Body and the Blood

[Vic C.]

I Corinth. 11:20

You are correct. Paul was telling them that the meeting they were having in which they consumed large meals and wine, was not the Lord's Supper. They deprived those who were less fortunate their share of food. He went on to tell them they might as well stay home to eat and drink because they shamed those who had nothing.

Paul praised them not!

Paul also went on to say that the Lord revealed to him the proper way to eat and drink at the Lord's Supper.

1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
1 Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I don't know about other churches, but we celebrate communion just as it was delivered above.

 

[Mysteryman]

I Corinth. 11:20

You are correct. Paul was telling them that the meeting they were having in which they consumed large meals and wine, was not the Lord's Supper. They deprived those who were less fortunate their share of food. He went on to tell them they might as well stay home to eat and drink because they shamed those who had nothing.

Paul praised them not!

Paul also went on to say that the Lord revealed to him the proper way to eat and drink at the Lord's Supper.

1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
1 Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I don't know about other churches, but we celebrate communion just as it was delivered above.

Hi Vic

Yes, I know I am correct, but your explanation is incorrect. Paul made no such comment as you have stated above and I quote - " Paul was telling them that the meeting they were having in which they consumed large meals and wine, was not the Lord's Supper.

He told them, that when they come together into one place, that this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

A communion service is a man made act instituded by those who Paul considered heretics who brought forth this heresy - Verse 19.

The word "commune" ( to speak ) or "communion", which means to communicate in like mindedness - II Corinth. 13:14 , with the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God tells us in I Corinth. 10:17 , that we are the many members of that one bread, and that we are partakers of the bread of life, for we are in the body of Christ, where God has placed us. In I Corinth. 12:13 , we have been made to "drink" into one Spirit . By reading chapter 12 one should realize that Paul is speaking spiritually throughout chapters 10, 11 and 12. Paul is talking about the Revealed Mystery , which is for the obedience of faith. The body of Christ is that one bread, and we are the many members in Christ.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Vic :

As I know that you believe in context being of importance. If you will read the context of chapter 11 of first Corinthians, you will notice that the context speaks of caring for one another.

And I bring this to the boards attention, because I care .

 

[francisdesales]

If you ask me, the qeustion itself is a bet ridiculous. Whatever you may have been taught about it being instituted by Jesus, the fact is that communion as we know it today is an entirely man-made custom. How can a man-made custom turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? The whole idea doesn't make any sense.

But what about the last supper, you may ask. The last supper was not a rite or a sacrament. It was a meal. In fact, it was the biggest meal of the year and included a whole roast lamb which had to be completely consumed in one night. If the first Christians had been eating tiny pieces of bread and drinking just a few drops of wine, then what did Paul mean in I Cor. 11 when he accused some of getting drunk during the Lord's supper and keeping others from taking part so they had to leave hungry? It was obviously a meal. Communion as we know it didn't come until much later.

Some knowledge of Judaism would be helpful in settling this question...
The setting and background of the Last Supper is very important, we should remember that Jesus was a Jew and the Apostles were Jews, the Last Supper is done within the context of Judaism.

If communion is a man-made ritual, it must have been so very early, since John 6 coupled with the Synoptic Last Supper supports the idea that we must eat and have been given the flesh of Jesus to eat in the outer appearance of bread. The very earliest writers of second century also support the idea of a communion sharing in the Flesh of Jesus.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, I know I am correct, but your explanation is incorrect.

Your explanation is not correct...

You write: A communion service is a man made act instituded by those who Paul considered heretics who brought forth this heresy - Verse 19.

This is a poor reading of the verses:

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Cor 11:18-19

Paul has just got done talking about differences of opinions within the church at Corinth, in particular, the length of hair and whether women should cover their heads. THIS is the basis of the divisions in verse 18. Paul then finishes with saying "this is to be expected, such differences/heresies".

With this poor example of community in mind, he then moves to v 20, and tells them that their Lord's Supper is ALSO poorly done. It completely defeats the purpose, calling to mind the self-sacrifice of the Lord that we are supposed to emulate as a Christian community. How can we go and "do this in rememberance of Me" if we have such divisions - and even our Lord's Supper is done poorly?

