Thoughts On the Eucharist

[metis]

Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews.

Maybe yes and maybe no.

Many believe that Jesus and the apostles did not actually celebrate on Passover but quite possible the "preparation day" for Pesach, which is the 24 hours before Passover begins. Part of that reasoning has it that during Passover the Sanhedrin could not meet, but if a decision was so important that it had to be made very soon, one member made that decision whereas it could be reviewed after Pesach was over. However, in the gospels, it has it that the Sanhedrin met and not just one member.

However, if I had to put money on what you say above, I'm going with you, whereas the "agape meal", which was held on Sunday, was merged with the Passover narrative to formulate the theology and some of the ritual behind the Eucharist.

 

[pearl]

The Eucharist and other practices were perhaps not standardised till into the fourth century, in line with the Roman Dogma of that time.

Actually we have the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus of Rome, written about the year 215 and gives a very clear picture of the Church's liturgical life and also contains the oldest text of the canon missae.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Remember the four Gospels are composed AFTER the letters of Paul.

Paul says he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a dream.

1 Cor. 11:23:
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread"

Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word paradidomi means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins.

Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews.

There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him.

The Gospels take Paul's wording and insert disciples of Jesus.

I have not been taking into account Paul at all.
As neither he nor his letters impinged on the conciousness of the Didache using community.

They had no concept of the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, nor that of Salvation, nor did they associate the body and blood of Jesus with the Eucharist. All these concepts were to arrive later. They were entirely focussed on the second coming, the Tribulation and the Glory of God at the end of times. They expected these things in their Lifetime.

 

[metis]

…John6[54]Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him 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 him.…

 

[metis]

From chapter 9 of the "Didache":
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever...

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." -- Didache - Wikipedia

[sorry for the offset of the two paragraphs as I don't know how to correct it]

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Actually we have the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus of Rome, written about the year 215 and gives a very clear picture of the Church's liturgical life and also contains the oldest text of the canon missae.

The best estimate of the date of the Traditio Apostolica is AD235, and there is only fragmentary documents that survive in the original Greek. There are several complete translations into other languages that do not entirely agree with each other, at least one of which Incorporates some of the Didache amongst its pages.

It is not comparable with the Didache as it servers a different purpose and, as is around 200 years later in date, it is from a different period of Christianities development.

 

[pearl]

Also, even the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God was not at all well defined

Although not formulated until much later, these questions concerning Jesus were answered for the Apostles at Pentecost.

I tend to think that the "agape meal" likely morphed into the mass but not immediately. That communal meal was held on Sunday whereas the main service was still on Shabbat. As the church became more gentile-dominated, and as most of the requirements of Jewish Law were dropped, it made more sense to move the main observance to Sunday.

The early Christians continued to worship at the Synagogue and celebrate Eucharist in their homes. Obviously, this was discontinued later when the Jewish Christians were expelled from the Synagogue.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From chapter 9 of the "Didache":
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever...

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." -- Didache - Wikipedia

[sorry for the offset of the two paragraphs as I don't know how to correct it]

wikipedia is using an old translation. that make the English easier but less accurate.

The bits I highlight in particular makes no sense. and they have changed 9:1 entirely.
The Aaron Milavec direct translation is below

You can see that this Eucharist is Eschatological in nature and is looking to the coming Kingdom. as explained in my OP.

9:1 (And) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:

9:2 First, concerning the cup:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of your servant David
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.

9:3 And concerning the broken [loaf]:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:4Just as this broken [loaf] was scattered
over the hills [as grain],
and, having_been_gathered_together, became one;
in -like - fashion., may your church be_gathered_together
from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
Because yours is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ forever.

9:5(And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
except those baptized in the name of [the] Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."

 

[metis]

Although not formulated until much later, these questions concerning Jesus were answered for the Apostles at Pentecost.

But when using the word "answered", that implies uniformity of belief, but the evidence is that this was not the case. The concept of the "trinity" was not well defined until much later, which is one reason why the councils had to take it up. The general basis for the belief clearly was there, however, so if this is what you meant by the above I agree with you.

The early Christians continued to worship at the Synagogue and celebrate Eucharist in their homes. Obviously, this was discontinued later when the Jewish Christians were expelled from the Synagogue.

And they built their own synagogues in eretz Israel at least, with some being right near traditional Jewish synagogues.

Again, there was not a lot of uniformity at first, which is why the Christian writings became increasingly important. Even though the church wanted to act as "one body", as Paul kept teaching, it was pretty hard to do this because of communications, distances involved, and the human tendency to "do your own thing".

