The fellowship of the believers

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

There are two things I'm wondering about.

1) in my past experience, communion is done about once a year. Why so seldom?

2) what do you think Jesus is referring to in John 6 when he tells his followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, and how does this relate to communion?

1) Yeah, I noticed that too. Not sure what to think about.


2) Very related. Two key passages are:

(51) "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

(61) When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? ... (63) "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and [they] are life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

There are two things I'm wondering about.

1) in my past experience, communion is done about once a year. Why so seldom?

The manner in which most churches "do communion" is a stripped down Protestantized version of the catholic Mass (wafer and thimble, morose inspection, attempt to be all somber and super-serious, etc). The timing (once a year, usually at New Year's Eve) developed among Reformed churches (especially in Scotland) as a counter to the Daily Mass (it was considered too important to be doing often lest it become too familiar and common and lose its impressiveness).

The New Year's thing originated in the 7th or 8th Day of Christmastide, during which the Catholic Church held a Vigil (late night Mass). The Lutherans and Anglicans kept it. The Moravians turned it into a Communion service combined with late night prayer service. Thus was born the Watchnight Service. Wesley got it from the Moravians and so the Methodists did it. From there it spread to the later Holiness Movement (which came from Methodism) and was even picked up by Baptists and Adventists. From the Holiness and Baptist movements it continued among 20th century Pentecostals.

So basically it is a Catholic ritual observance given a Protestant/evangelical flavour.

2) what do you think Jesus is referring to in John 6 when he tells his followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, and how does this relate to communion?

He meant they must get their spiritual sustenance (life) from Him, which would be made available through faith in His suffering and death and resurrection. The Lord's Supper (not "the communion") is a fellowship meal and memorial of His sacrifice that unites us as His Body and is essentially the New Covenant replacement of the old Passover meal which reminds us of our fellowship (communion) with Him and each other as the people and household of God. The original church ate the Lord's Supper often (usually at every regular meeting).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

That's why I mentioned the "hospitality" reason as well. You can't ignore the observation that such event doesn't happen again outside the Jerusalem church. If you explain the motivation to be entirely and solely on the response to the teaching of the apostles, then you are also saying the apostles failed to get the same response in Samaria, the entirety of Asia Minor, and Rome.

The statement about selling houses etc is a generalized statement and not exhaustive and primarily had to do with selling excess property. The case of Ananias and Sapphira proves there was nothing inappropriate about owning property, or selling it and keeping or using the money as the seller saw fit. Their problem was they lied about how much they sold it for in reference to how much they were donating.

The main point Luke was making was that the early church made sure everyone was taken care of and not suffering lack.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I believe that was true. The historical evidence I've seen is pretty much that. Public Reading of the Scriptures, with some explanation, then some exhortation from the elders, then Lord's supper and prayer.

The early church practice developed from Jesus' practice of fellowship meals which included Him teaching via group discussion (question and answer)* see note below. This was in fact common among rabbis at that time, and developed from the near universal human practice of sharing meals with discussion and dialogue (eating dinner with others while everyone says nothing is kind of... weird and abnormal, usually indicating mourning or some other negative emotional feeling among the group).

The Greeks had a similar practice, called Symposium, which was a shared meal with a group of men invited over to eat and hold a discussion. Of course the heathen symposia often degenerated into drunken revels with all sorts of ungodliness going on but that's how heathens operate.

* Note: This is why the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are given. The meeting would often include asking questions and providing answers (as was common when hanging out with Jesus). These questions and answers would dictate to a large measure the topic of instruction from teachers, elders, etc during the meeting. Women were not allowed to direct the flow of the church meeting (thus, they were to ask their husbands at home instead of putting forward the topic of discussion during the meeting).

[Amanah]

Bro Esaias

Have you ever read Ignatius of Antioch?
If so, what is your take on him?

https://enlargingtheheart.wordpress....us-from-dying/

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro Esaias

Have you ever read Ignatius of Antioch?
If so, what is your take on him?

https://enlargingtheheart.wordpress....us-from-dying/

I've read a lot of his works, but it's been a long time. If I remember correctly he is usually credited with introducing the "monarchical bishop" idea - "Wherever the bishop is, that is where the church is" or something like that.

Also, there is a lot of debate about which of his writings are genuine, and which are later works falsely attributed to him.

Personally, I like Irenaeus and Clement more than Ignatius.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I've read a lot of his works, but it's been a long time. If I remember correctly he is usually credited with introducing the "monarchical bishop" idea - "Wherever the bishop is, that is where the church is" or something like that.

