• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thoughts On the Eucharist

pearl

Well-Known Member
It is not comparable with the Didache as it servers a different purpose

In c14 of the Didache "On the Lord's day meet and break bread and offer the Eucharist, after having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Interesting is the action is referred as a sacrifice.

The best estimate of the date of the Traditio Apostolica is AD235, and there is only fragmentary documents that survive in the original Greek.

Prior to this we get a glimpse of what the Eucharistic celebration looked like from Justin who wrote his first apology around 150.
"After we have baptized him who professes our belief and associates with us, we lead him into the assembly of those called the Brethren, and we there say prayers in common for ourselves, for the newly baptized, and for all theirs all over the world...After finishing the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and of mixed wine are brought to the one presiding over the brethren. He takes it, gives praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and gives thanks at length for the gifts that we were worthy to receive from Him. When he has finished the prayers and thanksgiving, the whole crowd standing by cries out in agreement; "Amen." "Amen" is the Hebrew word and means "So may it be". After the presiding official has said thanks and the people have joined in, the deacons, as they are styled by us, distribute as food for all those present, the bread and the wind-and-water mixed, over which the thanks had been offered, and also set some apart for those not present. (Justin first apology, c65)

It is true that Hippolytus' writings are later, (217) they give a clarity to otherwise shadowy outlines of the shape of Christian worship prior to the 3rd cent. It represents the earliest we possess of laws or ordinances regulating the clergy, liturgical functions, the order of rites to be observed especially conversion and baptism. The similarity to the Eucharistic prayers offered today is striking.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
But when using the word "answered", that implies uniformity of belief, but the evidence is that this was not the case.

What was answered to them was simply the crucified lives and is with them. We either believe they were filled with the spirit of Christ or we do not. Personally, I do.

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".

Difficult as it may have been they did not break communion, they remained united with all their differences.

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

Yes, but by the time John wrote they had been expelled and named heretics. Thus the increased anti Semitic tone of the gospel.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
In c14 of the Didache "On the Lord's day meet and break bread and offer the Eucharist, after having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Interesting is the action is referred as a sacrifice.

.


It seems Didache 9:1 and onward describes the first Eucharist after Baptism and omits any mention of prior confession.

14:1-3 is about preparing new members for subsequent Eucharists. and the required confession.
the Greek language (thysia) Sacrifice was typically a festive daytime celebration. While (enagismos) "holocaust" also translated as sacrifice.was a night time ritual celebration. It had nothing to do with sacrifice as we know it. which is perhaps why it seem out of place in the text. But not when you replace it with " let your celebration be pure"... the actual Greek meaning.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
14:1-3 is about preparing new members for subsequent Eucharists. and the required confession.
the Greek language (thysia) Sacrifice was typically a festive daytime celebration. While (enagismos) "holocaust" also translated as sacrifice.was a night time ritual celebration. It had nothing to do with sacrifice as we know it. which is perhaps why it seem out of place in the text. But not when you replace it with " let your celebration be pure"... the actual Greek meaning.

With the volumes of scholarly opinion on the subject its obvious there can be neither total nor any final answers.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

http://www.axbe40.dsl.pipex.com/archive/422/422bdraper-sample.pdf
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What was answered to them was simply the crucified lives and is with them. We either believe they were filled with the spirit of Christ or we do not.
Yes, but this is not what I was referring to but more on the "details" of the above. Even though I'm on board with ya on that they accepted the trinitarian concept in general, exactly how that could be was not explicit at all at first by all indications.

Difficult as it may have been they did not break communion, they remained united with all their differences.
At least that was the intent, but the Ebionites might have a bone to pick with you on this.

Yes, but by the time John wrote they had been expelled and named heretics. Thus the increased anti Semitic tone of the gospel.
Yes, but what's interesting is that if my memory is correct, most of these Christian synagogues also existed through at least most of the 2nd century along with the Jewish ones, at least up until the Bar Kochba Revolt.

It's been about two decades ago I read up on the archaeology on this, so I'm hoping that I remember it correctly. I got symptoms of the CRS disease, ya know.:(
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This is the 'now' but 'not yet' of the Kingdom.
If I understand you correctly, I'll say "ya" as I think it's likely both as the belief about "the communion of saints" probably went back that far. Hard to say though.

IOW, if one kept the faith, they transferred just a step up upon their death.
 

SSBGoku

Member
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.


Where does Paul, who writes before the Gospels, ever indicate Cephas etc. were disciples of Jesus?

Apostle doesn't mean disciple.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Where does Paul, who writes before the Gospels, ever indicate Cephas etc. were disciples of Jesus?

Apostle doesn't mean disciple.
Where is this coming from? IOW, what's your point? And of course "apostle" and "disciple" are not synonymous. So?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
If I understand you correctly, I'll say "ya" as I think it's likely both as the belief about "the communion of saints" probably went back that far. Hard to say though.

IOW, if one kept the faith, they transferred just a step up upon their death.

Concerning the kingdom, reign or rule of God, it was inaugurated with Jesus, that is the now, but it is still to come, that is the not yet.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Yes, but this is not what I was referring to but more on the "details" of the above. Even though I'm on board with ya on that they accepted the trinitarian concept in general, exactly how that could be was not explicit at all at first by all indications.

Considering they were Jews there would have been no Trinitarian concept, certainly not as later formulated. Not until the evangelists, namely in Acts, Luke writes of the execution in Jerusalem of the first Christian martyr the Hellenist Stephen.
just before his own death - he had a vision: "Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. ' I can see heaven thrown open', he said, 'and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." Here Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together, or - as Luke puts it - God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Spirit is at his side, in Stephen himself
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Have you not heard of the apostolic succession.
I have talked about it many times here, including just recently.

The episcopate is based on it.
Paul was an Apostle but never Disciple.
That's your opinion in regards to both.

Many give Paul the "apostle" status posthumously as he was not one of the Twelve. He certainly was a "disciple", imo, because he taught what he thought Jesus was teaching, although no doubt he went beyond anything that Jesus said on multiple issues. Now, whether they were correct or not is conjectural.

My question was to @SSBGoku in regards to where was (s)he coming from, thus not to you.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not until the evangelists, namely in Acts, Luke writes of the execution in Jerusalem of the first Christian martyr the Hellenist Stephen.
just before his own death - he had a vision: "Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. '
I think it's simply too difficult to know when it exactly originated, especially since Jesus is portrayed in every single book of the NT as being VERY special, much more so than any prophet or angel. Only God, not any prophet or angel, forgives the sins of others that have not offended one's self (as a Jew, I cannot forgive one who sins against someone else-- only against myself), and yet we read Jesus doing just that.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I have talked about it many times here, including just recently.

That's your opinion in regards to both.

Many give Paul the "apostle" status posthumously as he was not one of the Twelve. He certainly was a "disciple", imo, because he taught what he thought Jesus was teaching, although no doubt he went beyond anything that Jesus said on multiple issues. Now, whether they were correct or not is conjectural.

My question was to @SSBGoku in regards to where was (s)he coming from, thus not to you.


I started this in my OP as an open thread.. any one can comment.
 
Top