Question About Holy Communion

[jaybo]

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).

Would you explain this further: "the sacraments were instituted to grant acceptance to those who were not hearing Him or perceiving Him yet were desiring to be saved."

Are you saying that at the "last supper", a.k.a. the Passover meal that Jesus ate with His disciples, they weren't "granted acceptance" because they didn't hear or perceive Him? Quite a stunt for those actually sitting at the table with Him and conversing with Him.

The sacraments (as you call them) are eaten/drunk in order to remember Jesus' sacrifice, not to grant acceptance.

Sola scriptura.

 

[for_his_glory]

Would you explain this further: "the sacraments were instituted to grant acceptance to those who were not hearing Him or perceiving Him yet were desiring to be saved."

Are you saying that at the "last supper", a.k.a. the Passover meal that Jesus ate with His disciples, they weren't "granted acceptance" because they didn't hear or perceive Him? Quite a stunt for those actually sitting at the table with Him and conversing with Him.

The sacraments (as you call them) are eaten/drunk in order to remember Jesus' sacrifice, not to grant acceptance.

Sola scriptura.

I would also like to add to this that one is to take communion worthily.

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.
1Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Cor 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cor 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Many take communion without a thought as it only becomes a tradition without any merit.

 

[Serving Zion]

Would you explain this further: "the sacraments were instituted to grant acceptance to those who were not hearing Him or perceiving Him yet were desiring to be saved."

Yes, it is because those who are not spiritual do not receive the things of the spirit. That is how Jesus was found to be in the appearance of a man although He was the divine: because the "man of nature doesn't receive the things of the spirit, because they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). Remember when Jesus said that "when the son of man is lifted up He will draw all peoples unto Himself"? and yet among those drawn toward His exalted form are those who are not born of the seed of God, although they desire to be His followers. That's why you have divisions in the church (James 4:1, James 3:14-15): churches are full of carnal-minded, unspiritual Christians, and Jesus knew that despite their desiring to be His followers, they simply could not follow Him in the spirit (John 6:63-66). The sacraments of bread and wine are given to grant acceptance to those who desire to follow Jesus but for whatever reason they have not yet had the breath of life breathed into them (John 3:8). They are the type who have believed in the message of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and they have decided that they want to have Him as a king, so they seek Christians who help them understand how to make the commitment to become Christian - they make the vows, they believe the commandments, they repent of the sins, but even so they have not opened their ears to hear the voice of Him who is among us (Matthew 18:20) because all-the-while they have only seen the human, the Christian whose name is certified at birth, and they have not allowed themselves to believe that God Himself is actually speaking through us.

Are you saying that at the "last supper", a.k.a. the Passover meal that Jesus ate with His disciples, they weren't "granted acceptance" because they didn't hear or perceive Him? Quite a stunt for those actually sitting at the table with Him and conversing with Him.

No that's not what I'm saying. I believe it is most likely that they had already demonstrated their hearing of His Word (Matthew 16:17, John 14:7, John 6:68-69).

The sacraments (as you call them) are eaten/drunk in order to remember Jesus' sacrifice, not to grant acceptance.

Sola scriptura.

Well, they are given in order that those who do not eat His flesh and drink of His blood in spirit can attest that they are keeping His commandment. So, it is because of His sacrifice, that He lays down His life for His friends, that He has asked us to remember Him whenever we do it.

 

[andy pandy]

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).

In all the commentaries I have read on the subject and that has been many, I have never seen such an interpretation.

Two very important things is that Jews were not allowed to eat human flesh or drink human blood. I read the other day about the work that a coroner does, the smell of blood is pretty rank. Not the sort of thing that you would put on a meal table to drink.

 

[andy pandy]

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.

At Bible College which I know you don't place any value on, my senior lecturer was a converted Jew. It was very clear his knowledge of scripture was vast. He informed us that Jesus body was not broken because he had already died. He informed us that the breaking was the legs of the prisoners because once that was done they expired very quickly.

Now, the problem is that you agree with this and yet you disagree with it?? I am confused.

