Posted on 04/04/2015 1:54:16 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ and Pledge of Resurrection
St. Irenaeus of Lyons Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/541/Eucharist_as_Pledge_of_Resurrection_St._Irenaeus.html
The real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (transubstantiation), also known as Mass or the Lord's Supper, was taken for granted in the early Church.
Written by St. Irenaeus about 185 AD, this excerpt makes clear the Church's realistic interpretation of the Eucharist as the risen body of Christ which serves as the medicine of immortality, the pledge of our own future resurrection.
This excerpt from St. Irenaeus' monumental work, Against Heresies (Lib. 5,2, 2-3: SC 153, 30-38) is used in the Roman Catholic Office of Readings for Thursday of the third week of Easter with the accompanying biblical reading of Revelation 9:13-21.
If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the Eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.
We are his members and we are nourished by creatures, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the Eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life? Saint Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones. He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.
The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things. The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s word they become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by the Eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father. Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility, for God’s power is shown most perfectly in weakness.
The Catholic Church does nothing of the sort. It gives credit every mass, millions of times per year, to Our Heavenly Father. What is blessing to all the world and to all people!
God did not "command" David or Solomon either to build a house (Temple> for Himself (God).
As for "and use of lamps, etc." those God did direct or command to be built, along with God having given detailed instructions for the Tabernacle --- which was big tent-like affair.
Myself here copying from this page http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1007.htm
2 Samuel 7:4-7 God's response to David's offer.But it happened that night that the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, "Go and tell My servant David, 'Thus says the Lord: "Would you build a house for Me to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the time that I brought the children of Israel up from Egypt, even to this day, but have moved about in a tent and in a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about with all the children of Israel, have I ever spoken a word to anyone from the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'
Can you see how God did not there command the building of a temple for Himself? God was not asking David to do so, either.
The discussion at the link from a handful of theologians is gentle, and accurate enough appraisal.
Among what touches upon this issue, which had come from the Lord when David himself first had the idea that he would build a house for the Lord;
8 but the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon,[a] for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’
Notice there that God told David that David would not build a house (temple) for Himself, although giving David prophecy that Solomon would.
Years later, after no longer being at war with enemies of Israel all 'round, David seemed to have forgotten when he mentioned to the prophet Nathan that he desired to build a house for God. In reply, Nathan as it turns out, had at first too casually said to David "go ahead", which in a small way shows that prophets are not inerrant when they speak off the cuff, for later Nathan had to come back with a word from the Lord, telling him again the same which David had heard from the Lord, years previous, "you will not".
Yet too, it was David's idea and desire to build a house for the Lord. God prohibited David from doing so for reason that David was a man of war, but allowed that David's son Solomon would build a house (for God's name)--- yet still in these proceedings without having "commanded" anyone at any time to build for Himself a house, or temple.
As it all unfolds it does show the grace of the Lord though, for what does God do but tell David that He will appoint a place for Israel to dwell, and build a house for David instead. gottaloveit
2 Samuel 7 10-11
"Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the Lord tells you that He will make you a house."
The Lord speaking through Isaiah 66 1-2 reminds us;
Thus says the Lord:“Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?For all those things My hand has made,
And all those things exist,”
Says the Lord.
“But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.
The following, from Acts 6, and Acts 7 need be read in full context to gain full import; Acts 6
8 And Stephen, full of faith[b] and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council. 13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous[c] words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” 15 And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.
Stephen addressing his accusers in the synagogue Acts 7
47 But Solomon built Him a house.48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
‘Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the Lord,
Or what is the place of My rest?Has My hand not made all these things?’[n]
51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.”
54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
I do hope the above addresses a few of the issues which which you had raised, there being within the texts themselves which I have provided link for.
Speaking of those books, do you burn fish hearts to ward of demons as they state should be done?
>>Also, issue was praying for the dead being pagan.<<
Clearly pagan and never once taught by Christ or the apostles.
Who do you think you are kidding? How many times have we heard "the Catholic Church gave you the Bible".
Catholics like to put their God in a box. It’s evidenced in the lives of many Catholics. The go to “church” to get God.
I will not engage in personal attacks on the “quality” of “study”. That says more about the Christian nature of the discourse than anything else, of course.
The Council of Jamnia was 1) started in strong part to deal with the Christian heresy; and 2) had no binding authority on anyone. The Temple was destroyed by then. No serious Biblical scholars put much weight on it - other than to point out the seminal facts of the fear of the Christian rise. Why any Christian would look to that council as authoritative is unknown to me.
