What do Protestants think the early Christian

[XinMinny]

Another interesting conversation. I noticed the question in the OP says “What do Protestants think the early Christians thought…”

I would like to answer that from my perspective. I think that the early Christians (I mean the Apostles and those who met with them in the early chapters of Acts) were likely so mentally involved in trying to actually take in what happened with respect to the Resurrection and the Ascension, that they didn’t have time to think about the “Real Presence” question.

I know that many Catholics here will say, “But there is John 6, and they were there, and understood what he was saying.” I don’t want to argue the point, but merely express a thought about that text. In that text, there was no bread or wine present when Jesus was talking. (That is the reason that many non-Catholic Christians don’t think that text is about the bread and wine that we share on Sundays). In that light, it seems reasonable to me that their thoughts on that occasion would have been the kind of thoughts people have when they try to understand something that is a little beyond them.

And, generally, I think that in the early chapters of Acts, the same would have been true. The question: How do we believe in Jesus as the Christ and how do we trust in Him. The question about the ‘Real Presence’ would perhaps not have been discussed until later.

That is my answer to the direct question in the OP: What do Protestants think…

Minny

 

[ahollars]

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)?

The Old Testament is bound by the will of God. God (Jesus) was not bound by the law of the Old Testament. He followed the law prior to His ministry to fulfill prophecy, but during His ministry He was accused more than once of violating it. It was in that time that he was writing the new law and preparing the new convenant.​

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?

Nice! That’s actually a good point in that, yes, we believe that if you take of the Body and Blood unworthily, you will die in that you have separated yourself from God.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

1 Corinthians 11:26-29

Judgement upon yourself is worse than death.

 

[Dokimas]

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

Thank you. However, do you have an answer to my questions?

 

[Dokimas]

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.​

Fine understandable answers, but I respectfully don’t agree with you applications and your conclusion.

 

[Dokimas]

The Old Testament is bound by the will of God. God (Jesus) was not bound by the law of the Old Testament. He followed the law prior to His ministry to fulfill prophecy, but during His ministry He was accused more than once of violating it. It was in that time that he was writing the new law and preparing the new convenant.​

Nice! That’s actually a good point in that, yes, we believe that if you take of the Body and Blood unworthily, you will die in that you have separated yourself from God.

Judgement upon yourself is worse than death.

I don’t mean to be silly based on my last response to another poster but because it fits I’ll respond the same.​

Thank you.​

Fine understandable answers, but I respectfully don’t agree with you applications and your conclusion.

 

[JonNC]

=XinMinny;6345156]
I would like to answer that from my perspective. I think that the early Christians (I mean the Apostles and those who met with them in the early chapters of Acts) were likely so mentally involved in trying to actually take in what happened with respect to the Resurrection and the Ascension, that they didn’t have time to think about the “Real Presence” question.

Maybe, maybe not, Minny. Yours is an interesting perspective. I would suggest, however, that any thought pattern limited to the ressurection and ascension soon changed, as is eveidenced in 1 Corin. 11:

23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.”f 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.g 31But if we judgedh ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplinedi so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

So, Paul brings the teaching of the real presence forward without too much delay.

Jon

 

[XinMinny]

Jon,

Thanks for pointing out an omission in my analysis.

Just to clarify: I did not mean to suggest that the Apostles and those who were in fellowship with them did not think about how to remember Jesus in the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup. On the contrary, I think that was one thing that would have been sure in their minds, as the events of that evening would have been very special to them.

To clarify my point, I would like to share this idea: It is clear from 1 Cor 11 that they shared the bread and the wine. However, the portion you quoted:

"23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.”f 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.g 31But if we judgedh ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplinedi so that we may not be condemned along with the world."

This portion does not in my view explicitly state anything about a ‘Real Presence.’ I believe it is possible to say that if a person didn’t already have a belief in the ‘Real Presence’ that said person would not get that belief from this passage.

Of course, I am not denigrating the belief in that ‘Real Presence’ at all by this discussion. Rather, I mean to explain my thought about what the early Christians might have thought about the idea.

Thanks again. It is all thought-provoking discussion.

Minny

 

[XinMinny]

Oh,

And, Jon, as a further clarification, my original reference to the Resurrection and Ascension was meant to be specifically applied only to the first very short period of time that might be covered in the first few chapters of Acts - say, up until chapter 5 ends (although I don’t mean that as a strict analysis). The idea is that right away after the Lord Jesus left, there was no way for them to think about some of the things we think about. Too much else on their plate.

