What do Protestants think the early Christian

[cruisin]

Originally Posted by grace_singh View Post
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?

help me understand? you are saying that because all of these churches in some sense agree that the bread and wine actually mutating into some sort of version of Body and Blood is true?

I know from reading this web site and posts that not all Orthodox totally agree with Rome on this, but not sure which ones or if any of the ones posted above. I have no other familiarity with these churches. Just asking a question based on my current understanding.

 

[cruisin]

I’m confused?

figurative?

Joh 6:54 He who takes my flesh for food and my blood for drink has eternal life: and I will take him up from the dead at the last day.

literal?

Joh 6:40 This, I say, is my Father’s pleasure, that everyone who sees the Son and has faith in him may have eternal life: and I will take him up on the last day.

roblox84
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.

Doesn’t fit with my current understanding of catholic views? Maybe i’m wrong:shrug:

 

[RedBert]

Clement of Alexandria
From “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). Book 1, chapter 6

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.* The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit;** for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”*

Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time

And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?…* Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise**, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
*
Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“‘I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which,* similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God.** Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.”*

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

 

[RedBert]

I’m confused?

:

ok your version in v40 says to have faith ; other versions say to believe…

the question is; in the context of John 6, what** literally** gives eternal life?
what it says in v40 or v54?

from John 6:25 to 65 The context is belief (faith)

they are misunderstanding the metaphor so he takes it back to back to belief

when questioned in v60 he replies

63The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing**.** The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life**. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

 

[mark_a]

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).

Here, once more, we see that non-Catholic Apostolic Christianity has been overlooked or conveniently left out of the picture.

Eastern Catholics, some of whom were not in contact with Rome for hundreds of years, and Orthodox believe in the real presence.

Could all of the original Churches be wrong?

 

[Roblox84]

help me understand? you are saying that because all of these churches in some sense agree that the bread and wine actually mutating into some sort of version of Body and Blood is true?

I know from reading this web site and posts that not all Orthodox totally agree with Rome on this, but not sure which ones or if any of the ones posted above. I have no other familiarity with these churches. Just asking a question based on my current understanding.

I guess I was just trying to find out why most of the major protestant religions usually believe in the Eucharist, but when the “small town” protestant churchs and denominations sprung up, they quit believing in it.

 

[adstrinity]

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?

Brings me to eternal life.

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.

Well, if you want to study more on this, I’d be happy to hear more about the pagan sacrifices and consumption of gods and what they entitled. Bet they have nothing to do with Jesus as we know Him & eat Him today.

help me understand? you are saying that because all of these churches in some sense agree that the bread and wine actually mutating into some sort of version of Body and Blood is true?

I know from reading this web site and posts that not all Orthodox totally agree with Rome on this, but not sure which ones or if any of the ones posted above. I have no other familiarity with these churches. Just asking a question based on my current understanding.

Some of those are Oriental Orthodox, some of those are Eastern Orthodox. They were all churches founded by and preached to by the Apostles. They all have Apostolic succession and deacons, priests, bishops (archbishops), patriarchs/primates/pope. Seeing as how they were all taught by the Apostles, they were all taught by the Apostles that Christ is sacrimentally present in the Eucharist. They believe in Transubstantiation.

The Orthodox, as a matter of fact, use a gold spoon to distribute God. Each communicant receives both the Body & the Blood from this spoon. God sits on gold, nothing but the best for Him.

And, as a history lesson; the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of the Church split in the 6th century over language barriers that presented Christological issues. The East and West Church split in the 11th Century.

 

[adstrinity]

Clement of Alexandria
From “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). Book 1, chapter 6

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.* The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit;*** for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time

And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?…** Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise**, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“‘I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which,* similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God.*** Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.”

