'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[Asyncritus]

1Co 10:21 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.
Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

In the OT era, there was a physical altar. That altar no longer exists. That altar represented something in heaven, something which has been fulfilled by Christ. There is no other physical altar that represents the true altar in heaven. The heathen sacrifices included the eating of the sacrifice, as in the tabernacle ritual. They ate at tables. Making them seem to be similar to the Lord’s Table. They were not. And to eat at a table associated with a sacrifice was indicative of identity with that which was eaten.

Jesus didn’t go to the altar of the Temple. He didn’t offer sacrifices on our behalf as High Priest of the New Covenant. It wasn’t his place to do so. Nor did he create a new altar that would represent the sacrifice he was about to make. Though he knew he would be the eternal sacrifice on an eternal altar in heaven. Instead he instituted the Lord’s Table. After they ate the Passover meal, he instituted the Lord’s Table. A meal at a table would be the New Covenant way of connection to the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the eternal altar before God in heaven. The physical altar in the tabernacle looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ on the altar in heaven. The physical table is the way to the experience of the sacrifice of Christ accomplished.

Therefore, we have an altar that they which serve the tabernacle, they who offer sin offerings on an altar in the tabernacle, have nothing whatever to do with. Because their altar looks forward to an event already accomplished. Our altar is in heaven, not on earth.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

The temple of God is God himself and his Christ. While the New Jerusalem is still in heaven today, it will eventually be on the New Earth. What is said of the New Jerusalem in Revelation written by John, is not just for the future, but for our understanding of the New Jerusalem that is in heaven today.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Heb 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

These are the kinds of sacrifices we offer because of our experience of the real altar in heaven. On earth we have a Table. It leads us to experience the Altar in heaven.

Hebrews 4:
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

There is no more labour in relation to the Tabernacle because it is fulfilled in Christ. The word of God is Christ. It isn’t a reference to the Old Testament or the Bible as it is commonly interpreted. There are no more high priests on the earth because the real high priest has come and is in heaven. But there is a priesthood on earth. Not an ordained priesthood, but the Priesthood of all who are in Christ.

1 Peter 2:
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

The only true ordained special priesthood was part of the Old Testament Tabernacle ritual. The existence of which went out with the Old Covenant.

Heb 8:
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Where is that throne of grace if not in heaven where Christ is today as our high priest?

Heb 8:
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is now a New Covenant in Christ wherein are better promises than that under the Old Covenant. And the New makes the Old ready to vanish away. Which it has. Some believe to be revived during the thousand year reign of Christ. But the promises to the OT believers are fulfilled in Christ.

Hebrews 10:
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

This is the reality we should Spiritually experience when we are participating in the Lord’s Table. The veil has been divided at the cross of Christ so that all who are in Christ may follow their high priest into the holiest, all the way to the throne of grace.

All Biblical references from the KJV.

FC

Thank you for that extremely lucid presentation FC.

 

[Asyncritus]

SteveBolts

“it's a crying shame to know that something which was put forth to unite us, has caused great division.”

Yes it is. But I expect no more from a man-made religion that centers itself in unity in Biblical interpretations instead of keeping the unity of the Spirit. [...]
FC

This my only point of disagreement with you in this post FC.

How does one know one has the 'unity of the spirit' without some form of biblical interpretation?

Thinking about it, what does 'unity of the spirit' mean, biblically speaking.

 

[stovebolts]

I'm not going to have a lot of posting time for the next couple of days...so I won't be able to participate in this discussion as much.

However:



What is your source material for this, Jeff...I'd like to study up on this.

Hi Handy,
Sorry for the delay. Wow, what a week! So glad it's winding down!

Anyway, Leviticus 4 speaks directly on the Sin offering. The whole sacrificial structure is somewhat intricate, so when I studied it in depth, I used Jewish commentary from The Ramban and http://www.templeinstitute.org/sacrificial_service.htm

 

[stovebolts]

SteveBolts

“it's a crying shame to know that something which was put forth to unite us, has caused great division.â€

Yes it is. But I expect no more from a man-made religion that centers itself in unity in Biblical interpretations instead of keeping the unity of the Spirit. A religion that in its denominations practices closed communion against one another for no other reason than disagreements concerning those Biblical interpretations. Can we blame Satan for that? We can, but without cause I believe. Just as Satan didn’t make Adam do anything, so also today. Adam wasn’t deceived. He acted on his own. Humanity is quite capable of doing those things not in its own best interest, apart from the help of any opposer. The book of Job was written with that in mind.

