What is the Baptist interpretation to "Eat My Fles

If all claim that they have the anointing of Holy Spiri but still remains disagreement, we have no way to resolve the disgreement until Lord comes. What God has left to us unresolved cannot be improved by any other means.I don't expect this disagreement will be resolved before Lord comes.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Except that God has not left it to be unresolved - He, Jesus Christ, God the Son, appointed Apostles and gave them God the Holy Spirit Who would lead them into 'all Truth'.

 

Matt is right the issue is resolved what prevents us from being united is people's preconceptions and fear of sounding anything like the RCC.

 

There's is a lot of truth to that, I agree. Some people seem to bend over backwards in denying the real import of Christ's and the apostles teachings on this subject to the point where they sound quasi-gnostic in their arguments (ie everything is "spiritualized" to the point where the Incarnational reality of the Christian faith is disregarded). All for the sake of not being "Romish" I suppose.

 

What would you guys do if I pulled out a wallet photo of my wife and said "this is my wife". Would you believe I was married to a tiny little piece of paper?

I disagree that there are "thousands" of explanations for the four words "this is My body". It either is His body, or it is not, and He is using symbolism, as He normally did, as Joseph pointed out. I believe Scripture points to symbolism, as canibalism is sin.

 

I noticed that as well. Plus, Stantheman provided actual quotes of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria which expressed belief in the real presence. </font>[/QUOTE]I added the information to show that the early church fathers were not inspired, nor were they unanimous concerning the bread and wine.

http://sxws.com/charis/apol8.htm

 

I believe Real Presence All the time and Everywhere. Not only specific time of Lord's Supper.

To me, Catholic emphasis of Real Presence sounds like Real Absence in other place and time than Eucharist.

Jesus Christ is Omni-Present, Omni-Scient, Omni-Potent, which is the main difference between Him and other beings such as Mary. Mary is neither Omni-Present, nor Omni-Potent, nor Omni-Scient and therefore she cannot receive prayers from 1.3 billion throughout the world. She never did it while she was alive and she never became more powerful by dying!

I take Lord's Supper and reckon them as Flesh and Blood by faith, even though they remain the same as Bread and Wine. I know this truth very well because I watch them every week while I was breaking the bread and drinking the wine at the Lord's Supper. Some so-called Priests may be cheating the people saying that the materials are changed by Magic Performance ( so-called Consecration mainly by Prayer), which is totally untrue and pagan!

 

Mere symbolism and cannibalism are certainly not the only two options of interpreting that passage, as the real presence doctrine is not an affirmation of either. Of course, it makes one's job easier to cast the argument in the that simplistic (but false) way than to actually honestly deal with the texts in question as well as the universal consent of the early church on this matter. Those who think that for Christ to be talking literally He must be talking cannibalitically actually have more in common with those disciples who left Jesus at that point.

 

Mere symbolism and cannibalism are certainly not the only two options of interpreting that passage, as the real presence doctrine is not an affirmation of either. Of course, it makes one's job easier to cast the argument in the that simplistic (but false) way than to actually honestly deal with the texts in question as well as the universal consent of the early church on this matter. Those who think that for Christ to be talking literally He must be talking cannibalitically actually have more in common with those disciples who left Jesus at that point. </font>[/QUOTE]If it's not symbolic...or literal, what is the "third view"? Boloney. It's one or the other, It's either His actual body and blood, or it's symoblic, and this is the true honest way in dealing with that passage.
What do you say to this? What "other view" can you come up with in this statement?

 

(*by "literal" I'm assuming you are referring to cannibalism)

Ummm...The BIBLICAL view that the wine is the actual participation in the blood of Christ (not merely an empty symbol thereof) and the bread is the actual participation in the body of Christ (not merely an empty symbol therof)(1 Corinthians 1:16); a real participation (communion) which occurs without physically ripping and chewing flesh off Christ's bones or physically drinking or draining the blood from His veins.

Baloney. Just because you fail to engage the actual doctrine of the real presence and how it is taught by all the relevent scriptural passages (as well as the undivided church), but would rather deal with a false dilemma whereby you can blow down a silly straw man caricature of your own making, doesn't mean you are in anyway dealing honestly with the passages in question.

 

Maybe you should clarify this even more. On one hend, it sounds like something that I could almost go for, as it does nto seem to be discussiong some substantial change in the elements.
But for the elements to BE "participation"; the elements are physical items, and participation is action. In my understanding, Christ is spiritually present in the gathering of us all together (which usually centered around eating). So by having their love feasts, they were partaking of Christ, with the eating used to represent the act of "participation".