 

[andy pandy]

Yes, it is because those who are not spiritual do not receive the things of the spirit. That is how Jesus was found to be in the appearance of a man although He was the divine: because the "man of nature doesn't receive the things of the spirit, because they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). Remember when Jesus said that "when the son of man is lifted up He will draw all peoples unto Himself"? and yet among those drawn toward His exalted form are those who are not born of the seed of God, although they desire to be His followers. That's why you have divisions in the church (James 4:1, James 3:14-15): churches are full of carnal-minded, unspiritual Christians, and Jesus knew that despite their desiring to be His followers, they simply could not follow Him in the spirit (John 6:63-66). The sacraments of bread and wine are given to grant acceptance to those who desire to follow Jesus but for whatever reason they have not yet had the breath of life breathed into them (John 3:8). They are the type who have believed in the message of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and they have decided that they want to have Him as a king, so they seek Christians who help them understand how to make the commitment to become Christian - they make the vows, they believe the commandments, they repent of the sins, but even so they have not opened their ears to hear the voice of Him who is among us (Matthew 18:20) because all-the-while they have only seen the human, the Christian whose name is certified at birth, and they have not allowed themselves to believe that God Himself is actually speaking through us.

No that's not what I'm saying. I believe it is most likely that they had already demonstrated their hearing of His Word (Matthew 16:17, John 14:7, John 6:68-69).

Well, they are given in order that those who do not eat His flesh and drink of His blood in spirit can attest that they are keeping His commandment. So, it is because of His sacrifice, that He lays down His life for His friends, that He has asked us to remember Him whenever we do it.

If we are to go by scripture, only two gospels says do this in remembrance of me. (Matt 26:26, Luke 22:17) None say to do this every week. None say to take a sip of wine and a piece of bread in isolation. Now anyone worth his salt NEVER builds a doctrine on such skant evidence. Therefore to build a doctrine on a few words about communion is drawing a very long bow.

 

[Serving Zion]

If we are to go by scripture, only two gospels says do this in remembrance of me. (Matt 26:26, Luke 22:17)

Isn't one enough? I don't know what the point is that you're trying to make with it.

None say to do this every week.

Nor daily, monthly, annually... Only "so often".

None say to take a sip of wine and a piece of bread in isolation.

Who do you have in mind when you say that? What difference do you think it makes if someone does it alone in isolation?

Now anyone worth his salt NEVER builds a doctrine on such skant evidence. Therefore to build a doctrine on a few words about communion is drawing a very long bow.

Obviously the information given does raise questions, and through discussing those questions we are able to recognize what the spirit of truth is saying (Matthew 18:20). But I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make by it. Have you explained that already? Could you tell me what post number I can look at to find it?

 

[andy pandy]

Isn't one enough? I don't know what the point is that you're trying to make with it.

Nor daily, monthly, annually... Only "so often".

Who do you have in mind when you say that? What difference do you think it makes if someone does it alone in isolation?

Obviously the information given does raise questions, and through discussing those questions we are able to recognize what the spirit of truth is saying (Matthew 18:20). But I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make by it. Have you explained that already? Could you tell me what post number I can look at to find it?

As I have written about this numerous times, I have lost count of what and where. So let me fill in the blanks.

I was a devoted follower of the protestant communion, which was nothing more than a catholic spin off for years and years because I did not know any different.

It wasn't until I had read a book about the subject that I started to look deeper into it and boy, was I surpised.

My first suprise was that the term breaking of bread had nothing at all to do with communion as we knew it. I found out it was a term used to invite someone round for a meal.

Second, I discovered that the New Testament Church did not celebrate communion as we know it. They always met together for a meal as the scripture tells us to. See Acts 2:48

The Corinthian passage which is used to justify the sip of wine and piece of bread scenario was no such thing. It was a passage that gave instructions to the Corinthian Church how to conduct themselves at a meal.

Therefore, in line with what I was taught at Bible College that you do not form a doctrine on one verse of scripture, I searched the scriptures to find out where everything was regardinhg this topic. When I read all the scriptures regarding this topic, particularly in the original Greek, and obtained for myself books that investigated the historical side of the New Testament Church, I discovered there was no evidence that they every did the sip of wine piece of bread scenario.

