Also in Lutheran churches; there just isn’t much interest in documenting them.
There are also miracles associated with the Eucharist in Lutheran churches including sudden vanishing of illnesses. Many Lutherans in churches claiming apostolic succession take it for granted that the Eucharist will yield miracles.
To the contrary, the Trinity is a doctrine that came directly from second-Temple Judaism, where Elohim was understood to be one elohim yet could be in heaven as well as walking on Earth in the form of a man at the same time. That the Spirit was also a distinct Person had not been finalized; it took Jesus to do that. All the early church did was pick up what the rabbis had shown to be the case in scripture and polished it a bit.
Listen to some of Michael Heiser’s talks on the “Two Powers” or on the Trinity and you’ll see that the doctrine does indeed rest on “solid exegesis of the Bible”.
Not quite; it’s symbolic: in Jewish numerology, ten was a number representing a job well done; multiplying it meant a job really well done, and multiplying again, i.e. 10 x 10 x 10, indicated a job done as well as it possibly could be. So in one sense the declaration of the Psalmist isn’t about time very much at all.
1 Like
But did the Gospel writer know the exact words.
Linguistic analysis is dodgy at best. Asserting it as the only meaning would be a little presumptuous.
Theology is not black and white. There is no correct view, although there may be some incorrect ones.
Richard
good point. totally agree with you. Much of Jesus’ life and teaching had been skipped. Even in the apostle’s creed, it goes directly from Jesus’ birth to His crucifixion. Missing the whole point of Jesus teaching and ministry for 3 whole years.
while I am largely ignorant of the teaching of second-temple Judaism, I am familiar with the “Two Powers” that has been sent around the early church from the letters of Paul, James and Peter. Take a look at the greeting of those letters.
To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 1:7)
Look at those distinction between the Father and the Lord. And no mention of the third person the Holy Spirit. If you check on all Paul’s letter, James’ letter and Peter’s letter, the same formulation appear. I think if we want to explore the trinity dogma from the earliest church, then we should start from that. The role of the Holy Spirit was of course very important in those apostles ministries, and yet they all failed to mention the Holy Spirit in their greeting letters to other churches. Why was that?
As I wrote before, you miss the context of the chapter. If you read verse 5, David was already in charge of the army.
And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul’s servants. (1 Sam 18:5)
If you can’t see that, then I have no way in convincing you that “David the ten thousand” is not out of the blue, but literally what it meant.
“Do this in remembrance” is now known to be better translated as “Do this as a memorial sacrifice”.
1 Like
That’s your interpretation. I think the fullness of God is beyond human comprehension but I can say God is love and God cannot will Himself into non-existence (it’s a contradiction to me) with full confidence. I can say God is merciful without fully understanding the totality of God. I can use scripture and the natural light of reason to know many things about God and reality without exhaustive understandings of either.
This is ungracious exegesis even if unintentional. It is truly mind-boggling to me for someone to think they can proof-text hunt a single passage or two of scripture and overturn such a vast consensus in the Church. It’s the same with how a conservative Christian might dismiss a mountain of scientific evidence by quoting one Bible verse as if scientists are all liars and/or morons. I am inclined to wonder, do modern day memorialists really think they are first people in history to read Luke 22:19 & 1 Cor 11:24?
If the evidence against a literal Eucharist was so obvious and straightforward, shouldn’t we expect diversity in the church where none is found? Has it never crossed the mind of memorialists to think, hmm, since virtually the entire Church did not accept the Eucharist as a mere reminder and symbol, maybe my interpretation of these two passages is wrong?
It doesn’t bother me that memorialists completely botch the first century context of “remembrance” in general. What is troublesome is the reckless and casual dismissal of so much church history on such a tenuous basis. This is why I am so critical of sola scriptura. Of course what God says (scripture properly interpreted) is the highest authority. But the Biblical doctrine has become a stain and a farce in the Church. It is now synonymous with an uncritical, ‘me-and-my-Bible’ individualism masquerading as “what God says” all the while divorcing the text from its historic and covenantal community.