 

A comment on EricB’s post. He has his views and I have mine. Let’s see what the Early Church (Early Church Father’s [the disciples of the Apostles.]) has to say about the Real Presence.

"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),in ANF,I:89

"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(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

"[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),in ANF,I:486

"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),in NE,119

"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),in JUR,I:95

"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),in ANF,II:242

"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. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! 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. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes'--in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood."
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419

"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. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord's cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated. Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church--that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed--from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. 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),in ANF,V:362

"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),in NPNF2,VII:352

"The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God."
Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity,8:14(inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:141

" Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee."
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:495

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.' And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he lilies. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time."
Basil,To Patrician Caesaria,Epistle 93(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,VIII:179

"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body."
Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

"If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist(for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing."
Gregory of Nyssa,The Great Catechism,37(post A.D. 383),in NPNF2,V:505-506

" Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks."
Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391),in NPNF2,X:324-325

" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' "
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken."
Pope Leo the Great,Sermon, 91:3(ante A.D. 461),NPNF2,XII:202

"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, 'This is My body,' not, this is a figure of My body: and 'My blood,' not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live."
John of Damascus,Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,4:13(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:83

 

This are quotes from the Early Church Fathers addressing Transubstantiation.

"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(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

"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),in NE,119

"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. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! 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. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes'--in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood."
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419

"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?"
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:4(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152

"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),in NPNF2,VII:152

"Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXIII:7(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154

"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee."
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:495

"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body."
Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

"If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist(for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing."
Gregory of Nyssa,The Great Catechism,37(post A.D. 383),in NPNF2,V:505-506

"Then He added: 'For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].' Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: 'A spirit hath not flesh and bones.' Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death.'"
Ambrose,On the Christian Faith,4,10:125(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,X:278

"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks."
Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391),in NPNF2,X:324-325

" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' "
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73

"He did not say,'This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,' but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood."
Theodore of Mopsuestia,Commentary on Matthew 26:26(ante A.D. 428),in JUR,II:81

"Eran.--You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord's body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.--I will answer.
Eran.--What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.--It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.--Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.--Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.--And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.--This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.--And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.--Christ's body and Christ's blood.
Eran.--And do yon believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood?
Orth.--I do."
Theodoret of Cyrus,Eranistes,2(A.D. 451),in NPNF1,III:200

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken."
Pope Leo the Great,Sermon, 91:3(ante A.D. 461),NPNF2,XII:202

"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, 'This is My body,' not, this is a figure of My body: and 'My blood,' not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live."
John of Damascus,Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,4:13(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:83

 

And this is what I have been saying before. We see it go from Ignatius' "they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" which still leaves it open to be a metaphor (Where a "simile" is "a comparison using 'like' or 'as'"; a metaphor calls it like it is the thing it is being compared to). Then, expanding upon this, a half century later, Justin's "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but...the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.". That too can still be metaphorical, but now he adds to it "blessed by the prayer of His word". He mentions a "transmutation", but that appears to be referring to the "nourishment" or our own bodies (suggesting as I have been saying, that this was not cracker crumbs, or wafers especially made for the "service").
Then, in the next century, we begin to get more expounding of some "change" in the food TO "the flesh and blood". (Tertullian's example of Christ changing the bread and wine to His body still needs to answer Bob's question of how it could literally be Christ when Christ was still physically there before them).

I'm sorry, buit all of this looks like a doctrinal development to me. (rather than some complete doctrine passed down wholesale, only more [previously secret, oral only] details were being revealed about it). Just as I have always described it; early fathers begin putting their oen spin on things, and then others after them continue to build on that, putting their own spin on top of that. So yes, it was all passed down from the apostles, but we see it was being changed along the way. The only response to this is "But Christ would guide them into all truth", but He said this to the apostles, and they were guided into all truth, which they wrote down in their Gospels, epistles, Acts and Revelation. That was not promised for the later laders (when they even stopped counting 12, showing that office was finished), but instead, we do get prophecies of drastic apostasy. The defense then is The gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, and they didn', but still, there was a lot of error that was allowed to come in, and there would always be people to correct it. The more pressing issues (the nature of Christ, etc) were addressed somewhat immediately (and continuiong over time), and other things were questioned later on, when the Church began dividing over the corruption of the big powerful body.

 

(*by "literal" I'm assuming you are referring to cannibalism)

Ummm...The BIBLICAL view that the wine is the actual participation in the blood of Christ (not merely an empty symbol thereof) and the bread is the actual participation in the body of Christ (not merely an empty symbol therof)(1 Corinthians 1:16); a real participation (communion) which occurs without physically ripping and chewing flesh off Christ's bones or physically drinking or draining the blood from His veins.

