Bible Study Lords Supper

[turnorburn]

My word with 1,000 books you must be quite the marksman, and me with two,
you have me at a disadvantage, my library contains a KJV bible and a Strong's
Concordance. I could never compete with that, Oh! I do have 37 years of
bible study, that might help. :

I am sorry turnorburn, Vic is not spot on. I have been studying this topic for years and have not come across one author or theologian who agrees with him. Not once have I seen his view suggested as a possible explanation for the passage. Bearing in mind that I have over a 1,000 books in my library, we can't all be wrong.

 

[Vic C.]

OK, I'll supply one for now, you supply your 40. 8-)

From Adam Clarke:

The apostle reprehends the Corinthians for several irregularities in their manner of conducting public worship; the men praying or prophesying with their heads covered, and the women with their heads uncovered, contrary to custom, propriety, and decency, 1-6. Reasons why they should act differently, 7-16. They are also reproved for their divisions and heresies, 17-19. And for the irregular manner in which they celebrated the Lord's Supper, 20-22. The proper manner of celebrating this holy rite laid down by the apostle, 23- 26. Directions for a profitable receiving of the Lord's Supper, and avoiding the dangerous consequences of communicating unworthily, 27-34.

Verse 17. [Now in this-I praise you not] In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see ver. 2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their passover.

That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord's Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal.

The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, mequei, was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord's institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.

Verse 20. [This is not to eat the Lord's Supper.] They did not come together to eat the Lord's Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.

Verse 22. [Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?] They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

[Despise ye the church of God] Ye render the sacred assembly and the place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart for Divine worship.

Verse 27. [Whosoever shall eat-and drink-unworthily] To put a final end to controversies and perplexities relative to these words and the context, let the reader observe, that to eat and drink the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper unworthily, is to eat and drink as the Corinthians did, who ate it not in reference to Jesus Christ's sacrificial death; but rather in such a way as the Israelites did the passover, which they celebrated in remembrance of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage.

Likewise, these mongrel Christians at Corinth used it as a kind of historical commemoration of the death of Christ; and did not, in the whole institution, discern the Lord's body and blood as a sacrificial offering for sin: and besides, in their celebration of it they acted in a way utterly unbecoming the gravity of a sacred ordinance.

Verse 28. [Let a man examine himself] Let him try whether he has proper faith in the Lord Jesus; and whether he discerns the Lord's body; and whether he duly considers that the bread and wine point out the crucified body and spilt blood of Christ.

Verse 30. [For this cause] That they partook of this sacred ordinance without discerning the Lord's body; many are weak and sickly: it is hard to say whether these words refer to the consequences of their own intemperance or to some extraordinary disorders inflicted immediately by God himself. That there were disorders of the most reprehensible kind among these people at this sacred supper, the preceding verses sufficiently point out;

Verse 33. [When ye come together to eat] The Lord's Supper, tarry one for another-do not eat and drink in parties as ye have done heretofore; and do not connect it with any other meal.

Verse 34. [And if any man hunger] Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home- take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1cor11.htm

Marksman, if you feel so strongly about your position, come on into the RC forum and join the discussion on the Eucharist. viewtopic.php?f=53&t=30065&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

[marksman]

All very nice but quite wrong as historical records clearly show that the so called lord's supper of a cracker and a shot glass of wine was not instituted until Constantine legalised christianity in the third century. The agape communal meal which Corinthians refers to was replaced by him so that the new caste of clergy that he initiated coud have control over the rest. the church that he set up and controlled was based on Roman civil society.

This clergy caste invented the transubstantiation theory to make it mystical and the province of the specially annointed ones in its administration. The rank and file weren't deemd spiritual enough to be involved in the rite of transubstantiation. Its all there in my website http://churchalive66.googlepages.com and I have quoted over 40 other authors on the subject.

I asked my lecturer at University who was an Anglican priest "was the eucharist practiced by the New Testament Church?" His answer was no, they joined together in an agape communal meal and it wasn't until Constantine that it was replaced with the so called Eucharist.

 

[BFSmith764]

How do you view the Lords Supper?

1. Memorial
2. Celebration

I view the Lords Supper primarily as a Celebration and as a rededication of the Covenant (Jer 31:31) that was fullfilled by Christ when he said, "This is the blood of the Covenant"

I view the cross, as symbolic of the Alter. We join at the table to celebrate the new covenant in Christ's blood while wecommune with the body of Christ where Christ himself is the host.

Any questions?

God Bless.

