Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 06-26-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

What I'm suggesting is that although the author of the Didache in its present form was probably aware of the significance given to the Eucharist by the synoptic Gospels, he is using a very early Eucharistic prayer independent of the Gospels and/or Paul

And I'm asking why any Christian would do this given the fundamentally central significance of the blood/flesh imagery and a belief that Jesus, himself, instituted this symbolism. Absent some explanation, the suggestion makes no sense to me.

Quote:

IMO the Didache does give soteriological significance to the ritual meal, 'We give you thanks Holy Father for your holy name which you have caused to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant.....to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant.' What it doesn't do is link that significance to Jesus' death.

First, where is the salvation reference in the prayer? "Immortality"? That seems to read a lot into the text from other sources. Second, it is the absence of a link to Jesus' death I'm suggesting is in need of explanation. The soteriological significance of that death is the central tenet of Christian belief!!!

I don't see how that absence makes any sense given knowledge of the Gospel stories or Paul's preaching. It only makes sense as independent and early as far as I can tell.

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

We have three threads here that I think are inter-related.

How is this for a summary?

At some point BC the concept of a messiah got firmed up into a heavenly Christ figure who had a heavenly sacrifice for our sins - in line with classic judaism and temple sacrifices. The concept of a eucharist also evolved - Hebrews and the discussion of blood is very important here.

I think Justin and others did not have access to the four gospels - they had not been written - the idea of a cross, a resurrection, a historical Jesus are all later ideas to resolve disputes that were going on.

The apostles are actually the Hebrew prophets.

Can we look at all the evidence we have as it is without assuming anything about how it fits together - especially not assuming the orthodox xian view of history and see what we have actually got?

It feels very different, for example I cannot see any real relationship between the Eucharist and the cross. This is a later splicing of different ideas.

Any responses? Is this complete bollocks or what?

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2005, 02:46 AM

Quote:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that the appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve..."

Died for our sins according to the scriptures - temple sacrifice with a knife, like Abraham and Isaac, on an altar, is the proper procedure - not a cross!

I think this says goddidit in heaven to his son!

Buried and raised - Jonah.

Appeared to the twelve (prophets?) Does not say where he appeared! In heaven?

andrewcriddle · 06-27-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

And I'm asking why any Christian would do this given the fundamentally central significance of the blood/flesh imagery and a belief that Jesus, himself, instituted this symbolism. Absent some explanation, the suggestion makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing here or misunderstanding each other.

You may well be right that the Eucharistic prayer in the Didache originally goes back to a tradition which had never linked the Eucharist specifically to the death of Christ. (I'm not sure you're right but it seems quite plausible.)

What I'm saying is that ritual prayers often lag behind changes in theology, and that the understanding of the Eucharist held by the comipler of the present form of the Didache may well have been different from the understanding of those who originally composed this prayer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

First, where is the salvation reference in the prayer? "Immortality"? That seems to read a lot into the text from other sources.

Also

Quote:

to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant

The 'spiritual food and drink' here are presumably the Eucharist.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 06-27-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing here or misunderstanding each other.

I think the latter because we appear to agree more than disagree.

Quote:

You may well be right that the Eucharistic prayer in the Didache originally goes back to a tradition which had never linked the Eucharist specifically to the death of Christ. (I'm not sure you're right but it seems quite plausible.)

Given Paul's description of the eucharist as well as his fundamental theological theme of the connection between Christ's sacrifice and salvation, wouldn't this tradition have to been either earlier than or independent of Paul?

Quote:

What I'm saying is that ritual prayers often lag behind changes in theology,...

Would you agree that this evidence appears to represent either a rather significant change in theology or the grafting of two different theologies?

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2005, 12:26 PM

I am having real difficulty with Jesus' method of death. Romans 6 v6 says "our old man is crucified with him....".

The notes of my Dake's Annotated Reference Bible comments:

"Being "dead to sin" "crucified with him" "dead with Christ" "dead to the law" and like expressions are common among Hebrews, Greeks, Latins and other people."

Is even the crucifixion just a common expression for someone dying?

Heb 6 v6 " they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh"

Gal 2 20 I am crucified with Christ.

1 Cor 17

lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Gal 5 11 offence of the cross

Gal 6 12 - 14

suffer persecution for the cross of Christ

God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.

Is the cross really a symbol and not historical?

andrewcriddle · 06-27-2005, 01:54 PM

One thing that should be mentioned her is the possible similarity between the Didache and the original text of the Last supper in Luke.

