This is indeed an idiom with which the Jewish people would have been familiar in Jesus’ day. For there would have been much preaching about God defeating the Roman forces occupying Jerusalem. Is there any way we might consider that this idiom would possibly apply to Jesus’ audience?

3 - Word such as “vine,” “oak,” “light,” “door,” etc. lend themselves to figurative interpretations; however, eat my flesh and drink my blood does not lend itself to metaphors as non-Catholics believe. All you have to do is find in the OT what it meant to eat flesh and drink blood and you will note that it does not mean “believe.” Refer to Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26. If Jesus was changing the understanding of eat my flesh and dirnk my blood, based on what the Jews understood it to mean, he certainly would have clarified (i.e. “Eat my flesh and drink my blood used to mean one thing, but now I am changing it to mean belief.”). Imagine someone changing “strong as an oak tree” to meaning someone who has Dutch elm disease.​

Yes, I agree that in the Old Testament, it is used as an idiom for killing an enemy, rather than believing in someone. But is eating, or drinking given a different symbolic meaning in the New Testament?

 

[spockrates]

4 - Jesus would not allow such an important message to go uncorrected. Christ had corrected misunderstandings before (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3:3-5, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6) so if Jesus was misunderstood then why did he not clarify and correct any misunderstanding? In fact, he did: “54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” In other words, Jesus did clarify. He said eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.​

Yes, I concur that Jesus corrected the misunderstandings of his disciples, though it’s worth noting that he did not always correct the misunderstandings of his enemies. The question to consider: Were those who accused Jesus of suggesting they literally eat his flesh and drink his blood true disciples, or false ones? If false, would he treat them the same way as his true disciples?

5 - For me the Passover lamb was real and eaten (it was not figurative). On the non-Catholic version, the Passover would have meant belief and was not literal (no lamb was slaughtered or eaten; it was a metaphor). The manna from heaven was real and eaten (not figurative). Instead, the forefathers “believed” in the manna from heaven, but did not actually eat it even though they did eat it. Are not eating the lamb and eating the manna precedents? Now Jesus is saying eat my flesh and drink my blood and suddenly it is figurative in contrast to what he has laid out? I do not see it.​

Are not the sacrificial lambs and manna metaphores for the one who is the Lamb of God and the Bread of Life?

6 - A key word is indeed: “6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Jesus is emphasizing that, indeed, his flesh is meat indeed and blood is drink indeed. Again,he is clarifying.​

I hope that this is helpful and that this makes sense. Utlimately, no one here can convince you otherwise.

Yes, your response makes sense. I’d be interested in continuing to discuss any of your six points. Regarding the last one, I think Jesus’ words in the verse are the strongest in support of Catholic teaching on the chapter from John’s gospel. Would you like to know why?

 

[InJesusItrust]

They prefigure the New Testament, but they are not just symbols. The sacraments, too, are not just symbols. God puts in the flesh a spiritual reality. They ate literal manna; it was not just a tale. The Israelites had to consume a real lamb, and we too MUST consume the real Lamb.

 

[spockrates]

*Oh man! I just did a word count on this post and it is 314! You are playing games with us. You are not serious my friend!

:banghead::tsktsk:*

I see. You didn’t tell me I was allowed to copy and paste most of my 100 words. I will do that, if you want. Most of the words of my post were not my own–they were the gospel author’s. But wasn’t Tom’s challenge to type my understanding of John 6 in 100 of my own words, rather than 100 words of someone else?

 

[spockrates]

There is no doubt that starting with the protestant revolt there was a fundamental change in the belief surrounding the Eucharist. That change in belief is still evolving [or maybe better stated as ‘still devolving’] to the point today that protestants in general fail to follow the Lord’s command to “do this…”. Yet for the first 1500 years of Christianity there was no controversy concerning the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Right from the start the followers of the Apostles taught the Real Presence as exemplified in the writings of Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch and disciple of the Apostle John.

