Frank
Ignatius had the Apostle John as his teacher.  Think again
Donna

cont..
If, Frank, we as Christians, must rely on others for proof and correction when interpreting the bible, as others have said before, then would it not be valid to use the writings of disciples of the Apostles themselves (e.g. Ignatius) for proof and correction? 
Donna

Hi again Donna.

Donna Green - 27 July 2008 08:09 PM

Hi Angus,
The word remembrance “anamnesis” refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb 10:3; Num 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

I find that a very strange understanding of the scriptures. Firstly, you seem to be suggesting that Jesus’ sacrifice is repeated every time the Eucharist is enacted which is completely contrary to scripture (Rom 6:9-10). Secondly, the Hebrews passage doesn’t say God needs reminding of the sacrifice, and even the Numbers passage, which does, should surely be understood as a literary device since do you really think God might forget his covenant to his people?

If it was a reminder the word “mnemosunon” would have been used.

I’ll leave it to our resident Greek (and Hebrew) expert Martin Shields (or someone else) to debate this since I’m no Greek scholar, but nevertheless I’d be somewhat surprised if you’re right there.

1Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus.
1Cor 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed and we become partners with victim.
1 Cor 10:20 - Paul compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God.  This shows the literal sense of Jesus’ words.

Sorry Donna, but I find this a misunderstanding of scripture if you’re suggesting here, as I think you are from your strained paraphrasing, that these passages support your premise that what is being eaten and drunk at the Eucharist are the literal body and blood of Jesus.

1Cor 10:21 - “the table of the lord” was always understood by Jews as the sacrificial table.

What you’re suggesting is that the New Testament Christians either couldn’t or didn’t appreciate this as a symbolic remembrance of Jesus’ death (while of course it’s much more too including an acknowledgement of our own rebellion against God that necessitated Jesus’ death for us; and also our union with Christ’s metaphorical body, his church).

So, what about John 6.  How can you show that Jesus’ words were meant symbolically.

I presume you’re referring to John 6:35 - Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Again, I can only presume that you don’t believe New Testament Christians had any understanding of metaphor.

Anyhow, I appreciate your patience and persistence in presenting you’re understanding of scripture. However I suspect that, this side of heaven, we’re unlikely to reach common ground on what are ultimately non-salvation issues. God bless.

Dannii
You know the NT is authorative because the Catholic Church told you so in 397AD at the Council of Carthage.
Donna

Do I?
Thanks for telling me how to thinking and for assuming the role of the holy spirit.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from all eternity.  He was slain before time was created.

Jesus was slain from all eternity? Before the incarnation? Before he had a body which could die?

What the..?!

Angus
I’ve checked several references, and I think I am right regarding the Greek. 
Romans 6:9 - refers to Jesus dying again.  The Eucharistic sacrifice is not about Jesus dying again.  I said several times, it is an unbloody sacrifice.  Jesus is seen by John in his vision as the ‘Lamb slain from all eternity”. 

1Cor 10:21 - the “table of the lord”.  It is not a matter of NT not appreciating this as symbolic, they knew it wasn’t.

John 6:35 - I was not specifically citing this verse.  I was citing all of John 6, particularly the words “...eat the flesh...”

I seriously cannot see how the three verses I quoted (1 Peter 2:5-6; 1 Cor 10:18 and 1 Cor 10:20) can be a misunderstanding of scripture.  Look at v20 - 21 - Paul is not saying they do not sacrifice to God.  He is saying make sure you don’t partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons.  Because if you do, the Lord will be jealous.

You seem to think I don’t think the NT church had any understanding of metaphor.  I think I made this perfectly clear that they did.  What I made clear was that Jesus was not using metaphor in this circumstance and the Apostles and disciples knew it.
You still have not made an accurate claim against the Eucharistic teaching of John.

Jesus’ words alone are proof enough.
Donna

Dannii
Read Revelations
Donna

Which part are you referring to?

Donna,
It is incredible to think that people like Frank can believe the NT Church went astray so soon.That was one the major issues that made me become Catholic....the lack of contuinuity..almost as if the gates of Hell had prevailed against the true Gospel and swept it away. the more you dwell on the idea
( apostasy) the more it breaks down.

You will find some Evangelicals will pick and choose from the Church fathers, particularly over those who defend the Trinity. They love Athanasius , but avoid his sacerdotalism., baptismal regeneration etc

When I did a Masters of Theology at the University of Wales, I wrote a thesis on the Evangelical treatment of Church history and how some try to make a continuity from groups like the Waldensians amd Lollards. I show how non were Evangelcal in their belief concerning conversion and justification.

Continuity is the essence of validity...if you believe our Lords rock solid promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome His Church!