Paul's point is NOT that the Lord's Supper is heresy, that is you reading your preconceived opinions into the Scriptures. Paul is chastising the Corinthians for being poor examples of the Body of Christ by their divisions, their poorly executed Lord's Supper.

When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? 1 Cor 11:20-22

Paul is mystified on their "Lord's Supper". It "can't" be the Lord's Supper, if you act where one is hungry and another drunk. What sort of "Lord's Supper" is that? "Shall I praise you for that"?, Paul writes...

Furthermore, Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10 that we DO partake in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. This, of course, refers to the Lord's Supper, since it is at THAT meal where we come to partake in the Savior's Life, His Body and Blood. Paul takes it for granted that this is orthodox.

It is the application that is faulty, not that the Lord's Supper is heretical.

 

[Mysteryman]

If you ask me, the qeustion itself is a bet ridiculous. Whatever you may have been taught about it being instituted by Jesus, the fact is that communion as we know it today is an entirely man-made custom. How can a man-made custom turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? The whole idea doesn't make any sense.

But what about the last supper, you may ask. The last supper was not a rite or a sacrament. It was a meal. In fact, it was the biggest meal of the year and included a whole roast lamb which had to be completely consumed in one night. If the first Christians had been eating tiny pieces of bread and drinking just a few drops of wine, then what did Paul mean in I Cor. 11 when he accused some of getting drunk during the Lord's supper and keeping others from taking part so they had to leave hungry? It was obviously a meal. Communion as we know it didn't come until much later.

Some knowledge of Judaism would be helpful in settling this question...
The setting and background of the Last Supper is very important, we should remember that Jesus was a Jew and the Apostles were Jews, the Last Supper is done within the context of Judaism.

If communion is a man-made ritual, it must have been so very early, since John 6 coupled with the Synoptic Last Supper supports the idea that we must eat and have been given the flesh of Jesus to eat in the outer appearance of bread. The very earliest writers of second century also support the idea of a communion sharing in the Flesh of Jesus.

Regards

The Corinthians were gentiles , not Jews. Paul never throughout the church epistles, has ever laid anything upon the church that which pertains to the law and fulfilling of the law of the passover meal. If we read the book of Galatians we can see clearly that circumcision was introduced unto the gentiles falsely. Paul went in unto the Galatians and corrected this false influence (heresy).

Paul's words - "Who has bewithced you ? "

Then Paul goes on to explain to them in Galatians 3:2 - "This only would I learn of you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? "

Then Paul goes on to explain to them in Galatians 3:3 - "Are ye so foolish ? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ? "

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Francis : "Furthermore, Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10 that we DO partake in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. This, of course, refers to the Lord's Supper"

-----------------------------------------

Hi Joe

You constantly change what scripture actually says, in order that you might impact your thoughts upon the readers here.

As we both know, I am not going to change and neither are you.

But I am responsible to God to make it clear, that I Corinth. 10 is not talking about the Lord's Supper !

I Corinth. 10 is talking about the Body of Christ, the Revealed Mystery !

I Corinth 10:17 makes this clear, that we are one bread, one body ( of Christ ) : for we are partakers of that one bread ( body of Christ in the Revealed Mystery )

 

[Theofilus]

Theo, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you reject the Gospels accounts of the last supper with Jesus breaking bread and passing the cup and suggest that they had a full Cedar meal?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. How else can we understand these verses?

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover ?"

He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. (Matt. 26:17-19 NIV)

And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me." (Matt. 26:21 NIV)

Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. (Matt. 26:23 NIV)

Dipping herbs (usually parsley today) in salt water is a traditional part of the Passover seder.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matt. 26:26)

When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Matt. 26:30 NIV)

The Hallel (Ps. 113-118) is traditionally sung during the Passover meal. The first two Psalms are sung before the meal and the others after the meal.

And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (Luke 22:15 NIV)

I think that should remove all doubt as to what kind of meal it was.

In Paul's instructions to the Corinthians he says:

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:25)

The Lord's Supper was modeled by Jesus, and we were told "When ever you do this...", not "if you ever do this..."

I realize different denominations have different interpretations of Jesus saying it was His Body and His Blood, but I've never heard anyone suggest that He didn't model what we should be doing.

