Eucharist Not In The Bible

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1082107' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:54 PM']
No they did not. They misused scripture.
Scripture came from Tradition. If Tradition is incorrect, so is Scripture.
[/quote]

Thanks for your honesty on the first one.

How did scripture come from tradition?

[Winchester]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082023' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:48 PM']
I am saying that you misinterpret those passages.

Your leap of faith to go from breaking bread and sharing a meal together to the “real presence” is a huge leap. I am fascinated that you would take John 6 so literally yet dodge the equation of eating his flesh with eternal life and miss all the huge road signs in John 6 that talk about the security of salvation and regeneration.

If you say to toss the torch in remembrance of me then I can toss the torch just as you did. But to say that every time I toss the torch you become part of the torch and because you become part of the torch that allows me to revere the torch and that now throwing the torch is necessary to being joining you in the afterlife…well, that’s quite the leap.
[/quote]
First off, let me say wow, for handling so many of us at once.

dUSt explained the eternal life thing, I believe.
I'm at work so I've not the time to deal with the literal thing (I don't have my books and my brain doesn't work)

I wasn't addressing the transubtantiation with the torch thing, I was addressing the stress on "rememberance" somehow meaning the act was purely symbolic.

[homeschoolmom]

I'll just watch.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082105' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:54 PM']
So if all you had was a Bible and no external contact, you don’t believe you could determine how to be saved?
[/quote]You would only have the very basic and rudimentary understanding. God doesn't just provide 'minimally sufficient grace'. He provides full measure, packed down, over-flowing, and over-abundance. How many cultural questions are not answered with detail, but answered in generality via parables in Scripture? Just look at the HUGE variety of 'christian' beliefs regarding baptism. If Scripture alone was sufficient, why is there disagreement, questions, arguments, new ideas and doctrines, etc.?

[rkwright]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082108' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:55 PM']
Thanks for your honesty on the first one.

How did scripture come from tradition?
[/quote]

The simple answer to this question is just in history itself. The 'Bible' did not exist until around 390ish A.D. Without the Bible the only thing that the Early Church and Apostles relied on was the tradition that was given to them. St. Paul teaches that we should rely on his teachings and traditions that are passed down.

[quote]"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2). [/quote]

The teachings and traditions of that deal around the Eucharist can be found in writings that pre-date the cannon of the Bible.

We know that Jesus created a Church and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church, and that the Holy Spirit would be with that Church. It is from that Church (the Catholic Church) that we have the Bible, and it is only because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church that we can rest assured that the Bible is free from error.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1082133' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:19 PM']
You would only have the very basic and rudimentary understanding. God doesn't just provide 'minimally sufficient grace'. He provides full measure, packed down, over-flowing, and over-abundance. How many cultural questions are not answered with detail, but answered in generality via parables in Scripture? Just look at the HUGE variety of 'christian' beliefs regarding baptism. If Scripture alone was sufficient, why is there disagreement, questions, arguments, new ideas and doctrines, etc.?
[/quote]

And would that very basic understanding not allow you to see that salvation comes from Jesus?

If you had only the Bible, would you not know how to get to heaven?

[XIX]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082118' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:05 PM']

I'll just watch.
[/quote]
good call.


Don't hog all of the popcorn.

Edited October 2, 2006 by XIX

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1082153' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:46 PM']
The simple answer to this question is just in history itself. The 'Bible' did not exist until around 390ish A.D. Without the Bible the only thing that the Early Church and Apostles relied on was the tradition that was given to them. St. Paul teaches that we should rely on his teachings and traditions that are passed down.
The teachings and traditions of that deal around the Eucharist can be found in writings that pre-date the cannon of the Bible.

We know that Jesus created a Church and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church, and that the Holy Spirit would be with that Church. It is from that Church (the Catholic Church) that we have the Bible, and it is only because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church that we can rest assured that the Bible is free from error.
[/quote]

So where were the Gospels and Epistles hiding out until 390AD?

What tradition tells you that the gates of hell would not prevail?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082158' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:50 PM']
So where were the Gospels and Epistles hiding out until 390AD?