So what did they do I asked myself? My search showed me that they followed the Jewish/Middle East custom of eating meals together, commonly known as breaking of bread. The simple reason why it was referred to as this was the custom of the head of the table to take a loaf of bread and brake it and passed a piece around to everyone at the table. Once he had done this the meal began.

And why did they have a breaking of bread meal, not a sip of wine and piece of bread meal? Again it is simple. There was no welfare system in those days and if you were destitute or a slave, you were on your own if you were in need. So the NTC made sure that anyone who came to the fellowship had a meal that day as many didn't.

That is why when they met together, they met for the apostles teaching, prayer, fellowship and breaking of bread which was a meal.

Now if the scripture gives us instruction on how to do things, I happen to believe that is what we should do, not what the denomination says we should do. Hence my disinterest in so called communion and my support for feeding the flock.

I know that there are some people on this forum that are adamant that we have to follow what the denomination says not what scripture or history books say, but I am only stating what I have learnt from reputable authors who have written on this subject. And thankyou for raising the subject.

See post 154 of this topic.

 

[andy pandy]

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.

I am not sure how this relates to questions about holy communion.

 

[andy pandy]

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).

I can't find anywhere in scripture where the NT Church had sacraments. Can you show me?

 

[Serving Zion]

I can't find anywhere in scripture where the NT Church had sacraments. Can you show me?

Maybe I shouldn't be using the word "sacraments". I just looked it up and it's not what I meant:

The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church - Personal Creations Blog

The seven sacraments of the Catholic church are baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders.

www.personalcreations.com

I had meant to refer to the piece of bread and sip of wine that protestant churches often call "the emblems". So you know what I'm talking about, the ritualistic partaking of the bread and wine.

I can only show you the place in the New Testament, the last supper, which shows Jesus telling His disciples to think in a new way of the bread and the wine, and suggesting it is a thing they should begin to do every so often in remembrance of Him and that He had been eagerly looking forward to introducing them to it.

 

[Serving Zion]

As I have written about this numerous times, I have lost count of what and where. So let me fill in the blanks.

I was a devoted follower of the protestant communion, which was nothing more than a catholic spin off for years and years because I did not know any different.

It wasn't until I had read a book about the subject that I started to look deeper into it and boy, was I surpised.

My first suprise was that the term breaking of bread had nothing at all to do with communion as we knew it. I found out it was a term used to invite someone round for a meal.

Second, I discovered that the New Testament Church did not celebrate communion as we know it. They always met together for a meal as the scripture tells us to. See Acts 2:48

The Corinthian passage which is used to justify the sip of wine and piece of bread scenario was no such thing. It was a passage that gave instructions to the Corinthian Church how to conduct themselves at a meal.

Therefore, in line with what I was taught at Bible College that you do not form a doctrine on one verse of scripture, I searched the scriptures to find out where everything was regardinhg this topic. When I read all the scriptures regarding this topic, particularly in the original Greek, and obtained for myself books that investigated the historical side of the New Testament Church, I discovered there was no evidence that they every did the sip of wine piece of bread scenario.

So what did they do I asked myself? My search showed me that they followed the Jewish/Middle East custom of eating meals together, commonly known as breaking of bread. The simple reason why it was referred to as this was the custom of the head of the table to take a loaf of bread and brake it and passed a piece around to everyone at the table. Once he had done this the meal began.

And why did they have a breaking of bread meal, not a sip of wine and piece of bread meal? Again it is simple. There was no welfare system in those days and if you were destitute or a slave, you were on your own if you were in need. So the NTC made sure that anyone who came to the fellowship had a meal that day as many didn't.

That is why when they met together, they met for the apostles teaching, prayer, fellowship and breaking of bread which was a meal.

Now if the scripture gives us instruction on how to do things, I happen to believe that is what we should do, not what the denomination says we should do. Hence my disinterest in so called communion and my support for feeding the flock.

I know that there are some people on this forum that are adamant that we have to follow what the denomination says not what scripture or history books say, but I am only stating what I have learnt from reputable authors who have written on this subject. And thankyou for raising the subject.