FC

Interesting take on Job.

If a child acts like a child, then why are we disappointed when they act their age? We practice open communion because at the very least, somebody got a cracker and some juice... Jesus ate with all sorts of people didn't he?

But more to your point, I agree.

 

[Asyncritus]

Interesting take on Job.

...Jesus ate with all sorts of people didn't he?

Not at the Last Supper, He didn't.

 

[stovebolts]

Not at the Last Supper, He didn't.

Jesus ate with his disciples...

But let me ask you this, who Did Jesus come for? Are they not invited into the new covenant?

Meals were huge in Jewish tradition... huge. Which is why you see Jesus at many, many tables in the NT. Why wouldn't we invite those who are lost to the Lord's Table? Are we now fearful he won't know how to respond to the lost?

 

[handy]

Thanks for the link Jeff...I just haven't had time this week to do much study or even have the time to compose thoughtful responses to the thread here...I'm afraid I'm losing the thread of the discussion. Hopefully next week won't be as busy...

Meanwhile, if I do squeeze in any computer time...it's brain candy time. ;)

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for the link Jeff...I just haven't had time this week to do much study or even have the time to compose thoughtful responses to the thread here...I'm afraid I'm losing the thread of the discussion. Hopefully next week won't be as busy...

Meanwhile, if I do squeeze in any computer time...it's brain candy time. ;)

I understand Dora! I wish I could get you my Ramban commentaries, they were my biggest help when I studied it. I was amazed at how rich the rituals were. Anyway, way I figure it, if you want to know about that stuff, go to the people that did it... That would be the Jews.

I'm sure http://chabad.org would have some good stuff as well.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus ate with his disciples...

But let me ask you this, who Did Jesus come for? Are they not invited into the new covenant?

Meals were huge in Jewish tradition... huge. Which is why you see Jesus at many, many tables in the NT. Why wouldn't we invite those who are lost to the Lord's Table? Are we now fearful he won't know how to respond to the lost?

They may be invited, that's perfectly true - but until they have been baptised into Christ and put on Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant community.

There's a significant type of this in this verse:

43 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof:
44 but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Baptism takes the place of circumcision in the NT:

Col 2.11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;

12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[handy]

I realized I've pretty much abandoned this thread because I wound up being slammed busy and really should even be doing something else now but:

They may be invited, that's perfectly true - but until they have been baptised into Christ and put on Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant community.

There's a significant type of this in this verse:

43 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof:
44 but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Baptism takes the place of circumcision in the NT:

Col 2.11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;

12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I just had to weigh in because it's nice to say that here is something that Asyncritus and I are in full agreement with. After all our disagreement, it's good to see we're on the same page regarding some points. ;)

I agree, only baptized believers should take communion. I think that is really important.

 

[felix]

I actually agree as well. And when one looks where said institution received said funds to build such beautiful, and ostentatious structures which makes one of the most beautiful cities in the world.. it makes my stomach turn. It's not the structures, they are beautiful... it's how they got the cash.

Two years ago, I viewed an article about how churches are being closed down. With little money coming from offering and a small church overflowing with crowd and joy, everything was fine. But, it was a wrong misunderstanding that went through the minds of most pastors to build a bigger and better church structure for many people to come and worship. While the thought itself is good, one must not go ahead unless the church has enough cash. But, most churches went ahead to banks to get massive loans showing their current offering inflow. There should be no problem if the no of church goes never decreased. However, it's not the case. With little church goers and too big mortgage to pay, churches are actually being closed down during the GFC.

Having massive structures is wrong for another reason as well. According to Scriptures, a shepherd is supposed to remember every sheep. So, a massive assembly of more than what a pastor can remember is unbiblical and building a massive structure to hold such a massive assembly in the name of church is absolute nonsense.

 

[Asyncritus]

Not to mention deeply unscriptural.

1 Pet. 2: 4 ¶ unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious,
5 ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

This is an extremely significant passage in the context of this discussion.

1 The building is a spiritual one - NOT a literal one.

2 The Cornerstone (and the altar) is Christ

3 The stones of the building are believers, not wood, stone, mud or concrete

4 There is no priesthood class - ALL ('YE') are a holy priesthood

5 The sacrifices are 'spiritual' ones - not money, animals or anything else

6 The sacrifices are acceptable to God through the High Priest who is Jesus ('through'). Not a pope, archbishop of Canterbury, llama, whatever else.

