Question About Holy Communion

[andy pandy]

It's not about the breaking of the bread, a sip of wine or a Passover meal, it's about the symbolism of the bread and the wine, being the bread representing the literal body of Christ that was beaten beyond recognition and torn for us and the blood that ran down from the top of His head to the bottom of the cross as He paid the price for our sin being made the last perfect sacrifice in fulfilling the sacrificial law of the Temple.

Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Exodus Chapter 12 is God's instruction of the Passover feast that throughout all the generations the Jews are to keep as a memorial of the exodus that set them free in Egypt. Under the new dispensation of God's grace, Jesus is our Passover Lamb who made atonement for our sin as a scarified Lamb led to the slaughter. (Do this in remembrance of me).

Only Luke and Paul quoted Jesus saying "do this in remembrance of me", but neither one sat with Jesus at the Passover meal. Paul also wrote, and as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body, 1 Corinthians 11:26-29.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Cor 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.
1Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It doesn't matter how often you take of the bread and the wine, but that you do it worthily and in remembrance of what Christ paid for us for the remission of our sins.

It's not about the breaking of the bread, a sip of wine or a Passover meal, it's about the symbolism of the bread and the wine, being the bread representing the literal body of Christ that was beaten beyond recognition and torn for us and the blood that ran down from the top of His head to the bottom of the cross as He paid the price for our sin being made the last perfect sacrifice in fulfilling the sacrificial law of the Temple

Where does it say that in scripiture?

Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

I didn't know that was an instructioin to the New Testament Church.

Exodus Chapter 12 is God's instruction of the Passover feast that throughout all the generations the Jews are to keep as a memorial of the exodus that set them free in Egypt. Under the new dispensation of God's grace, Jesus is our Passover Lamb who made atonement for our sin as a scarified Lamb led to the slaughter. (Do this in remembrance of me).

Three of the four gospels do not say do this every Sunday. On the basis of the rules of biblical exegesis, you cannot form a doctrine out of it.

Only Luke and Paul quoted Jesus saying "do this in remembrance of me", but neither one sat with Jesus at the Passover meal.

So they must have been wrong as those that sat with him did not record that as being said.

It doesn't matter how often you take of the bread and the wine, but that you do it worthily and in remembrance of what Christ paid for us for the remission of our sins.

Of course it doesn't if you want to ignore scripture and history. If you do that of course you can put whatever spin you want on it which is what you have done.

 

[andy pandy]

I don't see anywhere that I made any scripture say what I wanted it to say.

Paul wrote this "do in remembrance of me" in 1Cor 11:24-26, but Matthew nor Mark wrote that which was suppose to be what Jesus spoke as He quoted from Exodus 12:14 as Christ Passover is also a memorial we need to keep in remembrance of what He sacrificed for all of us until He returns.

Old Testament Passover commemorated Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, a type of sin, so the New Testament Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the Passover with different emblems commemorates Jesus' death, and our deliverance from sin.

See my post on the subject. Read and take in what I said.

 

[for_his_glory]

It's not about the breaking of the bread, a sip of wine or a Passover meal, it's about the symbolism of the bread and the wine, being the bread representing the literal body of Christ that was beaten beyond recognition and torn for us and the blood that ran down from the top of His head to the bottom of the cross as He paid the price for our sin being made the last perfect sacrifice in fulfilling the sacrificial law of the Temple

Where does it say that in scripiture?

Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

I didn't know that was an instructioin to the New Testament Church.

Exodus Chapter 12 is God's instruction of the Passover feast that throughout all the generations the Jews are to keep as a memorial of the exodus that set them free in Egypt. Under the new dispensation of God's grace, Jesus is our Passover Lamb who made atonement for our sin as a scarified Lamb led to the slaughter. (Do this in remembrance of me).

Three of the four gospels do not say do this every Sunday. On the basis of the rules of biblical exegesis, you cannot form a doctrine out of it.

Only Luke and Paul quoted Jesus saying "do this in remembrance of me", but neither one sat with Jesus at the Passover meal.

So they must have been wrong as those that sat with him did not record that as being said.

It doesn't matter how often you take of the bread and the wine, but that you do it worthily and in remembrance of what Christ paid for us for the remission of our sins.

Of course it doesn't if you want to ignore scripture and history. If you do that of course you can put whatever spin you want on it which is what you have done.

