This is an interesting point, one I have heard before and was very convincing to me at the time. But I can't actually see in Scripture where anamnesis is used this way. According to Strong's, the word was used 4 times in the Bible, exclusively to mean to recollect, remember, or reminisce. None of them were used in a verse connected to the Passover feast in the Old Covenant that I could find. Can you help me connect the dots? But, even if anamnesis has the meaning that you attribute to it--bringing a past event into the present--that only strengthens Tiffy's argument that such language is figurative and metaphorical and not to be taken literally. Egypt is not literally and physically made present in and through the Passover meal, and participants do not literally escape Egypt by eating the meal. This language is poetic, figurative, and spiritual. The same could be said to be true with the Eucharist, which is traditionally believed by Anglicans as being given and received "only after a heavenly and spiritual manner." Christ is made present to us, not necessarily the past event of His sacrifice imho. Also, on the issue of the sacrifice, I do think it's worth pointing out that applying the idea of sacrifice tothe Eucharist (other than perhaps in the sense that it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, I suppose) does appear to shift into reverse much of the work of the Anglican Reformation when it comes to Eucharistic sacramental theology. Certainly, it does a 180 on Cranmer's view expressed in his Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. From time to time, I like to refer to The Churchman's Theological Dictionary (published 1848) because its not overly complicated, seems to reflect a pretty good snapshot of Anglican thought from a more orthodox time, and most importantly, is free online lol. I think it's telling that on the section discussing 'Sacrifice' in general terms, the author spends much of the space discussing Anglicanism's traditional skepticism of the medieval notions of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Just thought this was interesting, though I may be the only one who thinks it lol
In my opinion, and I admit I might be wrong about this but I don't think I am, holding firmly to the doctrine described in the article you quoted is what makes the Anglican Church Orthodoxly Apostolic in its theology of the sacraments partaken of at the Eucharist, and most clearly marks it out for acceptable membership of the Universal Invisible Church of Jesus Christ The Lord. Departure from this wholesome doctrine denotes, again in my personal opinion, increasing degrees of the kind of erroneous teachings that the writers of the Epistles, now read as part of the New Testament scriptures, called 'false gospels' and 'doctrines of demons'. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(Christianity) I think they key points are it's involvement with the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice and and absolute rejection of a new sacrifice, or of a re-sacrifice.
Those people are remarking about the part where He claims to be from heaven, because they do not see how a human can have done that, they did not complain that He was not a literal loaf of bread! The very verses that you have linked to explain that to fail get His point is not about stupidity, it is about having been called by the Father, under the spiritual influence that enables understanding.
The spirit there is inextricably linked to the physical, it is not either literally or not really. It is a physical and spiritual thing at the same time, both are real.
Although I agree that 'spiritual' is actually 'real'. (God is Spirit, and God is ultimately, reality), scripture indicates that Apostolic opinion was that ALL sacrifices, Jewish and Pagan, are ineffective and unnecessary. They certainly had the view that those sacrifices were physical and real and a thing of the past, having been entirely superceded by the Eucharist meal which expressed in a spiritual way the reconciliation between God and mankind through the death of Christ. THAT was the only sacrifice it commemorated. I don't see any reason whatever to take the words. "This is my body, this is my blood of the New Covenant", literally and physically. In fact taking them literally kind of misses the point that Jesus was probably making by this 'figure of speech' in pointing forward to his coming sacrifice of himself, the following day, to achieve reconciliation with God for mankind, and appealing to future generations of believers to "Do this in remembrance" of the sacrificial act that he was about to perform for their benefit. The belief that a sacrifice ACTUALLY takes place during those commemoration meals and that the meal of bread and wine actually turns into human flesh and bood to be consumed through the mouths of the participants of the meal is a completely unnecessary misinterpretation of the metaphor Christ was giving his disciples, and us, to understand. In fact it becomes a crass paganisation of the fellowship meal and a cause of division from God by the guilt of sinful canabalism. Christ's metaphor clearly HAS meaning, only if it is taken to be a metaphor, but if it is taken LITERALLY it is devoided of any meaning other than we are being compelled to bring the guilt of murder and canibalism upon ourselves by sacrificing and eating the human victim yet again. Metaphorically HE was talking about a Paschal Lamb. He WAS that Paschal Lamb, slain to redeem mankind. .
It might be worth mentioning, (in view of the thread title), that if there is no actual sacrifice taking place, only the remembrance and memorial celebration of the Final and Ultimate one on our behalf, then it obviously matters not a jot whether the person elected from among us, calling us to remembrance of that person and that event, is a male or a female human being. .
