Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 01-24-2006, 12:01 PM

One pertinent question would be: If Paul knows about the 'modern' eucharist why doesn't Didache? You would have to place the Didache before 1 Cor. 11:23, temporally.

Julian

Clivedurdle · 01-24-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Scholars argue dates as late as the 4th century, but the consensus places it c.100 CE. Some scholars have argued more recently for a date as early as 50 CE. that gives the Didache the widest range of dating estimates of any Christian book.

The Didache does not fit clearly into any period of liturgy or ministry for which we have documentation. Does it therefore belong to a period before such documentation? "This is the thesis advanced in the massive recent commentary by J.-P. Audst who concludes it was composed almost certainly in Antioch between 50 and 70."(3) The case must rest on the many indications of genuine primitiveness in the Didache which point to a stage in the life of the church that is still that of the NT period itself.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html

Julian · 01-24-2006, 12:15 PM

I belong to the group that would date it early. Probably just post-Paul, noting that I would strike 1 Cor. 11:23 for conformity to temporal evolution.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 01-24-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

One pertinent question would be: If Paul knows about the 'modern' eucharist why doesn't Didache? You would have to place the Didache before 1 Cor. 11:23, temporally.

Actually one would not have to place the Didache before the Pauline epistle. Religion is often a very conservative thing; the Didache group may have resisted what they perceived to be an innovation, or perhaps they were somewhat isolated. Look at how John, which I take to be late, resisted mingling the eucharist with the last supper.

But in reality I am very tempted to date the Didache about contemporaneously with Paul.

Ben.

Malachi151 · 01-25-2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knife

Below is a reply from a Roman Catholic friend. I asked her about the eucharist and this is what she replied:

1)It is biblical: in John 6:30-67, Jesus tells his followers four times that they will not have eternal life unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood. Many of the listeners are disgusted, ask how it is possible to eat his flesh and blood, and end up leaving Jesus since they are unable to accept what Jesus is saying. Is there any doubt as to what they think Jesus means? Instead of calling after them, telling them he was only speaking symbolically and not literally - Jesus lets them leave, then turns to his apostles and asks quite bluntly if they are going to leave him too. But they choose to stay, despite the challenge of this new teaching. A year later, imagine understanding dawning upon them at the Last Supper, when Jesus says 'This is my Body; this is my Blood'(Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20)

2)The earliest Christians also understood Jesus' teaching on this point to be literal: Paul writes in 1Cor 11:26-30 that anyone who eats the bread or drinks from the cup, without discerning the Lord's body and blood, eat and drink unworthily, even to damnation. This was written around 56 AD. In 110 AD, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the apostle John) wrote concerning heretics, that "They abstain from the Eucharist (communion)...because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...". In 150 AD Justin Martyr wrote to the emperor of Rome, defending Christians, "We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true...the food which has been made into the Eucharist...is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." In 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem said in a lecture, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even thought the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm."

This is just a small sample showing that the earliest Christians believed and taught the same as the Catholic Church regarding the interpretation of Jesus' words about his body and blood. There are many more, and it shows that, among those who wrote or spoke on the subject, they were all unanimous in this interpretation. It wasn't until a thousand years after Christ came that someone disputed the interpretation that had been held for so long, and his name is Berengarius of Tours, who died in 1088 AD.

I already replied to her that it is nice that she can refer to people who believe that the bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood due to priestly incantation, but it doesnt and we all can see that it doesnt.

I would like to critique her historical assumption that it was unanimous to early christians that they were actually eating his flesh and blood. Are there any early christian writings that contradict this assumption? Any help through links or books would be greatly appreciated.

There is actually evidence that early Christians practiced REAL cannibalism, as well as the killing and eating of infants.

There were cannibal cults going around the area of the Mediterranian at the time, and one of the common charges brought against the Christians was that they were cannibals, which violated Roman law.