Why do you ignore the scriptures I gave of what Luke and Paul wrote. I never said we are to do this every Sunday, but scripture is written "as oft as you do this do in remembrance of me". Just because Matthew, Mark and John did not quote that part does not mean Jesus didn't want us to forget what He paid freeing us from sin like God did in the exodus. "do in remembrance of me", Luke and Paul quoted what Jesus said as when scripture is written in red letters this is Jesus speaking or should say what He spoke.

The Exodus account is a foreshadow of the sacrifice Christ made for us setting us free from a sinful world as we read in the NT. Jesus did not just come to be in the NT, but is throughout the whole Bible.

Is it a bad thing to you to take communion as a memorial of the finished works of Christ? Not sure what your problem is with this.

 

[for_his_glory]

It's not about the breaking of the bread, a sip of wine or a Passover meal, it's about the symbolism of the bread and the wine, being the bread representing the literal body of Christ that was beaten beyond recognition and torn for us and the blood that ran down from the top of His head to the bottom of the cross as He paid the price for our sin being made the last perfect sacrifice in fulfilling the sacrificial law of the Temple

Where does it say that in scripiture?

If you are asking about Jesus being beaten beyond recognition you can find that in Deuteronomy 25:1-3 (Jewish law of judgement in condemning a person) Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; Matthew 27:24-32; John 19:1; 2Corinthians 11:24 1Peter 2:24. Look up the word flagrum as this is what Jesus was beaten with.

 

[for_his_glory]

See my post on the subject. Read and take in what I said.

I have read your post and taken in what you said and this is why we are discussing this.

 

[andy pandy]

I have read your post and taken in what you said and this is why we are discussing this.

Except you haven 't addressed anything I said. All you have done is tell me what you think which you don't need to as I have heard it all before.

 

[andy pandy]

If you are asking about Jesus being beaten beyond recognition you can find that in Deuteronomy 25:1-3 (Jewish law of judgement in condemning a person) Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; Matthew 27:24-32; John 19:1; 2Corinthians 11:24 1Peter 2:24. Look up the word flagrum as this is what Jesus was beaten with.

No the subject is communion/lord's table.

 

[andy pandy]

Why do you ignore the scriptures I gave of what Luke and Paul wrote. I never said we are to do this every Sunday, but scripture is written "as oft as you do this do in remembrance of me". Just because Matthew, Mark and John did not quote that part does not mean Jesus didn't want us to forget what He paid freeing us from sin like God did in the exodus. "do in remembrance of me", Luke and Paul quoted what Jesus said as when scripture is written in red letters this is Jesus speaking or should say what He spoke.

The Exodus account is a foreshadow of the sacrifice Christ made for us setting us free from a sinful world as we read in the NT. Jesus did not just come to be in the NT, but is throughout the whole Bible.

Is it a bad thing to you to take communion as a memorial of the finished works of Christ? Not sure what your problem is with this.

I ignored them for obvious reasons as the scripture and history does not support your take on things.

Whilst you never said we are to do this every Sunday most evangelical churches do this every Sunday.

Red letters mean nothing when you are doing an exegesis of scripture.

I never said anything about forgetting what Jesus did for us. I put it into its proper context which you can't seem to grasp. You seem to have some esoteric application of it all but which is not supported by scripture.

Have you read any books about the life and times of Jesus and the background to the New Testament Church? If you haven't you should.

I tend to stay clear of what is not in scripture. And I prefer not to invent things to put my take on what the scripture says. As I have been studying this for ever and a day, I feel confident in what I believe and how I understand scripture.

A lot of the time the church spends time doing what is not in scripture and avoiding what is in scripture.

 

[for_his_glory]

I ignored them for obvious reasons as the scripture and history does not support your take on things.

Whilst you never said we are to do this every Sunday most evangelical churches do this every Sunday.

Red letters mean nothing when you are doing an exegesis of scripture.

I never said anything about forgetting what Jesus did for us. I put it into its proper context which you can't seem to grasp. You seem to have some esoteric application of it all but which is not supported by scripture.

Have you read any books about the life and times of Jesus and the background to the New Testament Church? If you haven't you should.

I tend to stay clear of what is not in scripture. And I prefer not to invent things to put my take on what the scripture says. As I have been studying this for ever and a day, I feel confident in what I believe and how I understand scripture.

A lot of the time the church spends time doing what is not in scripture and avoiding what is in scripture.

