Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phlox Pyros · 03-12-2006, 06:48 PM

Knowing that Jesus died as a "sacrifice" for all, Julian The Apostate, the last pagan Roman emperor, made an interesting observation about the Christian practice of transubstantiation in the Eucharist:

Quote:

Julian The Apostate

Accordingly it is evident from what has been said, that Moses knew the various methods of sacrifice. And to show that he did not think them impure as you do, listen again to his own words. "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." 117 So cautious is Moses himself with regard to the eating of the flesh of sacrifice.

Does anyone know of ancient Christian answers to this charge? Is there a modern day apologetic that explains this?

Buster Daily · 03-12-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Is there a modern day apologetic that explains this?

Ha ha...it's simple. Eating a sacrifice symbolically is fine...or...it doesn't become the body or blood of Christ until 1/3 of the way down the esophagus...after the fact of eating.

Clivedurdle · 03-13-2006, 01:11 PM

Vision of Peter in Acts is the get out of jail free card.

I have never quite understood why the flesh of the eucharist bit does not use roast lamb (...with mint sauce...and roast potatoes).

He is alleged to have said he is the lamb of god as well as bread of life!

Clivedurdle · 03-13-2006, 01:13 PM

But it is the "having his uncleaness upon him" that is important - sins are always confessed and washed away before partaking of communion.

Roger Pearse · 03-13-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Knowing that Jesus died as a "sacrifice" for all, Julian The Apostate, the last pagan Roman emperor, made an interesting observation about the Christian practice of transubstantiation in the Eucharist: ...

Does anyone know of ancient Christian answers to this charge? Is there a modern day apologetic that explains this?

That quotation comes from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum, originally in at least 20 books of which books 1-10 exist, plus fragments of the next 10. So an ancient response must exist in that work.

Sadly Cyril's response to Julian has never been translated into any modern language, although a Latin translation does exist in the Patrologia Graeca. A new critical edition of it is being undertaken at a Swiss university, which will have a German translation. The Sources Chrétiennes will publish an editio minor with French translation.

This all seems a bit irritating to me, so I have made a pre-application for some funding, with the idea of hiring someone to do an English translation, and putting the whole work online; whether or not I succeed depends on many things. Pray for my success...

I have also translated Wolfram KINZIG and Michael CHRONZ, Observations on the organisation and original extent of
Cyril, 'Contra Julianum' and Julian 'Contra Galilaeos', which seems to be a preparatory paper for the Swiss edition; some may find it useful. Sadly the electronic copy provided to me was corrupt where Greek text was involved.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mdarus · 03-13-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Does anyone know of ancient Christian answers to this charge? Is there a modern day apologetic that explains this?

Perhaps the concepts of the "priesthood of the believer" and "justificaiton" are relevant to your question. The prohibition was directed against eating the sacrifice in the state of uncleaness. The "priesthood of the believer" explains why any beliver may participate in the eucharist. "Justification" provides removal on uncleaness for Christian believers. Yet there remains a caution for Christian believers against improper participation in the Eucharist.

Quote:

I Corinthians 11:27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

Phlox Pyros · 03-13-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

That quotation comes from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum, originally in at least 20 books of which books 1-10 exist, plus fragments of the next 10. So an ancient response must exist in that work.

Sadly Cyril's response to Julian has never been translated into any modern language, although a Latin translation does exist in the Patrologia Graeca.

Thank you. Had I read a little closer, maybe I would have noticed that it was taken from Cyril. Is Cyril's response on the web anywhere? Even if it is in Latin I might be able to take a hack at it.

Phlox Pyros · 03-13-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Vision of Peter in Acts is the get out of jail free card.

I've heard Peter's vision used this way often, but is Peter's vision in Acts really about food, or is the food symbolic of the Gentiles?

Phlox Pyros · 03-13-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

Perhaps the concepts of the "priesthood of the believer" and "justificaiton" are relevant to your question. The prohibition was directed against eating the sacrifice in the state of uncleaness. The "priesthood of the believer" explains why any beliver may participate in the eucharist. "Justification" provides removal on uncleaness for Christian believers. Yet there remains a caution for Christian believers against improper participation in the Eucharist.

Hmm...thanks. I'm beginning to think I may have misunderstood the quote by Julian.

Roger Pearse · 03-14-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Thank you. Had I read a little closer, maybe I would have noticed that it was taken from Cyril. Is Cyril's response on the web anywhere? Even if it is in Latin I might be able to take a hack at it.

Glad to help. Unfortunately nothing of Cyril's response is online.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2006, 01:11 PM	#3
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Vision of Peter in Acts is the get out of jail free card. I have never quite understood why the flesh of the eucharist bit does not use roast lamb (...with mint sauce...and roast potatoes). He is alleged to have said he is the lamb of god as well as bread of life!

03-13-2006, 01:13 PM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But it is the "having his uncleaness upon him" that is important - sins are always confessed and washed away before partaking of communion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.