Memorialism is rejected by most branches of Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Methodist Churches, the Lutheran Churches, the Independent Catholic Churches, and the Reformed Churches (including Continental Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist traditions), all of which variously affirm the doctrine of the real presence. Ancient people didn’t just remember the Passover and things of that nature, they participated in them as the covenant people of God.
Avery Dulles: Memorial in the rich biblical sense meant a liturgical feast commemorating some foundational event in such a way that the people could participate by faith in its saving effects. Participation in such liturgical acts had a significance beyond the subjective intentions of those who took part in them. Paul, for example, reasons that by partaking in the sacrificed meals of pagans, Christians would become partners with demons, who are worshipped in such rites (1 Cor 10:14-22).
MISHNAH, PESAHIM (ca 200) 10:5: In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt, for it is written . . . “It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exod 13:8). Therefore we are bound to give thanks . . . and to bless him who wrought all these wonders for our fathers and for us. He brought us out from bondage to freedom, from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning to a Festival-day, and from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption; so let us say before him the Hallelujah.
The literature on this is not skimpy or hard to find. Neither anamnesis nor zikkaron (Hebrew) are mental exercises or psychological trips down memory lane. The early Church knew this.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life. It is not a minor issue. I suspect only a memorialist could deem it a secondary issue. You might say the specific interpretation of how the Real Presence occurs is secondary but to include symbolism or memorials in there is incorrect.
We absolute should meditate on the words of Jesus and seek the universal guidance of the early Church on how to properly interpret them.
**53 **Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. **54 **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. **55 **For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. **56 **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. **57 **Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. **58 **This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” **59 **He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Telling people to drink his blood is a really odd choice for a symbol.
Vinnie
1 Like
I think the metaphysical side was not the core point in Jesus teaching, which makes such philosophical speculation secondary in importance. With the word ‘speculation’, I do not mean that philosophy is merely useless speculation, I mean that here we are talking about something that goes beyond our understanding.
Jesus used much figurative language and even the disciples often did not seem to get the point. For example, when Jesus was talking about the yeast of the Pharisees and others (Matthew 16:6-7; Mark 8:15-16), his followers assumed he was talking about ordinary bread.
It is likely that also the talk in John 6:53-- is figurative talk. I understand that some want to interpret it so that Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist because such an interpretation might support their opinion. However, if we take the flesh and blood literally (an interpretation) and interpret that the flesh and blood are the bread and wine of the Eucharist that was established later (an interpretation of an interpretation), that would make the ritual of Eucharist the condition of salvation (unless…you have no life in you). I hope only few believe that (although it may be that the ‘few’ is actually quite a large figure).
Edit:
The Mishnah, Pesahim 10:5 you cited speaks about a symbolic identification: ‘a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt, for it is written … “It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt”’. A deep identification to what happened, to being part of the people who walked themselves out of Egypt, although the person did not actually walk out of Egypt.
The letters of Paul speak about us being in Christ. I Interpret that as deep identification, rather than living as an actual cell, flesh or blood, within the physical body of Christ. The Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper is also something where we are not talking just about a superficial memorial, we are talking about a deep identification to what Jesus did and to being part of his universal body, together with the other followers of Jesus.
2 Likes
You ae not reading it correctly.
v2-5 is a summary of what is to come. It is not linear history, but an editorial comment. Otherwise v6 makes no sense.
It seems we are at an impass
Richard
I just think that belief should be your conclusion after studying the Bible rather than the starting point of exploring the Bible.
isn’t that a direct revelation from the Bible?
another direct revelation from the Bible.