Baloney. Just because you fail to engage the actual doctrine of the real presence and how it is taught by all the relevent scriptural passages (as well as the undivided church), but would rather deal with a false dilemma whereby you can blow down a silly straw man caricature of your own making, doesn't mean you are in anyway dealing honestly with the passages in question. </font>[/QUOTE]So explain how one can "participate" in eating Chirst's flesh and drinking His blood...without actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If it's "participation" in His body that was broken, and His blood that was shed, why aren't we nailed to a cross?

I see you fail to address my last point repeatedly. Explain how you "participate"...if I pulled out a wallet photo of my wife and said "this is my wife". Would you believe I was married to a tiny little piece of paper or would I be showing you who my wife actully is? If you were to "participate" in me "introducing" my "wife" to you, would you reply "Hi Mrs. Webdog, nice to meet you"?

 

Stan.
You claim that these early church fathers were disciples of the apostles, and yet all of them wrote their letters from 110-743 AD, long after the apostles were dead and buried.

And as I stated before, I don't give a hoot what the writings of the early church fathers say because they have mostly been held by the Catholic Church for centuries and they are not inspiried. And I frankly don't trust them as documents today.

Here are some examples of RCC deceit concerning forgeries:

http://www.acts1711.com/forgery.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Forgery.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Forgery.html

http://historical.benabraham.com/html/donation_of_constantine.html

That folks is why I stand on the Holy Scriptures alone since God himself protected them. Even the RCC wouldn't dare to change them. So they just twisted the meanings and didn't allow anyone to either own or interpret them for centuries.

Of course today there is nothing that the Vatican can do to keep Catholics from owning a Bible. But still only the Magisterium may interpret the meaning of Scripture for them.

 

Not quite: the Apostle John died after 100AD and Ignatius his successor was writing 107-110AD so not 'long after the apostles were dead and buried'.

And by the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists; in fact, pretty much most Christians today and throughout Church history.

 

So?

</font>[/QUOTE]"Obviously" it is going to be news to you to discover that "some" who argue for the pastry-of-god view of the Eucharist (confecting God) have been using "scriptura" to make their case - you know ... John 6!

But I see your point that scripture should not be brought up to you in this case given your view of it.

So?</font>[/QUOTE]See the response above...

So?</font>[/QUOTE]See the first point "again".

BTW - I detect a lack of grey-cell activity in your responses -- but they are a bit more thorough than the previous ones - so "keep it up".

Actually if you read the passage He doesn't say that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this where you "read"?

Exegesis Matt??

I mean - "paying attention to the details" of the text AND of the argument "from scriptura"???

I can hardly wait!

This means you have to "start over" in your response so far. Are you ready for that kind of commitment to "detail"?

Yes. And?
</font>[/QUOTE]I see - "exegesis" probably is a new idea for you. See -- this is the SAME author setting context in the SAME book using the SAME terminology and the intended primary audience would have started reading "scriptura" from chapter 1.

Get it? This is one of the neat things about exegesis - it is objective. It makes sense -- but you "do" have to pay attention to these inconvenient "details" -- so might want to rethink using that appproach.


Keep it up Matt - this is your best post yet.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So?

</font>[/QUOTE]"Obviously" it is going to be news to you to discover that "some" who argue for the pastry-of-god view of the Eucharist (confecting God) have been using "scriptura" to make their case - you know ... John 6!

But I see your point that scripture should not be brought up to you in this case given your view of it.

So?</font>[/QUOTE]See the response above...

So?</font>[/QUOTE]See the first point "again".

BTW - I detect a lack of grey-cell activity in your responses -- but they are a bit more thorough than the previous ones - so "keep it up".

Actually if you read the passage He doesn't say that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this where you "read"?

Exegesis Matt??

I mean - "paying attention to the details" of the text AND of the argument "from scriptura"???

I can hardly wait!

This means you have to "start over" in your response so far. Are you ready for that kind of commitment to "detail"?

Yes. And?
</font>[/QUOTE]I see - "exegesis" probably is a new idea for you. See -- this is the SAME author setting context in the SAME book using the SAME terminology and the intended primary audience would have started reading "scriptura" from chapter 1.

Get it? This is one of the neat things about exegesis - it is objective. It makes sense -- but you "do" have to pay attention to these inconvenient "details" -- so might want to rethink using that appproach.


Keep it up Matt - this is your best post yet.

In Christ,

Bob