But protestants could not hold onto this belief. It had to be discarded because it clashed with one of the major tenets of protestantism and that was sola scriptura. Sola scriptura, as first proposed, denied that there was any church authority. Therefore, neither the church nor anyone in it had the power [authority] to Transubstantiate the host into the Body and Blood of Jesus. That would be a contradiction of sola scriptura and an inherent flaw in protestant theology. So, despite what Jesus says in John 6 or at the Last Supper, protestants just can’t have it. And those who do ‘have it’ can’t remain protestant without having that major contradiction in their belief system.

I find your observation quite probable, Ink. I believe the argument regarding Church history is one of the strongest supporting the Catholic view. It’s not free of some difficulties, however. For some of the early Church fathers had ideas now considered heresy by the Church. Justin Martyr, for example, believed Jesus was an angel and not God.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

His belief about Jesus had more in common with that of modern Mormans, than with that of modern Catholics. So how do we assure Protestants that what Justin Martyr says about the Eucharist is true when we acknowledge that what the revered saint said about who Jesus is, is not true?

 

[spockrates]

They prefigure the New Testament, but they are not just symbols. The sacraments, too, are not just symbols. God puts in the flesh a spiritual reality. They ate literal manna; it was not just a tale. The Israelites had to consume a real lamb, and we too MUST consume the real Lamb.

Yes, InJesus. If Jesus’ words of John 6 refer to the Eucharist, then consuming it is indeed a requirement for having, or keeping eternal life. This is one reason why it is so important for me to be sure that is what he meant.

 

[tqualey]

Hi,InJesusItrust,

You have identified some excellent ideas.

The entire reason we have a NEW Testament is because Christ fulfilled the Old Testament. What was given to us as symbolic in the OT has been made real - through the Grace of God - in the NT. For example

In the OT, the sinful High Priest could only go into the Holy of Holies once a year - but, Christ - our sinless High Priest offers sacrifice to God throughout the world 24/7, 24/7

In the OT, the sins of the nation were symbolically placed on a goat and sent out into the desert once a year - but, Christ gave His Apostles - and through them their successors - the delegated power of God to forgive sin - and does so throughout the world, 24/7

In the OT, male infants were brought into the Jewish Faith on the 8th day after their birth through the rite of circumcision - but, Christ through the Church He founded on Peter and gave him the power to bind and lose - brings all (infants included) to Himself through Baptism.

And the most famous - the bread given to Moses and the Hebrews during their travels in the desert was symbolic for the Real Presence of our Lord.

Just like a mystery writer prepares the reader for the ending by what is established in the beginning - God’s written record of His interaction with His People prepares us for His interaction with all who would believe Him - AND THEN DO what He commands us to do.

God bless

They prefigure the New Testament, but they are not just symbols. The sacraments, too, are not just symbols. God puts in the flesh a spiritual reality. They ate literal manna; it was not just a tale. The Israelites had to consume a real lamb, and we too MUST consume the real Lamb.

 

[inkaneer]

I find your observation quite probable, Ink. I believe the argument regarding Church history is one of the strongest supporting the Catholic view. It’s not free of some difficulties, however. For some of the early Church fathers had ideas now considered heresy by the Church. Justin Martyr, for example, believed Jesus was an angel and not God.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

His belief about Jesus had more in common with that of modern Mormans, than with that of modern Catholics. So how do we assure Protestants that what Justin Martyr says about the Eucharist is true when we acknowledge that what the revered saint said about who Jesus is, is not true?

