Scriptural literacy

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree that the Eucharist is symbolically represented throughout the Gospel, but I don’t believe it’s due to redundancy that the author doesn't have Jesus institute the ritual at John’s version of the Last Supper.

The Gospel points to faith in Jesus (which is the same as faith in God) as what will bring salvation. No rituals, hereditary customs, the teachings of the Temple elite (or the teachings of the Synoptics or Gospel of Thomas) can save you. The Johannine Community wanted to develop a higher Christology. They have to show he continues and then supplants Mosaic tradition, so he is the final Passover Lamb. His work is done. The work gives meaning to the rituals of baptism and the Eucharist, without explicitly commanding their institution, because the ultimate source of both sacraments is Jesus. The Eucharist, as established in the Synoptics, is done to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and death until he returns. In the Gospel of John, again, his work is done. He’s not coming back.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say but didn't say very well. I would only add that the Eucharist, as I see it for that group, is a way of participating in that final sacrifice.

COLOR=black]You can get a sense of what was going on at the early Eucharist celebrations in 1st Corinthians 11:17-34. Scholars date this letter around the early 50s CE. Paul was not happy...[/COLOR]

Yep, precisely -- that is just the passage to which I was referring. I've been wondering lately and would love yours and Hokulele's input -- do you think that the early Jesus communities might have seen those group meals as commemeration of a new Passover? One that had not yet occurred?

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say but didn't say very well. I would only add that the Eucharist, as I see it for that group, is a way of participating in that final sacrifice.

Yep, precisely -- that is just the passage to which I was referring. I've been wondering lately and would love yours and Hokulele's input -- do you think that the early Jesus communities might have seen those group meals as commemeration of a new Passover? One that had not yet occurred?

In 1 Corinthians 10:14-23 (just a bit earlier than the passage to which Greediguts referred), Paul equates the formal Eucharist too closely with Passover, and considers it to be idolatry. He seems to think that the whole body and bread bit is metaphorical and should never be used literally. Moreover, he seems to think in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating and drinking are physical acts, and should be left out of the church in favor of a spiritual sharing.

Then again, Paul had a number of problems with a number of physical acts.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Isn't that part of his discussion about pagan sacrifices, in which he distinguishes from the bread that Christians eat and the sacrifices that Jews eat? I'm not sure that I'm following you exactly. I don't think he draws a parallel between the Eucharist and the passover meal and pagan sacrifice except that they all represent sacrifices, with the pagan sacrifices being to nothing or to demons. Eating that meat, for Paul, isn't a problem except that it might lead someone naive about Jesus to think that the sacrifice was real; so he tells people not to eat the meat of animals sacrificed to pagan gods (which don't exist).

 

[Hokulele]

Isn't that part of his discussion about pagan sacrifices, in which he distinguishes from the bread that Christians eat and the sacrifices that Jews eat? I'm not sure that I'm following you exactly. I don't think he draws a parallel between the Eucharist and the passover meal and pagan sacrifice except that they all represent sacrifices, with the pagan sacrifices being to nothing or to demons. Eating that meat, for Paul, isn't a problem except that it might lead someone naive about Jesus to think that the sacrifice was real; so he tells people not to eat the meat of animals sacrificed to pagan gods (which don't exist).

I read it a bit differently. The first part of 1 Cor. 10 seems to be saying that the Jews were originally bound together much as the early Christians are/were. However, their rituals weren't enough to keep them holy.

I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.

He them seems to go on to equate their participation in ritual eating with idolatry, in that they assume the food and drink alone can save them. Later on, he then tries to put the emphasis back on Christ and away from the wine and bread directly.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

He then gets a bit mystical with the "we are all one bread" bit, then goes back to the practical.

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Here, he seems to be saying, "Get off of the food fetish and back to the worship bit." That by putting so much emphasis on the wine and bread, people have lost perspective and made it out to be more than it is, which is the first step to idolatry (much like pagan/Jewish sacrifices became more important than what they represented). His telling them not to eat the sacrificial meat when offered is in consideration of the offerer, not the Christian.


ETA: I just fully re-read that chapter, and I find it a bit odd that if Paul believes the pagan gods/idols are nothing, why does he expect God to get jealous over eating a little meat? Meh. I need to read something else for a bit.

 

[Greediguts]

As I was looking for info about how the Eucharist was celebrated in the early years, I remembered the Didache. Most scholars today feel this would have been written by the end of the 1st century/beginning of the 2nd. Granted it's not part of the N.T., but the Catholic Church accepts it as works of the apostolic fathers (those early church leaders thought to have had contact with the Apostles). The wording and the emphasis are quite different from today.


CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)

The whole Didache can be read on-line here.

 

[Hokulele]

To expand a bit on my reading of Paul, he was always a bit of an antagonist against anything vaguely resembling idolatry and pretty much anything physical. I read his dismissal of a physical Eucharist as similar to his dismissal of physical circumcision (Romans has quite a bit of this). Paul's concern is with the spiritual and internal aspects of faith far more than the physical expressions.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I read it a bit differently. The first part of 1 Cor. 10 seems to be saying that the Jews were originally bound together much as the early Christians are/were. However, their rituals weren't enough to keep them holy.

Yeah, that's pretty much basic Paul, from what I can gather, which isn't saying much.

He them seems to go on to equate their participation in ritual eating with idolatry, in that they assume the food and drink alone can save them. Later on, he then tries to put the emphasis back on Christ and away from the wine and bread directly.

That's where I think we differ. I don't think he feels that Jewish rituals are the same as pagan ones because he identifies the pagan rituals as directed towards non-existent beings while Jewish rituals were dedicated to God. As to the emphasis being directed toward Christ rightfully, yes, I agree. The problem Paul saw with everything in the Law was that he did not think the Law could save anyone. But that was just Paul, and it may have little to do with most of the other Jesus groups.

Here, he seems to be saying, "Get off of the food fetish and back to the worship bit." That by putting so much emphasis on the wine and bread, people have lost perspective and made it out to be more than it is, which is the first step to idolatry (much like pagan/Jewish sacrifices became more important than what they represented). His telling them not to eat the sacrificial meat when offered is in consideration of the offerer, not the Christian.


ETA: I just fully re-read that chapter, and I find it a bit odd that if Paul believes the pagan gods/idols are nothing, why does he expect God to get jealous over eating a little meat? Meh. I need to read something else for a bit.

OK, I think I can help with this -- and this is all from Bart Ehrman and not from me. Ehrman's interpretation of this part of the letter (to which I subscribe) is that the original question is "can we eat meat that has been sacrificed to foreign gods?" Keep in mind that this letter is written to the Corinthians who would have been originally pagans, most likely -- but, regardless they were clearly nowhere near the Temple even if they were Jews originally. Most of the meat that was available in cities for consumption was sacrificed and then sold in butcher shops. So, to be able to get meat, one almost had to eat meat that was sacrificed to other gods. Paul's argument, which strikes me as a massive rationalization, was that it didn't really matter if anyone ate the meat because it was sacrificed to a non-existent god (which appears to have been the justification from the Corinthian perspective), but that if you did eat the meat you might lead others to believe that the sacrifice was efficacious and so lead them into sin. So, Christians should not eat meat sacrificed to other gods not because it was sacrificed to a different god (which doesn't exist) but because that particular action might cause a pagan to remain a pagan and think that the gods exist because even the Christians eat the meat and think the sacrifice is worthwhile (because to eat the meat is to participate in the sacrifice).

I hope that made sense.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As I was looking for info about how the Eucharist was celebrated in the early years, I remembered the Didache. Most scholars today feel this would have been written by the end of the 1st century/beginning of the 2nd. Granted it's not part of the N.T., but the Catholic Church accepts it as works of the apostolic fathers (those early church leaders thought to have had contact with the Apostles). The wording and the emphasis are quite different from today.


CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)

The whole Didache can be read on-line here.

Yes, quite right. One of the issues we run into with works like the Didache, though, is "to what group did they belong?" Pagels seems to think that the author(s) of the Didache were part of an originally strongly Jewish group that sound very close to the Ebionites. Their view of the Eucharist would likely have differed from the Johannine group or the Thomas group, though I would argue in a way that they may have been closer to these groups in some sense, since this work was written near the end of the first century when it was clear that Jesus was not going to return -- so whatever the first groups of Christians thought, if they did actually believe that the kingdom was soon to be coming on the clouds of heaven, would have been superceded by these new views near the end of the century.

And here's one interesting tidbit about the Didache -- why the cup first and the bread second? In the gospels, and in Paul, it is the reverse order.

 

[edge]

I would argue in a way that they may have been closer to these groups in some sense, since this work was written near the end of the first century when it was clear that Jesus was not going to return -- so whatever the first groups of Christians thought, if they did actually believe that the kingdom was soon to be coming on the clouds of heaven, would have been superceded by these new views near the end of the century.

Even they didn’t get it.

We may or may not see the second coming in the physical sense but from what O.B.Es and near death experiences seem to point out is that, before each generation passes, or when an individual dies, we will, in the spiritual passing see him, coming to us in the clouds... so to say or what ever the medium is.
So I believe in the Orthodoxy viewpoint since it is somewhat confirmed by medical science, but of course some of you knew that. But you won’t admit that since you haven’t experienced any of those two phenomena.

There seems to be layers of truths upon layers and that in it’s self is amazing.

Some of the stories did occur as where written and they seem to be many other allegorical thoughts and conclusions that you can gather from the original and into what you and others have been doing with them, today or in the past.
Conjecture is really irrelevant or over analyzing their view of how and why they wrote it differently from each other.