Unanswered - As there is really no other argument, you are left with citing scripture about what belongs to the Jews and then now have to scramble as the council was after the resurrection of Our Lord. The fact is that many Jews had different versions of what they thought scripture was and what it was not. There is no cite for the Council codified anything - as Columbo said, just one more thing. Oxford history:
he history of the Septuagint is that it was a project begun in the great city of Alexandria about 250 B.C. by a group of seventy rabbis, who supposedly did their translations independently and when they were brought together all were found to be identical, convincing many of their inspiration (The Catholic Bible: Personal Study Edition, p. 217). The translations may have taken decades but what is clear is that this was the Bible of the Jews in the Diaspora and it was the Bible quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament in 300 of 350 instances wherein the Old Testament was quoted. The other 50 are usually paraphrases of either the Hebrew or the Greek only. Moreover, it is important to note that at least the Ethiopian Jews, followed a different canon, which is identical to the Septuagint and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
The early Christians used the Septuagint to evangelize the world and one of the most startling examples is the reference to the story of the heroic mother who was martyred after watching her seven sons tortured and put to death by a brutal king who tried to force them eat swine’s flesh in violation of Jewish law. This story from 2 Macabees 7 is cited in Hebrews 11: 35 and this is obvious from the fact that no comparable story can be found in the MT which became the Protestant Old Testament. This is but one of a number of clear references to the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. The Early Church Fathers likewise used the deuterocanonicals. As Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly notes, “Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Early Church Fathers like Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
Good luck to you. Have a great day!
Sounds to me like you misread my post. I discredited the council of Jamnia as pertinent.
Here's my comment which you can't dispute.
"but the books of the Jewish Old Testament had been set at least 200 years prior to Christ."
I disagree - the Septuagint was worked on by dozens of Rabbis and was the greatest translation effort ever at that time. So, it was not set, that was supposed to be the canon as it existed. Also, the Sadducees, as discussed, would not agree that was the “old Testament” at that time. They were ore strict on the books.
You can disagree all you want. The fact is that the Jews did NOT view the apocryphal books as scripture.
As of 90 A.D., perhaps. Not clear before.
Best,
Josephus the Jewish historian affirmed in his arguments in Contra Apion 1:7-8 the number of books in the Hebrew canon was numbered at 22, which according to Jewish numbering is the same as the 39 in the Protestant Old Testament.
That was before 90AD my friend.
Jerome (325-420 A.D.) The Biblical scholar of his day, and the translator of the Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate, clearly agreed with the Hebrew canon, being limited 39 books of the present Old Testament to the exclusion of the additional books of the Apocrypha.
Josephus is not a greater source than the Septuagint. Also, the concept of “canon” is completely alien to these times, there is no source for the concept of canon. The 22 is not the same, the 22 books equal the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Simply because he says we have “22 books” doesn’t mean he was speaking as a modern “canon”.
Moreover, Josephus does not represent the Sadducees, who only thought what we know as the first five books of the Old Testament was inspired. As they were virtually wiped out by the upheaval the Jewish wars, their views are not expressed there.
Finally, Ethiopian Jews, to this day, consider the Apochropha inspired.
St Jerome, of course checked the Septuagint against the known Hebrew texts of his day, which were done post 90 A.D. St Augustine strongly disagreed with his approach, as did the majority of the Church at that time. However, glad to see that when we are faced with some interpretive issues in antiquity, we can look at the Church Fathers like St Jerome and others to help guide us.
I wonder if Luther had the knowledge of Jewish texts we have today, and an understanding of what has been learned vance his time, would he have rethought excluding certain books etc? Interesting, but who knows.
Best to you,
Your arguments fall flat when compared to the evidence. So tell me, since you profess the apocripha to be inspired scripture, do you burn fish hearts to ward off demons? So you consider having a daughter to be a shame?
Look, there are many passages in the Bible that one can site out of context. That is the trick of Dawkins and the other new atheists, and I don’t haves time to play that one.
Your arguments are not, in fact, made, other than commenting on a Church Father who was overruled, and one Jewish history not reflecting many other viewpoints in the Jewish world at that time.
Again my compliments on using the Church Fathers to deal with problems in interpretation. Well done. But again, we all see Our Lord’s use of the Septuagint. Good-bye.
But NOT the apocryphal books. Good-bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.