What do Protestants think the early Christian

[etude]

I always pictured in my head, that all early christians (ex: martyrs at roman colosseum, st augustine) were all presbyterians
Never in my wildest dream, I thought that they were all Catholics.

I hope someone out there is laughing out loud.

I am cradle presbyterian in the process of converting to catholic church in search of truth and apostolic church full of rich traditions that trace back to the beginning (Christ Jesus).

Peace of our lord be with you, everyone !!

 

[Roblox84]

In the bible Christ states THIS IS my blood, drink it. Then he states THIS IS my body. He doesn’t say this is a symbol of my body or blood. What’s not to understand? For the majority of protestantism being the most literal faith in the world, it seems a lot surely have distrust in the bible.

 

[Roblox84]

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?

I didn’t see in the bible were Jesus said he was forshadowing. And yes his flesh and blood doesn’t apply to the OT.

 

[etude]

In the bible Christ states THIS IS my blood, drink it. Then he states THIS IS my body. He doesn’t say this is a symbol of my body or blood. What’s not to understand? For protestantism being the most literal faith in the world, it seems a lot surely have distrust in the bible.

You need to “understand” most people believe and understand things through sermon’s and bible studies. And if all your life, you were taught to interpret particular bible verses certain way by someone who you trust and respect, then you do believe this to be true. Also those people who taught it also got it from someone who they also trusted and respected, or more educated in this field of study.
There are only very few people who do and can research/study original texts going all the way back 1000+ years, let alone 200 years.
So its very easy to have different ideas on same bible passages.
Hence the importance of magisterium and apostolic authority (mostly/completely lacking in non-catholic churches)

 

[wmscott]

You need to “understand” most people believe and understand things through sermon’s and bible studies. And if all your life, you were taught to interpret particular bible verses certain way by someone who you trust and respect, then you do believe this to be true. Also those people who taught it also got it from someone who they also trusted and respected, or more educated in this field of study.
There are only very few people who do and can research/study original texts going all the way back 1000+ years, let alone 200 years.
So its very easy to have different ideas on same bible passages.
Hence the importance of magisterium and apostolic authority (mostly/completely lacking in non-catholic churches)

Why etude, you sound almost Catholic in this response

You make an excellent point with regard as to how people came to their beliefs without the magisterium and apostolic authority (Sacred Tradition).

That is what I have been trying to point out. The Catholics have provided documented proof and explanations, and some of the Protestants still argue that we are wrong because of their opinions, not documented proof.

 

[Dokimas]

I didn’t see in the bible were Jesus said he was forshadowing. And yes his flesh and blood doesn’t apply to the OT.

Jesus instituted Communion at the Last Supper which happened the night before He was crucified. Communion is about His beatings and crucifixion. He instituted it before so it was foreshadowing.

 

[wmscott]

Jesus instituted Communion at the Last Supper which happened the night before He was crucified. Communion is about His beatings and crucifixion. He instituted it before so it was foreshadowing.

I think that what Roblox84 is misunderstanding with regards to the word “foreshadowing:” may be that the term to him is different in his understanding that in yours. At least I am going to go with this explanation.

I think that you may be correct. Christ did “Foreshadow” the Eucharist at the last supper.

Some food for thought. Taken from this SITE

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

 

[Roblox84]

You need to “understand” most people believe and understand things through sermon’s and bible studies. And if all your life, you were taught to interpret particular bible verses certain way by someone who you trust and respect, then you do believe this to be true. Also those people who taught it also got it from someone who they also trusted and respected, or more educated in this field of study.
There are only very few people who do and can research/study original texts going all the way back 1000+ years, let alone 200 years.
So its very easy to have different ideas on same bible passages.
Hence the importance of magisterium and apostolic authority (mostly/completely lacking in non-catholic churches)

I understand if someone was taught like that all their life. I have been going to a baptist church with someone for the past year. I rember during one sermon they had a visiting pastor and the sermon he was preaching was on the apocolypse, second coming or something like that. There was one particular passage of the bible that he mentioned about demons or creatures of some sort with wings and fangs coming to earth during the apocalypse. He then mentioned that this is the literal word of God and we must take it how it is written. You see but on the other hand, you place in front of them the scripture that talks about the eucharist being the actual body and if one rejects it then they will not get eternal life, but they start interpreting it stating it was merely a symbol. So why can these apocalyptic creatures exist but the real presence can’t?

 

[wmscott]

I understand if someone was taught like that all their life. I have been going to a baptist church with someone for the past year. I rember during one sermon they had a visiting pastor and the sermon he was preaching was on the apocolypse, second coming or something like that. There was one particular passage of the bible that he mentioned about demons or creatures of some sort with wings and fangs coming to earth during the apocalypse. He then mentioned that this is the literal word of God and we must take it how it is written. You see but on the other hand, you place in front of them the scripture that talks about the eucharist being the actual body and if one rejects it then they will not get eternal life, but they start interpreting it stating it was merely a symbol. So why can these apocalyptic creatures exist but the real presence can’t?

Because they have a vested interest in their own fallible brand of theology. They cant say something that in the end will be their undoing, thus causing others to lose faith in their ability to “Interpret” and start seeking the truth else where. One of them just might end up in a Catholic Church. We cant have that now could we?

 

[Roblox84]

Because they have a vested interest in their own fallible brand of theology. They cant say something that in the end will be their undoing, thus causing others to lose faith in their ability to “Interpret” and start seeking the truth else where. One of them just might end up in a Catholic Church. We cant have that now could we?

Yeah that would be a bad thing is more people converted to catholicism. I am not to familiar with many other protestant sects, but to me a protestant is a protestant and usually they hold the same believes to a certain degree. Therefore I think that a lot of protestant beliefs hold many things literal, but when it goes against their theology, they start to interpret. This is just my view though.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I always pictured in my head, that all early christians (ex: martyrs at roman colosseum, st augustine) were all presbyterians

Never in my wildest dream, I thought that they were all Catholics.

God bless you on your journey; We Catholics are not laughing, but are rejoicing with the heavenly Choir of angels for you seeking Truth and having ears to hear. May God bless you with eyes to see in your coming home to Jesus. Knock and it will be opened up for you.

I have a first cousin who is a cloistured Nun, who has dedicated her whole life to the True presence of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist and her community prays night and day for the body of Christ and for those like you who seek “Truth”. They too share in our joy over you.

And may the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be also with you:thumbsup:

 

[grace_singh]

In the bible Christ states THIS IS my blood, drink it. Then he states THIS IS my body. He doesn’t say this is a symbol of my body or blood. What’s not to understand? For the majority of protestantism being the most literal faith in the world, it seems a lot surely have distrust in the bible.

the Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church all affirm that the bread and wine are actually His body and blood.

 

[Dokimas]

I think that what Roblox84 is misunderstanding with regards to the word “foreshadowing:” may be that the term to him is different in his understanding that in yours. At least I am going to go with this explanation.

I think that you may be correct. Christ did “Foreshadow” the Eucharist at the last supper.

Some food for thought. Taken from this SITE

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

IMO, Jesus foreshaddowed His beatings and His crucifixion. That’s what communion is about and we experience communion to remember that most important historical event.

 

[Dokimas]

the Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church all affirm that the bread and wine are actually His body and blood.

What does the taking into the mouth, chewing and swallowing the Body and Blood of Jesus do for you that remembering the beatings and crucifixion of my Lord when I take communion does NOT do for me?

What causes the Eucharist to go from being a host to the Body and Blood of Jesus?​

If Jesus took bread AND wine why do the average church goer in the CC only get the host? They don’t get to ‘drink’ the Blood. Why not? Isn’t that disobeying Jesus’ command?

 

[Roblox84]

the Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church all affirm that the bread and wine are actually His body and blood.

Hey thanks for that. So why all of these protestants believe in it, and then all the small protestant churchs all of a sudden believe differently?

 

[Roblox84]

IMO, Jesus foreshaddowed His beatings and His crucifixion. That’s what communion is about and we experience communion to remember that most important historical event.

Very nicely said.

 

[cruisin]

Cruisin,

I made no reference regarding the Church and the keys to heaven…and I have studied Vatican II documents for 5 years…various religions and people of good will walk on the path to salvation…

Maybe i jumped to conclusions you specifically used the word keys in post 119. I made an assumption of key = Catholic Church = Heaven

I am also referring to a previous poster about some fundamentalists who do not want to read or study early church history…I have experienced it a number of times…

And it is good to read the development of faith and culture in ancient times…to get the context of various images you may hold…

Stick to my convictions here…and don’t see it or others as uncharitable…

I don’t have a problem with reading History, If I am reading your post to me correctly, you where inferring that if I just study history I would come the same conclusions you have. Maybe I was jumping to conclusions and reading more into it than face value. I apologize if that is true.

I am glad for you to stick to your convictions but being charitably or uncharitable is a seperate behavior. We can stick to our convictions and still be charitable.

I also realize that sorting through these posts it is hard to discern when one is being charitable or not. I have no intention of being uncharitable, and I don’t think you do either. but sometimes when we start typing exactly as it is coming out of our heads without thinking about the one who we are writing to, uncharitable behavior may or may not be the end result. depending on the one who is reading it.

and I have to keep myself in check as much as anyone. That why it takes me so long to post sometimes.

.I do believe Christ did objectively found one church.

I don’t have a problem with this statement… the question I still maintain is this…

What did God want that church(assembly) to look like? And is there one today that looks like what God wants? You would claim the RCC does, I’m not so sure of that.

The only thing I know for sure is that without Christ i will never make it.

 

[RedBert]

So what did Jesus mean in John 6?

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him.

Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the SAME result - eternal life.

One verse (v54) is figurative and one verse (v40) is literal .

 

[cruisin]

Okay, what was that supposed to accomplish in the long run? And, could anybody participate in this? Say an Indian or an Ethiopian was visiting Persia. Could they participate in the eating of a god?

Weather someone could participate of not participate was not my point. The topic of this thread is on what the early church believed about the Bread and wine. and especially on the views of the protestants. I really don’t consider myself a protestant but for lack of a better word, I’ll use it to keep things easy.

My contention with the post you questioned was that the belief of the offering becoming or being indwell-ed with a god during the offering process( meaning the god entered the sacrifice) was not a new concept and practiced widely in the cultures in and around Israel. I am not aware if any Jew accepted this idea in regards to the Temple Sacrifice.

to discuss the early church, I believe that one must take other cultures and their potential influences, into consideration. To me to say they didn’t, would be a denial of the new testament record.

 

[Roblox84]

So what did Jesus mean in John 6?

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him.

Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the SAME result - eternal life.

One verse (v54) is figurative and one verse (v40) is literal .

I don’t think no one can disagree with that passage. And if that person truly believes, they will also believe in the sacraments as well as the Eucharist and how Christ intended the Eucharist to be celebrated.