See post 154 of this topic.

That's very interesting and thank you for patiently writing it again and especially in answer to me because although I had already seen post 154, I can now understand fully why you have asked those questions and what you are driving at.

I can certainly imagine the breaking of bread in the community of saints as you have described it, and I'm sure it will have been a life-giving time of fellowship! How that compares in contrast to the present day... Well, I understand why it's a topic that you are passionate about!

Is your dissertation available to the public? I'd like to get a copy of that if you don't mind sharing it. Thanks

 

[andy pandy]

That's very interesting and thank you for patiently writing it again and especially in answer to me because although I had already seen post 154, I can now understand fully why you have asked those questions and what you are driving at.

I can certainly imagine the breaking of bread in the community of saints as you have described it, and I'm sure it will have been a life-giving time of fellowship! How that compares in contrast to the present day... Well, I understand why it's a topic that you are passionate about!

Is your dissertation available to the public? I'd like to get a copy of that if you don't mind sharing it. Thanks

It was part of my work on the life and leadership of the New Testament Church which I had composed for my Ph.D. When I had completed it and was ready to present it for adjudication, the Lord said I was not to present it as the gaining of a P.hD. would draw attention to myself, not him.

That was devastating for me because it was one of the best pieces of writing that I had ever done. But to love is to obey, so I consigned it to the round filing cabinet. All I am allowed is to remember what I had written. Being autistic means that I do remember quite lot of what I had written, but I am not allowed to dispense anything that is written down.

 

[andy pandy]

Maybe I shouldn't be using the word "sacraments". I just looked it up and it's not what I meant:

The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church - Personal Creations Blog

The seven sacraments of the Catholic church are baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders.

www.personalcreations.com

I had meant to refer to the piece of bread and sip of wine that protestant churches often call "the emblems". So you know what I'm talking about, the ritualistic partaking of the bread and wine.

I can only show you the place in the New Testament, the last supper, which shows Jesus telling His disciples to think in a new way of the bread and the wine, and suggesting it is a thing they should begin to do every so often in remembrance of Him and that He had been eagerly looking forward to introducing them to it.

That is what I had been taught and what I had taught but then the light dawned that there was more to this than meets the eye. When that happens with a person who is autistic there is only one course of action and that is investigate. I read at least 60 books. All they needed was the word church in the title.

I have been told by people who run this show that reading books is totally uneccesary. All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. What that says is that all those people that have been led by the Spirit to write books are deluded. I am so glad that I do not subscribe to that fallacy.

I have gleaned truth from all sorts of people that subscribe to all sorts of doctrines and beliefs, and it is not my habit to throw the baby out with the bath water. No one is perfect but there is truth if you care to look for it. Fortunately, I have been exposed to all sorts of belief systems and have learned to siphon out the good from the bad.

I am comfortable with reading those who are Calvanists and those that are Arminiam. I am comfortable reading those that are charismatic and those that are reformed. I am comfortable reading those that are traditional and those that are emerging. I am comfortable reading from 10 different versions of the Bible including the original languages. I am comfortable with those that push the gifts of the Spirit to one side and those that constantly use them. I am happy to read books written by people who shun the healing ministry and those who embrace it.

And I am glad that I am because it helps me to spot a fake a mile away. That is why I have never embraced the prosperity doctrine because in studies of the New Testament Church I found out that prosperity was having enough for today and some left over for tomorrow. As for the day after, well that was in God's hands. That is why it was easy for them to sell what they owned and give it to the poor. That is why it was easy to have all things in common.

Psalm 37:25 says "I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." Either that is the truth or it is not and if it is we don't need prosperity.

So for me, finding the story behind the story is very important because if I don't I am cheating myself out of the richness of the word of God and miss what it is really saying. I end up rationalising and spiritualising error as in a sip of wine and a piece of bread, and miss out on the richness of what really happened.

When people gather together for a communal meal, I have seen lives changed for the better. I have heard people say they like this church because they come together for a communal meal. I have heard single lonely people say that this is the most important meeting of the week for them because they don't sit on their own eating a meal by themselves.

