Bread Worship

[Matt Black]

These are your conclusions not mine, and quite frankly I don't know how you come up with them. Let's look point by point at what I said.
1. Justin and Ignatius used the term "Eucharist" as you (the RCC, et. al.) do today, or so you suppose.
2. The English language wasn't even invented at that period of time and they wrote in Greek, so isn't it possible that your suppositions and even your translational work is wrong.
3. The Greek word, as demonstrated above, is never once translated "The Eucharist," in the way that you use it or want it to be used. It is always used in the sense of thankfulness or in giving of thanks. It has nothing to do with a Communion Service--ever.

Now, you falsely conclude that I am accusing Justin and Ignatius as heretics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I rather charge you with corrupting what Justin and Ignatius have actually said, with having corrupt translations, unreliable translations, and reading into words meanings that are not there. There is no possible way that a person can get "The Eucharist" as in today's meaning of it, our of the Greek word eucharisto or eucharistew. It is impossible. I have not attacked the ECF in this manner but rather your interpretation of them.

Then permit me to refresh your memory; you said:

There is no "Christian Eucharist," only a pagan one.

So, let's take the Greek word 'eucharist' and give it the meaning you state it has in the NT - 'giving thanks'. Applying this to the Ignatian and Justinian texts, we have:

Ignatius of Antioch



"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" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the giving of thanks and from prayer because they do not confess that the Thanksgiving is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr



"We call this food 'Thanksgiving', and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the 'Thanksgiving' by the prayer of giving thanks set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

From this, we can see that the term 'Eucharist', whether you wish to translate that 'giving thanks', 'thanksgiving' or whatever, clearly refers to the bread and wine. This usage is confirmed by the Didache, which is earlier than the above (again I am substituting 'giving thanks' or 'thanksgiving' for the word 'eucharist'):

Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving. Now concerning the Thanksgiving, 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 Thanksgiving, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy 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 tabernacle in our hearts, 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; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. 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.
But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

So, in that sense, the translation is irrelevant; what is important is what's being referred to, and that is the bread and wine, which are stated to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

And what exactly gives you the authority to say that your interpretation of Scripture is better than Justin's?

I know! I know!....b/c he's truely born again, therefore his interpretation is free from error...you know...kind of like the Pope...

InXC

 

[BobRyan]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 6 & 7. No, I don't think anyone would say Ignatius is infallible but living at the time he did, he would have to have better understanding of the teachings of Christ and His apostles than we can have 2,000 years later.

Was it true that the Jewish leaders born before John the baptizer and Christ knew "more about what Moses really meant" than did John or Christ because they were closer to his day? How about king Herod before them?

 

[BobRyan]

Since we are talking about 'who knew what when' here we have the RCC long before any groups today that might claim the bread turns into God - saying that what they are doing is in fact "idolatry" if the John 6 statement of Christ about this being "symbolic" is correct.

RC Eucharist is “idolatry” (if non-Catholics are right) according to the RCC.
The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351
Parenthetical inserts “mine”


Quote:
The Faith Explained – Page 350
“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.
Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

 

[mrtumnus]

Since we are talking about 'who knew what when' here we have the RCC long before any groups today that might claim the bread turns into God - saying that what they are doing is in fact "idolatry" if the John 6 statement of Christ about this being "symbolic" is correct.

I think you're missing the point of the "if" in that statement.

Just like "if" the interpretation that it really is Christ is correct. Where does that leave those who have mocked, sneered, and called it "bread worship"?

 

[DHK]

Then permit me to refresh your memory; you said:
"There is no Christian Eucharist, only a pagan one."

So I did, and I will stand by it.
In the formation of the RCC, Constantine took Christianity and paganized it introdicing many idols and paganistic concepts. The entire Mass is pagan in nature. It is pagan ritual in imitation of the pagans.
I find what Martyr said disgusting to say the least:

"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" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

That is a very sanctimonius statement isn't it; but it is not true. Did he desire to starve himself? Did he really have no desire for the food that would sustain him in this life? I don't believe that. Was he then on a lifelong fast? He may have desired the bread of life. But Jesus claimed that He was the bread of life, and he never claimed that it was found in a piece of literal of bread. So in that he erred, just like many of the ECF. So tell my why I should listen to this man who has such mixed up aberrant theology than take my theology straight from the Word of God.

This is where you err. You put your faith in men who err. Because they lived long ago doesn't make them right.

 

[Matt Black]

Because he was discipled by the guy who wrote down the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and is therefore eminently more qualified to interpret said Scripture than you or I.

BTW his name's Ignatius not Martyr, and these words I quoted were written long before Constantine, so again I fail to see how you can call the term 'Eucharist' as used by them 'pagan'.

 

[DHK]

Because he was discipled by the guy who wrote down the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and is therefore eminently more qualified to interpret said Scripture than you or I.

I doubt if that can be proved with any degree of accuracy.

BTW his name's Ignatius not Martyr, and these words I quoted were written long before Constantine, so again I fail to see how you can call the term 'Eucharist' as used by them 'pagan'.

