another thread about body and blood

[infinitelord1]

the apostles, as we all know, took what jesus taught and spread his word. One of the issues i have been pondering about is the tradition of the consumption of the body and blood of christ.......protestants like to refer to catholics as being pagans in regards to this ritual since pagans also exhibited similar rituals in worship. My question is this........is there any evidence that this belief was shown before rome became catholic? In other words, is there any evidence that this belief was passed on by chistians before the word catholicism was used? I have read other peoples posts about how christians called themselves members of "the way".......is there any evidence that these members also recognized the bread and wine as body and blood of christ?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here's a little something.
[quote]"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." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"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 of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united." Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
[/quote]
There are also Biblical indications. Certainly John 6, but also stuff like:
[quote]"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). [/quote]
[quote]"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. [/quote]

[infinitelord1]

interesting......thanks

[Laudate_Dominum]

no problem bro.

[infinitelord1]

given that in john 6 jesus makes it clear that the wine is his blood and the bread is his body.........what is the protestant arguement that these things are only symbols? Do they simply just deny what jesus says or do they interpret it differently? What is their interepretation?

[Aloysius]

they tend to interpret the bible as being symbolic just in that one point, but in most everything else it's literal.

(that's an overgeneralization but it does hold some truth in regards to fundamentalists who insist on taking most of the bible literally except when it comes to the Eucharist)

[Apotheoun]

It is important to note that Protestants misunderstand the meaning of the word "symbol," because as I pointed out in another thread:

[quote]The Catholic Church uses the word [i]symbol[/i] in its original and ancient sense, while [Protestants] are using the word in the modern sense, which is derived from the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. The word [i]symbol[/i] in the original Greek is derived from the word [i]sym-ballein[/i], which means to bring together. Thus, as Carlo Siri pointed out, "The [i]symbolon[/i] was originally the broken half of an object which, when brought together with its other half, could serve as sign of recognition." [Carlo Siri, [u]Images of Truth: From Sign to Symbol[/u], translated by Massimo Verdicchio, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, Inc., 1993, page 105] In other words, the [i]symbol[/i] and the thing [i]symbolized[/i] are mystically one and the same reality.

In fact even the Protestant scholar Adolf von Harnack recognized this truth, and that is why in reference to the Eucharist he said that, "The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol,” and then he went on to say that, “What we now-a-days understand by symbol is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time [i.e., in the ancient Church] symbol denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies." [Adolph von Harnack, [u]History of Dogma[/u], New York: Dover Publications, 1961, volume 2, page 144] Consequently, the sacraments in Catholic theology are symbols in the ancient sense of the word, and not in the modern Cartesian sense, because they render present the mystery that they signify.[/quote]

Taken from: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=35227&view=findpost&p=628220"][u]Baptism and sprinkling[/u][/url]

[Aloysius]

the ancient Christians were reviled and known as "cannibals" because from what little the pagans could ascertain from their rituals, they ate the flesh and blood of their founder.

[Anastasia13]

So from Apotheoun's post, to say that they are symols means that they are half of His blood and body?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Sep 19 2005, 08:42 AM']So from Apotheoun's post, to say that they are symols means that they are half of His blood and body?
[right][snapback]729746[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, that doesn't follow, because as I said, ". . . the symbol and the thing symbolized are mystically one and the same reality." Thus, when a man comes into contact with the symbol, he comes into contact with the reality, because the symbol and its prototype form a single whole.

[Briguy]

Hi There, I think it is important to look closely at what Jesus said. Below are the three accounts from Matthew, Mark and Luke, though I don't think they are in that order. Below that is two verses from when Jesus was in the garden and being arrested.