In other words, he is describing an entirely lay organisation, without hierarchy. No buildings, sacrifices, altars, uniforms, special robes and headgear etc.

It raises, or should raise, some serious questions in your minds.

 

[stovebolts]

They may be invited, that's perfectly true - but until they have been baptised into Christ and put on Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant community.

There's a significant type of this in this verse:

43 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof:
44 but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Baptism takes the place of circumcision in the NT:

Col 2.11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;

12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

While I understand your redaction, I respectfully disagree on the basis of exegesis.

BTW, When Peter uses the word sacrifice, it means, "To draw near"...

 

[Asyncritus]

While I understand your redaction, I respectfully disagree on the basis of exegesis.

Um, what exegesis?

BTW, When Peter uses the word sacrifice, it means, "To draw near"...

Does it?

2378. θυσια thusia; from 2380; a sacrifice:--

NAS-sacrifice (14), sacrifices (14).

2380. θυω thuo; a prim. vb.; to offer, sacrifice:--

NAS-butchered (1), kill (4), killed (2), offer sacrifice (1), offering sacrifice (1), sacrifice (2), sacrificed (3).

 

[stovebolts]

Um, what exegesis?

Exactly ;)

Does it?

2378. θυσια thusia; from 2380; a sacrifice:--

NAS-sacrifice (14), sacrifices (14).

2380. θυω thuo; a prim. vb.; to offer, sacrifice:--

NAS-butchered (1), kill (4), killed (2), offer sacrifice (1), offering sacrifice (1), sacrifice (2), sacrificed (3).

Strongs :toofunny Looks like a bunch of synonyms if you ask me. ;)

psst, hey, what does sacrifice mean? Well, umm.. it means to kill, you know, sacrifice.

Sorry, you don't go to strongs for a definition of a word. It's a good starting point to get a broader view of a word, but it is lacking greatly in the realm of translation.

How about we look at a Jewish source?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/sacrificial_service.htm

However, the Hebrew word for "sacrifice" (korban, le-hakriv) is from the same root as "to come near, to approach. . . . to become closely involved in a relationship with someone." For this is meant to be the essence of the experience which the bearer of the sacrifice undergoes.

If the definition of the korban is "to come closer," then the goal of the Temple sacrifices is nothing less than the aim of dedicating human life to a higher sphere of awareness... closer to the Creator and the source of all life.

If that doesn't work for you, I'll get the official Jewish dictionary for ya. But I already know it will say pretty much the same thing.

Now then, doesn't this make better sense? Spiritual Sacrifice that is?....

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“This my only point of disagreement with you in this post FC.
How does one know one has the 'unity of the spirit' without some form of biblical interpretation?
Thinking about it, what does 'unity of the spirit' mean, biblically speaking.”

I will only say that you won’t find the answer looking in the direction of the natural man.

To natural man in Christianity, unity in doctrine is synonymous with unity of the Spirit. And part of that idea is closed communion. If closed communion is to be used at all, it would be with reference to sin, to protect the sinner and anyone who might be affected by the sin. And then it can only be used against a sin that is obvious. There are many sins that can’t be seen.

In Christianity, according to the use of closed communion, differences in doctrine is a sin, an outwardly visible sin. And unknown to those who condone the practice, a forum such as this one is subject to closed communion. The Catholics had it right all along, and they still practice closed communion. That they practice in a more tolerant fashion doesn’t change the outcome.


“2 The Cornerstone (and the altar) is Christ”

Why do you say Christ is the altar?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

SteveBolts

“BTW, When Peter uses the word sacrifice, it means, "To draw near"...”

The Greek word used means to sacrifice, from a Greek word that means to kill.


“How about we look at a Jewish source?”

I encourage you to be careful of being carried away by Jewish interpretations. They can be as dangerous as Christian interpretations to the unaware. Remember they see nothing of what the Tabernacle ritual means to one under the New Covenant. Modern Jewish Tradition is built from that Tradition that rejected its own Messiah. A people that at the time practiced the Tabernacle ritual constantly and yet could see nothing in Christ. Paul says the Jews are still blind until they turn to Jesus Christ through hearing the Spirit of God. The Bible is clear on the physical aspects of the Tabernacle ritual. And should be understood as they appear. Interpretations can and will only muddy the waters.

