Christian Forums

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 13:28:53

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:48:17
Ignatius claims that the heretics abstain from the Eucharist "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"  This is unlike Catholic practice, where Catholics abstain from the Eucharist because they confess that the Eucharist IS the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, and do so because Paul instructed it, in their view:

Ignatius uses the word "εἶναι" which can mean "be" but also applies to "be" as in having the power or appearance.
It is translated as the English word "is" because the English word "is" does not necessarily implicate posession or fixed state.
For example "Now is my time" does not in any was implicate that time is my posession, or that time is contained in me or that now literally consists of only my time.

Hence, the proper translation "thanksgiving is the flesh of our Saviour" can be taken as "thanksgiving has the power or appearance of our Saviours flesh".

Not being a Greek scholar myself, it would seem strange that no one who translates this work of Ignatius translates "εἶναι" as "power" or "appearance".   But I am willing to entertain this train of thought.

Using your suggestion, the translation would not be "thanksgiving has the power or appearance of our Savious flesh" but rather either:

"They abstain from the thanksgiving and from prayer, because they confess not the thanksgiving to have the appearance of the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

or

"They abstain from the thanksgiving and from prayer, because they confess not the thanksgiving to have the power of the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Let's look at both.  The first translation makes little sense, unless "the thanksgiving" or "the eucharist" in the early Church was actually enfleshing; meaning that it actually appeared as a piece of flesh rather than bread.  This makes the assumption that this word "eucharist" is the same thing that St. Paul referred to as "eucharist" of "giving thanks" in 1 Cor. 11:24, a reference itself to the last supper, when Jesus took bread in his hands. 

By this translation, we have bread suddenly having the appearance of flesh.  It would be kind of silly for the so-called heretics to deny that bread becoming visible flesh did not happen.

The second translation says that the bread has "the power of the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".  Now that is compelling.  Certainly the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ has power, but it would be strange to believe that this bread has the power of the flesh our Savior Jesus Christ if it was just a symbol.  This translation reminds me of John 6:

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

In any case, the "appearance" argument doesn't make sense realistically (though even if it did it would not be a symbol, but rather a miracle and real flesh), the "power" argument destroys the idea that the "eucharist" or "thanksgiving" is "just a symbol", but it seems that translators most commonly translate the word as simply "to be".  In any case it doesn't seem that Ignatius is referring to this "eucharist" as a symbol or something symbolic.

Quote from: Catholica on Thu Apr 04, 2013 - 13:43:35

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 13:28:53

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:48:17
Ignatius claims that the heretics abstain from the Eucharist "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"  This is unlike Catholic practice, where Catholics abstain from the Eucharist because they confess that the Eucharist IS the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, and do so because Paul instructed it, in their view:

Ignatius uses the word "εἶναι" which can mean "be" but also applies to "be" as in having the power or appearance.
It is translated as the English word "is" because the English word "is" does not necessarily implicate posession or fixed state.
For example "Now is my time" does not in any was implicate that time is my posession, or that time is contained in me or that now literally consists of only my time.

Hence, the proper translation "thanksgiving is the flesh of our Saviour" can be taken as "thanksgiving has the power or appearance of our Saviours flesh".

Not being a Greek scholar myself, it would seem strange that no one who translates this work of Ignatius translates "εἶναι" as "power" or "appearance".   But I am willing to entertain this train of thought.

Using your suggestion, the translation would not be "thanksgiving has the power or appearance of our Savious flesh" but rather either:

"They abstain from the thanksgiving and from prayer, because they confess not the thanksgiving to have the appearance of the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

or

"They abstain from the thanksgiving and from prayer, because they confess not the thanksgiving to have the power of the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Let's look at both.  The first translation makes little sense, unless "the thanksgiving" or "the eucharist" in the early Church was actually enfleshing; meaning that it actually appeared as a piece of flesh rather than bread.  This makes the assumption that this word "eucharist" is the same thing that St. Paul referred to as "eucharist" of "giving thanks" in 1 Cor. 11:24, a reference itself to the last supper, when Jesus took bread in his hands. 

By this translation, we have bread suddenly having the appearance of flesh.  It would be kind of silly for the so-called heretics to deny that bread becoming visible flesh did not happen.

The second translation says that the bread has "the power of the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".  Now that is compelling.  Certainly the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ has power, but it would be strange to believe that this bread has the power of the flesh our Savior Jesus Christ if it was just a symbol.  This translation reminds me of John 6:

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

In any case, the "appearance" argument doesn't make sense realistically (though even if it did it would not be a symbol, but rather a miracle and real flesh), the "power" argument destroys the idea that the "eucharist" or "thanksgiving" is "just a symbol", but it seems that translators most commonly translate the word as simply "to be".  In any case it doesn't seem that Ignatius is referring to this "eucharist" as a symbol or something symbolic.

Both of the translations and the explanation you give to them are wrong.

Firstly let something be straightened out. The heretics in Ignatius letter were not heretics because they rejected thanksgiving.
They were heretics because they claimed that Jesus did not have a human body and due to this teaching they could not participate in thanksgiving representing flesh and blood.

You take the word "appearance" and "power" rather literally, which you should not.
My explanation is quite adequate and comprehensible, but hey let me humor you.

The RCC claims that the word "is", used to translate the sentence "because the eucharis is the flesh of our Saviour", literally means "is".
That is an incorrect interpretation because the word "is" does not hold in itself that necessity.

Hence my example "Now is my time".
In your literal interpretation this would mean that the time-frame "Now" would literally consist of "my time".
We know that that is not true. "Now" cannot only consist of only your time. "Now" contains all the time of everybody in the world.
So when you use the phrase "Now is my time" you give now the "appearance" of containing your time. Its a gramatical expression.