First of all Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source. Secondly, to say that Justin Martyr believed Christ was an angel is, in my opinion, a gross oversimplification of what Justin Martyr actually believed. Do not forget that Justin Martyr lived in the early second century from about 100-165 AD. This places him in the sub apostolic age and well before the first of the councils that ultimately gave to us the formally defined concept of the Trinity. Justin Martyr struggled with the idea that God was not a singularity but rather a plurality. It would not be until 300 years later when the church employed Greek philosophical terminology to explain that plurality Evidwence of Justin Martyr’s struggle is seen in chapter 129 of his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin makes a clear distinction, indicating that the “God” he refers to as Christ, is numerically distinct, but ‘…not (different) in will…’, from another, who is “Lord of the Lord”, and causes the “God” Christ to have his power and authority. This would seem to indicate emphatically that Justin’s use of the term “God” when referring to Christ is not the same usage when referring to the Father – the Creator, and only true God, as Justin calls him in other chapters of his writings.

But no one said the early church writers were infallible or inerrant in the first place. They are used however, as a window into their age to see what was believed. Thus it is not expected that they be perfect in their understanding of doctrine which would only be formally defined centuries after their deaths. Justin did not fully understand the relationship between the Father and the Son but he did not deny that Jesus was God. But getting back to the subject of the Eucharist Justin Martyr 's statements in his First Apology are some of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist] ... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” [80]

Obviously he, as well as the other early church writers, viewed the Eucharist exactly as Jesus had said it was. They took Jesus literally. In the above quote Justin Martyr says he was taught this. This was very early into the history of the church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

Thank you for a most insightful post!

God bless

First of all Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source. Secondly, to say that Justin Martyr believed Christ was an angel is, in my opinion, a gross oversimplification of what Justin Martyr actually believed. Do not forget that Justin Martyr lived in the early second century from about 100-165 AD. This places him in the sub apostolic age and well before the first of the councils that ultimately gave to us the formally defined concept of the Trinity. Justin Martyr struggled with the idea that God was not a singularity but rather a plurality. It would not be until 300 years later when the church employed Greek philosophical terminology to explain that plurality Evidwence of Justin Martyr’s struggle is seen in chapter 129 of his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin makes a clear distinction, indicating that the “God” he refers to as Christ, is numerically distinct, but ‘…not (different) in will…’, from another, who is “Lord of the Lord”, and causes the “God” Christ to have his power and authority. This would seem to indicate emphatically that Justin’s use of the term “God” when referring to Christ is not the same usage when referring to the Father – the Creator, and only true God, as Justin calls him in other chapters of his writings.

But no one said the early church writers were infallible or inerrant in the first place. They are used however, as a window into their age to see what was believed. Thus it is not expected that they be perfect in their understanding of doctrine which would only be formally defined centuries after their deaths. Justin did not fully understand the relationship between the Father and the Son but he did not deny that Jesus was God. But getting back to the subject of the Eucharist Justin Martyr 's statements in his First Apology are some of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist] ... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” [80]

Obviously he, as well as the other early church writers, viewed the Eucharist exactly as Jesus had said it was. They took Jesus literally. In the above quote Justin Martyr says he was taught this. This was very early into the history of the church.

 

[in_servitude]

5 - For me the Passover lamb was real and eaten (it was not figurative). On the non-Catholic version, the Passover would have meant belief and was not literal (no lamb was slaughtered or eaten; it was a metaphor). The manna from heaven was real and eaten (not figurative). Instead, the forefathers “believed” in the manna from heaven, but did not actually eat it even though they did eat it. Are not eating the lamb and eating the manna precedents? Now Jesus is saying eat my flesh and drink my blood and suddenly it is figurative in contrast to what he has laid out? I do not see it.​

Hello Spock,
Exodus 12 - please tell me your opinion. My opinion is that the Jews **HAD **to **EAT **the Lamb in order to **NOT **be **KILLED **that night. They had to physically eat it. Not a metaphor for those people. I wonder if any of those Egyptians that lost their first born sons were thinking, “Interesting metaphor!” I seriously doubt that.

How absurd it would be for a Jew - who knows that the first exodus **required **the eating of the lamb to avoid death - how absurd it would be to write the words in John 6 - and be thinking - yeah, by Jewish friends will get the whole metaphor thing. The explanation is so far fetched, I can’t hardly stand it.

