St. Justin Martyr and the Eucharist

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
It is an irrational thought to think that the context of a statement is, "nothing of substance." It is the same as saying there is no intended meaning in any statement ever.

You still have not demonstrated a single thing.

You did. The question to ask yourself in this context is according to Scripture Jesus is what?

I'm afraid not. Now you are resorting to your own fantasies.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
You still have not demonstrated a single thing.
If a person will not read something in the context in which it was given them that person will not and does not recognize demonstrations from that very thing.
I'm afraid not. Now you are resorting to your own fantasies.
You mistakenly wrote that Christianity is not a philosophy. This may be true according to the way you define the words Christianity and philosophy, but it is not true according to Scripture and the way Justin is using philosophy.

Since you didn't acknowledge the question or post an answer here is hopefully what you would have remembered or discovered. Jesus is our wisdom from God, 1 Cor 1:30-31. Philosophy, in the way Justin was using it is a love a wisdom, a love of Jesus. This is what true philosophers who consider truth learn. If you ever decide to read Justin rather than mine him for quotes you will find that is the basis of his Apology
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
If a person will not read something in the context in which it was given them that person will not and does not recognize demonstrations from that very thing.

You haven't demonstrated that yet.

You mistakenly wrote that Christianity is not a philosophy.

I made no mistake.

This may be true according to the way you define the words Christianity and philosophy, but it is not true according to Scripture and the way Justin is using philosophy.

Well then you need to demonstrate this don't you?

Since you didn't acknowledge the question or post an answer here is hopefully what you would have remembered or discovered. Jesus is our wisdom from God, 1 Cor 1:30-31.

Jesus is not a philosophy is he?

Philosophy, in the way Justin was using it is a love a wisdom, a love of Jesus.

Demonstrate that Justin is using the term philosophy as a love of Jesus.

This is what true philosophers who consider truth learn. If you ever decide to read Justin rather than mine him for quotes you will find that is the basis of his Apology

As I said before, you haven't demonstrated a single thing, just yapped on and on.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
You haven't demonstrated that yet.
Says the one studiously ignoring and denying the context of Justin's words.
I made no mistake.
According to your anachronistic and false interpretation.
Well then you need to demonstrate this don't you?
That already occurred.
Jesus is not a philosophy is he?
Christianity is not Jesus in the statements of the Apostle Paul and Justin.
Demonstrate that Justin is using the term philosophy as a love of Jesus.
Aleeady done. By definition philosophy is the love of the wisdom. If you want to imagine or believe that Justin was unfamiliar with Scripture then that is on you, but try reading his Apology, ch 2, before hardening your misunderstanding.
As I said before, you haven't demonstrated a single thing, just yapped on and on.
So says the one who thinks that the actual context of a statement is nothing of substance.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Says the one studiously ignoring and denying the context of Justin's words.

According to your anachronistic and false interpretation.

That already occurred.

I'm afraid that only occurred in your own fantasies.

Christianity is not Jesus in the statements of the Apostle Paul and Justin.

Aleeady done. By definition philosophy is the love of the wisdom.

Demonstrate that Justin is referring to the love of a person when he is discussing Christianity as a philosophy.

Have fun with that.

If you want to imagine or believe that Justin was unfamiliar with Scripture then that is on you, but try reading his Apology, ch 2, before hardening your misunderstanding.

So says the one who thinks that the actual context of a statement is nothing of substance.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I'm afraid that only occurred in your own fantasies.
Since in your view context is nothing of substance how would you know?
Demonstrate that Justin is referring to the love of a person when he is discussing Christianity as a philosophy.

Have fun with that.
Are you denying that philosophy is by definition a love of wisdom, or that Jesus was made our wisdom, or both? How far are you willing to go in your illogical off topic attempt to impugne the writing of Justin?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Since in your view context is nothing of substance how would you know?

There you go again making things up.

Are you denying that philosophy is by definition a love of wisdom,

Only in your imaginations........

or that Jesus was made our wisdom, or both? How far are you willing to go in your illogical off topic attempt to impugne the writing of Justin?

