What do Protestants think the early Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConfusedTim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ConfusedTim

Guest
I know that most non Catholic Christians dont believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what do you think the first Christians (those in say the first and second century AD) thought i.e. do you think that the early church saw the Eucharist as a symbol? If so what evidence can you provide to support your view?
 
It’s not just non-Catholics. A large number of people who consider themselves Catholics don’t believe in the real presence either.
 
JerryS said:
It’s not just non-Catholics. A large number of people who consider themselves Catholics don’t believe in the real presence either.
Click to expand...
Granted, but a Catholic who does not believe in the real presence suffers more from a lack of faith than a genuine theological disagreement.

St. Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Romans:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.”

He also wrote to the Smyrnaeans: (emphasis added)
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . 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. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their own disputes.”

Irenaeus:
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

These are two early Christians who are clearly on board with the real presence. More importantly, there is not a point where there was a teaching against the real presence, only to have that teaching be replaced by the current dogma.
 
ConfusedTim said:
I know that most non Catholic Christians dont believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what do you think the first Christians (those in say the first and second century AD) thought i.e. do you think that the early church saw the Eucharist as a symbol? If so what evidence can you provide to support your view?
Click to expand...
I’m really not concerned about those that wrote after the 1st century. What time I have to read, I try to read the Bible. I understand you don’t accept that as a good practice, but that’s what I do. As for the idea of the real Presense, that’s just not something that makes sense as I’ve read the NT several times. I am in the process of understanding your reasonings and I understand it starts with what Jesus said which you take literal. Let me ask: when Jesus said to cut off the hand and pluch out the eye, was He being literal. We need to take care when we try to understand when Jesus was speaking literal and when He was not wanting to be taken literal but for us to see how important His meanings were by His vivid comments.
 
I really dont get the protestant view point. As far as Catholics are concerned, the bible is very clear about the real presence in the Eucharist but IF there was any doubt (which there isn`t) we have the writings of the early Christians who also clearly believed in this view point. Why is it that protestants believe what some men said 16 hundred years after the event but not those who were taught by the apostles?
 
Dokimas said:
I’m really not concerned about those that wrote after the 1st century. What time I have to read, I try to read the Bible. I understand you don’t accept that as a good practice, but that’s what I do. As for the idea of the real Presense, that’s just not something that makes sense as I’ve read the NT several times. I am in the process of understanding your reasonings and I understand it starts with what Jesus said which you take literal. Let me ask: when Jesus said to cut off the hand and pluch out the eye, was He being literal. We need to take care when we try to understand when Jesus was speaking literal and when He was not wanting to be taken literal but for us to see how important His meanings were by His vivid comments.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think Christ was being literal when you asked the question about plucking out one’s eye. But the Eucharist is a different matter entirely! Christ knew He had to return to the Father, but He would also stay with us here on earth via the Eucharist, to nurish us, so we have something substantive in front of us. The “Word” that other Christians constantly talk about remains among us, and not just in a spiritual sense. I have been to many Protestant services, mainly Baptist, and while I enjoy the fellowship of other Christians and hearing the message of Christ, to me they do not have the fullness that Christ wanted for us as is present in the Catholic Mass or Orthodox services.
 
ConfusedTim said:
I know that most non Catholic Christians dont believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what do you think the first Christians (those in say the first and second century AD) thought i.e. do you think that the early church saw the Eucharist as a symbol? If so what evidence can you provide to support your view?
Click to expand...
The Disciples had heard Jesus speak in parables. Figurative, symbolic speech is used by Jesus throughout the Gospel.

At the last supper Jesus was standing right there in front of them when He was saying this is my Body and Blood.

SO at that instance to the Disciples it was simply Bread and Wine.
 
Dokimas said:
I’m really not concerned about those that wrote after the 1st century. What time I have to read, I try to read the Bible. I understand you don’t accept that as a good practice, but that’s what I do. As for the idea of the real Presense, that’s just not something that makes sense as I’ve read the NT several times. I am in the process of understanding your reasonings and I understand it starts with what Jesus said which you take literal. Let me ask: when Jesus said to cut off the hand and pluch out the eye, was He being literal. We need to take care when we try to understand when Jesus was speaking literal and when He was not wanting to be taken literal but for us to see how important His meanings were by His vivid comments.
Click to expand...
There are certainly times when Christ is speaking figuratively and when He is speaking literally. In the discourse regarding eating His flesh His audience understood Him to be speaking literally. This is quite clear by their reaction to what was said. Instead of correcting their misunderstanding, Christ reiterated, even stronger than originally, the fact that they must really eat His flesh. This lead to great concern among those present and many of them left Him that day. If this was to be taken as a figurative eating of His flesh it seems very odd that Christ would allow a simple misunderstanding to cause many to walk away from Him.