The textual situation is complex (See Ehrman 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' for a good discussion) but IMO Luke 22:17-21 originally read

Quote:

And he took a cup and when he had given thanks he said 'take this and divide it among yourselves for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes' And he took bread and when he had given thanks he broke it saying 'this is my body, but behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table'

With 'which is given for you........the new covenant in my blood' being a later addition.

If the short form of Luke is original here then it has real similarities to the Didache eg the order wine then bread and the absence of explicit reference to Jesus' saving death.

I'm not suggesting that either of Luke and the Didache directly influenced the other. I think that would be most unlikely. But they may both represent an understanding of the Eucharist substantially different from Paul and Mark.

(I may not be able to post again till Thursday so anything more from me on this will probably have to wait till then.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 06-27-2005, 04:45 PM

I think the bread=body symbology in Luke implies thanksgiving for the sacrifice though the "vine" reference is interesting. Perhaps this reflects a desire to retain the symbolism while minimizing potential objections from Jewish sensibilities re: consuming blood? I think it is very interesting to note John 6:51-66 where Jesus is depicted as instituting very explicit symbolic imagery and losing disciples as a result.

If we are correct in understanding this symbology to represent a change in theology, I think this passage from John represents a very likely response from the more Jewish Christians.

It seems to me that all of this evidence we've considered supports my contention earlier that Paul instituted this imagery though attributing it to Jesus prior to his execution.

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2005, 12:59 AM

John 6 51 > comments eating Jesus' flesh and blood is the new manna - the old one led to death.

Is there a more interesting debate being played out here, that is reflected in transubstiation?

The debate is between mythicists - eating my flesh and blood - and historicists, who walked away from this because they interpreted it literally!

Transubstiation then becomes a confused compromise. It would all have been a lot simpler if it had stayed symbolic and mythical!

DramaQ · 06-28-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

John 6 51 > comments eating Jesus' flesh and blood is the new manna - the old one led to death.

Is there a more interesting debate being played out here, that is reflected in transubstiation?

The debate is between mythicists - eating my flesh and blood - and historicists, who walked away from this because they interpreted it literally!

Transubstiation then becomes a confused compromise. It would all have been a lot simpler if it had stayed symbolic and mythical!

Wait a minute, I want to make sure I’m understanding this. Are you saying that this could be an argument for an MJ?

That the imagery started out as a symbolic gesture of “consuming�? a spiritual being, but then later, after an historical figure was grafted on, this imagery became problematic.

That is: it was ok to discuss “consuming�? a spiritual being, but when the being became a person that talk suddenly became very creepy.

Is that about right?

dq

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

06-27-2005, 12:26 PM	#16
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I am having real difficulty with Jesus' method of death. Romans 6 v6 says "our old man is crucified with him....". The notes of my Dake's Annotated Reference Bible comments: "Being "dead to sin" "crucified with him" "dead with Christ" "dead to the law" and like expressions are common among Hebrews, Greeks, Latins and other people." Is even the crucifixion just a common expression for someone dying? Heb 6 v6 " they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh" Gal 2 20 I am crucified with Christ. 1 Cor 17 lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Gal 5 11 offence of the cross Gal 6 12 - 14 suffer persecution for the cross of Christ God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world. Is the cross really a symbol and not historical?

06-27-2005, 04:45 PM	#18
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I think the bread=body symbology in Luke implies thanksgiving for the sacrifice though the "vine" reference is interesting. Perhaps this reflects a desire to retain the symbolism while minimizing potential objections from Jewish sensibilities re: consuming blood? I think it is very interesting to note John 6:51-66 where Jesus is depicted as instituting very explicit symbolic imagery and losing disciples as a result. If we are correct in understanding this symbology to represent a change in theology, I think this passage from John represents a very likely response from the more Jewish Christians. It seems to me that all of this evidence we've considered supports my contention earlier that Paul instituted this imagery though attributing it to Jesus prior to his execution.

06-28-2005, 12:59 AM	#19
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	John 6 51 > comments eating Jesus' flesh and blood is the new manna - the old one led to death. Is there a more interesting debate being played out here, that is reflected in transubstiation? The debate is between mythicists - eating my flesh and blood - and historicists, who walked away from this because they interpreted it literally! Transubstiation then becomes a confused compromise. It would all have been a lot simpler if it had stayed symbolic and mythical!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.