Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am certain that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, however I can not see the harm in someone taking it literally. Though I personally find that a strange idea.
-
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
- Thread starter Terrywoodenpic
- Start date
I am certain that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, however I can not see the harm in someone taking it literally. Though I personally find that a strange idea.
As a former Anglican I can understand why you would think our view is somewhat unique. It is certainly different to the religion I was raised in.
I hope I have explained our understanding of this sufficiently. Since there are parties to this covenant, there are also beneficiaries.....I see myself as a beneficiary, since I do not have the "heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1)
When I was a church goer, I anticipated going to heaven too, but I could never really see myself there for some reason. I wanted to live in paradise with Jesus but I came to appreciate that the paradise I longed for was right here on earth with all the people and things that I love. God placed the first humans in paradise and this is where he intended for us to live forever. (Psalm 115:16; Psalm 37:10-11, 29) There is no mention of heaven in Genesis.
Can I ask what your own expectations are concerning the coming of God's Kingdom?
Since the Bible forms to basis for all our beliefs, it is something we study very diligently.
I think it stands to reason that if you know what you believe then you should know where to find it in scripture. (1 Peter 3:15)
Our brothers make Bible study very easy with programs to help us locate the scriptures we are looking for. Often we can recall the words but not the location. We can type in the words in a search box and the scripture will be revealed. Its a big book and my memory is not what it used to be.
I am grateful for this provision.We have little in the way of ritual because our worship is mostly Bible discussion, study and training for the preaching work that Christ commissioned. (Matthew 28:19-20) All of Jehovah's Witnesses are preachers. We see it as an obligation to obey Jesus' command.....it wasn't given as an option.
Thank you for the interesting thread.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
As a former Anglican I can understand why you would think our view is somewhat unique. It is certainly different to the religion I was raised in.We place emphasis on the Father because Jesus did. That in no way detracts from the importance of Christ's mission or his unique relationship with his God and Father. (John 17:3)
I hope I have explained our understanding of this sufficiently. Since there are parties to this covenant, there are also beneficiaries.....I see myself as a beneficiary, since I do not have the "heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1)
When I was a church goer, I anticipated going to heaven too, but I could never really see myself there for some reason. I wanted to live in paradise with Jesus but I came to appreciate that the paradise I longed for was right here on earth with all the people and things that I love. God placed the first humans in paradise and this is where he intended for us to live forever. (Psalm 115:16; Psalm 37:10-11, 29) There is no mention of heaven in Genesis.
Can I ask what your own expectations are concerning the coming of God's Kingdom?
Since the Bible forms to basis for all our beliefs, it is something we study very diligently.
I think it stands to reason that if you know what you believe then you should know where to find it in scripture. (1 Peter 3:15)
Our brothers make Bible study very easy with programs to help us locate the scriptures we are looking for. Often we can recall the words but not the location. We can type in the words in a search box and the scripture will be revealed. Its a big book and my memory is not what it used to be.
We have little in the way of ritual because our worship is mostly Bible discussion, study and training for the preaching work that Christ commissioned. (Matthew 28:19-20) All of Jehovah's Witnesses are preachers. We see it as an obligation to obey Jesus' command.....it wasn't given as an option.
Thank you for the interesting thread.
To be pedantic, I did not say somewhat unique, that is an oxymoron. No other Christian group interprets the Bible anything like the way the JW's do, they are Unique.
The JW thoughts on the Eucharist, and who can partake, have been discussed many times in these forums. I have yet to see any reference to Jesus words restricting who should do so. He is reported to only have said " do this in Memory of me". In other statements, he has always made it perfectly clear when he meant a particular group or individual, in all other cases he clearly meant everyone. This is an everyone case. I know that you will disagree.
I have a lot of respect the the dedicated application the JW's show in their study and preaching. it is to be commended. It is perhaps only matched in their own way, by the Latter Day saints, and the Salvation Army.
Yes to the above but it's the Eleusinian Mysteries it's simple as that. Although nothing was ever written on the mysteries so we have no idea if my statement is true or not. It can never be proven to be true nor can it be proven to not be true so it's in limbo forever in context to modernity. Limbo is treated as false in contemporary form. In religion if it ain't in the text it ain't true.
We only understand true false in Context to such matters if it's written. True false only exists in writings in modern culture in context to ancient metaphysics.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Writings can only prove something was written, not that what was written is true.
Some thing can be true or false, written or not.
Exactly!!!! although I would swear terry that we tend to get lost in the pages of books and today digital faster than you can shake a stick at. The eucharistic is a prime example in how it's understood curiously. I blame my degree systematic theology!!!! But I say that and I pretty quickly feel like kierkegaard. "
People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me"
I understand that quote!!!