I don't feel like looking it up now, but I will later, there is a letter from 197 from an early Christian father, now a saint, that said that defended the practice of the ritual eating of babies that the flash and blood of the babies would "live on".

robto · 01-25-2006, 05:43 AM

Also, Didache was not written all at once, but compiled over time. Didache 9 and 10 present different versions of the Eucharist. According to Crossan, Did 10 is the earlier version and 9 a later development.

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knife

Below is a reply from a Roman Catholic friend. I asked her about the eucharist and this is what she replied:

[I]1)It is biblical: in John 6:30-67, Jesus tells his followers four times that they will not have eternal life unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood. Many of the listeners are disgusted, ask how it is possible to eat his flesh and blood, and end up leaving Jesus since they are unable to accept what Jesus is saying. Is there any doubt as to what they think Jesus means? Instead of calling after them, telling them he was only speaking symbolically and not literally - Jesus lets them leave, then turns to his apostles and asks quite bluntly if they are going to leave him too.
...
I would like to critique her historical assumption that it was unanimous to early christians that they were actually eating his flesh and blood. Are there any early christian writings that contradict this assumption? Any help through links or books would be greatly appreciated.

Knife,

You have seemingly asked for someone to make the "best case" for a christian cannibal cult. here goes.

In John chapter 6, the Jews are appalled when Jesus is said to mention what is clearly cannibalism. But the words attributed to Jesus do not dispute, but reinforce the literal meaining.

Quote:

John 6:52-56
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.

This is a deliberate violation of the Jewish taboo.

Joesph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah : The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, chapter 4 has proposed a connection between Cannibal Mary in Josephus, (Wars, Book IV, 4) and the christian sacrament.

Quote:

'There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop.
... She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half
by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had
gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at
the sight, when she said to them, "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman,
or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for
me also.'

According to JAtwill, the passage describes a `son of Mary' who is a `roasted, sacrifice of the House of Hyssop'. In other words, a human Passover Lamb that is a `son of Mary'. "There is then, a parallel between the New Testament's son of Mary who asks that his body be eaten and the son of Mary Josephus described, who actually has his flesh eaten." CM, page 48.

This devouring of the flesh of babies was to have dire consequences.

The charges of incest and baby-eating were quite
common. The idea of young novices unknowingly killing infants by pounding on the meal is deeply isturbing.Where there was smoke, there was fire.
"Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a
holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat
it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the
dogs-our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and
getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our
impious lusts. This is what is constantly laid to our
charge..." Tertullian, Apology, Chapter VII.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/...htm#P262_59344

"Now the story about the initiation of young novices
is as much to be detested as it is well known. An
infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the
unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with
their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil,
who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the
surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds.

Thirstily--O horror!--they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. Such sacred rites as these are more foul than any sacrileges. And of their banqueting it is well known all men speak of it everywhere;" Minucius Felix, Octavius, chapter IX.

Thes loathsome activities were likely based on literal
interpretations of certain passages.

Gal. 5:15 NIV
If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch
out or you will be destroyed by each other.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv · 03-22-2006, 07:07 AM

Tacitus Annals 15.44.2-8 states that Christians were hated for their abominations (flagitia), and their "hatred against mankind".

The details of these accusations were not given.

Jake Jones

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

01-24-2006, 12:01 PM	#31
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	One pertinent question would be: If Paul knows about the 'modern' eucharist why doesn't Didache? You would have to place the Didache before 1 Cor. 11:23, temporally. Julian

01-24-2006, 12:15 PM	#33
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I belong to the group that would date it early. Probably just post-Paul, noting that I would strike 1 Cor. 11:23 for conformity to temporal evolution. Julian

01-25-2006, 05:43 AM	#36
robto Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 701	Also, Didache was not written all at once, but compiled over time. Didache 9 and 10 present different versions of the Eucharist. According to Crossan, Did 10 is the earlier version and 9 a later development.

03-22-2006, 07:07 AM	#38
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Tacitus Annals 15.44.2-8 states that Christians were hated for their abominations (flagitia), and their "hatred against mankind". The details of these accusations were not given. Jake Jones

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.