The reason I believe Jesus was using symbolism is because of what is said and what he says after the words in question. All three of the accounts have the blood being a new testament. The first even says new testament before the word blood. What is Jesus saying by the word testament? He is explaining that something is completely changing and that a new sacrifice is being offered and the old things, covenants, etc… are leaving and something new is beginning and it is because he will shed His own blood, no more need for the blood of animals, His blood will be shed and with it something new. Now remember when he made these statements he had not yet shed is blood and His body was in tact, which in any other example in the world we would view this type of thing as symbolic. If I point to a picture of my son and say "this is my son", did I lie? It is my son, but it is really just a piece of photo paper. The bread and wine were a "picture" of the body and blood. Read the verse that is after the blood verse in two of the accounts. Jesus calls the cup He is holding "the fruit of the vine". This is right after he calls it His blood, or the new testament in his blood. You see, Jesus was not trying to say something supernatural happened to the wine. It was wine before He spoke and it was wine after He spoke but it symbolized the greatest change in covenants ever. Now, look at the other two verses where even the word "cup" is symbolic. The cup in both cases represents the sacrifice He must make and is willing to make. Jesus drinks of the cup for us. He had his disciples and us drink of the cup to remember His drinking of the cup (His death and shedding of blood and resurrection). I heard a speaker say something that made a lot of sense. He was a science teacher actually, at a Christian boarding school, who attends our church when in the country. Anyway, he said that when we eat and drink anything, the substance goes into every part of us. It no longer can be seen as separate, it indwells us in every way. That is what we remember at communion, that when we trusted Christ and he forgave us our Sin, He indwelt us and not just a little but in every way. The line of distinction between Him and us goes away and He fully indwells us in every way. Just as a side note, that is why God can see us as perfect and Holy, worthy of Heaven. Anyway, that was just a quick explanation from my head. I just read the verses and looked at the context around the verses. Please ask me any questions about this as I know it is not as clear as it could be. Thanks for reading.

In Christ,
Brian

[19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[26] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
[27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
[29] But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

[22] And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
[23] And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
[25] Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

[11] Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 20 2005, 09:51 AM']Hi There, I think it is important to look closely at what Jesus said. Below are the three accounts from Matthew, Mark and Luke, though I don't think they are in that order. Below that is two verses from when Jesus was in the garden and being arrested.

The reason I believe Jesus was using symbolism is because of what is said and what he says after the words in question. All three of the accounts have the blood being a new testament. The first even says new testament before the word blood. What is Jesus saying by the word testament?  He is explaining that something is completely changing and that a new sacrifice is being offered and the old things, covenants, etc… are leaving and something new is beginning and it is because he will shed His own blood, no more need for the blood of animals, His blood will be shed and with it something new. Now remember when he made these statements he had not yet shed is blood and His body was in tact, which in any other example in the world we would view this type of thing as symbolic. If I point to a picture of my son and say "this is my son", did I lie? It is my son, but it is really just a piece of photo paper. The bread and wine were a "picture" of the body and blood. Read the verse that is after the blood verse in two of the accounts. Jesus calls the cup He is holding "the fruit of the vine". This is right after he calls it His blood, or the new testament in his blood. You see, Jesus was not trying to say something supernatural happened to the wine. It was wine before He spoke and it was wine after He spoke but it symbolized the greatest change in covenants ever. Now, look at the other two verses where even the word "cup" is symbolic. The cup in both cases represents the sacrifice He must make and is willing to make. Jesus drinks of the cup for us. He had his disciples and us drink of the cup to remember His drinking of the cup (His death and shedding of blood and resurrection). I heard a speaker say something that made a lot of sense. He was a science teacher actually, at a Christian boarding school, who attends our church when in the country. Anyway, he said that when we eat and drink anything, the substance goes into every part of us. It no longer can be seen as separate, it indwells us in every way. That is what we remember at communion, that when we trusted Christ and he forgave us our Sin, He indwelt us and not just a little but in every way. The line of distinction between Him and us goes away and He fully indwells us in every way. Just as a side note, that is why God can see us as perfect and Holy, worthy of Heaven. Anyway, that was just a quick explanation from my head. I just read the verses and looked at the context around the verses. Please ask me any questions about this as I know it is not as clear as it could be. Thanks for reading. 