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I have a poor understanding of existentialism theory.
Well it's all over the board so I think you are in good company with the existentialists whom many of them would reject the label and they would mock those who have attempted to label them!!!! I think kierkegaard said" to label me is to not understand me." Or something like that!!! Soren is interesting and really is more an artist than systematic labeler which he despised and treated with deep scorn. He would hate the systematic theologian who was a kierkegaard scholar types!!! And yes such creatures exist believe it or not!!! They are like fictional characters in real life!!!!
And that in itself reinforces my faith actually.
In his parable of the wheat and the weeds, (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43) Jesus was speaking to an agricultural audience who understood exactly what he as talking about. The "weed" he alluded to was probably 'bearded darnel'.....a weed that plagued wheat farmers of the time because in its early growth, it so closely resembled wheat. It was hard to weed it out because of the probability of uprooting the wheat by mistake. The sure way to tell was to allow it to grow along with the wheat because at harvest time, the heads of the darnel were very different to the wheat. These were then uprooted and discarded before harvest. The weeds are also poisonous.
The parable is powerful when you realize what Jesus was teaching his disciples. The weeds were counterfeit Christians who at first looked and acted like the real ones. Over time as their growth progressed, the differences began to become apparent but the similarity remained. When we view Christendom from his perspective, we see that he himself foretold that an apostasy would take place among his own disciples. The apostles backed that up by warning of the same thing. (Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1)
As the centuries passed and the weeds became firmly established, we saw the birth of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century as the foundation of Christendom. Like weeds, the false teachings of the church spread like gangrene and permeated the minds of her flock and her power became so strong that kings would not make a move without her sanction. That power was extremely corrupting....so much so, that the people became afraid to call her out for the corrupt practices that she clearly displayed, for fear of the inquisition. Torture and death were a powerful incentive to remain silent.
But a brave man named Martin Luther dared to challenge the corrupt activities of the church and he started a revolution, which ultimately led to the Reformation. It was time to take that absolute power away from Roman Catholicism and give the people access to the word of God......something long denied to them.
Did the Reformation solve the problem? No! It broke the power of the Roman Church, but it also made the way for more individuals to do what others had done in the beginning. They led people away to follow often charismatic individuals, rather than the Christ. Not only that, but the deeply ingrained core doctrines formulated by the Roman church were taken along into Protestant religions, so that the new religions were just as corrupt at their core, as the old one.
Jesus' judgment message to "many" who acknowledge him as "Lord" is...."I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:21-23)
"Never" means "not ever" so these ones have never been recognized by Jesus since their beginning. When corruption set in, Christ left the building. But at the same time he sustained the few "wheat" that battled for existence through those awful centuries, clinging to Bible truth. These are the true martyrs who often paid with their lives for daring to be different and spreading their message.
Only at the "harvest time" were the "wheat" seen to be clearly separated from the weeds. At this time there would be no similarity...they would stand out as completely different. We believe that we are in the harvest period right now and that the separation has already taken place. The reapers are poised to act at the command of their king.
JW's share no beliefs with Christendom, who all have their core doctrines in common. So it isn't the similarities that should interest sincere truth seekers......it is the differences.
That would be because all of the first Christians were anointed for heavenly life. The NT was written about them and for them. The new covenant begins with them and the apostles form the foundations of the "New Jerusalem" or the heavenly "Mount Zion" where Revelation places them with Jesus. (Revelation 14:1; 21:12-14)
Like the parable of the "sheep and the goats", there are those who do good to Christ's "brothers" and those who don't. But the interesting thing is that the sheep are a separate group to Christ's "brothers"....the ones who will rule with him in heaven. The sheep support them and come to their aid when necessary. (Matthew 25:34-40)
I see myself as a sheep, not one of Christ's "brothers".
Yep, being different is not easy but Jesus said we had to be. (John 15:18-21) His disciples were not going to be well spoken of, and we remember that Jesus' main detractors were members of his own faith.
I see a clear parallel, which is why I have been a JW for 45 years. What distinguishes us from the mainstream is of course our preaching work. As Jesus said "This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations" before God brings an "end" to this wicked system of things. (Matthew 24:14)
If you ask different denominations of Christendom what God's Kingdom is, you will often get blank stares or people struggling to formulate an clear answer. So unless you know what the good news is about God's Kingdom, how will you ever be able to preach to people about it? The churches are MIA when it comes to that command. It wasn't optional. So why do you think they fail in this important aspect of Christ's teachings? Jesus said he would be with his disciples in this work.....so who is doing it? You can probably count on one hand those who do actively preach....but most of them would only be local, not global in their outreach.
I did the math.....
