Thank you for taking the time to write that explanation. I took a class on the histiography of the New Testament once, but I’m embarrassed to admit how many details escape me.
Yes, it is a sermon. And yes, the Eucharist involves a ritual.
These are not mutually exclusive. Consider the discussion about manna:
. . .Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. . . John 6:31-35 NIV
Manna came from heaven every day to feed the people, so likewise does Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.
A person would be lost hearing that passage as to the Eucharist.
How would one perform it in a worship service?
I can only imagine having a member representing Christ walking among the other members who are biting him and sucking blood from his wounds.
John 6 uses some phrases that are common with the Eucharist. - eat my body and drink my blood, but it leaves the reader wondering how to memorialize it.
John should have supplied that in his account of the Last Supper. He didn’t. Not a word. I doubt that John had read Matthew, Mark and Luke. They wrote only about 5 years apart. In those days the written word traveled about as fast as a three legged sloth. I don’t believe that John was thinking ‘everybody knows about communion. I don’t need to write about it’.
I’m about 70-30 believing that Jesus did not institute the sacrament of the Eucharist.
I think Paul made it up and propagated the idea among his churches.
Why would Paul do this?
Matthew was there.
And yet it is foundational to the entire theology of Eucharist in Catholic teaching! A billion souls are lost and confused by it! The Catechism, the teaching of transubstantiation – explained and taught by some of the greatest minds throughout Christian history, saints galore… all lost hearing that passage.
So that he could end up getting beheaded.
We don’t know the identity of the author of Matthew’s Gospel. The Gospel does not specify an author. “Matthew” is a made up title.
How do you know Paul was beheaded? I’m seeing a lot of made up Biblical history here.
Many Christians ( and non Christians) in this forum have wondered how I can ignore the “science” and believe in a young Earth.
By the same line of thinking, what would science find in an examination of wine and wafer before and after a priest offered his prayer upon them?
But the idea that Paul instituted the Eucharist is not made up, or at the very least a rewriting of history?
The cause of Paul’s death is not noted in the Bible. Tradition has it that he was beheaded. Anyone can come up with his/her own idea, but that idea would not be tradition.
There are people who say the same about John.
Actually, nobody really knows who actually put quill to papyrus for any of the Gospels – or the epistles for that matter.
Selectively choosing one approach for one book and another approach for another book is just convenient inconsistency.
Science would find that the bread and wine contain the exact same elements that were found before transubstantiation. Science cannot trace the spiritual. Yet Christ promised that he could spiritually nourish us with his body and blood which can be partaken in the form of bread and wine.
Jesus, perhaps not surprisingly, had great faith in words. Another belief that many Christian sects let go of along with the Eucharist was that of Reconciliation and Penance where we actually hear the words, “Your sins are forgiven.”
Jesus believed in the power of words, and so do Catholics
The implications of your question are true, and it’s a valid question to ask.
The change is a matter of faith and doctrine. (Or, the absence of change is a matter of faith and doctrine.)
We’re discussing different ways to interpret scripture, dearly held by different Christian faith expressions. Those differences form different ways to worship the same God though, and point to the same Jesus. And in that same God, I revel. We would do better not to tell each other why they are wrong, but rejoice in worship of the One True God.
I’ll gladly tell those who are interested what is taught by the religion I adhere to, and the biblical interpretation that forms the belief, and the exegesis and historical doctrinal formation that arrived at a particular belief. I only tell it from the perspective of the religion I accept and adhere to. Not to tell someone else why I think their religion’s teaching is wrong.
For the same reason I fully understand why you would adhere to a particular tenet on some issue. We are all called to seek and discern.
He was killed by the Romans.
They wouldn’t have cared one way or another about the Eucharist.
Fun fact. Historically, one of the reasons Romans despised Christians was because of the charge of cannibalism surrounding the Lord’s Supper.
Of course you’ve seen the common accusation about Catholicism that it selects which words to believe in. And people are free to make that accusation.
For me, I accept the Moral and Doctrinal Authority of Church leadership. But that’s another thing Catholic-detractors take issue with. We all get to choose what we will (not) follow.
OK. …
Yes, I agree. I have also spent some time studying early Church traditions and tend to agree with them rather than some of the new traditions started in the mid 1500s.
What people believe is a matter of faith. By definition, it is what we believe without “proof.” As Christians, we believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, yet we can’t prove they exist by the use of our 5 senses, let alone all the other teachings of scripture. There have always been scoffers. Let them scoff and take it up with Jesus when they stand before him. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight…
