Question About Holy Communion

[for_his_glory]

So Corrie Ten Boom is OK. So how can she be as she wrote books which you despise.

The fact that you said carnal knowledge makes your comment even worse as you are condeming men and women of God who have been around for a long time and are acknowledged by the church as men and women who have the credentials and proved themselves with godly and humble living.

Not condemning or judging, but exposing that which God calls us to expose that comes against what has already been written in the doctrines of Christ, Romans 16:17-18, Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:10-16; 3:9-11. There is a difference between carnal understanding and Spiritual understanding as we test the spirits that teach us. I've written two books, been in the ministry of God for 23 years, studying scripture for 40 years, but yet it does not make me or anyone else an expert knowing everything.

There are many good books and authors, but yet there are many books and authors from those who have written a jump on the bandwagon teachings just for the sake of lining their own pocket as many do not teach truth.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[for_his_glory]

So all that about not rreading books because all we need is the bible and the holy spirit was just a figment of my imagination?

I never said we are not to read other books, but use Spiritual discernment when you read them as many are written with a carnal knowledge.

 

[for_his_glory]

Wow! So you reject everything if it does not fit your theology. How immature.

No, I reject everything that does not line up with the word of God as well we all need to do.

 

[for_his_glory]

Oops, I guess I quoted and responded before reading the rest of the discussion and didn't notice that JLB has already given a similar reminder.

me too as I just saw both of these scrolling down through the replies.

 

[andy pandy]

I have seen the spectrum on this issue, all the way from people doing it privately in their home to partaking during a corporate worship service. In my experience it has always handled more carefully when done in the context of a corporate worship service, and only done when there were proper controls in place to protect the elements. As you may bring judgement upon yourself should you partake while maintaining a sin issue which you are unwilling to repent of. The only people that are really qualified to properly protect the elements would be the elders and the pastor. As a matter of simplicity communion should only be administered by an ordained minister. Our current church has communion every Sunday, except on those rare occasions when our pastor is unable to physically be there, as has happened about a month ago when he and part of his family were out with the flu.

If we were to follow scripture, we would find that no one had a thing called communion. What they had was a fellowship meal served to make sure that no one went without a meal that day.

I realise that a lot of people are rusted onto the ritual of communion and they can't see the story behind the story, so they lose out because they are not enjoying the benefits of what the scripture teaches.

 

[JLB]

And it could be that your views are out of sinc with scripture. Being a moderator does not make you infallible. And the scripture is clear that you are to treat with respect the older brethren. As I am 79, and have been a christian for 68 years, I guess that I am in that catagory.

I don't know where you get your theology from but the things you have said to me I would NEVER say to someone who is older than me and had been a christian longer than me even if they were wrong. I guess I grew up when young people treated their elders with respect.

So what I am saying is that you may be a moderator but that does not mean you can ignore scripture.

This thread is about Holy Communion.

Please keep the subject matter about the subject, and focus on what the scriptures teach, not what the commentaries of men teach, which may or may not be scriptural.


It’s good to be passionate, about the things of God.


Let’s not let our passion ignite division and strife.



God bless you and keep you all.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-16

• And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

Thsat is good as everything I have posted has lined up with the word of God. I realise the Catholics might have something to say about that but it all gets down to a persons understanding of what lines up with the word of God. A good example is the Armenian v Calvanism arguements. Both contend that they line up with the word of God, so we have to accept that anyone's view is subjective and in one sense no one can question what the other believes. Would you not agree?

We need to question the beliefs of others as we are doing here with the topic of the OP which needs to be our focus right now as we share that which is already written. From this point forward all derailments will be deleted as which I too have been guilty of taking this off of topic.

 

[GodsGrace]

If we were to follow scripture, we would find that no one had a thing called communion. What they had was a fellowship meal served to make sure that no one went without a meal that day.

I realise that a lot of people are rusted onto the ritual of communion and they can't see the story behind the story, so they lose out because they are not enjoying the benefits of what the scripture teaches.

Hi Andy...
Two things,,,,

1. Of course the church began with Christ.
Exactly when could be debated.

What I meant about the early church is that, as far as I'm concerned, the early church ended with the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Some theologians will go up to the 600s,,,I just don't agree.

2. Communion,,,,something done in community.
How we practice communion today is very different from the very early days,,,this is not a reason to abolish it. To do this your way is just not feasible. Most of us are not hungry, thanks be to God. I'm not going to any church right now, but if I can go, I enjoy communion time. It's a solemn yet joyful time and makes me thankful to God for our Christian faith.

 

[andy pandy]

Hi Andy...
Two things,,,,

1. Of course the church began with Christ.
Exactly when could be debated.

What I meant about the early church is that, as far as I'm concerned, the early church ended with the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Some theologians will go up to the 600s,,,I just don't agree.