Also, there is a lot of debate about which of his writings are genuine, and which are later works falsely attributed to him.

Personally, I like Irenaeus and Clement more than Ignatius.

He makes this comment about breaking the bread (He died in 110 by the way.)


"and if you thus obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

He makes this comment about breaking the bread:

"and if you thus obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ."

Yes, I read that at the link you provided. I think in this passage we see the beginnings of the sacrament of the Mass and the Eucharist. While his words can be taken to mean that unity and fellowship with the church (here represented by the "the bishop and the elders" and signified by participating in the bread offered by the bishop as opposed to refusing to eat the bread he consecrates) signifies eternal life, they can also be taken to mean only properly consecrated Eucharistic bread gives eternal life which requires staying "in communion with" the bishop, which is the modern Catholic teaching. Or, it was at least until the last 50 years or so, but who knows what they teach nowadays?

The article dates him to the latter 1st-early 2nd centuries, which I think is incorrect. I believe he should be placed further into the 2nd century at least. The writing you linked to may also be one of those pseudo-Ignatian texts trying to read back into the early post apostolic period theology that was actually developed some time later.

[Esaias]

https://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fa...01/anf0115.htm

"There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.

It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius (1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (I709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.

Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist. By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallaeus), published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciae of Bishop Pearson, which appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the kind of Arianism which he had adopted.

But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger.... But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question."

This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others; some going so far as to deny that we have any authentic remains of Ignatius at all, while others, though admitting the seven shorter letters as being probably his, yet strongly suspected that they were not free from interpolation. Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much opposition, and chiefly in dependence on the work of Bishop Pearson above mentioned, as exhibiting the genuine form of the Epistles of Ignatius."

[Esaias]

From that illustrious source of unquestionably true scholarship (Wikipedia) we find this:

The text of these epistles is known in three different recensions, or editions: the Short Recension, found in a Syriac manuscript; the Middle Recension, found only in Greek manuscripts; and the Long Recension, found in Greek and Latin manuscripts.[4]: 120–121 [34]

For some time, it was believed that the Long Recension was the only extant version of the Ignatian epistles, but around 1628 a Latin translation of the Middle Recension was discovered by Archbishop James Ussher, who published it in 1646. For around a quarter of a century after this, it was debated which recension represented the original text of the epistles. But ever since John Pearson's strong defense of the authenticity of the Middle Recension in the late 17th century, there has been a scholarly consensus that the Middle Recension is the original version of the text.[4]: 121  The Long Recension is the product of a fourth-century Arian Christian, who interpolated the Middle Recension epistles in order posthumously to enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age. This individual also forged the six spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius (see § Pseudo-Ignatius below).[35]

Manuscripts representing the Short Recension of the Ignatian epistles were discovered and published by William Cureton in the mid-19th century. For a brief period, there was a scholarly debate on the question of whether the Short Recension was earlier and more original than the Middle Recension. But by the end of the 19th century, Theodor Zahn and J. B. Lightfoot had established a scholarly consensus that the Short Recension is merely a summary of the text of the Middle Recension, and was therefore composed later.[4]: 121 

Authenticity
Edit
Ever since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]: 119  Some Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of all the epistles attributed to Ignatius because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century. The Catholic Church has long held up the authenticity of the letters from past to present.[36]

In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius were authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[37]: 137  Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[37]: 127 

Some doubts about the authenticity of the original letters continued into the 20th century. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the scholars Robert Joly,[38] Reinhard Hübner,[39] Markus Vinzent,[40] and Thomas Lechner[41] argued forcefully that the epistles of the Middle Recension were forgeries written during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD). Around the same time, the scholar Joseph Ruis-Camps published a study arguing that the Middle Recension letters were pseudepigraphically composed based on an original, smaller, authentic corpus of four letters (Romans, Magnesians, Trallians, and Ephesians). In 2009, Otto Zwierlein took up the thesis of a fake, made around 170.[42]

These publications stirred up tremendous, heated controversy in the scholarly community at the time,[4]: 122  but in 2017, most patristic scholars accepted the authenticity of the seven original epistles.[4]: 121ff [43][44][45] However, J. Lookadoo said in 2020 that "the debate has received renewed energy since the late 1990s and shows few signs of slowing."[46]

The original texts of six of the seven original letters are found in the Codex Mediceo Laurentianus written in Greek in the 11th century (which also contains the pseudepigraphical letters of the Long Recension, except that to the Philippians),[47] while the letter to the Romans is found in the Codex Colbertinus.[12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch