Replies

i had a very good hamburger for lunch today!

seriously, we are conservatives, words mean things. let’s look at what Ignatius wrote:

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes

He specifically mentions “they” referring to the Gnostics, ABSTAIN FROM THE EUCHARIST, but WHY do they not partake of the Eucharist? He goes on to tell us EXACTLY why..... BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONFESS ( believe ) THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
in other words, the Church taught the Eucharist was the Body of Christ ( “This is My Body”, “the bread we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ” ), but the Gnostics rejected the teaching. Ignatius could not have been clearer.

a problem many have who reject the historical orthodox Apostolic Faith is they don’t realize types and shadows were done away with when Jesus Christ began His ministry. The OT is full of types and shadows pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ and various aspects of His life and mission. the substance belongs to Christ.
so when Jesus gathered the Apostles together in the upper room, he was not dealing with Gnostics. they all very well knew Jesus had a real human body, they saw him eat and drink, they hugged, kissed and laughed with him, they saw him bathe,and they saw him cry. He did not need to use a type or shadow in breaking the bread to teach them an “object lesson”. no Jesus was giving to them a wonderful gift, Himself! The Eucharist is the fullfillment of His PROMISE to be with us always, even to the end of the world. He comes to believers with nourishment for the soul, to increase our faith and to bring glory to Himself as the Church remembers that we are not our own, that our salvation has been bought with a terrible price and all we can do is cry out thank you to the Lord Jesus Christ for loving us hell deserving sinners so much that He willingly suffered and died in order to reconcile us to God in His Body. that is the gift of the Eucharist, that the Church has celebrated for 2,000 years.
it is interesting that you mention the Last supper, as the beloved Apostle John was there to witness the first Eucharist and then 60 years later or so, this very same beloved Apostle, now an old man and soon to be reunited with his Master, taught the Faith to a very devout and faithful believer named Ignatius. we can be sure that John explained exactly that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior and Ignatius learned the Faith very well. so well in fact, that he was the made the bishop of Antioch and would later prove his love for the Lord by dying in the roman coliseum, torn apart by lions.
so yes, the Gnostics believed what the Christians were receiving was merely bread, not the living King of Kings and Lord of Lords. and yes, sadly there are many today, 1,900 years after Ignatius wrote this epistle that echo the Gnostic error by attacking the historical, orthodox, Apostolic Faith that says:

” THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK, IS IT NOT A PARTICIPATION IN THE BODY OF CHRIST?”

As I predicted. Repeating the same argument over and over does nothing to further the conversation. You can cling to the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of what some cleric supposedly wrote in the early second century, or hold to what GOD decided needed to be known that He included in Holy Scripture. I don't think you really understand the Gnostic heresy as much as you claim to. As I suggested, if you put aside the idea of the doctrine of "transubstantiation" - one that wasn't even a part of Roman Catholic dialog until, at the earliest, the thirteenth century (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215), you could start to see the reasoning for the arguments these men gave regarding the physical body of Christ. How could a first century bishop be talking about something (transubstantiation) that was not church doctrine?

Tertullian, in about 200 AD, wrote (Against Marcion IV. 40): "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, 'This is my body,' that is a 'figure of my body.' On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." Can you start to see how their arguments were not FOR a certain doctrine so much as against one that denied a physical, human-bodied Christ?

The Eucharist is the fullfillment of His PROMISE to be with us always, even to the end of the world.

No, the promise of Jesus to be with us always was the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit - and He will never leave or forsake us. He is the earnest of our inheritance until we take possession of eternal life in heaven. That is why we can KNOW we HAVE everlasting life.