Early Christian Worship

by the_classicist 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jschwehm

  It is clear from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that the early church believed that the bread and the wine became the body and blood of Christ. For example:

  "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."-Justin Martyr

  "I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans written around 107 A.D. about the same time as the Didache.

  Also, the early Christians worshipped on Sunday because that was the day of the week that Christ was resurrected. That is why they called it the Lord's Day.

  "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--" St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Magnesians written around 107 A.D.
• 

  Hellrider

  I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood,

  ...not trying to be blasphemous here, but this reminds me of cannibalism...drinking someones blood and eating their flesh, even though it`s symbolic, it`s really weird.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Your right Classicist, I was shooting off again. The Catholic Church does mix water and wine (using both the argument that this was normal Jewish practice and seeing a significance to the 'blood and water' that spewed from the spear wound) The kissing thing was an issue for centuries, with the Church instituting rules about when and who can do it. The point I was trying to make is that the eucharist notion was itself a development within Christianity. Earliest evidence has no such symbolism or transubstantiantion.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Gal 1-2 and 1 Cor 15 are highly controvertial sections due to numerous harmonizing interpolations and the contradictions they create. The fact is that Paul claimed to have received the eucharist story through revelation not from testimony of believers or documentation.
• 

  Kenneson

  Hellrider,

  The Jews likewise objected to the eating of Christ's flesh; they, too, viewed it as cannibalism. See John 6:52. Yet Jesus reaffirms that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life; He dwells in the person who eats and drinks, and raises him up. This is the genuine heavenly bread (John 6:53-58)
• 

  Kenneson

  
  Pete,

  If Paul learned about the Eucharist through revelation, he likewise would have had to learn about Judas' betrayal and the new covenant as well. The way I view this passage in 1 Cor. 11:23 is that Paul presents himself as a link in the chain of tradition reaching back to Jesus, whose authority remains present in the church. Although Paul's apostleship and gospel come from Christ and not human authority, this does not exclude his use of early Christian confessional formulations, which he was familiar with. (1 Cor. 15:3, 8- 9 and 11) The Church existed prior to Paul and he is not bent on destroying the old and establishing a new. See Gal. 1:13 Although it was three years after his encounter with Christ, Paul goes up to Jerusalem to confer with Peter and James. If not for validation, why? He again returns 14 years later because of God's will (Gal. 2:2) to consult with the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. That all parties depart in agreement can be seen in their handshake. Gal. 2:9
• 

  peacefulpete

  If you check the Greek of 1 Cor 11:23 the phrase "delivered up" carries no Gospel allusions to the Judas legend. It quite comfortibly fits Paul's conception of the Christ figure being delivered up (through his own will or God's). Therefore it is reading into the passage to suggest Paul knew about Judas. Again, 1 Cor 15:3,8,9 are generally suspect and arguments for them being interpolation are very good. Also, the new cult Paul was endorsing was a melding of two traditions, the mystery cult and Jewish messianism. He therefore not only said he had predecessors but he needed the appearance of continuity to have credibility. The Jewish Christians (if there could be said o have been one school of thought) appear to have had some notion of a Word/Wisdom figure delivering knowledge and blessings (pure allegory or rooted in some charismatic rabbi), the New Covenant theology was centuries old by the first century. Paul was building upon that by combining his mystery Christ into the mix.
• 

  Kenneson

  
  Pete,

  "...on the night he was handed over..." What night would that be? Handed over by whom? And to whom?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Romans 8:32

  Eph 5:2,25
• 

  peacefulpete

  Sorry about that brief response. If you look up those verse yo can see how Paul used the Greek word in question. There the word refers to God or Christ as doing the delivering up. This is consistant with his silence on the Judas story(or the Gospel story in general) .