2. Communion,,,,something done in community.
How we practice communion today is very different from the very early days,,,this is not a reason to abolish it. To do this your way is just not feasible. Most of us are not hungry, thanks be to God. I'm not going to any church right now, but if I can go, I enjoy communion time. It's a solemn yet joyful time and makes me thankful to God for our Christian faith.

I must be careful how I respond to your comment as I am not allowed to say what I think. So......

I know that how we practice communion today is different. I have written a dissertation for a Ph.D. that includes a discussion about it.

My view is that if we do something that is totally contrary to scripture we should abolish it. But them I know that is not always possible as too many leadership are quite happy with the status quo. Having discussed it with them, the reply has been yes but....and in each case, what the denomination thinks has more authority than what the word of God says.

To do it my way is feasable as the church I was in in the UK we did it my way. So did a lot of UK churches. There is a true saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. A good move by the church is to have a men's ministry that is held around a meal. As I belong to such, I know that it works. We talk non stop the whole time we are together.

 

[andy pandy]

Hi Andy...
Two things,,,,

1. Of course the church began with Christ.
Exactly when could be debated.

What I meant about the early church is that, as far as I'm concerned, the early church ended with the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Some theologians will go up to the 600s,,,I just don't agree.

2. Communion,,,,something done in community.
How we practice communion today is very different from the very early days,,,this is not a reason to abolish it. To do this your way is just not feasible. Most of us are not hungry, thanks be to God. I'm not going to any church right now, but if I can go, I enjoy communion time. It's a solemn yet joyful time and makes me thankful to God for our Christian faith.

To tell you the truth, I have never considered the ending of the early church. But now that you mention it........

Was it when the Roman church got its unholy hands on it?

Was it when Constantine made it the religion of Rome?

Was it as you say during the Council of Nicea?

Was it when false teachers started to invade the church?

Was it when John had his revelation at Patmos?

Of course this is not discussed in scripture so I cannot give you chapter and verse for anything although I am expected to do so, but if there was, I would happily provide it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I must be careful how I respond to your comment as I am not allowed to say what I think. So......

You can make a comment that is not DEROGATORY to any particular denomination.
I don't agree with all denominations...there's nothing wrong with disagreement with some doctrine or other.

I know that how we practice communion today is different. I have written a dissertation for a Ph.D. that includes a discussion about it.

This is totally interesting!
I'm very interested in the early church.
I think things got really messed up as time went on.

My view is that if we do something that is totally contrary to scripture we should abolish it. But them I know that is not always possible as too many leadership are quite happy with the status quo. Having discussed it with them, the reply has been yes but....and in each case, what the denomination thinks has more authority than what the word of God says.

You're going to have to explain how celebrating communion today is totally contrary to scripture.
Jesus said we are to celebrate communion in remembrance of Him. Do we not care to remember Him anymore?
Because we don't have an entire meal all together, does this mean we cannot BREAK THE BREAD? Just as Jesus' body was broken for us.

I don't know any denomination that would even consider abolishing communion -- no matter how it's done.
Some think it should be done only once per year, like the Passover.
This is not what Jesus said...as I understand it.
In John 6:50......Jesus stated that whoever FEEDS of His flesh and drinks of His blood will have eternal life.
This sounds like more than once per year to me.

Acts 20:7 says that when they met together on the first day of the week, they broke the bread.

1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus says that this is His blood, as often as we drink it.

To do it my way is feasable as the church I was in in the UK we did it my way. So did a lot of UK churches. There is a true saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. A good move by the church is to have a men's ministry that is held around a meal. As I belong to such, I know that it works. We talk non stop the whole time we are together.

Not all persons will agree.
If an entire church can agree to do this,,,so be it.
Some have children that would make doing it your way very difficult.
Or other problems. What about persons that are sickly, or cannot sit for long periods?
Should we deny those that cannot attend a dinner this beautiful remembrance of Chrsit?

As to the men's group.
I agree with you totally, but they are usually small groups of healthy and willing men.

 

[GodsGrace]

To tell you the truth, I have never considered the ending of the early church. But now that you mention it........

Was it when the Roman church got its unholy hands on it?

Yes. This was the beginning.
325AD

Was it when Constantine made it the religion of Rome?

Constantine did NOT make Christianity the religion of Rome.
He only wrote the Edict of Milan, 313AD, stating that it was no longer ILLEGAL to practice Christianity.

The state church of the Roman Empire refers to the Nicene church associated with Roman emperors after the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 by Theodosius I, which recognized Nicene Christianity as the Roman Empire's state religion.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire

Constantine was dead by the time Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Was it as you say during the Council of Nicea?

This is my opinion. As stated, some theologians will go up to the 600's.
As far as I can tell, Christianity was already corrupted by then.