Considering your last three replies we are not going to agree. Not because man has taught me for I do not listen to most unless I test the spirits that are speaking and I have no home church I participate in so I do study the scriptures for what has already been written, history and culture of the various eras. I'm not saying I am always right as I do miss it at times, but the Holy Spirit always sends me correction.

I know many churches do this every Sunday and I have no problem with it as long as they/we are taking it worthily. It's all done as a memorial as we remember what Christ did for us on the cross. I can't help it if you can not see the shadow of Christ in the OT as the OT leads us to Him.

 

[andy pandy]

Considering your last three replies we are not going to agree. Not because man has taught me for I do not listen to most unless I test the spirits that are speaking and I have no home church I participate in so I do study the scriptures for what has already been written, history and culture of the various eras. I'm not saying I am always right as I do miss it at times, but the Holy Spirit always sends me correction.

I know many churches do this every Sunday and I have no problem with it as long as they/we are taking it worthily. It's all done as a memorial as we remember what Christ did for us on the cross. I can't help it if you can not see the shadow of Christ in the OT as the OT leads us to Him.

I didn't know I was asking for your help. I am not sure I need it bearing in mind 68 years as a christian; a theological degree; three university degrees; reading a thousand books; about 10 versions of the Bible; the original greek: church leadership in three different locatiions; attended a church for 10 years that experienced revival for 30 years; and sought the advice and wisdom of men who knew a lot more than I did. If I don't know something after all that, I am undone.

I hasten to add that I do know that a lot of so called experts cast aspersions on learning and study and consider it irrelevant and a waste of time and as for reading a book, heaven help us.

Perhaps you can tell me what taking it worthily means?

Judging by your non reply, you have not read any books on the background to the New Testament Church.

 

[WIP]

I didn't know I was asking for your help. I am not sure I need it bearing in mind 68 years as a christian; a theological degree; three university degrees; reading a thousand books; about 10 versions of the Bible; the original greek: church leadership in three different locatiions; attended a church for 10 years that experienced revival for 30 years; and sought the advice and wisdom of men who knew a lot more than I did. If I don't know something after all that, I am undone.

I hasten to add that I do know that a lot of so called experts cast aspersions on learning and study and consider it irrelevant and a waste of time and as for reading a book, heaven help us.

Perhaps you can tell me what taking it worthily means?

Judging by your non reply, you have not read any books on the background to the New Testament Church.

With the exception of the Holy Scriptures, books are nothing more than one person's point of view but you seem to put a lot of weight on the reading of books. Similar could be said for all those credentials you boast of. Higher education, except that from the Holy Spirit, is also nothing more than humankind's opinion.

 

[for_his_glory]

I didn't know I was asking for your help. I am not sure I need it bearing in mind 68 years as a christian; a theological degree; three university degrees; reading a thousand books; about 10 versions of the Bible; the original greek: church leadership in three different locatiions; attended a church for 10 years that experienced revival for 30 years; and sought the advice and wisdom of men who knew a lot more than I did. If I don't know something after all that, I am undone.

I hasten to add that I do know that a lot of so called experts cast aspersions on learning and study and consider it irrelevant and a waste of time and as for reading a book, heaven help us.

Perhaps you can tell me what taking it worthily means?

Judging by your non reply, you have not read any books on the background to the New Testament Church.

It doesn't impress me much how many degrees, universities or years you or anyone has put into their studies. If what one learns from others did not come from the Holy Spirit then I am not going to believe the lies and false teachings that are in the world to deceive us. I'm 66 and have been studying the word of God for well over forty years and will never exhaust the teachings of Good. My correction when needed comes from the Holy Spirit, not man.

Worthily means not to have any unconfessed sin.

I don't need mans theology books or commentaries to study from their carnal logical interpretations of scripture that does not line up with scripture when I have the ultimate book to study from called the Sword, which means the word of God for what He gave the prophets and Apostles to write. When one studies the history and culture of the scriptures there is not much more ones needs apart from the Holy Spirit.

 

[andy pandy]

It doesn't impress me much how many degrees, universities or years you or anyone has put into their studies. If what one learns from others did not come from the Holy Spirit then I am not going to believe the lies and false teachings that are in the world to deceive us. I'm 66 and have been studying the word of God for well over forty years and will never exhaust the teachings of Good. My correction when needed comes from the Holy Spirit, not man.

Worthily means not to have any unconfessed sin.

I don't need mans theology books or commentaries to study from their carnal logical interpretations of scripture that does not line up with scripture when I have the ultimate book to study from called the Sword, which means the word of God for what He gave the prophets and Apostles to write. When one studies the history and culture of the scriptures there is not much more ones needs apart from the Holy Spirit.