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

Context is everything. That’s a lot of cutting and pasting from the entire section found at newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm As a matter of fact, when one reads the whole thing, one does eventually get to Clement supporting the Real Presence (which is what all sources confirm). Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Further, many also use the fat of milk, called butter, for the lamp, plainly indicating by this enigma the abundant unction of the Word, since He alone it is who nourishes the infants, makes them grow, and enlightens them. Wherefore also the Scripture says respecting the Lord, He fed them with the produce of the fields; they sucked honey from the rock, and oil from the solid rock, butter of cattle, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs; Deuteronomy 32:13-14 and what follows He gave them. But he that prophesies the birth of the child says: Butter and honey shall He eat. Isaiah 7:15 And it occurs to me to wonder how some dare call themselves perfect and gnostics, with ideas of themselves above the apostle, inflated and boastful, when Paul even owned respecting himself, Not that I have already attained, or am already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forth to those that are before, I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus. Philippians 3:12-14 And yet he reckons himself perfect, because he has been emancipated from his former life, and strives after the better life, not as perfect in knowledge, but as aspiring after perfection. Wherefore also he adds, As many of us as are perfect, are thus minded, Philippians 3:15 manifestly describing perfection as the renunciation of sin, and regeneration into the faith of the only perfect One, and forgetting our former sins.”

 

[RedBert]

he comes right out and says metaphor for John 6:34: plain as day:
**
“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor**.

Now you show me where Clement says it is literal.

 

[eucharisteo]

he comes right out and says metaphor for John 6:34: plain as day:
**
“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor**.

Now you show me where Clement says it is literal.

Lets just use Ignatius of Antioch since I’m more familiar with his writings and is why I reverted back to Catholicism or what I now call true Christianity in the fullness of faith.

** 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics**

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

I originally found it on a website called Early Christian Writings

You metaphor theology is a simple heresy propagated by unbelievers.

 

[adstrinity]

he comes right out and says metaphor for John 6:34: plain as day:

“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor.

Now you show me where Clement says it is literal.

You read the entire document. Do not cut and paste snippets of what you want. You read the thing, in it’s entirity, in context, allong with other of Clement’s writtings, and then you tell me what he believed. That entire chapter was on the milk & meat passage and not on His Real Presence.

To learn more about Clement of Alexandria: newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm

 

[grace_singh]

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?

i’m not saying i agree with the CC practice of only taking the host. the wine is His shed blood, not the blood still in His body. thus it is appropriate and commanded to have both bread and wine, body and blood.

a 13th Century reference to Transubstantiation states that it is God’s power which turns the bread and wine into His body and blood. if i have read correctly, the Orthodox confession states that during the prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and wine, they are transformed. Ambrose of Milan writes in the 4th Century that the blessing changes the nature of the bread nad wine into His body and blood.

 

[grace_singh]

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?

could be a number of reasons. in a rebellion against what they saw as an excess of ritualism and extra-Scriptural traditions and beliefs in the RCC, the baby was in many cases thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[grace_singh]

help me understand? you are saying that because all of these churches in some sense agree that the bread and wine actually mutating into some sort of version of Body and Blood is true?

I know from reading this web site and posts that not all Orthodox totally agree with Rome on this, but not sure which ones or if any of the ones posted above. I have no other familiarity with these churches. Just asking a question based on my current understanding.

i am saying that these Apostolic Chruches, with deep and living ties to the earliest days of Christian faith, all affirm that the bread and wine are His body and blood. these churches are in many cases deeply unique and in cases divided from one another for reasons of culture, language, liturgy, Christology, and understandings of whose church is Othrodox. yet they all affirm that the bread and wine are His body and blood.

this is a very, very key and central part of our Christian religious life (communion) and all of these churches agree the bread and wine are really His body and blood. the earliest writings we have indicate this, that the belief that these elements truly became or were the literal body and blood of Christ is innate to Christianity from the Apostles onward.

the Scriptures also give us reason to believe that the bread and wine are His body and blood (or rather become His body and blood). and 2,000 years of tradition agreeing with this reading of Scripture is also something worth considering.

 

[cruisin]

Originally Posted by Dokimas View Post​

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?

adstrinity
Brings me to eternal life.

How does this work?