Was it when false teachers started to invade the church?

No. False teachers have always invaded the church, even while the Apostles were still alive.
It's know for certain that John the Apostle wrote about the gnostics.

Was it when John had his revelation at Patmos?

Still I'd say no.
The church had only begun at this point.
Perhaps you're referring to his warnings to the churches?

Of course this is not discussed in scripture so I cannot give you chapter and verse for anything although I am expected to do so, but if there was, I would happily provide it.

Sometimes scripture is not available when exchanging ideas.
No problem since we are not discussing Christian doctrine.

 

[andy pandy]

You can make a comment that is not DEROGATORY to any particular denomination.
I don't agree with all denominations...there's nothing wrong with disagreement with some doctrine or other.



This is totally interesting!
I'm very interested in the early church.
I think things got really messed up as time went on.



You're going to have to explain how celebrating communion today is totally contrary to scripture.
Jesus said we are to celebrate communion in remembrance of Him. Do we not care to remember Him anymore?
Because we don't have an entire meal all together, does this mean we cannot BREAK THE BREAD? Just as Jesus' body was broken for us.

I don't know any denomination that would even consider abolishing communion -- no matter how it's done.
Some think it should be done only once per year, like the Passover.
This is not what Jesus said...as I understand it.
In John 6:50......Jesus stated that whoever FEEDS of His flesh and drinks of His blood will have eternal life.
This sounds like more than once per year to me.

Acts 20:7 says that when they met together on the first day of the week, they broke the bread.

1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus says that this is His blood, as often as we drink it.





Not all persons will agree.
If an entire church can agree to do this,,,so be it.
Some have children that would make doing it your way very difficult.
Or other problems. What about persons that are sickly, or cannot sit for long periods?
Should we deny those that cannot attend a dinner this beautiful remembrance of Chrsit?

As to the men's group.
I agree with you totally, but they are usually small groups of healthy and willing men.

As you have thrown out a challenge to me may be I will respond. I can't enclose all my dissertation as it would take up too much space so I will do bits of it by way of introduction. Just so that you know, I had to read over 60 books to write the dissertation that satisfied the powers that be as I had to present the issue from every perspective.

Breaking of Bread. This term has quite a different meaning to what the church generally take it to mean.

If I was walking down the street and I bumped into you and we engaged in conversation, when we parted I might say to you "If you are not doing anything tonight come over and break bread with us."

What I would be saying is come and share a meal with us. In the Middle East, it was normal for the head of the house to pick up a loaf that was on the table break it and pass a piece to everyone, hence the term break bread with us. That was when the meal began.

Until people understand that fact they will not understand what the scripture is saying.

In addition, at the Passover meal, Jesus said "Take eat this is my body"No one believes that the bread he gave them was his body. It was obviously a metaphor, not literal. Matt 26:26. The same when he took the cup (of wine) and said this is my blood of the new covenant 28. he confirmed that it was not his blood when he said he would not drink this fruit of the vine from now on etc... 29. The fruit of the vine being wine.

The Old Testament makes it clear that the Jews were not to drink blood so it was clear Jesus was not asking them to drink his blood.

Now, this all happened during the Passover meal which was held once a year. No where in scripture does it say to take a sip of wine and a piece of bread each week. In fact as Jews that would have been a foreign concept totally.

As I delved into the life of the church I learnt that they met every day to break bread Acts 2: 42. Here it means to have a meal and as I studied the history of the church from various sources, it was clear that having a meal was central to their meeting together. Especially when you think that amongst the believers were widows who may not have had a substantial meal that day and slaves who ate at the whim of their masters or not as the case may be. In verse 46 it says they ate their food with gladness. Not their communion or Lord's table. Food, which means breaking of bread or a meal.

Another scripture tells us that the people noticed how much they loved each other. This was evident by their care for each other making sure everyone had a meal every day. In Roman society if you went without that was your problem and no one reached out to you. That is why there were so many beggars at that time.

And I think you will find that Jesus body was not broken for us. That was referring to the practice of the Roman soldiers breaking the legs of those hanging on a cross which were still alive at sunset. Of course Jesus wasn't so they did not break his legs.

See Matt 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, John 19:32-33, 36

On a personal note, I don't need a piece of bread and a sip of wine to remember Jesus. From the moment I wake up to the time I go to bed Jesus is not far from my thoughts.

 

[andy pandy]

You can make a comment that is not DEROGATORY to any particular denomination.
I don't agree with all denominations...there's nothing wrong with disagreement with some doctrine or other.



This is totally interesting!
I'm very interested in the early church.
I think things got really messed up as time went on.