Thanks again

 

[wmscott]

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.

Hello Dokimas, how was the birthday party?

Well I have to ask you here when is it that Christ is speaking literally or in parable? Do you or anyone else have the accompanying document that details exactly which verse is literal and which is figurative? This is an old argument, weak at best, that many Protestants use to discredit the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ being present in the Most Holy Eucharist. We do not get to pick and choose so that we can make it fit into our beliefs or personal brand of theology, it is what God wanted it to be?

As you already know the Bible uses many forms of literature to put Gods word into perspective. I have a feeling that you are discerning enough to realize that Christ was speaking literally in John 6 when He was discussing the body and blood of Himself. Twice Christ stated “Amen, Amen I say to you” or “Truly, Truly I say to you”, depending on which translation of the Bible you have. Christ knew this was going to be hard to accept and He did not beat around the bush with trying to put forth some parable, He said what He said and meant it directly and unequivocally. " Amen, Amen I say to you" is not a parable or figurative language, it is literal, plain, straight forward, no mistakes. Take the time to read John 6 in its entirety. There was no mistake that Christ was speaking literally to them, so look at verse, 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Do you really think that these “Disciples” would have left Him if He was only speaking figuratively? They knew, as we know, that Christ was speaking literally.

John 6:47-69

47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peace.

 

[wmscott]

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?

There are many, many things that prefigure the Crucifixion, this was just one of them.

 

[Dokimas]

Hello Dokimas, how was the birthday party? Wonderful, thank you.

Well I have to ask you here when is it that Christ is speaking literally or in parable? Do you or anyone else have the accompanying document that details exactly which verse is literal and which is figurative? This is an old argument, weak at best, that many Protestants use to discredit the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ being present in the Most Holy Eucharist. We do not get to pick and choose so that we can make it fit into our beliefs or personal brand of theology, it is what God wanted it to be?

As you already know the Bible uses many forms of literature to put Gods word into perspective. I have a feeling that you are discerning enough to realize that Christ was speaking literally in John 6 when He was discussing the body and blood of Himself. Twice Christ stated “Amen, Amen I say to you” or “Truly, Truly I say to you”, depending on which translation of the Bible you have. Christ knew this was going to be hard to accept and He did not beat around the bush with trying to put forth some parable, He said what He said and meant it directly and unequivocally. " Amen, Amen I say to you" is not a parable or figurative language, it is literal, plain, straight forward, no mistakes. Take the time to read John 6 in its entirety. There was no mistake that Christ was speaking literally to them, so look at verse, 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Do you really think that these “Disciples” would have left Him if He was only speaking figuratively? They knew, as we know, that Christ was speaking literally.

John 6:47-69

47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peace.

Is Jesus a real Door or a figurative Door?

Is Jesus a real Lion or a figurative Lion?

Is Jesus a real Lamb or a figurative Lamb?

Is Jesus real Bread or figurative Bread?

Is Jesus real Light or figurative Light (light that is made up of the rainbow colors)?

Is Jesus a real Vine or a figurative Vine?

Is Jesus a real Star (morninig star) or a figurative Star?

Is Jesus a real Gate or a figurative Gate?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is Jesus a real Door or a figurative Door?

Is Jesus a real Lion or a figurative Lion?

Is Jesus a real Lamb or a figurative Lamb?

Is Jesus real Bread or figurative Bread?

Is Jesus real Light or figurative Light (light that is made up of the rainbow colors)?

Is Jesus a real Vine or a figurative Vine?

Is Jesus a real Star (morninig star) or a figurative Star?

Is Jesus a real Gate or a figurative Gate?

You’ve missed an important aspect to non-literal language with these, Dokimas. Non-literal language always has something as it’s referrent. The non-literal aspect to the above statements made by Jesus are “vine,” “light,” lamb," etc. The words “I am,” or “this is” is literal language. In other words, when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Light of the world” Jesus was claiming TO BE something, not merely TO REPRESENT something. He was not saying “I REPRESENT the Light of the world”, He was claiming TO BE the Light of the world. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “I am…” but what He meant by “the Light of the world”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the nonliteral element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word "is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word "is”. You might even write it out in two columns.