It is very arrogant of you to suggest that you are the only one who is taught by the Holy Spirit. The fact that you make that claim suggests to me that you are NOT taught by the Holy Spirit. You are taught by a spirit of pride.

 

[andy pandy]

It is very arrogant of you to suggest that you are the only one who is taught by the Holy Spirit. The fact that you make that claim suggests to me that you are NOT taught by the Holy Spirit. You are taught by a spirit of pride.

It doesn't impress me much how many degrees, universities or years you or anyone has put into their studies. If what one learns from others did not come from the Holy Spirit then I am not going to believe the lies and false teachings that are in the world to deceive us. I'm 66 and have been studying the word of God for well over forty years and will never exhaust the teachings of Good. My correction when needed comes from the Holy Spirit, not man.

Worthily means not to have any unconfessed sin.

I don't need mans theology books or commentaries to study from their carnal logical interpretations of scripture that does not line up with scripture when I have the ultimate book to study from called the Sword, which means the word of God for what He gave the prophets and Apostles to write. When one studies the history and culture of the scriptures there is not much more ones needs apart from the Holy Spirit.

Once again you are wrong. Unworthily has nothing to do with unconfessed sin. The word is anaxios, which means lacking proper respect.

 

[andy pandy]

It doesn't impress me much how many degrees, universities or years you or anyone has put into their studies. If what one learns from others did not come from the Holy Spirit then I am not going to believe the lies and false teachings that are in the world to deceive us. I'm 66 and have been studying the word of God for well over forty years and will never exhaust the teachings of Good. My correction when needed comes from the Holy Spirit, not man.

Worthily means not to have any unconfessed sin.

I don't need mans theology books or commentaries to study from their carnal logical interpretations of scripture that does not line up with scripture when I have the ultimate book to study from called the Sword, which means the word of God for what He gave the prophets and Apostles to write. When one studies the history and culture of the scriptures there is not much more ones needs apart from the Holy Spirit.

I hasten to add that I do know that a lot of so called experts cast aspersions on learning and study and consider it irrelevant and a waste of time and as for reading a book, heaven help us.

Thankyou for confirming what I said.

One of the greatest scholars that modern day Christendom has every produced is Derek Prince. He was a man filled with the spirit; the youngest professor at Oxford University at the age of 25; had a Ph.D in Greek and Hebrew and taught languages.

Nice to know that he was a waste of space according to you and all his learning was not sanctioned by the Holy Spirit so it was a complete waste of time.

Ah well. I guess I will have to just ignore the fact that he has written numerous books that teach the scriptures that deal with the " news behind the news" so to speak and they are printed in their millions and sent to christians in countries free of charge because they cannot afford them.

Just think. All those milllions of Christian being led astray because the author of the books they read dared to read other books.

 

[andy pandy]

With the exception of the Holy Scriptures, books are nothing more than one person's point of view but you seem to put a lot of weight on the reading of books. Similar could be said for all those credentials you boast of. Higher education, except that from the Holy Spirit, is also nothing more than humankind's opinion.

Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that need not be ashamed.

Believe it or not, I don't feel at all ashamed that I consider that there are people out there who know more than me and I am keen to know what they know. That way, unlike others who set themselves up as the last word on the scriptures, I get to be taught by the best there is out there and as a result, I am constantly adding to my body of knowledge.

Especially when you think the scriptures say that all the books in the world cannot contain what Jesus said. I am more likely to read the other stuff Jesus said by reading books so if you want to stay ignorant be my guest.

And beleive it or not, you are not the only one that has access to the Holy Spirit. David Pawson had access to the Holy Spirit when he wrote his books. Derek Prince had access to the Holy Spirit when he wrote his books. Arthur Blessit had access to the Holy Spirit when he wrote his books. Charles Colson had access to the Holy Spirit when he wrote his books. And I could name a 100 more writers who had access to the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books.

So be careful with your pharisaical attitude as you will find yourself speaking against the Lord's annointed.

 

[for_his_glory]

It is very arrogant of you to suggest that you are the only one who is taught by the Holy Spirit. The fact that you make that claim suggests to me that you are NOT taught by the Holy Spirit. You are taught by a spirit of pride.