All references in the Bible to the Lord's supper have to do with meals, not rituals. Jesus wasn't instituting a new ritual, but rather giving an old custom (the Passover meal) a new and deeper meaning. The symbolism in the Passover meal and the meaning it can have for Christians is awsome. By replacing this meal with the ritual of communion, we have lost a great deal.

Your comment that this discussion is "ridiculous" is a bit harsh. We do what we do, as He said, in remembrance of Him. :yes [/b]

Actually, I said that the question was ridiculous, not the discussion. It's a subtle, but important difference. It is obvious that ordinary bread and wine aren't the literal body and blood of Christ. Not even unleavened bread and kosher wine are literal flesh and blood. Something needs to happen to change them into the body and blood of Christ. The question we are discussing is this: Does something that happens during communion or something that is done in the rituals surrounding it cause such a change? Once we realize that all the customs and rituals surrounding communion as we know it today are entirely man-made, we can rephrase that quesion this way: Can we, without any biblical authority to do so, create customs, traditions and rituals which will have the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? Judge for yourself how much sense that question makes.

All that being said, I do want to make one thing clear. There are many man-made rituals, customs and traditions in all denominations which have no biblical authority behind them. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad. It just means that they are not biblical. Presumably, all these traditions started for some logical reason (although for some, that reason was syncretism with pagan religions, and we should avoid those). If those traditions and rituals still serve some useful purpose today, by all means follow those traditions and participate in those rituals. If communion helps you to remember what Christ has done for you, then by all means, take communion every chance you get. It is not the traditions themselves that I find ridiculous or to which I object. But when people start attributing divine powers to these traditions, as the case is with communion in some churches, or makeing them a requirement for salvation, as some do with infant baptism, then that is definitely wrong.

 

[francisdesales]

Some knowledge of Judaism would be helpful in settling this question...
The setting and background of the Last Supper is very important, we should remember that Jesus was a Jew and the Apostles were Jews, the Last Supper is done within the context of Judaism.

If communion is a man-made ritual, it must have been so very early, since John 6 coupled with the Synoptic Last Supper supports the idea that we must eat and have been given the flesh of Jesus to eat in the outer appearance of bread. The very earliest writers of second century also support the idea of a communion sharing in the Flesh of Jesus.

The Corinthians were gentiles , not Jews. Paul never throughout the church epistles, has ever laid anything upon the church that which pertains to the law and fulfilling of the law of the passover meal.

You are missing my entire point so that you can be argumentative again, your mode of operation... The first teachers of the faith were Jewish and they taught within a Jewish paradigm. Their understanding of the Passover was taught and transfered to Gentile Christians, who STILL hold the same ideas on the background of the Passover and what Jesus was doing, being called the "Lamb of God" and "eat my body", knowing full well what Jews do with lambs on Passover...

Thus, to understand Christianity, one must understand the background from which it came. Now, if you believe that the Church didn't understand that, maybe you could explain why the Church KEPT the Old Testament as part of their Scriptures, against men such as Marcion? If Judaism had little to do with Christianity, why did they keep the OT?

 

[Theofilus]

Some knowledge of Judaism would be helpful in settling this question...
The setting and background of the Last Supper is very important, we should remember that Jesus was a Jew and the Apostles were Jews, the Last Supper is done within the context of Judaism.

If communion is a man-made ritual, it must have been so very early, since John 6 coupled with the Synoptic Last Supper supports the idea that we must eat and have been given the flesh of Jesus to eat in the outer appearance of bread. The very earliest writers of second century also support the idea of a communion sharing in the Flesh of Jesus.

Regards

Please note that I said "communion as we know it today". The apostles and Jesus knew nothing of a ritual in which people ate tiny pieces of bread or crackers and drank just a few drops of wine or grape juice. What they talked about was the bread and wine consumed in the course of a Passover meal representing the body and blood of Christ.

Symbolism - any symbolism - is closely tied to context. Bread and wine on their own don't reperesent anything more than just bread and wine. It is only within a specific context that they symbolize the body and blood of Christ. Originally, that context was the Passover meal. When the bread and wine were taken out of the context that gave them their symbolism, the symbolism was lost. To get it back, people made up rituals that supposedly changed regular bread and wine into flesh and blood. But, as most Protestants realize, no man-made ritual can do that. So, we're left with symbols with no context to give them their symbolism. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood fo Christ simply because the church says so. The easiest way to get the symbolism back it to but things back into their original context, i.e. Passover.