So then, all you will do is avoid the question at hand by doing this type of thing.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
There you go again making things up.
It was your response to my comment on context.
Only in your imaginations........
We're you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Break the word into its constituent parts, or look it up in a reputable dictionary for its original meaning.
So then, all you will do is avoid the question at hand by doing this type of thing.
You are the one posing a question for which you've already received the answer. If you are not denying one or the other, or both, then what are you doing besides making illogical off topic ad hominems against Justin to impugn his writings?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
It was your response to my comment on context.

We're you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Break the word into its constituent parts, or look it up in a reputable dictionary for its original meaning.

You are the one posing a question for which you've already received the answer. If you are not denying one or the other, or both, then what are you doing besides making illogical off topic ad hominems against Justin to impugn his writings?

Is this all you know how to do?
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Is this all you know how to do?
That is all that can be done after several exchanges with a person who makes a false statement regarding something written but doesn't acknowledge or care that the context of what was written categorically excludes his or her false statement.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That is all that can be done after several exchanges with a person who makes a false statement regarding something written but doesn't acknowledge or care that the context of what was written categorically excludes his or her false statement.

You keep insisting upon something you can't demonstrate and prove. Your foot stomping is futile.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
You keep insisting upon something you can't demonstrate and prove. Your foot stomping is futile.
A simple reading of Justin demonstrates that what you quoted was was written as a pagan philosopher, that is, Justin was recounting an encounter and his thoughts while a pagan philosopher. Your refusal to read and acknowledge what Justin wrote in the context in which he wrote it is an error. All your foot stomping is futile.
 

Hark

Well-known member
CHAP. LXVI.–OF THE EUCHARIST.

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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."(6)

Well, I see no mistaking what this particular ECF meant when teaching about Holy Communion. It's the real deal, no mere symbol as some like to claim.

To finish:

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone".

Believe Jesus and His words my friends, believe Jesus!
St. Justin Martyr is wrong about the Eucharist. How can he defend it when agreeing that His Presence is in the Eucharist makes it an idol?

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

How can St. Justin Martyr not apply the warning of receiving another Jesus or another spirit to treating communion in that way?

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I point out that Justin Martyr has written something that speaks against what the Catholic catechism teaches.

The Unapologetic Apologist: Five lessons from St. Justin Martyr

Quoting from link "Lesson 3: Damned if you don’t

Now, the reason Justin was so keen to convert non-Christians was not merely that he held that Christianity is true, though of course that is part of it. The main reason was in order to save their souls. Again and again in his First Apology, Justin warns his readers of the damnation that faces those who do not repent of their sins. He speaks of “everlasting punishment,” “punishment in eternal fire,” and the fate of “the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, [sent] into everlasting fire with the wicked devils.” ~~~ end of quote

From the Catholic Catechism; Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quoting from link ""Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 ~~~~~End of quote

#847 is why the RCC todays says not to convert unbelievers, but non-Catholic Christians. Thus disagreeing with St. Justin Martyr.

The point of reference is just as the church did not always follow the whole of Justin Martyr's teachings, Justin Martyr did not always use the whole of scripture to make sure he was not misapplying scripture.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
St. Justin Martyr is wrong about the Eucharist.
and Ignatius? a disciple of the Apostle John....

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
 

Buzzard

Active member
and Ignatius? a disciple of the Apostle John....

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius

Arch
of the 13 letters 6 are known / proven to be forgeries
of the other 7 were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author

in other words, Ignatius never said nor wrote those words
 

Buzzard

Active member
/
Arch Stanton said:
and Ignatius? a disciple of the Apostle John....

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)

We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius

Arch
of the 13 letters 6 are known / proven to be forgeries
of the other 7 were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author

in other words, Ignatius never said nor wrote those words
The Catholic Encyclopedia
The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin, which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious. The great body of critics who acknowledge the authenticity of the Ignatian letters restrict their approval to those mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The six others are not defended by any of the early Fathers. The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters.

As Peter says of the RCC
But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways;
by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters.

As Peter says of the RCC
But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways;
by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
What about the ones I listed?
 
Top