Well, if you want to study more on this, I’d be happy to hear more about the pagan sacrifices and consumption of gods and what they entitled. Bet they have nothing to do with Jesus as we know Him & eat Him today.

you are pretty quick to bet on a subject you seem to be admitting you know nothing about. sounds like a fools bet to me.

Some of those are Oriental Orthodox, some of those are Eastern Orthodox. They were all churches founded by and preached to by the Apostles. They all have Apostolic succession and deacons, priests, bishops (archbishops), patriarchs/primates/pope. Seeing as how they were all taught by the Apostles, they were all taught by the Apostles that Christ is sacrimentally present in the Eucharist. They believe in Transubstantiation.

you seem to count yourself as knowledgeable in church history. Prove it with direct documentation of all 12 apostles that they taught this. that means either writings of the 12 or by one or more people taught by the 12.

The Orthodox, as a matter of fact, use a gold spoon to distribute God. Each communicant receives both the Body & the Blood from this spoon. God sits on gold, nothing but the best for Him.

very interesting…

And, as a history lesson; the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of the Church split in the 6th century over language barriers that presented Christological issues. The East and West Church split in the 11th Century.

Thanks for your expertise…

 

[cruisin]

adstrinity

Well, if you want to study more on this, I’d be happy to hear more about the pagan sacrifices and consumption of gods and what they entitled. Bet they have nothing to do with Jesus as we know Him & eat Him today.

you seem to be disagreeing with the possibility that pagan ideas filtered in and could have taken hold of the church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cruisin…

What then is the Church supposed to look like…first, it is the body of believers…our faith professed in the Creed…and we share in the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ…that is at the heart of the essence of being in the Church…

Also, when we sin, we are out of the Church, and when we are restored through absolution at Mass or through confession we are fully restored in communion with God and everyone…and so it is also very good to make confession a part of your life…it is all about being more and more connected to Christ…

Then we transcend our local to different regions…so a church can not only be a building, but also a diocese…and then to a greater geographic region which as different cultures…and so we are dealing with 22 different rites, all in communion with the Holy Spirit affirming final authority rests with Rome…

The mission of the Church is essentially to make us holy, to preach the Good News, to live out the Beatitudes, to practice mercy…Christ is present in every human being…and that is then guiding the Church to build bridges with those who do not believe…the kingdom is extended that way…

Blessings!

 

[cruisin]

Cruisin…

What then is the Church supposed to look like…first, it is the body of believers…our faith professed in the Creed…which one?and we share in the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ… I would prefer sharing in the same Spirit that is at the heart of the essence of being in the Church…
Also, when we sin, we are out of the Church, and when we are restored through absolution at Mass or through confession we are fully restored in communion with God and everyone…and so it is also very good to make confession a part of your life… no problem here I have a high priest who will here my confession any time day or night…it is all about being more and more connected to Christ…so if a participate in a bunch of rituals and participate in a bunch of rules that will bring me closer to Christ

Then we transcend our local to different regions.So how close is your parish in winning your region for christ?..so a church can not only be a building, but also a diocese…does diocese mean similar to a stadium?.and then to a greater geographic region which as different cultures…and so we are dealing with 22 different rites, all in communion with the Holy Spirit affirming final authority rests with Rome…Please show me where God setup a throne in Rome. Oh but Vatican City is only in Rome it is not a part of Rome. It is it’s own country. Tell me where God wanted to create a new country for Himself here on earth

The mission of the Church is essentially to make us holy, How does a church make me Holy. Oh and what does Holy mean exactly? to preach the Good News, I thought it was Gods people who preach the good newsto live out the Beatitudes, to practice mercy…in a nut shell to live out our lives in obiedience to him no prob. here.Christ is present in every human being… This is a concept I have never heard before. How does it work? .and that is then guiding the Church to build bridges with those who do not believe. How is there unbelievers when Christ is already in them? I’m confused again? …the kingdom is extended that way… Can’t disagree with the concept.

Blessings!

 

[Dokimas]

Brings me to eternal life.

What do you mean?

 

[adstrinity]

What do you mean?

John 6.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.