Modern Judaism, by the way, goes by a Tradition, a historical Tradition, just like the Catholics. Just so you know that what you're condoning is a form of religion more similar to Catholicism than to Protestantism. And infinitely more similar to Catholicism than to NT understanding of things.


“Sorry, you don't go to strongs for a definition of a word. It's a good starting point to get a broader view of a word, but it is lacking greatly in the realm of translation.”

There’s nothing wrong with Strong’s lexicons. They are accurate. Unless to you what he presents is just a personal opinion. In which case, what everyone says could be construed as merely opinion and not only is Christianity man-made, but also your Jewish sources and what is believed by those who believe in the faith of Christ itself. And if you wish to make Strong’s lexicons as authoritative as most people consider Wikipedia, and since that seems to be your opinion, I declare your source to be as authoritative as Wikipedia. So now you only have opinions on which to base the existence of nothing. Without a common source or basis for information, all you have are discussions about nothing.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Felix

“Having massive structures is wrong for another reason as well. According to Scriptures, a shepherd is supposed to remember every sheep. So, a massive assembly of more than what a pastor can remember is unbiblical and building a massive structure to hold such a massive assembly in the name of church is absolute nonsense.”

Good point. But you have to remember that Christianity is a religion. A man-made religion. A religion that has affected a lot of well meaning people who are in Christ. Even those who apparently fight certain aspects of that religion, like altars. Many are still unwittingly affected by that religion. That they continue to use the term Christian, a term that is associated with Christianity the man-made religion today, even thought it was never intended to be used as a self-denotation, only serves to show how deeply ingrained the affect is.

Christianity is organizational. Massive structures are part of the organizational philosophy. The more massive the structure, the more massive the population, the more prestigious the Church. And Pastors in religion are just a part of the organization. In Sacramental organizations, the Priestly function of offering sacrifice on altars by Pastors is the emphasis. In Protestant organizations that aren’t sacramental, the teaching function of the Pastor is emphasized. The idea of feeding the sheep takes on its meaning from one of the two emphases. Massive structures to gather in, or even a little country school house type structure, it’s all the same. It’s all very organizational, and very natural. And therein lies the problem. Because the Biblical description is far different from any natural understanding of the matter.

Three main things must be take into account concerning Pastors.

First, is the meaning of the Greek word translated Pastor in the NT. It just means shepherd. It is how the Greek word is translated with the exception of one verse in the KJV. The use of the English word Pastor to translate the Greek word that one time in Eph 4:11 is an interpretive translation. An interpretive translational Tradition carried on by most modern English translations.

The primary meaning of the English word Pastor shows its interpretive value clearly, “a minister in charge of a Christian church or congregation, especially in some non-episcopal churches.” (Oxford Dictionary). This meaning is an organizational meaning, referring to an organizational position in a Church of a man-made religion.


Second, is the source of the function of shepherd in the ekklesia.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.

Shepherds aren’t chosen by the Church or anyone in a Church. They are given. They’re given by God through Jesus Christ as the head of the Body to each ekklesia, as the context of this verse (1-16) clearly shows.

Pastors aren’t mentioned in the list of 1 Cor 12 because all of these functions in the ekklesia are Pastors in their own way. Pastors aren’t ordained by men. They’re given by God through the Spirit of God,

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Third, is the one who is the Great Shepherd of the sheep,

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant

He is the one who shepherds through the ones chosen by God. The elders are to shepherd the flock. They are shepherds. And they are under Jesus Christ as the Chief Shepherd of the flock. Not some hierarchy of men.

1 Peter 2:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

The Greek word translated Bishop means simply one who oversees. Shepherd, overseer, elder. These are all simply descriptive terms relating to the same people and how they function in the ekklesia. Ekklesia are intended individually to be earthly expressions of the Body of Christ. In Christianity, the ekklesia has been translated by the English word church and has become a term of hierarchy and universality.

We must be clear. The only purpose of hierarchy is organizational. Hierarchy is the only way for the natural man that doesn’t experience the supernatural to experience unity. It’s a deception when those who are in Christ believe that hierarchy and Spirit are the same thing.

All Bible references in the KJV

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

“This my only point of disagreement with you in this post FC.
How does one know one has the 'unity of the spirit' without some form of biblical interpretation?
Thinking about it, what does 'unity of the spirit' mean, biblically speaking.â€

I will only say that you won’t find the answer looking in the direction of the natural man.

