Question About Holy Communion

[eddif]

Um - Last time I looked, Acts 15 was in the NEW testament....

So far I get your drift. If I make some dorky comment trying to defend Jews, please feel free to swat me. Not being a Jew after the flesh I may just mess up at times.

eddif

 

[jaybo]

So far I get your drift. If I make some dorky comment trying to defend Jews, please feel free to swat me. Not being a Jew after the flesh I may just mess up at times.

eddif

D-D-W is one of those unfortunate people who, although professing Christianity, still lives under the OT law. It's very, very sad!

 

[Edward]

I understand that. But I have had Catholic friends who after a times of intense prayer or personal struggle have tasted real human blood when they took the eucharist.

That is extremely weird to me.

The way I figure it, if Jesus can turn water into wine, then He could certaily turn wine into blood if it be His will. (not my business!). Mine is only to obey.

Jesus said and said, do this in rememberance of me, do it as often as you eat...So I will do my portion and partake in communion myself with my Lord. and I have total faith that now He can do whatever He wants and I have obeyed so if that is our offering and He asked us to do that then it may just more beneficial than we realize to Him and in the spiritual realm. We'll find out for sure when we get to heaven.

 

[eddif]

But the prohibition against eating meat with blood in it or drinking blood is a commandment in the Old Testament. As I pointed out in post #292, the prohibition has nothing to do with the New Covenant.

There are many references to the Old Testament in the New Testament. What does your snide comment -- Last time I looked, Acts 15 was in the NEW testament.... mean? Are you a first century Gentile joining the Jewish church?

Colossians 2:20-22, "If with Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings."

Thou shall not muzzle an ox treading out corn
Was in OT. Deuteronomy 25:4

The good church teacher is compared to ox in 1 Timothy 5:18

I Corinthians 9:9 says the ox is not as important as people today.

My redneck words.

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand that. But I have had Catholic friends who after a times of intense prayer or personal struggle have tasted real human blood when they took the eucharist.

I've heard many stories like this, living in a Catholic country and my friends are all Catholic.
There's talk about blood oozing out of the host.
I don't give much credence to this stuff.
But, anything is possible in the spiritual realm.

 

[eddif]

I've heard many stories like this, living in a Catholic country and my friends are all Catholic.
There's talk about blood oozing out of the host.
I don't give much credence to this stuff.
But, anything is possible in the spiritual realm.

A pagan with no Christian Bible study will say anything he believes.

A person raised in a denomination, sect, group with no Holy Spirit led Bible study will usually tend to say what he or she has heard.

So which (realm) may speak; truth, fiction or lies.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

A pagan with no Christian Bible study will say anything he believes.

A person raised in a denomination, sect, group with no Holy Spirit led Bible study will usually tend to say what he or she has heard.

So which (realm) may speak; truth, fiction or lies.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

I couldn't agree with you more!
People are thus left to their own imagination and beliefs.
This is really bad for Christianity where Jesus said we are to be as one.
We can maybe disagree with something or other, but we discuss it and at least we
should know that what we're discussing is somehow based on the bible/NT.

 

[jaybo]

Thou shall not muzzle an ox treading out corn
Was in OT. Deuteronomy 25:4

The good church teacher is compared to ox in 1 Timothy 5:18

I Corinthians 9:9 says the ox is not as important as people today.

My redneck words.

eddif

Which prove nothing.

Teachers of God's Word are entitled to compensation. So what?

 

[eddif]

Which prove nothing.

Teachers of God's Word are entitled to compensation. So what?

The muzzle the ox says that same thing in the OT

Post 304 says OT and NT agree. But OT is in symbolism, and NT is in reality of Jesus Christ.

eddif

 

[jaybo]

The muzzle the ox says that same thing in the OT

Post 304 says OT and NT agree. But OT is in symbolism, and NT is in reality of Jesus Christ.

eddif

And your point is? 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop." Paul writes that those who teach God's word and truth should be compensated. His example is symbolism.

 

[eddif]

And your point is? 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop." Paul writes that those who teach God's word and truth should be compensated. His example is symbolism.

Concepts refer to contexts that seem so separated that it seems impossible for an agriculture context, animal husbandry, and NT church to be related.
But
Far separated things seem unrelated to some people, but they are related.

So that hearing they hear not and seeing they see not. Matthew 13 and Mark 4

eddif

 

[jaybo]

Concepts refer to contexts that seem so separated that it seems impossible for an agriculture context, animal husbandry, and NT church to be related.
But
Far separated things seem unrelated to some people, but they are related.

So that hearing they hear not and seeing they see not. Matthew 13 and Mark 4

eddif

Do you think that the NT society was industrial? People of that time fully understood animal management and use, such as muzzling an ox that is reading out the grain. They also understood sowing seed, weeds in the midst of wheat, mustard seeds becoming plants, etc. I'm certain that those images helped them understand the principles of the NT church.

And what doe s this have to do with the OP?