The point remains the same. The concept of purgatory existed long before the official organization of the Catholic Church. That doesn't make it Scriptural. Because one of the ECF fathers believed in that particular heresy doesn't make it true. I suppose the Catholics would claim they were taught directly by the Apostles as well.
Again there is much that is left and lost in translation. As you rightly translated, you substituted "thanksgiving." But that is not how the word is used today. The word is used today in the sense of transubstantiation, a far cry from thanksgiving. Translations can be altered and tampered with according to one's own bias. Even the KJV shows an Anglican bias in some words. The correct translation for the word "baptism" is immersion, and the correct translation for "church" is congregatioin or assembly.

You have not convinced me that I should trust a man over the actual words of God.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The point remains the same. The concept of purgatory existed long before the official organization of the Catholic Church. That doesn't make it Scriptural. Because one of the ECF fathers believed in that particular heresy doesn't make it true. I suppose the Catholics would claim they were taught directly by the Apostles as well.

Can you prove that the Early Church...Pre-1054 mind you...taught the concept of purgatory?

As an Orthodox Catechumen who's just finished Orthodox doctrine class, no mention of purgatory was made, other than we reject the concept and it wasn't what the Early Church Fathers collectively taught.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"thanksgiving." But that is not how the word is used today. The word is used today in the sense of transubstantiation...

This is all post-1054 theology…transubstantiation is more of a philosophical explanation in regard to the Western Roman Catholic Church. The West seems to have to logically explain everything…even some Protestant’s…look at the discussions regarding the Birth of our Lord…

As an Orthodox, we do believe the elements become the body and blood of Christ, only the Orthodox doesn’t attempt to explain the how, only we have faith that at some point during consecration the elements mysteriously become Christ’s body and blood. Therefore the term transubstantiation is foreign to the Eastern Church.

The correct translation for the word "baptism" is immersion...

I would agree, the Orthodox actually prefers the KJV and we also immerse for baptism.

InXC
-

 

[mrtumnus]

Can you prove that the Early Church...Pre-1054 mind you...taught the concept of purgatory?

As an Orthodox Catechumen who's just finished Orthodox doctrine class, no mention of purgatory was made, other than we reject the concept and it wasn't what the Early Church Fathers collectively taught.

ICXC NIKA
-

Agnus, I am curious as to how you view Purgatory as being so different conceptually than the Orthodox teaching of being in a state of 'partial blessedness'? It's my understanding that this is an 'intermediate' state and that sanctification is still occurring?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus, I am curious as to how you view Purgatory as being so different conceptually than the Orthodox teaching of being in a state of 'partial blessedness'? It's my understanding that this is an 'intermediate' state and that sanctification is still occurring?

Regarding purification after death, Bishop Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Orthodox theologians, past and present, but the underlying theme is that universally the Westerns interpretation of purgatory is rejected, more so than the concept itself. The notion of purgatory because of indulgences and the idea of a purgatorial fire tied to it is the reason purgatory is rejected.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate (The Church of Constantinople) considers Purgatory to be among inter-correlated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church that are not acceptable within Orthodox doctrine. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory.
Source

So it's not MY view that's different from Orthodoxy, I'm on par with what the Orthodox Church teaches universally...I was about ready to swim the Tiber last year...I'm farmiliar with Purgatory and it was when I started researching the Fathers pre-1054 I began to have second thoughts...

InXC
-

 

[Matt Black]

I doubt if that can be proved with any degree of accuracy.

With a similar accuracy to how it can be shown that Paul wrote most if not all of the epistles attributed to him. Try Eusebius as a gentle intro to the subject of Early Church history

The point remains the same. The concept of purgatory existed long before the official organization of the Catholic Church. That doesn't make it Scriptural. Because one of the ECF fathers believed in that particular heresy doesn't make it true. I suppose the Catholics would claim they were taught directly by the Apostles as well.

Er...don't think you'll find purgatory as a doctrine much prior to the medieval western Catholic Church. Therefore that doctrine is not found in Scripture or Tradition of the Undivided Church and should be rejected (Agnus' expounding of Orthodox teaching on the subject above pretty much squares with my own belief on the subject)

Again there is much that is left and lost in translation. As you rightly translated, you substituted "thanksgiving." But that is not how the word is used today. The word is used today in the sense of transubstantiation, a far cry from thanksgiving.

But the fact remains, as I clearly demonstrated in the patristic quotes above, that the ECFs referred to this 'thanksgiving' as being (a) bread and wine and (b) the Body and Blood of Christ; it matters not what they called it (they could have called it 'Elevenses' or 'Afternoon Tea'). but what matters is that they refer to bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ

You have not convinced me that I should trust a man over the actual words of God.

Doubtless; but I think I should trust their interpretation of the actual words of God waaay more than I should trust yours or mine.

 

[DHK]

but I think I should trust their interpretation of the actual words of God waaay more than I should trust yours or mine.