You're going to have to explain how celebrating communion today is totally contrary to scripture.
Jesus said we are to celebrate communion in remembrance of Him. Do we not care to remember Him anymore?
Because we don't have an entire meal all together, does this mean we cannot BREAK THE BREAD? Just as Jesus' body was broken for us.

I don't know any denomination that would even consider abolishing communion -- no matter how it's done.
Some think it should be done only once per year, like the Passover.
This is not what Jesus said...as I understand it.
In John 6:50......Jesus stated that whoever FEEDS of His flesh and drinks of His blood will have eternal life.
This sounds like more than once per year to me.

Acts 20:7 says that when they met together on the first day of the week, they broke the bread.

1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus says that this is His blood, as often as we drink it.





Not all persons will agree.
If an entire church can agree to do this,,,so be it.
Some have children that would make doing it your way very difficult.
Or other problems. What about persons that are sickly, or cannot sit for long periods?
Should we deny those that cannot attend a dinner this beautiful remembrance of Chrsit?

As to the men's group.
I agree with you totally, but they are usually small groups of healthy and willing men.

In my men's group one of them has just survived a bout of cancer. I have had cancer twice. Another is recovering from an injury he had from falling of a ladder. Another has had to go though being rejected by his daughter. Another lost his first wife through cancer. Another has a wife who does not know him because she has dementia. Another had to go into a home because he cannot look after himself.

Not exactly what you would call healthy and willing.

 

[andy pandy]

In John 6:50......Jesus stated that whoever FEEDS of His flesh and drinks of His blood will have eternal life.
This sounds like more than once per year to me.

1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus says that this is His blood, as often as we drink it.

 

[andy pandy]

It is obvious that Jesus did not mean that they should literally eat his flesh and drink his blood because OT Law forbade them from doing this. he was obviously speaking metaphorically so you have to work out what he really meant when he said this.

And there is no where in this passage or any other passage that we were to do this every week. I think if that was the case, he would have been more explicit in his instructions because he would be asking them to do something that was foreign to them.

The context was the annual Passover meal and that is how they would have understood it. Apart from the fact that the NT Church met daily to break bread (meal)

Even the Corinthian passage has as its context a meal, not a meeting to have a sip of wine and a piece of bread.

 

[Serving Zion]

so you have to work out what he really meant when he said this.

John 6:35 has a clue: "My flesh is real food". It is the Word of God who became flesh, in whom is life. On the other hand, those "with ears to hear but not hearing and eyes to see but not perceiving" are the ones whom are perishing. Therefore the Word of God is the bread of life, and the sacraments were instituted to grant acceptance to those who were not hearing Him or perceiving Him yet were desiring to be saved (ie 1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[for_his_glory]

And I think you will find that Jesus body was not broken for us. That was referring to the practice of the Roman soldiers breaking the legs of those hanging on a cross which were still alive at sunset. Of course Jesus wasn't so they did not break his legs.

Flesh and bones are two different things. It was His flesh that was broken/torn by the hands of the Romans who beat Jesus with whips as per their law of punishing a criminal. His legs were not broken as Jesus already died before they could brake them. Here is some history for you.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Notice in verse 1 says "as they were eating" so it was during the meal Jesus broke bread and passed it to each disciple and poured wine to give each one to drink of the cup.

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha'olam, hamotzi lechem, min ha aretz

(English) Blessed are You, O LORD our God, King of the universe, Who has brought forth bread from the earth.

At the beginning of the family meal this blessing is said as the bread is broken. The blessing is referred to as "the breaking of bread". The Talmud (Jewish oral law) uses the term only in reference to the blessing at the start of the meal. We know that Jesus keep the laws of the Torah.

Here in Matthew 26:26 we read Jesus broke the bread as they were already eating. Jesus explained that the bread represented His body that was about to be broken and the wine represented the blood that He was about to shed for the remission of sin.

Roman law used multi thong type whips made of leather as a method of beating prisoners. They would use either broken clay pots, stones or any type of sharp objects tied to the end of each thong. This would literally rip the skin right off the body making a bloody pulp of a person, thus Jesus body was broken and his blood was shed by the stripes they gave Him. Also take in count the crown of thorns shoved on His head as the head bleeds greatly when injured.

Breaking the legs of a victim hanging on a cross was a common practice by the Romans to speed up death. Soldiers would use the steele shaft of a short Roman spear to shatter the persons lower leg bones. This would prevent the individual from pushing up with his legs so he could breath and death by asphyxiation would result in a matter of minutes. When they approached Jesus He was already dead so no bones needed to be broken. One soldier pierced His side to confirm Jesus was dead and blood and water gushed out of Him.

 

[Maxim]

According to Acts 6:3, they chose seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, and appointed them to serve tables. In Acts 6:6, the apostles prayed for them laid their hands on them before they could be discharged for their office.