 

[mlz]

"We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but we certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

You believe this if you’re Catholic. This is the teaching of the Church, always has been, always will be.

mlz

 

[mlz]

Thanks but disagree with premise that slight difference of opinion means you are any less Catholic. For heaven sakes half the congregation would need to resign under those terms.

To be Catholic we must adhere to the basic dogma’s of the Church, transubstantiation is one of them. It is sad to see so many like yourself refuse to belief in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but just because there are many with this belief does NOT make it correct.

mlz

 

[spockrates]

First of all Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source. Secondly, to say that Justin Martyr believed Christ was an angel is, in my opinion, a gross oversimplification of what Justin Martyr actually believed.

Thanks, Ink. Please tell me: What did Justin Martyr believe about Jesus? Did he believe the Son of God is one in being with the Father?

Do not forget that Justin Martyr lived in the early second century from about 100-165 AD. This places him in the sub apostolic age and well before the first of the councils that ultimately gave to us the formally defined concept of the Trinity. Justin Martyr struggled with the idea that God was not a singularity but rather a plurality. It would not be until 300 years later when the church employed Greek philosophical terminology to explain that plurality Evidwence of Justin Martyr’s struggle is seen in chapter 129 of his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin makes a clear distinction, indicating that the “God” he refers to as Christ, is numerically distinct, but ‘…not (different) in will…’, from another, who is “Lord of the Lord”, and causes the “God” Christ to have his power and authority. This would seem to indicate emphatically that Justin’s use of the term “God” when referring to Christ is not the same usage when referring to the Father – the Creator, and only true God, as Justin calls him in other chapters of his writings.

But no one said the early church writers were infallible or inerrant in the first place. They are used however, as a window into their age to see what was believed. Thus it is not expected that they be perfect in their understanding of doctrine which would only be formally defined centuries after their deaths. Justin did not fully understand the relationship between the Father and the Son but he did not deny that Jesus was God.

Was it only the relationship of the Son he did not completely comprehend? Or did he also misunderstand the being (or essence) of the Son?

But getting back to the subject of the Eucharist Justin Martyr 's statements in his First Apology are some of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist] ... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” [80]

Obviously he, as well as the other early church writers, viewed the Eucharist exactly as Jesus had said it was. They took Jesus literally. In the above quote Justin Martyr says he was taught this. This was very early into the history of the church.

Yes, I agree his statements about the bread and wine are clearly supporting the modern Catholic view. Would you say he got the nature of the Eucharist right, but the nature of Son of God not quite right?

 

[spockrates]

Hello Spock,
Exodus 12 - please tell me your opinion. My opinion is that the Jews **HAD **to **EAT **the Lamb in order to **NOT **be **KILLED **that night. They had to physically eat it. Not a metaphor for those people. I wonder if any of those Egyptians that lost their first born sons were thinking, “Interesting metaphor!” I seriously doubt that.

How absurd it would be for a Jew - who knows that the first exodus **required **the eating of the lamb to avoid death - how absurd it would be to write the words in John 6 - and be thinking - yeah, by Jewish friends will get the whole metaphor thing. The explanation is so far fetched, I can’t hardly stand it.

Hi, Servitude and welcome to the conversation.



Yeah, manna was real and not seen as a metaphor by them. I’m sure that if they did not eat it, they would have died of starvation. Not sure if the eating of the sacrifices, or the act of sacrificing, or both caused their sins to be forgiven, or gave them eternal life.

I’m thinking this real stuff than fell like snow in the desert was not only real to them, but also a real symbol of Christ to us. For Christ was like manna in that he came from heaven to keep us alive, but the life he gives us is one that never dies if we keep it.

Do you think the Eucharist is similar to manna in that it is both real and at the same time, symbolic? I mean, do you think it is the real body, soul and divinity of Christ and at the same time, representative of the body he sacrificed on the cross and the blood he shed for us?