The Lord's Supper is all that you mentioned and far more, far more than what's meets the eye. The consuming of the bread and wine is symbolic of reality of what is taking place in us.....we have and are becoming unified with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By this I mean that we collectively and individually will and have become one being with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is why when Paul, before his conversion when he was persecuting the Church, Jesus said, "Paul why are you persecuting me?" Since God is living in His people whatsoever is done to them as a Church or individually, it is being done to God/Jesus as well.

 

[marksman]

The consuming of the bread and wine is symbolic of reality of what is taking place in us.....we have and are becoming unified with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By this I mean that we collectively and individually will and have become one being with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is why when Paul, before his conversion when he was persecuting the Church, Jesus said, "Paul why are you persecuting me?" Since God is living in His people whatsoever is done to them as a Church or individually, it is being done to God/Jesus as well.

This of course is just one of a thousand interpretations to promote the mystical feel good aspect of a ritual that the New Testament church did not observe. Primarily thought of and promoted by an apostate catholic church in the 4th century that wanted to make the priest a special person with spiritual powers that the ordinary believer didn't have as a way of making them subservient to the power of the priest. That is why they invented the hokus pokus known as transubstantiation.

Even today there are catholics that believe that you never, ever disobey the priest because he is God's representative on earth. How do I know this? Simple.They told me when I worked in the catholic education system.

The catholic religious system still operates under the law. The New Testament is a system of grace. That is why rituals and rites are not necessary as Jesus came to do away with all that. No where in the New Testament did anyone say go through a ritual of a religious snack every day, week, month or year.

The protestant so called Lord's supper is nothing more than a sanitised version of the catholic mass. The consuming of bread and wine in the NT church was a simple case of eating a piece of bread with your meal the same as we might eat a bread roll and the drinking of wine with our meal the same as we do. Eating bread was standard practice as the meal did not begin until the host gave each guest a piece. They drank wine because that was the standard drink of those days.

 

[BFSmith764]

The consuming of the bread and wine is symbolic of reality of what is taking place in us.....we have and are becoming unified with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By this I mean that we collectively and individually will and have become one being with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is why when Paul, before his conversion when he was persecuting the Church, Jesus said, "Paul why are you persecuting me?" Since God is living in His people whatsoever is done to them as a Church or individually, it is being done to God/Jesus as well.

This of course is just one of a thousand interpretations to promote the mystical feel good aspect of a ritual that the New Testament church did not observe. Primarily thought of and promoted by an apostate catholic church in the 4th century that wanted to make the priest a special person with spiritual powers that the ordinary believer didn't have as a way of making them subservient to the power of the priest. That is why they invented the hokus pokus known as transubstantiation.

Even today there are catholics that believe that you never, ever disobey the priest because he is God's representative on earth. How do I know this? Simple.They told me when I worked in the catholic education system.

The catholic religious system still operates under the law. The New Testament is a system of grace. That is why rituals and rites are not necessary as Jesus came to do away with all that. No where in the New Testament did anyone say go through a ritual of a religious snack every day, week, month or year.

The protestant so called Lord's supper is nothing more than a sanitised version of the catholic mass. The consuming of bread and wine in the NT church was a simple case of eating a piece of bread with your meal the same as we might eat a bread roll and the drinking of wine with our meal the same as we do. Eating bread was standard practice as the meal did not begin until the host gave each guest a piece. They drank wine because that was the standard drink of those days.

I am not a catholic, nor do I believe and follow their teachings....I strive to study the scriptures with an open mind to God's words and let His Holy Spirit guide me into truth, wherever it takes me…even if it means that what He has shown me is the prevailing view.

If one seeks to criticize what I say it must be done in the light of what the scriptures say and not on ones personal opinion or what they are taught in the denomination which they attend.

 

[marksman]

If one seeks to criticize what I say it must be done in the light of what the scriptures say and not on ones personal opinion or what they are taught in the denomination which they attend.

I am not sure of the inference of this statement so I will have a go at interpreting it.

In my website in which I have addressed this issue, I have totally ignored personal opinion or denominational tradition as I have made it quite clear that tradition is quite foreign to the truth of scripture. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself at

http://churchalive66.googlepages.com

In addition to the scriptures the website contains the writings of 40 authors who have said the same thing.

Once you have read it, you will realise that your views are based on tradition, not mine and your views are unsubstantiated interpretations of scripture.

 

[BFSmith764]

If one seeks to criticize what I say it must be done in the light of what the scriptures say and not on ones personal opinion or what they are taught in the denomination which they attend.

I am not sure of the inference of this statement so I will have a go at interpreting it.

In my website in which I have addressed this issue, I have totally ignored personal opinion or denominational tradition as I have made it quite clear that tradition is quite foreign to the truth of scripture. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself at

http://churchalive66.googlepages.com

In addition to the scriptures the website contains the writings of 40 authors who have said the same thing.

Once you have read it, you will realise that your views are based on tradition, not mine and your views are unsubstantiated interpretations of scripture.

Yes I'm fully aware and I'm also sure that many Christians also know that the Lord's Supper was a meal, but Jesus never said it had to be a meal as when the disciples took of it. What's important is as often as we do, we are proclaiming His death till He comes.

In fact, the early Church had a problem where some of the people were getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, while others were not, because after those who were drunk did not leave anything left for the poorer brethren. So because of that, they were told that before they come to the Lord's Supper, they should eat at home first. By doing that, it would prevent people from eating or drinking too much at the Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 (AMP)
20 So when you gather for your meetings, it is not the supper instituted by the Lord that you eat,
21 For in eating each one [hurries] to get his own supper first [not waiting for the poor], and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.
22 What! Do you have no houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and mean to show contempt for it, while you humiliate those who are poor (have no homes and have brought no food)? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, [most certainly] I will not!

The Passover meal should not be reduced to simply satisfying physical hunger; but has a far more meaning than simply eating a meal, so they were expected to not come to the Passover hungry. So I see no problem in the way the Passover ceremony is done, at least in the Church that I attend. I can't speak about how it's done in say the Catholic Church or those you might know of.

 

[Scott1]

Primarily thought of and promoted by an apostate catholic church in the 4th century

Just FYI.... you're a few hundred years off in your timeline:

Ignatius of Antioch said "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 the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

I can give you a lot more quotes that came long before the 4th century if you'd like to learn about the history of your faith a bit more.

Even today there are catholics that believe that you never, ever disobey the priest because he is God's representative on earth.

There are some Catholics who think Mary is equal to Christ.... and they are WRONG TOO.... a priest is just a man.... no more special than you or I. Sheesh... I hate to think what else you were "tought" . :crazyeyes:

Your friend in Christ,
Scott

 

[marksman]

The Passover meal should not be reduced to simply satisfying physical hunger; but has a far more meaning than simply eating a meal, so they were expected to not come to the Passover hungry. So I see no problem in the way the Passover ceremony is done, at least in the Church that I attend. I can't speak about how it's done in say the Catholic Church or those you might know of.

The Corinthian church didn't celebrate the Passover meal as they were not Jews. The church I attend does not celebrate the passover meal as we are gentiles.

but Jesus never said it had to be a meal as when the disciples took of it.

Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin so does that mean to be a homosexual is OK? Using you logic it is. Whether Jesus said it had to be a meal or not is irrelevant as the reference to the "breaking of bread" in the greek is always talking about a meal or a table spread with food. Therefore it is obvious that the NT church understood what Jesus meant and it wasn't a religious snack as there is no evidence the NT church ever carried out that ritual.

I hate to think what else you were "tought" .

It was the catholics I worked with that were taught this, not me. And the spelling is "taught".

What's important is as often as we do,

Do what?

By doing that, it would prevent people from eating or drinking too much at the Lord's Supper.

The quantity of eating and drinking was never in question as we have no idea how much food was brought to the meal. The whole issue of the situation was that they did not wait for those who could not contribute so they went hungry. Doing that humiliated them.

I can give you a lot more quotes that came long before the 4th century if you'd like to learn about the history of your faith a bit more.

Yes there were a lot of quotes, but it did not become a religious ordinance institutionalised and controlled by the apostate roman church and made official policy throught the christian world until later.

 

[Scott1]

It was the catholics I worked with that were taught this, not me. And the spelling is "taught".

Ok..... I hope you now understand they were incorrect.... and thanks for the spelling lesson..... you tought me well.

Yes there were a lot of quotes, but it did not become a religious ordinance institutionalised and controlled by the apostate roman church and made official policy throught the christian world until later.

Nope....
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"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 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." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

... it was the foundation, source and summit of the Christian faith for hundreds of years before you can prove it was anything different.

 

[BFSmith764]

Primarily thought of and promoted by an apostate catholic church in the 4th century

Just FYI.... you're a few hundred years off in your timeline:

Ignatius of Antioch said "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 the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

I can give you a lot more quotes that came long before the 4th century if you'd like to learn about the history of your faith a bit more.