 

[metis]

You can see that this Eucharist is Eschatological in nature and is looking to the coming Kingdom. as explained in my OP.

It is not just eschatological, and even though the coming of the Kingdom was well anticipated, it wasn't the only thing going on. Matter of fact, one of the general beliefs was that the Kingdom was already at hand as Jesus set it up before he was crucified. IOW, it's sorta like "Keep the belief even through adversity, as you already have won God's award if you do!", which is why the Book of Revelation had such a soothing effect on the community as a whole (with some caveats however).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Although not formulated until much later, these questions concerning Jesus were answered for the Apostles at Pentecost.

.

It is of course quite true that a majority of the Dogma of the Church was not formulated till much later. It was more than three hundred years till a unified Christian theology had become established in a majority of churches. though it was not until 664 AD
at the Whitby synod, that the older Celtic (coptic) tradition unified with that of Rome.

Most earlier dissenting Churches were declared heretical and dispersed.( slaughtered)

How were the questions regarding Jesus answered for the Apostles at Pentecost.?
It still left his Nature unanswered. and they had not yet invented the Trinity concept. At that time he was still, at most, the Son of God.

 

[metis]

It still left his Nature unanswered. and they had not yet invented the Trinity concept. At that time he was still, at most, the Son of God.

Now stop and think what you just wrote above, especially in terms of Jesus being the Son of God versus being a son of God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is not just eschatological, and even though the coming of the Kingdom was well anticipated, it wasn't the only thing going on. Matter of fact, one of the general beliefs was that the Kingdom was already at hand as Jesus set it up before he was crucified. IOW, it's sorta like "Keep the belief even through adversity, as you already have won God's award if you do!", which is why the Book of Revelation had such a soothing effect on the community as a whole (with some caveats however).

I am sure many communities such as Paul's were taking a different course. But there is no evidence that the Didache communities were other than eschatological. or it would have shown in their practices.
Revelation was of course still in their future. Though it was touch and go that it would ever entered the canon.
It has blighted the church, My opinion, or divided the church ever since.

 

[metis]

But there is no evidence that the Didache communities were other than eschatological. or it would have shown in their practices.

But it does cover some of the practices. Check my Wiki citation as it shows the divisions and what they generally cover.

Revelation was of course still in their future.

Yes and no. Most of the symbolism involved appears to pertain to events and people right when written, but obviously there's an expectation of the 2nd coming.

Though it was touch and go that it would ever entered the canon.

Largely because of the question of who was the author even though it says "John on Patmos", plus the reference to the "millennial reign", which doesn't show up in any other scriptures nor was apparently part of any oral tradition.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Now stop and think what you just wrote above, especially in terms of Jesus being the Son of God versus being a son of God.

I did as At Most.
That is of course still reason for debate today. I accept The Son Of God, but my absolute fall back would be A son of God. which can equally apply to all mankind. I suspect The Son Of God soon came to the forefront, which is why, to keep faith with Monotheism the Trinity just had to be invented.
However I have very strong Christian Unitarian leanings. which is another story......

I do not understand why there can be only one god. One creator perhaps, but more than one god, could be defended logically.

 

[metis]

...which is why, to keep faith with Monotheism the Trinity just had to be invented.

Except that the basis of it was right there with the apostles, especially since it was perceived that Jesus had more powers than any prophet or even any angel. And the concept of Jesus being "the only son of God" is not said of any other person or angel.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But it does cover some of the practices. Check my Wiki citation as it shows the divisions and what they generally cover.
.

I do not accept much of the wiki Preamble as is based on old research and writers that are largely superseded.
However like many other topics, old data and research does tend to have a life of its own on the web.
There is a tendency for Christian writings to support the status quo in this case "The Bible."

 

[metis]

I do not accept much of the wiki Preamble as is based on old research and writers that are largely superseded.

I figured that you were going to sooner or later use a line like this, so I'm outta here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Except that the basis of it was right there with the apostles, especially since it was perceived that Jesus had more powers than any prophet or even any angel. And the concept of Jesus being "the only son of God" is not said of any other person or angel.

That is like writing a self fulfilling prophesy after the event. The evidence is in the Bible. so it must be so. It is what the selectors of the Bible books believed.
The Godhood of Jesus continued to be argued for centuries as did the Trinity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I figured that you were going to sooner or later use a line like this, so I'm outta here.

The date, translation and inferences of the Didache are extremely contentious for some Christians. as it upsets many of their long held beliefs. Wiki tends to follow the popular and least contentious reading in such cases. and re edits are commonplace.