That I will never understand. Just because they say something doesn't make it true. Proximity to the Apostles does not guarantee truth. It never has. The only thing that can guarantee truth is the truth in the Word of God itself. There is a such thing as progressive revelation. You say he was taught by John. Even so, John himself was prone to error. He wasn't prone to error when he was writing Scripture. At that time he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. At other times he was just as fallible as we. Paul rebuked Peter a couple of times. And yet Peter seemed to be the spokesman for the disciples. He was also the one that denied the Lord. The Apostles were not perfect. They were fallible men, and so were their followers.

Note that these fallible men never had the benefit of Strong's Concordance, the most valued book after the Bible, for ages to come. The benefit of resource material such as this led to progressive revelation. We could learn more because of more resources available to us, and with the advent of the printing press there was an explosion of literature and materials made available to the general poplulace that the people of the first century never had. The Apostle John probably never had all the books of the NT all at one time. He probably could not do a thorough search on a doctrine such as we are able to do today with the use of a program like swordsearcher or e-sword. The same held true with all of the ECF. Compared to modern day reference materials the ECF were handicapped.
Proximity to the disciples does not guarantee a better understanding of Scripture. In fact, as a cursory reading of the ECF tells, most of them contradict each other in many many areas.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
" The only thing that can guarantee truth is the truth in the Word of God itself."

GE
Thank you DHK! It's words like these and TRUTH like this that makes me very grateful, and gives me new faith in the cause of Christianity. It is also words and arguments like this that makes me very grateful for an Instrument to the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ like Baptist Board. It has to large extent become my 'church' of late.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK
Note that these fallible men never had the benefit of Strong's Concordance, the most valued book after the Bible, for ages to come.

GE
I would strongly recommend as substitute, Young's Analytical Concordance. The easiness and effectiveness of the tools it provides for a better understanding of the Scriptures I have found unrivaled. And what's perhaps not generally applicable but in some cases of finer detail, Strong's simple errs; I would like to be shown one 'mistake' in Young's!

 

[Matt Black]

That I will never understand. Just because they say something doesn't make it true. Proximity to the Apostles does not guarantee truth. It never has. The only thing that can guarantee truth is the truth in the Word of God itself. There is a such thing as progressive revelation. You say he was taught by John. Even so, John himself was prone to error. He wasn't prone to error when he was writing Scripture. At that time he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. At other times he was just as fallible as we. Paul rebuked Peter a couple of times. And yet Peter seemed to be the spokesman for the disciples. He was also the one that denied the Lord. The Apostles were not perfect. They were fallible men, and so were their followers.

As are we. They however did have the advantage that they were only a generatio or two removed from Jesus Himself, unlike us. Let me illustrate what I mean by way of an (admittedly speculative but probably not purely hypothetical) example:

(John and Ignatius are sitting together discussing Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 as we now have it)

Ignatius: But, Master, what did the Lord mean when He said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you"? Is that meant to be taken purely spiritually, or did He mean it literally? Does it just mean that we are to have faith in Him, or is there a more physical meaning? If it's the latter, surely He didn't mean that the crowd there were to start biting and chewing Him!

John: Ah, my son, this is one of the more difficult sayings of the Lord Jesus, and was misunderstood by many even at the time He said it. I didn't understand it myself and had to ask Him what it meant, and He explained to me that, yes, He was talking about faith in Him, in His Cross and Resurrection, but He was also pointing forward to the time when He took bread and wine, saying "This is my body, this is my blood" and that whenever we remember Him in eating the agape bread and drinking the wine, we eat and drink His Body and Blood and so have His life in us.

So, Ignatius, writing a few years after this exchange, is able to say with confidence (unlike us) that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus

 

[DHK]

To be truthful Matt it sounds like something contrived, made-up.
1. You have a problem with the authenticity of the document itself, verifying that it is from the very hand of Ignatius, and that Ignatius is who he says you claim him to be.
In other words not only do you have to verify that this is a document from Ignatius you have to demonstrate that Ignatius was an actual student of the Apostle John. I have a hard time believing even that.
2. You have a problem in translational accuracy. The document wasn't written in English. Obviously some meaning was lost in translation; it always is.
3. You have a problem in bias. Even in the document you quoted, I don't necessarily get the teaching out of it that you claim it is teaching. You just think it is teaching transubstantiation when it is not.

 

[Matt Black]

Same problems with the Bible, if you're going to get into higher criticism. Look at the controversy over the Pastoral Letters or the later Pauline corpus generally, for example.

 

[DHK]

Same problems with the Bible, if you're going to get into higher criticism. Look at the controversy over the Pastoral Letters or the later Pauline corpus generally, for example.

I avoid "higher criticism" as I would the plague.
They are fools in their folly, most of them attacking the veracity of the Bible. Why would I entertain their little games in attacking the Word of God. I know the Word of God is true.

But as for the charlatans and others that wrote after the time of the Apostles we don't know much about. We have over 5,000 existing MSS testifying to the authenticity of the NT. How many can you produce that testify to the authenticity of this scrap that you call the work of Ignatius, if even you can prove that he was a disciple of John. You have a problem on your hands. I don't.