There is nothing superficial about the Protestant communion. You appear to have a “strawman” view that is easier to dismiss or refute,
Richard
didn’t you realise that church history and tradition you are talking about (eucharist and perhaps also method of baptism) were littered with division and even death? Since Transubstantion is very important for you and very meaningful, then it is fine. The same with Lutheran with constubstantional or memorialist. The importance is to look beyond that and perhaps accepts our different understanding and to have that unity in Christ. If everyone is insisting that his/her understanding is the right one, then there will always be division among the body of Christ. just because one believe in transubstantion does not make eucharist more meaningful than others. Does believing real presence in eucharist make one more blessed or holy or closer relationship or even bigger rewards in heaven? perhaps, but we don’t really know since the Bible in silent on those issue. The command of Jesus however is clear, whatever we believe about Eucharist, the purpose in is to remember and identify us with the life of Christ and the sacrifice that He made.
Yes, I am on the camp of memorialist. However, I can accept those from different camps as brothers in Christ. Why? because this issue is secondary. It does not make one less christian (follower of Christ) if one believe one or the other. Sad to think otherwise, but each to his/her own.
1 Like
If someone was interested in unity in Christ, I think they should accept the Real Presence or at least take the universal teaching of the Church for a thousand years and dominant teaching since very very seriously. Dumping these universal Church teachings without extremely compelling reasons—to be honest—signals to me someone is more interested in preserving their modern ideology rather than aligning with the Church proper. That is not unity, it is stubbornness.
I don’t doubt the plea for unity is sincere but it just rings hollow to my ears.
Vinnie
1 Like
Just out of curiosity since you place the real presence eucharist so highly. Other than because of the tradition of the church, can you present one single benefit spiritually or even physically for believing in Real Presence eucharist that might compel a memorialist to embrace that view?
Little to add to a good discussion, except I tend to go back to something I once read, that the real miracle of the Lord’s Supper is not that wine is changed into blood, but rather that blood, which was forbidden, was changed into wine, of which we may freely partake.
2 Likes
I agree.
Problem is we all have “priors” whether or not we recognize them or acknowledge them. It’s inevitable. But I also believe they can (sooner or later) be challenged and either buttressed or discarded as necessary.
1 Like
Well…it is for things like this that I keep coming back here.
I think the blood issue is really important. A number of HJ scholars [edited these are not all specifically HJ scholars but the point is true] would deny Jesus ever said anything like this because blood was considered so taboo at the time to Jews.
Geza Vermes: “The imagery of eating a man’s body and especially drinking his blood . . . , even after allowance is made for metaphorical language, strikes a totally foreign note in a Palestinian Jewish cultural setting (cf. John 6.52). With their profoundly rooted blood taboo, Jesus’ listeners would have been overcome with nausea at hearing such words.”
Joseph Klausner: “It is quite impossible to admit that Jesus would have said to his disciples that they should eat of his body and drink of his blood, “the blood of the new covenant which was shed for many.” The drinking of blood, even if it was meant symbolically, could only have aroused horror in the minds of such simple Galilean Jews.”
Paul Bradshaw: “But there is another reason why at least part of this later material [John 6:53] may be an addition to the original core. While the concept of eating flesh might have been difficult for a Jew to comprehend, the concept of drinking blood would have been an abomination. Thus, it seems more likely that this part of the discourse would have been appended later, in a Gentile environment, and would not have formed part of the earlier Jewish stratum.”
I believe second century Roman critics (Fronto and Celsus) regularly accused early Christians of cannibalism (Thyestean banquets and ritual murder). The eating flesh and drinking blood was understood literally by non-docetist Christians.
Jews were forbidden from consuming animal blood at the penalty of being cut off. I think Brant Pitre argues that Jesus reverses the logic of his day but maintains the same view. Animal blood was forbidden because it imparted animal life but drinking the blood of the Messiah is commanded because it imparts divine, eternal life. The theological principle behind Leviticus remains (Life is in the blood) but the source of the blood has changed.
I am also a supporter of the idea that Jesus consumed the 4th Passover cup on the Cross. “It is finished” applies not only to the incarnation but to the passover liturgy that was never finished signaling Jesus is now the new passover lamb. Deuteronomy mentions 5x to eat the lamb at the first passover.
VInnie
1 Like
Methinks that you can take the literal too far nd you appear to be doing so.
If you want to turn people away from Christianity, keep going.
I wonder why Halal is so important to Muslims
Richard