from what i have read, seems pretty clear that the earliest Christians, across vast geographical regions, considered the consecrated bread and wine to truly be the body and blood of Christ.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?
Oh,
What got written came long after from what was already (set in stone) being practiced by the first Christians. I think your assumption of the early Christian communities under persecution waited for the Letters to reach them in order to begin believing is not realistic here. These Jewish converts to “the way” was shown and taught by Jesus what his apostles were to do in excercising his sacraments, beginning with baptism which Acts record followed by the breaking of bread, prayers and psalms. These early Christians knew perfectly well what they were believing in practice long before the letters came, which only reminded the already evangelized Christian communities how to behave in the household of God which is the Church the Pillar and bulwark of Truth.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
The first Mass celebration of “Jesus true presence” in his Eucharist begins immediately after the resurrection. In fact this is the first act that Jesus does right after the resurrection, was celebrate Mass; It is here when Jesus reveals “All” the scriptures to his Church. There is only one 2000 year old Church that knows what Jesus revealed to his disciples in the scriptures, which was handed down by Oral Tradition then written.
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him** in all **the scriptures.
28
As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther.
29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **
32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” **
33
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them
34
who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
35
**Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. **
36
9 While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37
But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.
38
Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts?
39
10 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”
40
And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41
While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?”
42
They gave him a piece of baked fish;
43
he took it and ate it in front of them.
44
He said to them, **“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”
45
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures. **
cont.
I am not talking about John 6. I am primarily referring to the night of the institution of the Supper.**Eating **His Body is the figurative part.
Let me ask another question here. Just because there is figurative language in these sayings what says that the language in John 6 is figurative. The Bible is full of figurative and literal language. By this logic I can declare any language I do not like to be figurative. When the Bible talks about Christ being nailed to the cross, was that figurative also. When the Bible talks about Christ rising from the dead, was that figurative also. When the Bible talks about baptizing with water, was that figurative also. So where does it end? My last question, who told you and on what authority did they tell you that John 6 is figurative language.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?
Regardless of what you’ve been taught, it could be Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6Regardless of what you believe, Christ was not speaking figuratively in John 6, plain and simple. The view that Christ speaking figuratively is relatively new, just a few hundred years or so. This erroneous belief came about because some Protestant denominations had to discredit the Catholic Church in every way and practice. In the end what they have done is also try to discredit Christ, His words, and most importantly His Church. All of this so that they can justify their own personal fallible brand of theology. It is based in prejudice and pride of their own belief that God after 1500 plus years later come and deposited the fullness of truth onto them. this is a direct result of the fracture in Christs Church. With so many denominations and individuals out there setting themselves up in authority, the end result is that we have just as many flawed interpretations.
I would suggest that you read and study Church history and what the faith taught and faithfully guarded. I think you will find that the ECFs and Doctors of the Church have written and professed much about the Most Holy Eucharist. But some how I do not think you would care too, I guess you are going to believe what ever you want regardless. That is your right.
Let me ask another question here. Just because there is figurative language in these sayings what says that the language in John 6 is figurative. The Bible is full of figurative and literal language. By this logic I can declare any language I do not like to be figurative. When the Bible talks about Christ being nailed to the cross, was that figurative also. When the Bible talks about Christ rising from the dead, was that figurative also. When the Bible talks about baptizing with water, was that figurative also. So where does it end? My last question, who told you and on what authority did they tell you that John 6 is figurative language.
Is this just your opinion?Regardless of what you’ve been taught, it could be Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6
So why does Christ have to word something the way you want it to be?I surely would have been literal if Jesus said, 'this bread will turn into My broken Body and this wine will turn into My shed Blood.
It is my opinion and if it is God’s Truth, it is a correct opinion.Is this just your opinion?
Then let me ask you why your opinion equates to Gods truth. Has God specifically told you that it was figurative language?It is my opinion and if it is God’s Truth, it is a correct opinion.
He doesn’t. Let’s see what was happening. Jesus often spoke Truth in a hidden way. Many of His followers followed for the wrong reason. Therefore, IMO, Jesus used this figurative language to separate true believers from non believers.So why does Christ have to word something the way you want it to be?
Again this is just your opinion,right?He doesn’t. Let’s see what was happening. Jesus often spoke Truth in a hidden way. Many of His followers followed for the wrong reason. Therefore, IMO, Jesus used this figurative language to separate true believers from non believers.
Unless I spoke very confusingly, why did you misstate what I said? I did NOT say my opinion equates to God’s truth. Be careful not to equate me with those who think they and their church actually speaks for God and has a corner on God’s truth. Funny how some here get accused for things the accusers do themselves.Then let me ask you why your opinion equates to Gods truth. Has God specifically told you that it was figurative language?
At least I’m trying to be honest with myself.Again this is just your opinion,right?
Well you did say “It is my opinion and if it is God’s Truth, it is a correct opinion” maybe equate is a poor choice of a word but I guess i was at a loss for a better word. which would you suggest? However looking at the statement, then are you saying that it is a hit or miss with you opinions as to what is Gods truth and what is an error in belief (opinion)?Unless I spoke very confusingly, why did you misstate what I said? I did NOT say my opinion equates to God’s truth. Be careful not to equate me with those who think they and their church actually speaks for God and has a corner on God’s truth. Funny how some here get accused for things the accusers do themselves.
That is fine.At least I’m trying to be honest with myself.
I thought ‘if’ implies ‘if not’ too. I’m saying I read and the Holy Spirit helps as Jesus said He would. I’m imperfect with imperfect ability to understand the Holy Spirit. I’m not much different than all of you and all of us humans since Jesus became a Baby.Well you did say “It is my opinion and if it is God’s Truth, it is a correct opinion” maybe equate is a poor choice of a word but I guess i was at a loss for a better word. which would you suggest? However looking at the statement, then are you saying that it is a hit or miss with you opinions as to what is Gods truth and what is an error in belief (opinion)?