 

[francisdesales]

You constantly change what scripture actually says, in order that you might impact your thoughts upon the readers here.

You "constantly" overstate your case...

I changed none of the Scriptures; you've whittled them down, as we shall see below...

But I am responsible to God to make it clear, that I Corinth. 10 is not talking about the Lord's Supper !

You are wrong. I'm responsible to God to let you know. Yet again.

I Corinth. 10 is talking about the Body of Christ, the Revealed Mystery !

Yes and the Lord's Supper establishes the New Covenant that unites us with the Christ... Thus, Paul is speaking about the Last Supper by WHICH we renew the Covenant, "for as often as we remember...", and we are commanded to "do this in rememberance of me". Do what? Renew the Covenant, take on the same inner convictions as Jesus in His self-sacrificing Act, come into a true physical union with other by partaking in His flesh and blood. Yes, a physical union, since the contents of that cup and the bread in His hands were His blood and His body, that's what He said.

Thus, your "take" is a partial truth that does NOT rule out that Paul is speaking of the Lord's Supper WHERE we join in mystical communion with Jesus and each other...

I Corinth 10:17 makes this clear, that we are one bread, one body ( of Christ ) : for we are partakers of that one bread ( body of Christ in the Revealed Mystery )

We partake in the one Loaf by eating the Bread that is His Body.
That clearly is the understanding of the Passover Feast and the eating of the Lamb. We eat the flesh of the Lamb so that we have communion with God and each other. Thus, we are indeed part of the Body of Christ, a revealed mystery.

 

[Theofilus]

The Corinthians were gentiles , not Jews. Paul never throughout the church epistles, has ever laid anything upon the church that which pertains to the law and fulfilling of the law of the passover meal.

You're right. The Corinthians were Gentiles, and here's something Paul told them:

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Cor. 5:7-8 KJV)

Everything Paul says in these two verses is a direct reference to the biblical feast of Passover and the days of Unleavened Bread, and he tells the Gentile Corinthians to "keep the feast". But we should not keep this feast only as the Jews did, in remembrance of the exodus (although remembering God's miraculous deliverance isn't a bad thing), but whith the new and deeper meaning given to it (and the other biblical feasts) by Jesus.

 

[francisdesales]

Please note that I said "communion as we know it today". The apostles and Jesus knew nothing of a ritual in which people ate tiny pieces of bread or crackers and drank just a few drops of wine or grape juice. What they talked about was the bread and wine consumed in the course of a Passover meal representing the body and blood of Christ.

The intent is the exact same. The symbolic purpose is to call to mind an event or action. If the symbol fulfills that purpose, the communion "as we know it" is the same thing as Christ did. Symbols can change, depending upon what they intend on representing to the people who see they symbols. No, we don't use the exact same piece of bread or the same vintage of wine, nor do we celebrate on 14 Nisan every year the Passover. Our celebration of the Lord's Supper, done every day, serves the same purpose as Christ intended.

Symbolism - any symbolism - is closely tied to context. Bread and wine on their own don't reperesent anything more than just bread and wine.

Bread and wine are symbolic representations of the life that God gives to us. Bread is the common staple of the majority of people throughout the world. In some form or another, most of us eat bread. It is sustenance, and using it as a symbol calls to mind that God sustains us. In context, when Jesus says "THIS IS MY BODY", using the bread calls to mind that Christ's Body sustains us.

It is only within a specific context that they symbolize the body and blood of Christ. Originally, that context was the Passover meal.

It is, which is why one needs to know about the Jewish background of the Passover meal.

When the bread and wine were taken out of the context that gave them their symbolism, the symbolism was lost. To get it back, people made up rituals that supposedly changed regular bread and wine into flesh and blood.

The Synoptics clearly place in the mouth of Jesus "THIS IS MY BODY", and holding the chalice full of wine "THIS IS MY BLOOD". If this is a man-made ritual, blame it on Matthew, Luke, and Mark. And John 6 didn't help matters much, either...

Jesus says "do this in rememberance of me". So we, with Paul, continue to do this. We renew the Covenant with Christ and are sustained by Him, joining in communion with Him, just as the sacrificial lamb of the Passover brought the people in union with God and He sustained them through that lamb's flesh. So, too, we are sustained, spiritually, by the flesh of the Lamb of God.