To natural man in Christianity, unity in doctrine is synonymous with unity of the Spirit. And part of that idea is closed communion. If closed communion is to be used at all, it would be with reference to sin, to protect the sinner and anyone who might be affected by the sin. And then it can only be used against a sin that is obvious. There are many sins that can’t be seen.

In Christianity, according to the use of closed communion, differences in doctrine is a sin, an outwardly visible sin. And unknown to those who condone the practice, a forum such as this one is subject to closed communion. The Catholics had it right all along, and they still practice closed communion. That they practice in a more tolerant fashion doesn’t change the outcome.


“2 The Cornerstone (and the altar) is Christâ€



FC

I still don't know what your opinion as to what the meaning of 'unity of the spirit' might be.

Why do you say Christ is the altar?

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

1 We (the spiritual priesthood) eat of that altar (as opposed to the Jewish priesthood).

2 Unless that altar is Christ, it cannot be 'eaten of'.

 

[stovebolts]

SteveBolts

“BTW, When Peter uses the word sacrifice, it means, "To draw near"...”

The Greek word used means to sacrifice, from a Greek word that means to kill.


“How about we look at a Jewish source?”

I encourage you to be careful of being carried away by Jewish interpretations. They can be as dangerous as Christian interpretations to the unaware. Remember they see nothing of what the Tabernacle ritual means to one under the New Covenant. Modern Jewish Tradition is built from that Tradition that rejected its own Messiah. A people that at the time practiced the Tabernacle ritual constantly and yet could see nothing in Christ. Paul says the Jews are still blind until they turn to Jesus Christ through hearing the Spirit of God. The Bible is clear on the physical aspects of the Tabernacle ritual. And should be understood as they appear. Interpretations can and will only muddy the waters.

FC,
Thank you for the caution. I am well grounded in my Christian faith, and I am well aware of Jewish thought surrounding the tabernacle. What I can say by way of much Jewish study (Ramban and Rashi) that the tabernacle is very rich and fluid. Paul affirms this in Romans. But it all points to the Messiah, which I am very much aware of and fully support as do the Jews. What they currently disagree with, is that Jesus was the promised Messiah. That does not negate Jewish thought on the tabernacle, they simply reject Jesus as the Messiah. I, do not. I affirm Jesus as the Messiah. They wait for the new covenant, I live within the new covenant.

Modern Judaism, by the way, goes by a Tradition, a historical Tradition, just like the Catholics. Just so you know that what you're condoning is a form of religion more similar to Catholicism than to Protestantism. And infinitely more similar to Catholicism than to NT understanding of things.

Catholics and Jews are miles apart. I see how you use tradition as a link, but their traditions are not similar. We protestants also have traditions, and thy don't look like the Catholics, nor do they have the same meaning. Take baptism for example. We both believe in baptism, yet our ideas, though biblically based, are miles apart.

“Sorry, you don't go to strongs for a definition of a word. It's a good starting point to get a broader view of a word, but it is lacking greatly in the realm of translation.”

There’s nothing wrong with Strong’s lexicons. They are accurate. Unless to you what he presents is just a personal opinion. In which case, what everyone says could be construed as merely opinion and not only is Christianity man-made, but also your Jewish sources and what is believed by those who believe in the faith of Christ itself. And if you wish to make Strong’s lexicons as authoritative as most people consider Wikipedia, and since that seems to be your opinion, I declare your source to be as authoritative as Wikipedia. So now you only have opinions on which to base the existence of nothing. Without a common source or basis for information, all you have are discussions about nothing.

FC

Please don't misunderstand me. I use strongs myself which is why I stated what I said the way I said it.

I sense an undertone in your writing regarding the Jews. I would like to remind you that Jesus wasn't a gentile, and neither was Paul or Peter. They were Jews. In addition, they were not Hellenistic Jews. No, they understood Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Moses, we know also understood different languages, but he sought to write Torah in Hebrew, and Hebrew is much different than greek, just as greek is different than english.

When you talk about the Altar and the sacrifices, it's best to go to the original language to understand the sacrifice the way they understood it in their own language. That language was Hebrew. In Hebrew, which Moses wrote, sacrifice meant "To draw near". This is undisputed.

But more to my point, was Jesus killed, or was he a sacrifice?