Even today there are catholics that believe that you never, ever disobey the priest because he is God's representative on earth.

There are some Catholics who think Mary is equal to Christ.... and they are WRONG TOO.... a priest is just a man.... no more special than you or I. Sheesh... I hate to think what else you were "tought" . :crazyeyes:

Your friend in Christ,
Scott

What you believe is what you believe and that is fine with me.

 

[Scott1]

What you believe is what you believe and that is fine with me.

I appreciate your permission.... but that kinda makes for a poor example of a "Christian Discussion" forum board.... not to mention that "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth.".... the truth is important to you, is it not? Should you not want to teach others what you believe is the truth? If every Christian had this attitude that truth did not matter, I doubt the faith would have made it out of the 1st century.

 

[marksman]

it was the foundation, source and summit of the Christian faith for hundreds of years before you can prove it was anything different.

But it wasn't part of the NT church as recorded in scripture. Anything that I read that is contrary to God's word has little value to me.

 

[stovebolts]

Wow :o

I didn't even know all these posts were here from where I left off... :

I have not gotten back to this topic because I have not put the effort forth to portray what the church in Corinth was experiencing. There is much from Paul’s writings to indicate the divisions and some core problems within the church at Corinth which resulted in them "eating and drinking damnation unto themselves".

Would anyone care to systematically outline the issues with Corinth? If not, then I'll try to put it together. Perhaps a good starting point would be on baptism, and how that view affected them as a community when they gathered at the Lord's Table.

Paul always starts his letters in Love and Compassion to his brothers and sisters in Christ, even when they were in gross error. I hope to continue this study under Paul’s guidance.

1 Corinthians 1:2-3 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

*******************************************************************

Here is their first cause of divisions.

1 Corinthians 1:10-12 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Corinth was a very affluent community under Roman rule. Who you were, or rather, where you ranked within the social structure of their society was very prevalent. This type of thinking went directly against the teaching of Christ as witnessed when Jesus himself wrapped a towel around his waist and began to wash his disciple’s feet. (John 13) and against the teaching we have already learned from Luke's account in Chapter 14:1-24.

Meal Six
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30559&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

When the church came together to participate in the Lord's Supper, one reason they ate and drank in an unworthy manner was because of their secular divisions under religious guise.

Comments are appreciated.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

How do you view the Lords Supper?

1. Memorial
2. Celebration.....

In my opinion, the Bible does teach that, but it teaches more. I take Jesus at His Word when He says "this IS my body". When one combines this with John 6 ("unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you"), and then adds in the fact that Jesus is "the lamb of God", and remember that the passover lamb had to be eaten whole - all this being in the context of the passover celebration, I believe that the Lords Supper is therefore a re-presentation of Calvary - the sacrafice of the Lamb which we must eat.

Biblically, I believe that at the Lord's Supper, I receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, not symbollically, but in reality. I have quoted scripture. I could quote more, little things, like how Bethlehem means "house of bread", and that Jesus was born in a "manger" which is literally "a place to feed in". I love how, on the road to Emmaus, the two disciples talked to Jesus at length, but did not recognize Him until the "breaking of he bread". I take ALL these things into account as I hold fast to the ancient belief of the early Christians. Excuse me if I use just one word not found in the Bible. We call God "Trinity", even though that word is not in the Bible, because it best expresses His triune nature. And the word that best expresses my belief in what I receive at the Lords Supper is "Transubstantiation".

 

[Pogo]

Stove -

Over in the 'Christianty and Alcohol' thread, you said...

Please don't get me wrong, I do see how you are preserving the literal view of the Lord's Supper, but I'm sure that you'd agree that the greater purpose of the Supper is communion with Christ as part of His body, which is the church.

If you want to move this conversation to the Lord's Supper thread, I think we could both learn from each other.

And, I'm in agreement with you up to a point.

However, instead of inserting a BUT into that sentence, I would rather see an AND.

I will freely admit that I don't exactly know where, ultimately, the boundary lines will be drawn on the interpretations of each passage of scripture.

Actually, I hope that the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretations of the scriptures are correct. But, I personally, can't swallow it. However, if they are right, and there is NO hell, then YAHOO, I'm home free anyway.

Or, if ANY less restrictive interpretation turns out to be accurate, I'm still in better shape than I would be if a stricter interpretation prevails, right?

But, anyway, I come here to learn.

If my views are seen as flawed, please shine me a light.

Oh yeah! For the record, the water is MUCH deeper in this thread than some of the others, so I may not be able to make a sound here, but I'll be swiming around in here nonetheless.