Does the main message ring truth?

At least you are looking into it.
When you come right down to it; whether the bread was first or the wine was first... it is the same message, Just the fact that they believed is what was important.

The question is…is there proof that it works… and is it for real?


I got it on the first reading and that is all it took for me, just my opinion and reflection on this matter. If it takes 100 time or year, as long as you eventually get it is good or Not.
Doesn't really matter to me and I'm not trying to be smart.
But since it is part of history, it does make for interesting study and thought.
It is truly amazing that archeology keeps confirming what was myth into real history also.

This part here is prayer,

But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

The order is irrelevant.

Carry on.
I have to read more of this thread.

 

[Hokulele]

When you come right down to it; whether the bread was first or the wine was first... it is the same message...

The whole point of much of this thread is that it wasn't the same message. In many cases, not even close.

For example, Marcion (who has been mentioned in this thread more than once) believed that the God described by Jesus was so radically different from the God of the Old Testament that there was no possible way they could be the same. He firmly supported the notion that there were two completely different Gods, and was tossed as a heretic for his interpretation. Other early Christian sects had equally radical interpretations.

The Jesus of the Synoptics is different from the Jesus of John and Paul. The Jesus of Luke is different from the Jesus of Mark. The messages transmitted by each Jesus was a bit different as well.

To be frank, the message you have read into the Bible (as evidenced by your post) isn't the one everyone else hears.

 

[edge]

Maybe so, but we are experiencing what really happens according to medical science, “death” if you believe it to be what it is, as those that experience it say it is, “real” and there are parallels that make it clear.
Maybe I'm just a heretic.
The physical second coming has yet to occur, but when a generation will not pass was spoken and that the thief will be in paradise today seem to indicate that pretty clearly.

According to what science does and records and what we rely on, to bring us back from death… seem to coincide pretty well in today’s world with what was misinterpreted back then and clear now… at least to a few others and me.
In less that a hundred years we are going to witness the seas turning red or probably pinkish which will coincide with a prophecy, there are so many truths to look at, but the proof is there and so is the truth about what we will expect to see.
How much proof does it take?
Hokulele says,

The whole point of much of this thread is that it wasn't the same message. In many cases, not even close.

Like I said I have to read more in here as I just got back to home to Florda, I may even be off topic as I have only read the first and last pages.

 

[Hokulele]

... but the proof is there and so is the truth about what we will expect to see.

And this is part of the problem. Many groups throughout history have read the apocalyptic interpretations of the Bible and applied them to what they "expect to see".

And every time they have been wrong.

Rather than trying to reinterpret what someone experiences in Biblical terms, most of the people in this thread are trying to interpret the Bible based on what the authors were experiencing.

Like I said I have to read more in here as I just got back to home to Florda, I may even be off topic as I have only read the first and last pages.

Well, there is a lot of interesting stuff here, and I am still learning myself. However, I believe the main point of this thread was to let the Bible and its authors speak for themselves, rather than assuming the earliest Christians got it all wrong.

 

[Greediguts]

Quotes regarding the Eucharist in Gnostic texts:

“The Eucharist is Jesus. For they call him in Syriac pharisatha, which is, “the one who is spread out”. For Jesus came and he crucified the world.” (Gospel of Phillip v.53 - taken from Lost Scriptures by Erhman).

“We give thanks to you and we celebrate the eucharist, O Father, remembering for the sake of thy Son, Jesus Christ that they come forth [...] invisible [...] thy [Son....] his [love...] to [knowledge ......] they are doing thy will through the name of Jesus Christ and will do thy will now and always. They are complete in every spiritual gift and every purity. Glory be to thee through thy Son and they offspring Jesus Christ from now and forever. Amen.”

“[...] in the [...] the word of the [....the] holy one it is [...] food and [drink...] Son, since you [...] food of the [...] to us the [...] in the [life ..] he does [not boast...] that is[...] Church [...] you are pure [...] thou art the Lord. Whenever you die purely, you will be pure so as to have him [...] everyone who will guide him to food and drink. Glory be to thee forever. Amen.” (These quotes taken from The Nag Hammadi Library by Robinson from a Codex that looks to be a Valentinian exposition).

I'm just trying to find what's out there regarding the Eucharist to help give some idea of how it was viewed by other early "Christians"....

 

[Greediguts]

And here's one interesting tidbit about the Didache -- why the cup first and the bread second? In the gospels, and in Paul, it is the reverse order.

I've got an idea about this-

CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)

The whole Didache can be read on-line here.

This is the beginning of the universal church. The bread does not just symbolize the body of Christ as flesh but also the body of Christ being the church (the believers). The bread was broken (the different sects of Christianity being practiced at the time, no universal church) but has now come together. So more emphasis is placed on the bread...?