Wow, slow your roll!!! I never said I was the only one taught by the Holy Spirit, say I am always right, or ask anyone to believe what I say, but to believe that which is written in the scriptures. This arrogance of yours will not get you very far a being a member of CF.

 

[WIP]

Believe it or not, I don't feel at all ashamed that I consider that there are people out there who know more than me and I am keen to know what they know. That way, unlike others who set themselves up as the last word on the scriptures, I get to be taught by the best there is out there and as a result, I am constantly adding to my body of knowledge.

That's good but how do you determine that what they teach is truth? Scripture is still our foundation and even Scripture gives us warning and direction.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Colossians 2:8 NKJV

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1 NKJV

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
James 1:5 NKJV


The remainder of your reply I will not address accept to say that I would like to offer a word of warning about your attitude. If you are incapable of remaining civil in this discussion, it is probably best to bow out now. Staff will not allow you to continue on this path for it is not a Christian-like behavior. Just sayin'.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yers, I have heard that at least 3,000 times and that is what I used to believe until I started delving into the life and times of the New Testament Church. As I always do, I have read numerous books regarding the subject matter to get a broad overview of the topic. This is what I found out.

1. The NTC would have no concept of eating a piece of bread and drinking a sip of wine. It was always in the context of a meal as the Passover meal was.

2. Do this does not say "do this every Sunday". In fact only one gospel said do this. That means three didn't so it is doubtful that it was said at all.

3. One has to find scripture to support a weekly sip of wine and a piece of bread. So far there is none.

4. The term breaking of bread in middle eastern tradition means a meal. Not a sip of wine or a piece of bread.

5. In middle eastern tradition, a meal always started with the head of the house breaking up a loaf of bread and giving a piece to everyone, hence the term.

6. To invite someone round to break bread, it would be an insult to give them a sip of wine and a piece of bread.

7. Those that say Jesus started communion at the passover meal forget that it was a meal and only held once a year.

8. The passage in Corinthians is mainly about how the believers conducted themselves when they came together for a communal meal.

9. The NTC was noticable for how much they loved one another. How did they do that? One way was they provided a meal every evening for the members who were poor or had not eaten that day. That was known as breaking of bread.

10. Acts 2 tells us that the NTC came together for four things one of which was breakikng of bread and one other was fellowship. They fellowshipped round a meal, prepared and cooked by members of the fellowship. The apostle's teaching was discussed during this time and they also prayed.

11. The sip of wine and the piece of bread came into being when Constantine legalized christianity and made it the national religion of the Roman Empire.

12. So as you can see if you do your homework as I have done, breaking of bread is a meal, not an esoteric bit of bread and a sip of wine.

Agreed on all except no. 11

Constantine legalized Christianity but he did not make it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
That was Theodoseus 400AD, approx.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yers, I have heard that at least 3,000 times and that is what I used to believe until I started delving into the life and times of the New Testament Church. As I always do, I have read numerous books regarding the subject matter to get a broad overview of the topic. This is what I found out.

1. The NTC would have no concept of eating a piece of bread and drinking a sip of wine. It was always in the context of a meal as the Passover meal was.

2. Do this does not say "do this every Sunday". In fact only one gospel said do this. That means three didn't so it is doubtful that it was said at all.

3. One has to find scripture to support a weekly sip of wine and a piece of bread. So far there is none.

4. The term breaking of bread in middle eastern tradition means a meal. Not a sip of wine or a piece of bread.

5. In middle eastern tradition, a meal always started with the head of the house breaking up a loaf of bread and giving a piece to everyone, hence the term.

6. To invite someone round to break bread, it would be an insult to give them a sip of wine and a piece of bread.

7. Those that say Jesus started communion at the passover meal forget that it was a meal and only held once a year.

8. The passage in Corinthians is mainly about how the believers conducted themselves when they came together for a communal meal.

9. The NTC was noticable for how much they loved one another. How did they do that? One way was they provided a meal every evening for the members who were poor or had not eaten that day. That was known as breaking of bread.

10. Acts 2 tells us that the NTC came together for four things one of which was breakikng of bread and one other was fellowship. They fellowshipped round a meal, prepared and cooked by members of the fellowship. The apostle's teaching was discussed during this time and they also prayed.

11. The sip of wine and the piece of bread came into being when Constantine legalized christianity and made it the national religion of the Roman Empire.

12. So as you can see if you do your homework as I have done, breaking of bread is a meal, not an esoteric bit of bread and a sip of wine.

P.S.
Did you study the Didache at all?