In Christ,

Pogo

BTW - I kept editing and editing, an editing an re-editing my last couple of posts at the alcohol thread, so double check if you and Vic were thinking that I didn't properly respond to all the points made over there.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Pogo,

I read you post in the traditions thread, and I must say that I am thankful that you hold such a graceful view toward others, yet maintain your integrity when it comes to what you believe.

As far as the ‘But’, yes, an “And†would have better suited the conversation. Thank you for the suggestion.

I started this study out to be a well rounded view of all the things that are going on from preparation to participation in the Lord’s Supper hoping that the details would be worked out along the way. However, I am at a crossroad and perhaps you could assist.

I would like to address your concerns about one cup vs. many cups (grape juice vs. wine) and I would also like to address the issue of one loaf vs. many, just as I would like to address John 6. But to do so, something tells me that we should finish laying out the picture, or at least making sure that the picture has been portrayed accurately.

I believe this thread has shown what the Alter, and Table looks like when we come before them, and I believe that this thread has shown that Jesus is host of His table which we, as the body of Christ participate in. What I have been slack on doing, is showing how His table has been abused, which to do so biblically, I need to do a good redaction of Paul’s letters to Corinth as it pertains to the Lord’s Supper, which takes time that I have not put forth.

Would you be willing to do an outline on 1 Corinthians 10? I’m thinking that if there’s an emphasis on the Greek koinonos which is translated ‘fellowship’ in verse 20, we should be able to show how the same word koinonos is later translated as ‘communion’ in verse 16

Also, I believe that we can reflect on verses around 1-11 (others as well in chapter 10) with some of the earlier posts in this thread as it pertained to the first and second temple worship. Let me know if your up to it!

I’ll be back Monday. Have a great weekend.

 

[Pogo]

StoveBolts –

As I’ve already stated, the water in this thread is already way over my head, I have to tread water just to navigate around in here.

By all means, please pursue the original course that you intended these lessons to follow. My views may very well deviate, and distract, from the course which you are charting.

That being said, I’m still willing to take a stab at offering the outlines you desire.

Patience please, though.

Unfortunately, I will be out of town for most of this coming week.

Let me begin by saying that, not having had any training in Greek, I do have access to a Thayer’s Lexicon, and a Strong’s as well. So…maybe my views won’t be a total embarrassment to myself.

Having done a little research on fellowship in the past, I found that fellowship, communion, and social intercourse, all mean the same thing.

By the way, outside of 1 Corinthians, there are other Greek words, which are also translated as “fellowship.â€Â

Additionally, you may disagree with me, but, regarding the NT scriptures, I see fellowshipping, when mentioned, to mean partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

Many congregations have built Fellowship Halls, where all manner of “fellowshipping†activities are encouraged. Card tables, billiard tables, ping-pong tables, video games, etc., also funding and participating in indoor and outdoor team sports is viewed as “fellowshippingâ€Â. I don’t support using the churches treasury in such a manner.

Anyway, see y’all later in the week as time permits.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Pogo]

StoveBolts -

As a student of the scriptures, I have no idea how a real Biblical scholar will view this outline of 1 Corinthians 10, below.

But, as I've been pressed for time, it's not a deep evaluation.

1 Corinthians 10:1-6

Just as Christians today are God’s chosen, being led by Christ, the Jews of the OT were God’s chosen, being led by Moses.

Paul is trying to show the church in Corinth, that they are just as guilty of idolatry, by their corruption of the communion service, as the Israelites were when they abandoned God, and began worshiping a golden calf.

1 Corinthians 10:7-11

The punishments, which were given out to those Israelites who fell into idolatry under Moses, will be exactly the same for Christians who fall into idolatry, by taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, under Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:12-14

Everyone should always flee from idolatry.

1 Corinthians 10:15-17

Paul tells wise men to judge what he is saying. This passage of three verses is heavy with symbolism.

Here we are told that when we eat at the tables of idols, it violates the oneness of our fellowshipping or communion with the ONE cup, representing Christ’s blood (the New Testament), and the ONE bread, representing Christ’s body, as the ONE body of Christ (His church).

1 Corinthians 10: 18-24

Christians are not to knowingly eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, thereby making the Lord’s table the table of devils.

1 Corinthians 10: 25-33

Any meat that has been sacrificed to idols, once it is offered for sale in the market place, is acceptable for consuming, as long as one isn’t aware of its history.

But, above all, be concerned that our actions don’t violate our brothers and sisters consciences.


In Christ,

Pogo