I came to what was for me, an obvious conclusion.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do not agree with this at all since these concepts are found throughout Paul's writings and are reflected in the gospels themselves. Paul's writings had a relatively early circulation, much earlier than the gospels with the possible exception of Proto-Matthew, assuming that the latter even existed. As far as word-of-mouth is concerned, it's too hard to say what was exactly in circulation at first, and because of the confusion at the outset, it may have varied widely.
Also, many of these concepts existed in some form even prior to Jesus being borne, and I know at least some theologians believe that at least some of these concepts may have been the result of Hellenization, including the specific ideas of "heaven" and "hell".
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
You are coming from the wrong end...
The Didache shows no evidence of knowing of these things anywhere in it.
Interestingly Pauls writings also demonstrate no evidence that he knew that the Didache existed.
This is not surprising as the Didache was very Judaeo Christian oriented. Pauls mission was to very much to non Jewish peoples.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the Didache is not apologetics but is a manual for those in the Way who will be visiting another area, largely in terms of what to do, not so much in terms of what to believe.
Secondly, since the Didache has a later writing as compared to Paul's epistles and the synoptics, I see nothing in it that contradicts them, especially since the purpose of each is actually quite different. Mind you it's almost 40 years since I read it, so I am going by memory.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Then I suggest you read some modern research on the subject.
I suggest you read Aaron Milavec the Didache, whò is perhaps the leading researcher and authority the subject today. With a new unbiased translation from the original koin Greek complete text.
Though there are still popularist writers basing their work on older research, and translations, suggesting a totally different time scale and intention.
What we are told to do, must reflect very closely what is believed. And must cover very closely what is considered important. And by deduction what is not there is indicative of what was either not known or was so unimportant as not to be taught at all.
The Didache teaches and instructs a new recruit all that is necessary to joining the Christian Community, it is a complete. mentoring tool or induction process.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Hopefully I'll get a chance to do that fairly soon. Right now it's not high on my list of things I gotta do but thanks anyhow for the heads-up.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Aarons book can even be found on ebay
The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary by Aaron Milavec... 9780814658314 | eBay
I have bought and handed out some two dozen copies to people I know. They can sometimes be found s/h for as low as £6. If I see cheap copies I usually buy them.
Others have questioned whether this represents the celebration of the Eucharist but to a meal. For one reason the chalice is put first. No where is this found in the whole history of the Mass. All the accounts of the NT also place the bread first. For another, there is a phrase at the beginning of chapter 10 that can hardly be referred to the Eucharist. (original Greek) "after having had your fill, or after having had enough"
The differences among Paul and the Gospels themselves concerning the celebration of the Eucharist may simply be a reflection of the actual liturgical usages of the primitive Christian communities each shaping and developing its own redaction of the tradition. Eventually there is the abandonment of the meal.
Yes, they were the community of believers as we now are.
The German biblical scholar Hartmut Gese claimed that the todah stands behind what Jesus did at the Last Supper. He goes so far as to argue that Jesus' giving thanks over the bread and wine came in the context of a todah sacrifice rather than a Passover meal. However, no other Scripture scholars have followed Gese's theory about the todah backdrop of Jesus' meal, because the evidence for the Passover in the Gospel narratives is overwhelming.
The todah was one of the most significant sacrifices of the Jews.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The didache at the start had no title, it was known as the "the Training of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles" Abbreviated to the Didache the Greek for the systematic training by a mentor. (as in apprenticeship) it had been in use orally for a number of years before it was written down by a scribe.
It was in common regional use between 50CE and 60CE some 20 years after Jesus crucifixion. It is independent to the synoptic Gospels.
Though always known about, through commentaries and fragments, no complete copy was found until 1873 when a copy was found by Archbishop Philotheos Bryennios in the Greek convent of the Holy sepulchre in Istanbul.
Verse 9:1 (and) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:.....clearly indicates that this is the Eucharist.
It most certainly was a communal celebratory meal in remembrance of the last supper. and was celebrated each week on a Friday evening.
You may be interested to know that some churches sometime celebrate an Easter tide Eucharist as a communal meal. Our previous Rector revived the practice in our own Anglican Church some years ago.
As can seen from my previous answer, we are talking about an extremely early regional practice well within living memory of Jesus death. It is the only such practice that we have written evidence of.
The Eucharist and other practices were perhaps not standardised till into the fourth century, in line with the Roman Dogma of that time.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
And that's a good point, imo, as the very early church was more loosey-goosey than today because of the difficulties associated with distance.
Also, even the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God was not at all well defined even though there's no doubt that his followers elevated him well beyond any prophet or any other historical figure. And even angels are not attributed with the ability to forgive sins.
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.
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.