SLD

In another board, a Christian made the claim that the Eucharist was actually Jewish in origin. Outside of the fact that Jews ate bread and drank wine, I can't see any connection to Judaism. Is the idea of symbolically eating god and drinking his blood anywhere in Judaism?

TIA

SLD

No Robots

Not god, but the Messiah:

"Israel can expect no Messiah because they consumed [lit. "ate"] him in the days of Hezekiah"--Sanhedrin 99a.

John Kesler

The Eucharist probably has its origins in the Jewish Sabbath and Holy-day meals, as this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia states, with my emphasis:


No.

DCHindley

I was under the impression that the Christian eucharist was an adaptation of "love meals" in which a meal was set out by the community, mainly for the benefit of the poor among them. However, I am not sure exactly what evidence there might be for these among Jews or anyone else for that matter. If one were to ask me, this might seem more appropriate for a "voluntary association" such as one might find in a city environment. Jewish synagogues were a subtype of voluntary association, but voluntary associations were also common in other forms among groups with common lots in life.

DCH

Timetospend

Certainly the eucharist has its roots in the sacrificial system...specifically in Exodus 24 where the sacrifice is eaten in a fellowship meal, as in:
Ex 24:8
8 Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, "See the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
NRSV

In the NT, it is the "new covenant," where Jesus' sacrifice replaces the old.

Thanks,

Clivedurdle

Hmmm.

And agape meals are from Acts - which was used in the 1960's by Billy Graham et al in things like Jesus People to hippify xianity.

DCHindley

The Agape feast, or love-feast, was an early Christian banquet or common meal featuring a Eucharistic ritual. It centered on the bread and wine of nearly universal Christian practice, and included ritual elements of the Jewish Passover Seder and of Mediterranean funerary banquets. These Hellenic funeral banquets were also called agape feasts, agape referring especially to selfless love or God's love for humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape_feast

Agape

The celebration of funeral feasts in honour of the dead dates back almost to the beginnings of the worship of the departed - that is, to the very earliest times.
[...]
The faithful, united in bodies, guilds, corporations or "collegia", admitted coarse, intemperate men among them, who degraded the character of the assemblies.

These Christian "collegia" seem to have differed but little from those of the pagans, in respect, at all events, of the obligations imposed by the rules of incorporation.

There is no evidence available to show that the collegia from the first undertook the burial of deceased members; but it seems probable that they did so at an early period. The establishment of such colleges gave the Christians an opportunity of meeting in much the same way as the pagans did - subject always to the many obstacles which the law imposed.

Little feasts were held, to which each of the guests contributed his share, and the supper with which the meeting ended might very well be allowed by the authorities as a funerary one. In reality, however, for all faithful worthy of the name, it was a liturgical assembly.
http://www.piney.com/AgapeCE.html

etc

DCH

DCHindley

The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

By James S. Jeffers
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/b.../toc/code=1589

Chapter 4: Influences on Christian Organization

Voluntary Associations For three centuries Christians were unable to meet and worship freely because Christianity was not recognized by the Romans as a legal religion. Except in rare cases, the Romans did not attempt to hunt down Christians and prevent them from meeting. But Romans were nervous about unsanctioned organizations, fearing that they could be politically subversive.
[...]
Despite this, the Christians did meet, and did so regularly. Somehow they managed to escape the notice of the authorities most of the time. One way they did this was to register as one of the kinds of associations allowed by Rome. This way they could legally meet, with the knowledge of the authorities and without scurrying around in the dead of night. At the end of this section, we will consider whether such legal “cover” led these groups to adopt the forms and procedures of pagan voluntary associations. Contrary to popular thinking, the Christians in Rome did not escape detection by holding services in the catacombs, their underground cemeteries. These catacombs were public knowledge, they had no large assembly areas, and the odor could not have been tolerated for long.
The Romans used voluntary associations (collegia) as a way to exercise some control over gatherings of persons within the Empire. The associations organized for a variety of reasons, but most of the clubs were religious associations organized around the worship of a specific deity. As the name implies, persons voluntarily joined these groups. The Romans neither encouraged nor discouraged membership in an association. They allowed the groups to meet freely, to collect funds and to hold various rituals, but they prohibited the clubs from undertaking any kind of political activity.
[...]
Associations also hosted regular banquets. The collection of membership dues let them stage banquets in imitation of the wealthy in a style individual members otherwise could never afford. These banquets were given in honor of the patron deity of the group, but often were not primarily a religious observance. This is similar to the agape feast of some early Christians, as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, including both a common meal and a celebration of Communion.
http://www.ivpress.com/title/exc/1589-4.pdf

DCH

Chili

It is an archetypal reality and would belong in every mythology. In Buddhism "This is Buddha" is equal to our "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood" . . . which would not be true if you add a perverted slant to it.

Yes, archetypal simply because it is true.

ph2ter

He was probably referring to the Didache version of the Eucharist.
Check this: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/passover.html