As far as not reading anything but the Bible; that is a very dangerous approach to theology. You will never get a balanced viewpoint and will never understand the fullness of what you read. God gave us many spirit filled people to help us form our faith. If we fail to heed what they say we will forever be lost to the fullness of truth.
 
izoid said:
In the discourse regarding eating His flesh His audience understood Him to be speaking literally. This is quite clear by their reaction to what was said. Instead of correcting their misunderstanding, Christ reiterated, even stronger than originally, the fact that they must really eat His flesh.
Click to expand...
Please point me to that Scripture. Thanks.
 
Jesus let those who he knew wouldn’t believe walk away. So it is in the modern world, you can choose to believe (free will) or you can walk away, or at least create a new protestant church. Even Matin Luther believed in the Real Presence. Paul in his epistle to the corinthians said that you have to be worthy to partake of the Eucharist. He said you would be guilty of the death and crucifixion of jesus if you ate unworthily. Pretty heavy language for a mere symbol. 🙂
 
Dokimas,

There was no Bible with the early Christians for 300 years…so how did they maintain the unity of faith when it was expanding into so many different regions and cultures of people? How was information passed down? We know of the letters but what else???

What is your actual knowledge of the practices of faith in these years?

Catholics who reject belief in the Eucharist are no longer Catholic. And they commit a sacrilege in receiving without faith. They are told not to receive if they do not believe.

Kathleen
 
WMM said:
***When Protestants have a disagreement, they form a new denomination.

When Catholics have a disagreement, they found a new Order.*** 😃
Click to expand...
LOL!

One Lutheran, a Synod. Two Lutherans, a congregation in the Synod. Three Lutherans, a schism.
 
Adonia said:
No, I don’t think Christ was being literal when you asked the question about plucking out one’s eye. But the Eucharist is a different matter entirely! Christ knew He had to return to the Father, but He would also stay with us here on earth via the Eucharist, to nurish us, so we have something substantive in front of us. The “Word” that other Christians constantly talk about remains among us, and not just in a spiritual sense. I have been to many Protestant services, mainly Baptist, and while I enjoy the fellowship of other Christians and hearing the message of Christ, to me they do not have the fullness that Christ wanted for us as is present in the Catholic Mass or Orthodox services.
Click to expand...

You think God would go against the OT and encourage us to eat human flesh and drink human blood (yes I know it’s not just any human but THE Human Who is God)?​

Also, as Jesus stood with His disciples telling them that the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood, (remember His body had not been ‘broken’ (beaten and crucufied) yet, nor was His Blood shed yet) that some of His Flesh and Blood stopped being part of Him and entered the bread and wine and then entered the disciples? Wasn’t Jesus giving this as a forshaddow of what would happen in a few days and a way for them to remember and communicate the awesome deed He did (for us looking back)?​

Not to mention, why, if the actual real Presence of Jesus in in communion don’t people who take it unworthily die like Uzzah died when he touched the Ark?
 
Dokimas said:

You think God would go against the OT and encourage us to eat human flesh and drink human blood (yes I know it’s not just any human but THE Human Who is God)?​

Also, as Jesus stood with His disciples telling them that the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood, (remember His body had not been ‘broken’ (beaten and crucufied) yet, nor was His Blood shed yet) that some of His Flesh and Blood stopped being part of Him and entered the bread and wine and then entered the disciples? Wasn’t Jesus giving this as a forshaddow of what would happen in a few days and a way for them to remember and communicate the awesome deed He did (for us looking back)?​

Not to mention, why, if the actual real Presence of Jesus in in communion don’t people who take it unworthily die like Uzzah died when he touched the Ark?
Click to expand...
Dokimas,

If you want all of the scriptures relating to the teachings of the Eucharist, check out this website, scripturecatholic.com/index.html . It has so many scriptures relating to the eucharist starting with the OT and the meaning of the term sacraficil lamb of god

Just pick the topic and scripture on each topic with a short explanation are there for you

God Bless
 
Dokimas said:
You think God would go against the OT and encourage us to eat human flesh and drink human blood (yes I know it’s not just any human but THE Human Who is God)?
Click to expand...
No, because the eating and drinking in the Sacrament is not “Capernaitic.” It is sacramental. That is, it is not the equivalent to walking over to someone, slitting their wrist, and drinking their blood.
Also, as Jesus stood with His disciples telling them that the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood, (remember His body had not been ‘broken’ (beaten and crucufied) yet, nor was His Blood shed yet) that some of His Flesh and Blood stopped being part of Him and entered the bread and wine and then entered the disciples? Wasn’t Jesus giving this as a forshaddow of what would happen in a few days and a way for them to remember and communicate the awesome deed He did (for us looking back)?
Click to expand...
Jesus is fully God and fully man. He was perfectly capable of being present physically with His disciples, yet also present in the sacramental elements. Being fully God, He is able to communicate His divine attributes (such as omnipresence) to his human nature. Humans can’t walk on water, either, yet Jesus did so.
Not to mention, why, if the actual real Presence of Jesus in in communion don’t people who take it unworthily die like Uzzah died when he touched the Ark?
Click to expand...
You’ve read 1 Corinthians 11 on this point, haven’t you? Be that as it may, unbelievers will certainly receive spiritual judgment for eating and drinking unworthily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top