My discomfort with this expansion upon the word anamnesis is that it treads into Roman Catholic theological territory. When one gets into this idea of "re-presenting" the sacrifice, one is playing into (perhaps unwittingly) the RC notion of "the Sacrifice of the Mass" in which Christ is summoned to the altar in His fullness (physical body, spirit, soul, and divinity) to take His place as a continuation of the one sacrifice on the cross. It is the Roman Catholic theologians who use this interpretation of anamnesis to help justify the doctrine of Transubstantiation. As such, I would hope that Anglicans would distance themselves from such a concept. After all, nothing in that Greek word demands or requires that it mean anything more than "recollecting" or "calling to mind" or "remembrance." I have found no dictionary that veers into the expanded definition used by the RCC. Turning to Zodhiates, a scholar and native speaker of Greek, I see nothing but the conventional definition. The only places on the internet where I encounter an expanded definition is on Roman Catholic sites and on this forum. On this basis I am inclined to dismiss the expansion as a "pet theory" of yours, although if you have some supportive quotations from Jewel, Cranmer, Hooker, or the like, I would be willing to read what they wrote and reconsider.
If we had been there and had seen our Lord hanging naked on the cross, I think we would remember whether He was a male or a female. But even the loincloth-sanitized crucifixes, depicting the bearded and bare-chested Christ, leave little doubt.
Actually the RCC repudiates the claim that they view it as "a fresh sacrifice." At least since Vatican II and the release of the CCC they go with the "re-presentation" idea, even though they erroneously teach that Jesus presents Himself in His fullness to assume the position (as it were... that's my personal expansion) on the sacrificial altar. I haven't looked to see if there is concrete evidence from before the CCC that would show a "fresh sacrifice" concept 'back in the day.'
I think the fact that we are remembering the sacrifice, by himself, of a human being, is more relevant to the act of 'remembrance' than the fact that we are 'remembrancing' about a male human being. The majority of his disciples who actually witnessed 'remembering' his death at the time it actually happened, were mostly women. And it was the women who first 'recollected' to the male disciples that Jesus had risen. That could be described as 'ministering' to them, by recalling his death and resurrection. Luke 24:8-11 - (Typical of the men - still won't listen to a woman teaching them something they refuse to believe women should be allowed to do) Christ obviously allowed it, so did his angels, even commanded the women to go and do it. Matt.28:5-8, Matt.28:9-10. Are you saying it's OK for women to 'minister to Him', but not OK for women to 'minister for Him'. Mark 15:40-41. Luke 24:8-11. They were trusted by Christ to teach to the men the greatest news mankind had ever heard, but the men didn't believe it, presumably partly because it was related to them by women. Typical! .
Today I watched the beginning of a talk given by the Roman Catholic priest and national Eucharistic preacher, Fr. Jonathan Meyer. It reminded me of this discussion about anamnesis. I'd like to share two brief quotes from his talk. He expands upon the meaning of a "re-presentation" of Jesus' crucifixion: “The Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary; the Mass is the eternal sacrifice of the Lamb of God for your sins, for my sins, that saves the whole entire world. That’s what the Mass is.” “...Mass, which He (Jesus) gave to us, so that we could enter in again and again and again and again and again, and be present at His eternal redeeming sacrifice.” In Roman Catholic thinking, the so-called "re-presentation" of Jesus' crucifixion is essentially an eternally-ongoing redemptive sacrifice. That is where their 'anamnesis' concept leads them. What does the Bible say? Heb 10:12-14 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Which marks the difference between a denomination that derives its doctine and teaching from scriptural Apostolic statements, and one that has taken it from the personal opinions of generations of a hierachy of pious clergy, claiming inspiration. .
I'ld just like to offer an alternative aspect to this theory. It may well have been a man that first witnessed the resurrection and told the women about it. Consider Mark 16:5-7 ------------------- 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you. -------------------- Note this young man is described as just that, a young man, he is not described as an angel or even two angels. Maybe the young man and angel(s) are different entities or perhaps this man morphed into angels in the later Matthew and Luke retelling of the story. Now also note this young man says, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you". How would this young man know they were told this if he wasn't an angel and was just a mere mortal, like you or I(but perhaps not Trump) Go back to Mark 14:28 Jesus says in the garden of Gethsemene "But after I have been raised up, I shall go before you to Galilee." This is where the young man at the tomb knew about the Galilee statement. What young man? You say. This one. -------------- And they all left him and fled. Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked. ------------- Mark 14:50-52. Are the naked man and the one in the tomb, one and the same?
There are certainly a lot of things about the resurrection that we don't know but there's also a lot of things Trump, Obama or Biden don't want us to know, that they'd rather we didn't get to find out about. .