But let's take a better example. When you say: "my child is my flesh and blood", do you really mean to say that your child literally has your flesh and your blood?
Of course not! Hence the word "is" here is used to show likeness, inheritance, appearance or even character. It's symbolic.

Further also lets be clear that Ignatius didn't know what an "Eucharist" was. In his wording it simply means "thanksgiving", nothing else and nothing more.
The word "eucharist" existed centuries before Christ and has nothing to do with the "Eucharist" as the RCC knows it now.
When Ignatius uses the word "eucharist" he refers to the thanksgiving celebrated with bread and wine.

Much later the RCC started calling the bread and wine "eucharist" too, and the RCC started claiming that these were transsubstantiated.
After that was done, the RCC returned to the text from Ignatius and said: "See, even Ignatius believed in transsubstantiation".
This of course is misleading.

AVZ, not only ignatius but........

"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).

"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).

Copied from 'The Early Church Fathers "

So I guess that makes all protestants heretics 

what a joke.

The scriptures say do not hurt other members of the body, but members here claiming that those who reject catholic eucharist are heretics, even though Jesus specifically said that those who followed not his disciples, to forbid them not.

When the disciples walked away from Jesus concerning his statements of eating his flesh and blood, Jesus let them walk away in peace and even offered to let his 12 apostles to walk away.

Personally I think all Christians should reject the Catholic eucharist.

Quote from: FireSword on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:21:58
So I guess that makes all protestants heretics 

what a joke.

The scriptures say do not hurt other members of the body, but members here claiming that those who reject catholic eucharist are heretics, even though Jesus specifically said that those who followed not his disciples, to forbid them not.

When the disciples walked away from Jesus concerning his statements of eating his flesh and blood, Jesus let them walk away in peace and even offered to let his 12 apostles to walk away.

Personally I think all Christians should reject the Catholic eucharist.

Let all things be done in the true spirit of Christ with thanks giving. Do not hinder the Body of Christ by legalistic interpretations. If one believes it is changed and comes to the Table in the true spirit of love for Christ let him or her do so. If one then believes it is symbolic and comes to the Table in the true spirit of love for Christ put no  law to hinder them. We are all the body of Christ and let  the Lord  be our judge for the spirit in which we do all things.  Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus   Rom 8:1

Quote from: neophyte on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 07:59:19
AVZ, not only ignatius but........

"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).

"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).

Copied from 'The Early Church Fathers "

Thanks Neophyte.

We are of course way off topic...

The writings do not indicate that any of the forefathers believed in something like transsubstantiation.
They are repeating what Jesus Himself said: "This is my body" and "this is my blood".
Leaves it up to the reader to make the assertion that the word "is" results in transsubstantiation.

What does interest me however is, of all these forefathers, who is using the word "eucharist"?
From waht I can see (havent done much study though), only Ignatius uses this word.
All other speak about "bread" and "wine".

In Greek the word for thanksgiving is "eucharist".
The word for bread is "psomi" or "artos"
The word for wine is "krasi"

So in the terms of the forefathers, when they spoke about eucharist, psomi (artos) and krasi...they referred to holy communion, bread and wine.

How different this is in the RCC.
When I show the bread to a Catholic and ask him how he calls it, he says: "eucharist"
And when I show him the wine, he says: "wine"
And I ask what is the event he is celebrating, he says: "holy communion".

As you can see, in the RCC, the word "bread" has been changed into "eucharist", and thats is how it is now known.
This was not the case in Ignatius' time.
When Ignatius talks about "eucharist" he is not (although the RCC would like that) referring to "bread".
He is referring to "holy communion"...the event.

So, back to the other forefathers.
We see them mentioning "bread" and "wine" many times. My interest would be...which Greek word are they using for this?
Are they using "eucharist" when referring to bread, or are they using "psomi/artos"?

You may also be interested that in the Gospels the word "eucharist" is not used.
And when Jesus broke the bread, He said: "this is my body".
The Greek word for "body" used here is "soma" which has a very wide interpetation, both literally and figuratively.

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 13:06:00

Quote from: FireSword on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:21:58
So I guess that makes all protestants heretics 

what a joke.

The scriptures say do not hurt other members of the body, but members here claiming that those who reject catholic eucharist are heretics, even though Jesus specifically said that those who followed not his disciples, to forbid them not.

When the disciples walked away from Jesus concerning his statements of eating his flesh and blood, Jesus let them walk away in peace and even offered to let his 12 apostles to walk away.

Personally I think all Christians should reject the Catholic eucharist.

Let all things be done in the true spirit of Christ with thanks giving. Do not hinder the Body of Christ by legalistic interpretations. If one believes it is changed and comes to the Table in the true spirit of love for Christ let him or her do so. If one then believes it is symbolic and comes to the Table in the true spirit of love for Christ put no  law to hinder them. We are all the body of Christ and let  the Lord  be our judge for the spirit in which we do all things.  Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus   Rom 8:1

You  are quite right. The catholic eucharist is one thing that strengthens the Catholics faith and love for Jesus and should not be taken from them, but neither should they condemn those who do not participate in their version of communion.

AVZ, your problem is in your translations. In the John 6 Discourse on the Eucharist why did the English translators use " to eat", when the original Greek is "to chew '' ? You can not chew a symbolic action as you believe.
You are mistaken with your Greek, the word "wine" in the original Greek is "oinos" not" krasi" as you wrote.
As I said your problem is that you're not aware that the N.T. was written in "Koine" Greek not in the "Attic"' Greek in which you translate or taken from your supposed scholars.
So right from the start of the post, that which you wrote is nullified.