In Christ,
Brian

[19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[26] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
[27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
[29] But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

[22] And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
[23] And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
[25] Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

[11] Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[right][snapback]730936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well im glad your arguement is backed up by scripture and thanks for sharing. I think its important that you read apotheouns first post. What does this say to you? Also, i noticed your arguement doesnt contain anything from john 6. But anyways, i dont think the fact that you believe that it is a symbol is wrong.........but like apotheoun said.......you really have to define the word symbol. Correct me if im wrong here.......your arguement is based on the fact that jesus was making a new covenant. I and i believe catholics would agree with this as well as protestants (you). That certainly says nothing about the bread and wine actually being the body and blood. It just says that jesus made a new covenant or in modern day terms.......a contract. The contract being that we are supposed to do this in memory of him. I used to go to protestant churches........i went to a southern baptist church for a while and a non denominational church. Not once did i see them break bread or drink wine (to the best of my memory). I might add that my grandmothers friend would always buy welch's grape juice for her church on sunday. I dont think it was every sunday but i remember it frequently. Anyways, as we all know christ entrusted the church to peter. Catholics consider peter to be the first pope. Im hoping we have good documented history that gives good reason for this. Christ would have only entrusted the church to peter if he knew that peter would carry on his legacy the way that he intended it to be (without misinterpretation). So, if peter recognized the bread and wine as actuall body and blood.....then that is what it is. I think there is more in the bible that suggests that it is actual body and blood. I dont think there is really anything (to my knowledge) that really defines it as being a representation.

[infinitelord1]

lets not forget about the miracle where a eucharist actually turned to flesh. I think this would be a way of god reminding us of what it is. What do you think?

[Brother Adam]

I believe you are mixing contractual language with covenantal. The Bible is better translated as "New Covenant in my blood" rather than "New Testament" and it is better to use covenant because that is exactly what it is, is a New Covenant. You are right that the old covenants become obsolete as Jesus has fulfilled the law and what was said about Him by the prophets.

Remember also that typologically speaking, the Passover sacrifice foreshadows what Christ is to do. The Eucharistic sacrifice in itself is a Passover meal. The Israelites ate the actual flesh of the sacrifical animal year after year, even though their salvation was completed by the single sacrifical meal they took part in on that fateful night in Egypt when all of the firstborn in Israel were slaughtered. Jesus' sacrifice likewise was made once, and for all, and for all time, and is celebrated by Christians now by the representation of that same one sacrifice. The Eucharistic sacrifice is a participation in the actual boyd and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). And those who drink unworthily drink actual condemnation on themselves (1 Cor 11:23-46). Jesus becomes our Paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7), that must be eaten (Ex 12:8,46, John 6:50-55). To think of the Eucharistic Jesus as a 'symbol' (in the way that modern Americans think of symbol) is in Jewish and early Christian thought a grave insult and an assualt on Jesus Christ (Rev 17:6, Ps 14:4, Is 9:18-20, etc).

That Jesus was still physically present with the disciples at the institution of the Eucharistic meal is cleared up as to what He was doing directly after His resurrection when they celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy (Luke 24:28-35).

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 20 2005, 01:35 PM']I believe you are mixing contractual language with covenantal. The Bible is better translated as "New Covenant in my blood" rather than "New Testament" and it is better to use covenant because that is exactly what it is, is a New Covenant. You are right that the old covenants become obsolete as Jesus has fulfilled the law and what was said about Him by the prophets.

Remember also that typologically speaking, the Passover sacrifice foreshadows what Christ is to do. The Eucharistic sacrifice in itself is a Passover meal. The Israelites ate the actual flesh of the sacrifical animal year after year, even though their salvation was completed by the single sacrifical meal they took part in on that fateful night in Egypt when all of the firstborn in Israel were slaughtered. Jesus' sacrifice likewise was made once, and for all, and for all time, and is celebrated by Christians now by the representation of that same one sacrifice. The Eucharistic sacrifice is a participation in the actual boyd and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). And those who drink unworthily drink actual condemnation on themselves (1 Cor 11:23-46). Jesus becomes our Paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7), that must be eaten (Ex 12:8,46, John 6:50-55). To think of the Eucharistic Jesus as a 'symbol' (in the way that modern Americans think of symbol) is in Jewish and early Christian thought a grave insult and an assualt on Jesus Christ (Rev 17:6, Ps 14:4, Is 9:18-20, etc).

That Jesus was still physically present with the disciples at the institution of the Eucharistic meal is cleared up as to what He was doing directly after His resurrection when they celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy (Luke 24:28-35).
[right][snapback]731062[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
that makes total sense. The pagans also used body and blood rituals in their worship to their gods. Its like god really did instill it in us for preperation for jesus christ. I could be wrong though.