But, as most Protestants realize, no man-made ritual can do that. So, we're left with symbols with no context to give them their symbolism.

Of course there is a context, we don't eat bread and wine outside of context, say, while watching TV or sitting on the corner waiting for the bus. It is done within the context of the Eucharist, the Mass. Next time you go to a Catholic Mass, pay attention to the words... That is the context within which we "do this in remembrance of me". The Mass is done within the Passover context!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Everything Paul says in these two verses is a direct reference to the biblical feast of Passover and the days of Unleavened Bread, and he tells the Gentile Corinthians to "keep the feast". But we should not keep this feast only as the Jews did, in remembrance of the exodus (although remembering God's miraculous deliverance isn't a bad thing), but whith the new and deeper meaning given to it (and the other biblical feasts) by Jesus.

Agree. That is why it is important to know the background of Judaism to better understand Christian Eucharist.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Francis : "Yes and the Lord's Supper establishes the New Covenant that unites us with the Christ... Thus, Paul is speaking about the Last Supper by WHICH we renew the Covenant, "for as often as we remember...", and we are commanded to "do this in rememberance of me".
------------------------------------

Hi Joe

This is totally untrue, and I point this out because of the truth. The Lord's supper was a fulfilling of the passover meal, which was a part of the law. Nowhere in chapter 10 of first Corinthians does Paul mention the Lord's supper. This is pure speculation and an assumption on your part. Mostly because of the back ground of your history.

The church was in no way commanded to do this in remembrance of him ! In fact, I Corinth. 11:20 could not be any more clear -- "When you come together into one place, this is not to eat (do) the Lord's supper"

 

[Mysteryman]

Everything Paul says in these two verses is a direct reference to the biblical feast of Passover and the days of Unleavened Bread, and he tells the Gentile Corinthians to "keep the feast". But we should not keep this feast only as the Jews did, in remembrance of the exodus (although remembering God's miraculous deliverance isn't a bad thing), but whith the new and deeper meaning given to it (and the other biblical feasts) by Jesus.

Agree. That is why it is important to know the background of Judaism to better understand Christian Eucharist.

Hi Joe:

Paul told us that everything written aforetime is for our learning, not our doing ! So yes, we should learn from the OT, but we should not do as Israel was commanded of God under the law. The gentiles were not to "do" as the Jews did. The book of Galatians could not make this any more clear !

Even this so called communion service, which in itself is not biblically accurate (man made doctorine), has caused division within christendom. Not only has it cause division, it also has lead a portion of the church in the wrong direction. Instead of reading the scriptures with a spiritual eye and understanding . The church now looks with their physical eyes which is a part of the flesh.

I Corinth 12:13 has made it clear unto the church, that we are made to drink into one Spirit. < There is no literal drinking involved here whatsoever ! This is totally a spiritual statement that should be taken as such.

If you read anything in chapter 12 and consider anything said within this chapter as literal, then you will have your literal foot talking to your literal hand. And your literal ear talking to your literal eye.

Verse 14 - "For the body is not one member, but many"

Verse 27 - "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in paticular" < The one bread, is the one body, and that one bread/body, is the body of Christ. We partake, but we do not take part. We do not take and eat. We give to those who have needs. Not take in, but give out !

 

[francisdesales]

"Yes and the Lord's Supper establishes the New Covenant that unites us with the Christ... Thus, Paul is speaking about the Last Supper by WHICH we renew the Covenant, "for as often as we remember...", and we are commanded to "do this in rememberance of me".

------------------------------------

Hi Joe

This is totally untrue, and I point this out because of the truth. The Lord's supper was a fulfilling of the passover meal, which was a part of the law. Nowhere in chapter 10 of first Corinthians does Paul mention the Lord's supper.

Again, you need to be aware that the Scriptures mentions concepts without mentioning formal names. Like Trinity or Bible or Incarnation. They are all there, as well as the Last Supper mentioned in 1 Cor 10. The cup and bread mean nothing without the Last Supper context. We come into communion with Christ AT Communion when we participate in memory of the Last Supper and what Christ did at that meal, enact another Covenant, a new one prophesized long ago. He mentions it by speaking of the participation of the cup and the bread, which is a participation in the Body of Christ shared during communion at the Last Supper. We remember

Like I said, one needs to be aware of our Jewish heritage to understand the NT Scriptures.