What tradition tells you that the gates of hell would not prevail?
[/quote]
They weren't hiding out; it was more like hanging out. The problem was that the Church hadn't determined yet which books were inspired and which weren't.

[rkwright]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082158' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:50 PM']
So where were the Gospels and Epistles hiding out until 390AD?
[/quote]

They were around no doubt. Obviously the Churches to whom St. Paul addresses his letters had them. But again, why do Timothy and Paul stress holding to traditions? Paul doesn't tell us to hold to scripture, but rather to the traditions he has passed on. And what traditions can these be?

What did St. Paul teach his churches? It wasn't the Gospel of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There was some other 'knowledge' that he must have had.

None other than the Traditions of the Catholic Church.

Why do you assume the Gospel's of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired and not others, ie. Thomas, Judas, ect. It is only because the Catholic Church has deemed them to be what is truly inspired scripture that we can know. And the only reason the Catholic Church has that authority is because Jesus Christ gave St. Peter that role.

[quote]
What tradition tells you that the gates of hell would not prevail?
[/quote]

This has long been a teaching of the Church. I assume it is one of the Traditions St. Paul is refering to. It is scriptural also btw..

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’" (Matt. 16:18-19).

Note in some translations "power of death" is "gates of hell"

[N/A Gone]

if the issue is interpretation. then why would yours be any better than ours? In the spirit of sola scripture our understanding of scripture is equal to yours. Are you trying to inact yourself as a magistrium over us?

Also, scripture is essential. I am not denying the value of scripture. Just that it is not complete. The jewish religion can not function simply on their scriptures. Paul was speaking of the Old Test to Tim, not the new.

If you are trying to tell me that scripture alone, and a simple reading of scripture will lead to truth than are you telling me that only your small portion of christians have truth? Within the protestant community there are huge doctrinal debates where both sides sight the same scripture passage and claim that their understanding is the right now. Only to come out with no truth. OSAS, Predestination vs Free will, what communion is. what music should be, eccesiology, soteriology. baptism, the role of women, sexuality in general. Death Pen, These are huge issues that a standard stone-campbell view of scripture can not answer. The different truths with equal authority leds one to see that there is no truth. No way of finding the truth. This leads the person to be autonomy. That somehow my individual interpretation is good enough. And more churches split, and more churches split. Without authority morals are lost (*birth control, abortion, homosexuality--wouldnt have been even considered in the 1920's yet almost all protestant denoms have no answer for these now)

why would we ever want to give up a true authority in interpreting scripture and morals to have what you have? Get off the ocean vessal and paddle on your own?? Good luck friend.

[Jaime]

Sola

Not to join the frey but if you could address the scripture reading in my original post. I think that might be an excellent starting point for whether Jesus was being literal or figurative about the Eucharist.

[Aloysius]

they were floating amongst many many Christian writings from the period, among them the Didache and the Sheperd of Hermas, being read in the churches during the celebration of the Eucharist, as described in the Didache (written between AD 40 and AD 120):
[quote]Chapter 9. [b]The Eucharist.[/b] Now concerning the [b]Eucharist[/b], give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not [b]that which is holy [/b]to the dogs."

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to [b]tabernacle in our hearts[/b], and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; [b]but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant[/b]. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
[/quote]

[quote]Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your [b]sacrifice[/b] may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."[/quote]

It was a formal institutional Church which declared 27 books to be the inspired word of God and hundreds of various widespread Christian books, as well as other ones which were gnostic and/or judaiser, to not be.

The writers of such books as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts all gnew of what they wrote because of tradition passed down to them the same way it is passed down in our Church.. indeed most of the writers of the Old Testament also wrote what they knew of based upon tradition.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082154' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:47 PM']
And would that very basic understanding not allow you to see that salvation comes from Jesus?

If you had only the Bible, would you not know how to get to heaven?
[/quote]


Yes, because that teaching is contained equally in the sacred traditions and teachings of the Church. St. Irenaus said "if we had not the scriptures we would have the Church". Paul and the Apostles didn't go around passing out Bibles to everyone. They gave their teachings orally, primarily. The Church did not operate in a sola scriptura mode during the time of the Apostles and so how could they have written about it?