 

[Hokulele]

I'm just trying to find what's out there regarding the Eucharist to help give some idea of how it was viewed by other early "Christians"....

Thanks, that is extremely interesting.

I wonder if there is any record of the longer Eucharist story implied by the "As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains" phrase.

 

[edge]

From Brian-M post #214 page #6

* 2 Peter 1:20 tells us that prophecy is not open to private interpretation.
* Jesus repeatedly prophecies that the "Heaven and earth will pass away" within their lifetimes. (eg, Matthew 16:27-28, 23:29-36, 24:31-35.)

How do the Christ-based faiths reconcile these points without concluding that Jesus was a false prophet?

There are three heavens in the interpretations of the Hebrew texts, One where the father resides, two the expanses between there and here “the rest of the universe”, and the third the air around the planet and the extension of heaven, the new creation of the earth; three is tied together with the planet, the new creation.

When a person dies he is no longer in the third heaven, but is now leaving to join the father of the creation.
So when we die, heaven and the earth will pass away from us as I said in the earlier post we see God the father the son as we pass away because judgment is immediate.
As I wrote before:

We may or may not see the second coming in the physical sense but from what O.B.Es and near death experiences seem to point out is that, before each generation passes, or when an individual dies, we will, in the spiritual passing see him, coming to us in the clouds... so to say or what ever the medium is.
So I believe in the Orthodoxy viewpoint since it is somewhat confirmed by medical science, but of course some of you knew that. But you won’t admit that since you haven’t experienced any of those two phenomena.

There seems to be layers of truths upon layers and that in it’s self is amazing.

When Jesus said to one of the convicted next to him, because he believed; For today you will be in paradise; meaning that at that time the new covenant would come to pass and that it was accomplished.
Is finally understood because of medical science today.

Quote:
2 Peter 1:20 tells us that prophesy is not open to private interpretation.


At the time how could it be?
The very end here on Earth is within your life time.

 

[Greediguts]

There are three heavens in the interpretations of the Hebrew texts, One where the father resides, two the expanses between there and here “the rest of the universe”, and the third the air around the planet and the extension of heaven, the new creation of the earth; three is tied together with the planet, the new creation.

Could you please cite to which "Hebrew text" you are referring to? As I'm sure you know there are several. Plus, what verses in these texts are you referring to? I would like to read them for myself so I could discuss this interpretation with you.

 

[Greediguts]

Thanks, that is extremely interesting.

I wonder if there is any record of the longer Eucharist story implied by the "As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains" phrase.

So far I haven't come across any, but I've just starting searching the Gnostic texts. Unless it is a reference to something from the O.T.?

 

[edge]

Could you please cite to which "Hebrew text" you are referring to? As I'm sure you know there are several. Plus, what verses in these texts are you referring to? I would like to read them for myself so I could discuss this interpretation with you.

.



"For we know that when this tent we live in now is taken down... when we die
and leave these bodies...we will have wonderful new bodies in Heaven, homes
that will be ours for evermore, made for us by God Himself, without human hands."
II Corinthians 5:1 (Living Bible)
Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven".

You were in heaven, but its secret had not been revealed to you and a worthless mystery you knew." - although the Four Archangels' concern surely contradicts this mocking remark. Other Apocryphal books say that even now they are held and tortured in the terrible Fifth Heaven, set aside for just this purpose. (I Enoch XIII describes the Watchers/Grigori as stricken mute with guilt and terror after Enoch's reproof, and indeed in II Enoch the Grigori imprisoned in the Fifth Heaven are voiceless giants.) The world, meanwhile, is swept clean in a great earthquake and flood, destroying the Nephilim's lands, to which many writers trace the worldwide legends of a catastrophic inundation

The space between here and there is a place where the fallen ones or some of them are imprisoned, and actually numbered as the fifth heaven.



Its written in the Qumran that there is seven skies
did Allah meant seven heavens or seven layers of skies?
It’s repeated more than 1 time in Qumran


This should due for now, as I have had to change my hard drive so I froze the non functioning one and then replaced and copied my links on to driver D: and then when I went to copy back to my new C: drive I hit the wrong button and reloaded XP back into driver D: and lost my links & info, pictures so I did what I could for now, I have Millennium on C: , and XP on D:…..

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_three_heavens.htm


The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
4. And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
⌈And appear from His camp⌉
And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.
Taken from,

BOOK OF ENOCH
I-XXXVI
I-V. Parable of Enoch on the Future Lot of the Wicked and the Righteous
CHAPTER I.

Sorry I took so long to get back But I am very busy and I try to enter into here at the end Of the day.

 

[edge]

Enoch has an out of body experience along with premonition type dreams earlier and later in the texts.
He is taken up in the spirit and this seems to be the earliest type of revelations written with much more clarity and definitions and understanding.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe017.htm