**Literal ** Non-Literal

I am… …the Door.

I am… …the Light of the world.

This is… …my body.

This is… …my blood.

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? If Jesus’ meant this is my body in a figurative, non-literal sense then there are no Scriptural answers to these questions.

 

[walt4lori]

I’m not so sure ‘most non-Catholic Christians do not believe in the Real Presence.’ There sure are a lot of Anglican and Lutheran Christians in the world. They certainly teach and believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Dokimas]

You’ve missed an important aspect to non-literal language with these, Dokimas. Non-literal language always has something as it’s referrent. The non-literal aspect to the above statements made by Jesus are “vine,” “light,” lamb," etc. The words “I am,” or “this is” is literal language. In other words, when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Light of the world” Jesus was claiming TO BE something, not merely TO REPRESENT something. He was not saying “I REPRESENT the Light of the world”, He was claiming TO BE the Light of the world. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “I am…” but what He meant by “the Light of the world”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the nonliteral element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word "is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word "is”. You might even write it out in two columns.

**Literal ** Non-Literal

I am… …the Door.

I am… …the Light of the world.

This is… …my body.

This is… …my blood.

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? If Jesus’ meant this is my body in a figurative, non-literal sense then there are no Scriptural answers to these questions.

If I understand your post, you are making my point exactly – We are to eat HIs Body and drink His Blood but not as we eat food to sustain the body or as we drink water to sustain the body. Jesus’ Body and Blood does not sustain our body but our soul. Our soul eats and drinks the Body and Blood of Jesus. In that are we saved.

Joh 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Joh 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Ro 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Ro 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

 

[Adonia]

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?

God goes against the OT many times, like when He says things like: “Love your enemies”, allows us to eat foods contrary to OT law, etc etc etc… Look brother, you do not believe this teaching of the Catholic/Orthodox churches and that’s fine by me. I have FAITH that this teaching is true. End of story! It is your loss that you go through this life not believing in this and there is nothing I can say that will convince you. Faith brother, it’s all about faith!

 

[TriuneUnity]

If I understand your post, you are making my point exactly – We are to eat HIs Body and drink His Blood but not as we eat food to sustain the body or as we drink water to sustain the body. Jesus’ Body and Blood does not sustain our body but our soul. Our soul eats and drinks the Body and Blood of Jesus. In that are we saved.

Joh 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Joh 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Ro 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Ro 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

I think you may have missed my point, or I didn’t explain it clearly.

When Jesus says “I am the light of the world,” the figurative in that saying is “light of the world.” “I am” is literal, “light of the world” is non-literal.

It is your contention that when Jesus said “this is my body,” he was using non literal language. If “my body” is non-literal, and figurative, what is the figurative thing he was referring to? Is his body non literal?

 

[adstrinity]

You know what I’m not seeing? I’m not seeing any evidence to support the view of a symbolic communion from the early Christians. At least not presented so far.

 

[Dokimas]

God goes against the OT many times, like when He says things like: “Love your enemies”, allows us to eat foods contrary to OT law, etc etc etc… Look brother, you do not believe this teaching of the Catholic/Orthodox churches and that’s fine by me. I have FAITH that this teaching is true. End of story! It is your loss that you go through this life not believing in this and there is nothing I can say that will convince you. Faith brother, it’s all about faith!

An important thing about faith is that it must be in something true. No matter how much faith Jehovah’s Witnesses have that Jesus is Michael the Arcangel doesn’t make it true.

 

[Dokimas]

I think you may have missed my point, or I didn’t explain it clearly.

When Jesus says “I am the light of the world,” the figurative in that saying is “light of the world.” “I am” is literal, “light of the world” is non-literal.

It is your contention that when Jesus said “this is my body,” he was using non literal language. If “my body” is non-literal, and figurative, what is the figurative thing he was referring to? Is his body non literal?

Jesus presented His Body to be broken (beaten and then crucified) and His Blood to be shed it REAL. He did it to pay for our sins. IMO, He did not do so for us to literally eat it but for our soul to eat and drink of the reality of our overwhelming need for His broken Body and shed Blood and our overwhelming inability to pay the necessary price for our sins and sin nature.

 

[Dokimas]

"Mary intercedes on the behalf of sinners, whether we ask her to or not.

I have not seen any evidence from the Bible that this is true.