 

[eddif]

Do you think that the NT society was industrial? People of that time fully understood animal management and use, such as muzzling an ox that is reading out the grain. They also understood sowing seed, weeds in the midst of wheat, mustard seeds becoming plants, etc. I'm certain that those images helped them understand the principles of the NT church.

And what doe s this have to do with the OP?

I will not drag this out.
Some have described communion on different levels. Physical or spiritual

Jesus used parables to conceal not reveal.

Some are describing a parable like metaphysical communion (Wine becomes literal blood).

Matthew 13. Mark 4. For why parables.

eddif

 

[D-D-W]

But the prohibition against eating meat with blood in it or drinking blood is a commandment in the Old Testament.

There are many "OT" commands that carry over into the New Covenant. By listing that one there, James and Peter et al brought it into the New.

As I pointed out in post #292, the prohibition has nothing to do with the New Covenant.

That is what you have been taught and you assumed. But I do not agree with that.

There are many references to the Old Testament in the New Testament. What does your snide comment -- Last time I looked, Acts 15 was in the NEW testament.... mean? Are you a first century Gentile joining the Jewish church?

Of course there are many references. Because the Bible is one seamless book. There is no hard break between Malachi and Matthew.

FYI, I am a 21st century Gentile in a Jewish church.

 

[jaybo]

There are many "OT" commands that carry over into the New Covenant. By listing that one there, James and Peter et al brought it into the New.

That is what you have been taught and you assumed. But I do not agree with that.

Of course there are many references. Because the Bible is one seamless book. There is no hard break between Malachi and Matthew.

FYI, I am a 21st century Gentile in a Jewish church.

The New Testament clearly states that there are no longer any prohibitions about what a person can eat or drink. The only principle is not to offend others by what you consume. That is good advice regardless of the historical period.

1 Corinthians 10:28-30, "But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience— 29 I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for?"
If you believe that there is some ironclad rule about what one consumes that is putting one's self and others under law.

 

[eddif]

Of course there are many references. Because the Bible is one seamless book. There is no hard break between Malachi and Matthew.

Luke 16:16 kjv
16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Not exactly bucking your statement.

Hopefully explaining the seamlessness.

1 Corinthians 9:9 kjv
9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The instruction about oxen always had modern times in mind. The law was a schoolmaster. Pay the preacher was hidden in do not muzzle the ox.
I would call it a parable. It does not say parable here. Isaiah 6 talks about hearing they hear not and seeing they see not.

Jesus did the same thing with the multitudes.
So your seamless is more or less correct. Isaiah used symbolism and Jesus used symbolism to hide truth.

The false statement: (parables were the way Jesus taught truth, because the crowds were a simple people that understood his symbolism). The only problem is: Matthew 13 Mark 4 clearly explain hearing they hear not and seeing they see not.

The truth was hidden in the law. Jesus came under the law
So
Jesus used parables to conceal truth.

Jesus only told the disciples what parables were for, and told the disciples the meaning of the parable of the sower.

So as far as the multitudes were concerned the OT transition to NT was seamless .

Matthew chapters 5, 6, 7 are the new teachings of the Kingdom. Spiritual bare truth. No hidden meaning.

Make comments. Tradition is hard to buck.
The disciples did not understand parables. They had to ask.

Today we can use symbolism to reveal. In that aspect I suppose Pentecost was a break point where the truth was explained to everyone.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[gordon777]

Guys all the law is fulfilled in loving another, to love your neighbour as yourself.




Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.



WHO is a wise man and endued with knowledge AMONG YOU ? Show out of a good conversation your works with meekness of wisdom.

But if you have BITTER ENVYING AND STRIFE, in your hearts, lie not against the truth, that "wisdom" descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. ( FOR WHERE ENVYING AND STRIFE IS, THERE IS CONFUSION AND EVERY EVIL WORK.)

The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them THAT MAKE PEACE.



James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

[D-D-W]

The New Testament clearly states that there are no longer any prohibitions about what a person can eat or drink.

That is either a mis-reading or a misunderstanding of the text.

The only principle is not to offend others by what you consume. That is good advice regardless of the historical period.

True

 

[jaybo]

That is either a mis-reading or a misunderstanding of the text.

True

There is no misunderstanding. The New Testament clearly states that there are no longer any prohibitions about what a person can eat or drink.

Mark 7:14-19, "Then he [Jesus] called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Should I accept what you say or what Jesus Christ says???

 

[D-D-W]

There is no misunderstanding. The New Testament clearly states that there are no longer any prohibitions about what a person can eat or drink.

Mark 7:14-19, "Then he [Jesus] called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Should I accept what you say or what Jesus Christ says???

I thought you might quote that.

CONTEXT!!!!

They were talking about eating BREAD with hands not ceremonially washed. This was NOT about eating pork or shellfish or any other such NON-FOOD.

All foods were clean, but not everything we eat is biblically considered food.