This is pure speculation and an assumption on your part. Mostly because of the back ground of your history.

Back at you...

The church was in no way commanded to do this in remembrance of him ! In fact, I Corinth. 11:20 could not be any more clear -- "When you come together into one place, this is not to eat (do) the Lord's supper"

Jesus commanded it and Paul is upset in how they are remembering. A close inspection of the context will reveal this, as well as looking at 1 Cor 10, which can only be referring to the Lord's Supper. Your refusal to follow the commands of Christ is not surprising.

 

[francisdesales]

Paul told us that everything written aforetime is for our learning, not our doing !

You accuse me of "adding to Scriptures", but what did you just do to Romans 15???

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4

Notice how you DRASTICALLY change the sense of the passage??? What is written is to provide hope! Not your notion that the Bible is just a study book that we don't have to heed...

Paul never says that "everything written is for our learning, not our doing".

We are to continue to obey the Commandments and honor God.

PAUL HIMSELF was WRITING, so is HE commanding that he is just presenting wonderful theoretical knowledge that no one is actually suppposed to do???

This is why conversation with you is so difficult. You just make up stuff as you go because you don't want to admit you are wrong. When backed into a corner, you just stop posting and run away elsewhere to stir up trouble. You have no problems with inventing and adding to Scriptures. :bigfrown

No doubt, you'll again tell me that the Scriptures we have forgot to add that passage that you came up with... This sort of madness must be brought up for others to see, not that I have any notion that any of this will actually take form in your mind as a possible idea of consideration...

As you said, you are not going to change. Thus, my point is just to refute your silly position and allow others to see through your charade...

 

[LaCrum]

Symbolism - any symbolism - is closely tied to context. Bread and wine on their own don't reperesent anything more than just bread and wine. It is only within a specific context that they symbolize the body and blood of Christ. Originally, that context was the Passover meal. When the bread and wine were taken out of the context that gave them their symbolism, the symbolism was lost. To get it back, people made up rituals that supposedly changed regular bread and wine into flesh and blood. But, as most Protestants realize, no man-made ritual can do that. So, we're left with symbols with no context to give them their symbolism. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood fo Christ simply because the church says so. The easiest way to get the symbolism back it to but things back into their original context, i.e. Passover.

Actually the part of the meal where the bread was broken and shared and the wine was shared is a covenant meal, which is why Jesus refers to it as such. In Israel society, when a covenant was made, bread and wine were shared between the two parties. This is what we see happening here. So in fact, when Jesus tells them to eat bread and drink wine and do it in rememberance of him, it's because they are supposed to honor and remember the new covenant Jesus was making with them. And that's what we're supposed to do today as well when we partake in the covenant meal, do it in remembrance of Jesus's sacrifice and covenant with us.

The Passover was part of the Old Covenant, we live under a new one now, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

Symbolism - any symbolism - is closely tied to context. Bread and wine on their own don't reperesent anything more than just bread and wine. It is only within a specific context that they symbolize the body and blood of Christ. Originally, that context was the Passover meal. When the bread and wine were taken out of the context that gave them their symbolism, the symbolism was lost. To get it back, people made up rituals that supposedly changed regular bread and wine into flesh and blood. But, as most Protestants realize, no man-made ritual can do that. So, we're left with symbols with no context to give them their symbolism. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood fo Christ simply because the church says so. The easiest way to get the symbolism back it to but things back into their original context, i.e. Passover.

Actually the part of the meal where the bread was broken and shared and the wine was shared is a covenant meal, which is why Jesus refers to it as such. In Israel society, when a covenant was made, bread and wine were shared between the two parties. This is what we see happening here. So in fact, when Jesus tells them to eat bread and drink wine and do it in rememberance of him, it's because they are supposed to honor and remember the new covenant Jesus was making with them. And that's what we're supposed to do today as well when we partake in the covenant meal, do it in remembrance of Jesus's sacrifice and covenant with us.

The Passover was part of the Old Covenant, we live under a new one now, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Well done... Communion is done within the context of the Passover. Jewish particulars will instruct us what "Passover" and "Covenant" means...

Regards