Yes, It is incredible how soon heresies arose in the early church.  When I studied early church history at Moore College I was surprised to find that early church history is a record of one heresy after another - marcionism, arianism, nestorianism, manicheeism. etc, Infact, Irenaus wrote a whole book against heresies, especially gnosticism.  It is similar to what happens in countries like Africa and China, when christianity is growing explosively, it seems heresies also spring up like wild fire.  The written scriptures are our defence against them.  Most of Paul’s letters are written against heresies circulating in his own time. Just as today it is incredible that any church leader would try to assert that Mary was sinless at conception, or that she was assumed into heaven, or that there can be such an impossibility as an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ of Jesus.  We need to stick exactly to the New Testament, or we will be swamped by error, which dishonours the truth of God.

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Frank
Not sure that your quotations are to make me nervous.  Not sure who you are quoting, nevertheless, the quotes do not contradict anything I have said in the past or what the Church would say today.  It’s your interpretation and prejudice that reads them in a negative light against the Catholic Church.

I stuck to scripture regarding the Eucharist Frank.  How about a better exegesis on the matter.
Donna

It is incredible to think that people like Frank can believe the NT Church went astray so soon.

It’s hardly incredible when you remember how sinful we are.

You will find some Evangelicals will pick and choose from the Church fathers, particularly over those who defend the Trinity. They love Athanasius , but avoid his sacerdotalism., baptismal regeneration etc

Just as we’ll disagree with Luther’s anti-Semitism and Calvin’s attempt to start a theocracy. Noone is perfect, either in actions or theology. Why should we accept everything that anyone says?

Continuity is the essence of validity...if you believe our Lords rock solid promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome His Church!

No. Conformity to God’s word is the essence of validity.

Donna, which part of Revelations were you refering to?

Donna Green - 27 July 2008 08:09 PM

The word remembrance “anamnesis” refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb 10:3; Num 10:10).  It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.  The lamb slain from all eternity.  If it was a reminder the word “mnemosunon” would have been used.

I’m persuaded to make one more post in this thread (which to my mind is fast approaching being assigned to the Dead Horse Forum - perhaps the SydAng equivalent of Purgatory).

In the absence of a Greek scholar commenting, I’ve done a brief search on “anamnesis” (αναμνησις) which is used 4 times in the NT (and on three occasion in reference to “remembrance” of the Lord’s Supper and the other to remembering past sins during OT sacrifices). There is no suggestion of “making the past present” unless perhaps you incorporate a Platonic idea that we can recover thoughts from prior lives. There is certainly no indication from my (admittedly brief) search that this Greek word is associated specifically to sacrifices. The fact that “mnemosunon” (μνημοσυνον) is also used in the NT (3 times) in the context of remembering (Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9; Acts 10:4) in no way supports (or discounts) the notion that “anamnesis” means a remembrance of “a sacrifice which is really or actually made present”. We all use different words on occasions which have or convey virtually identical meanings.

Donna Green -

The word remembrance “anamnesis” refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb 10:3; Num 10:10).  It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.  The lamb slain from all eternity.  If it was a reminder the word “mnemosunon” would have been used.

That’s reading an awful lot into the word αναμνησις, a meaning difficult to read into other instances of its use in the titles of Psalm 37 and 69 in the LXX (that’d be 38 and 70 in English Bibles), or in Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. Furthermore, when used in the LXX, both words are used to translate the one Hebrew term (זכר). What is probably relevant to the current debate, however, is that Plato did apparently invest αναμνησις with special meaning which appears to have a close affinity with the notion of transubstantiation wherein the substance of the elements is transformed by the accidents remain unchanged.

I would also argue that the correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper would be to place it within its Jewish context, particularly its association with the Passover. Within the OT it is quite clear that “remembering” is the important part of the feasts that were held. The bread of the Passover didn’t mysteriously become the original unleaven bread. Remembering was an essential part of OT religion and of background of Jesus and his disciples when the first Lord’s Supper occurrred. This aspect has all too often been downplayed or overlooked so that one common (but illegitimate) criticism is that without transubstantiation or the like the Supper becomes nothing more than merely remembering. The use of terms such as “bare” or “mere” in this context fails to understand the power and significance of such memorials.

From BDAG (which is a (the?) major English lexicon of New Testament and early Christian literature Greek)

ἀνάμνησις, εως, ἡ
reminder, remembrance τινός of something
ἀ. ἁμαρτιῶν a reminder of sins, of the sacrifices repeated every year.
In the account of the Eucharist εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν in remembrance (memory) of me

(no suggestion it is a “past event made present in time")

μνημόσυνον, ου, τό
1. the mental faculty of remembering, memory: ἔγγραφοι ἐγένοντο ἐν τῷ μ. αὐτοῦ they were inscribed in God’s memory 1 Cl 45:8.
2. the state of bearing in mind, memory w. obj. gen. (oft. LXX) εἰς μ. τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9
3. an offering that presents a worshiper to God, a memorial offering

Mike