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1082172' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:02 PM']
They weren't hiding out; it was more like hanging out. The problem was that the Church hadn't determined yet which books were inspired and which weren't.
[/quote]

And yet Peter had recognized Paul's writing as ascripture. Paul quoted from Luke, and some of the epistles were already being circulated amongst the NT churches.

And the early church fathers quoted so much from the scriptures that much of the NT can be pieced together just from their writings. There were "canons" being put together long before 390AD.

And one of the qualifiers that the councils used to determine the canon was acceptance by the Body of Christ at large. How could that be if the books weren't already widely circulated?




[quote name='rkwright' post='1082174' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:04 PM']
They were around no doubt. Obviously the Churches to whom St. Paul addresses his letters had them. But again, why do Timothy and Paul stress holding to traditions? Paul doesn't tell us to hold to scripture, but rather to the traditions he has passed on. And what traditions can these be?

What did St. Paul teach his churches? It wasn't the Gospel of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There was some other 'knowledge' that he must have had.

None other than the Traditions of the Catholic Church.

Why do you assume the Gospel's of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired and not others, ie. Thomas, Judas, ect. It is only because the Catholic Church has deemed them to be what is truly inspired scripture that we can know. And the only reason the Catholic Church has that authority is because Jesus Christ gave St. Peter that role.
This has long been a teaching of the Church. I assume it is one of the Traditions St. Paul is refering to. It is scriptural also btw..

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’" (Matt. 16:18-19).

Note in some translations "power of death" is "gates of hell"
[/quote]

What is your proof that the traditions that Paul was referring to are the traditions of your church and are not found in the Bible?


[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1082175' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:07 PM']
if the issue is interpretation. then why would yours be any better than ours? In the spirit of sola scripture our understanding of scripture is equal to yours. Are you trying to inact yourself as a magistrium over us?

Also, scripture is essential. I am not denying the value of scripture. Just that it is not complete. The jewish religion can not function simply on their scriptures. Paul was speaking of the Old Test to Tim, not the new.

If you are trying to tell me that scripture alone, and a simple reading of scripture will lead to truth than are you telling me that only your small portion of christians have truth? Within the protestant community there are huge doctrinal debates where both sides sight the same scripture passage and claim that their understanding is the right now. Only to come out with no truth. OSAS, Predestination vs Free will, what communion is. what music should be, eccesiology, soteriology. baptism, the role of women, sexuality in general. Death Pen, These are huge issues that a standard stone-campbell view of scripture can not answer. The different truths with equal authority leds one to see that there is no truth. No way of finding the truth. This leads the person to be autonomy. That somehow my individual interpretation is good enough. And more churches split, and more churches split. Without authority morals are lost (*birth control, abortion, homosexuality--wouldnt have been even considered in the 1920's yet almost all protestant denoms have no answer for these now)

why would we ever want to give up a true authority in interpreting scripture and morals to have what you have? Get off the ocean vessal and paddle on your own?? Good luck friend.
[/quote]

Will differences in music keep some out of heaven?

Tell me, what is missing from scripture that will keep us from obtaining salvation?


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082187' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:14 PM']
they were floating amongst many many Christian writings from the period, among them the Didache and the Sheperd of Hermas, being read in the churches during the celebration of the Eucharist, as described in the Didache (written between AD 40 and AD 120):
It was a formal institutional Church which declared 27 books to be the inspired word of God and hundreds of various widespread Christian books, as well as other ones which were gnostic and/or judaiser, to not be.

The writers of such books as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts all gnew of what they wrote because of tradition passed down to them the same way it is passed down in our Church.. indeed most of the writers of the Old Testament also wrote what they knew of based upon tradition.
[/quote]

No, the NT writers wrote what they were wrote as moved by the Holy Spirit.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1082183' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:11 PM']
Sola

Not to join the frey but if you could address the scripture reading in my original post. I think that might be an excellent starting point for whether Jesus was being literal or figurative about the Eucharist.
[/quote]

I answered this already.