And that is just my experience. I can't begin to imagine what the value of it is in countries where Christians are persecuted for being Christians. Plus in the Middle East particularly, it would be an insult for someone to visit your home and you gave them a piece of bread and a sip of wine. The host ALWAYS gets out food and drink for the guest and they fellowship over food, not a ritual.

 

[andy pandy]

Maybe I shouldn't be using the word "sacraments". I just looked it up and it's not what I meant:

The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church - Personal Creations Blog

The seven sacraments of the Catholic church are baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders.

www.personalcreations.com

I had meant to refer to the piece of bread and sip of wine that protestant churches often call "the emblems". So you know what I'm talking about, the ritualistic partaking of the bread and wine.

I can only show you the place in the New Testament, the last supper, which shows Jesus telling His disciples to think in a new way of the bread and the wine, and suggesting it is a thing they should begin to do every so often in remembrance of Him and that He had been eagerly looking forward to introducing them to it.

And this is a classic example where you have to seen beyond what is written for the following reasons.

Jesus would not have told them to drink blood because it was forbidden under OT Law so it had to be allegorical.

Until that point they only met once a year for the Passover meal, so to change it which is what is implied by the church would have needed an explanation. The fact that it was not forthcoming, they would have kept doing whatever they understood the words to mean once a year during a passover meal. And what could be more significant than celebrating a meal that they had done so for hundreds of years in anticipation of a coming Messiah and being able to know that he had come, he was alive and he was saving his people from their sins.

Only yesterday I read that the NTC was a Jewish church and continued to be so for a very long time after its inception. meaning that they did not stop being Jews. Although there was a movement to force gentiles to become Jews as in circumcision and the keeping of the sabbath, the decision was made that it was not necessary for gentiles to follow that aspect of The Way which is what the church was know as.

 

[Serving Zion]

the Lord said I was not to present it as the gaining of a P.hD. would draw attention to myself, not him.

That was devastating for me because it was one of the best pieces of writing that I had ever done. But to love is to obey, so I consigned it to the round filing cabinet

Awww, Andy.... I'm so sorry to hear that, I really am! I wish there was some way you could have glorified God by it, and I am sure you have wished for that many times throughout the years too, so I guess all I can do is share in your sorrow and encourage you to keep sharing that value that you have gained through it

I have been told by people who run this show that reading books is totally uneccesary. All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Strictly speaking, this position could be true if that is all that had been meant by it, because "the words that I speak are spirit and life!", but actually we can see that there's more to it than only glorifying God's Word:

What that says is that all those people that have been led by the Spirit to write books are deluded. I am so glad that I do not subscribe to that fallacy.

I do remember having seen that all unfold (albeit after the fact), and to be honest, I think that the conversation could have taken a much better direction if there wasn't so much emotion involved. The scriptures tell us to "test all things and hold fast to the good", but what we saw was not the testing of anything, but the discarding of everything you were bringing merely because it was perceived to be the foundation of your position - a position that was at war with those on the other side.

When people gather together for a communal meal, I have seen lives changed for the better. I have heard people say they like this church because they come together for a communal meal. I have heard single lonely people say that this is the most important meeting of the week for them because they don't sit on their own eating a meal by themselves.

That's interesting. So at this meal, you obviously have plenty of bread and other food, and its a thing that you say is happening weekly. So I'm tending to see it as the more authentic form of communion that you say modern churches have lost sight of. So I'm just wondering about this, whether it is customary for the host to break a loaf of bread and to share it with the others, and also whether it is customary to have wine at the meal and to share that around too. I'm just trying to find out how much of what you are doing can be transferred into common ground.

Jesus would not have told them to drink blood because it was forbidden under OT Law so it had to be allegorical.

What do you think He was meaning when He said in John 6:53-56: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him"? Did you happen to see what I have already said about that in this thread?

Only yesterday I read that the NTC was a Jewish church and continued to be so for a very long time after its inception. meaning that they did not stop being Jews.

Am I right to assume that you are not saying that it was only yesterday that you have read it for the first time? Didn't you already learn that many years ago?

 

[andy pandy]

Awww, Andy.... I'm so sorry to hear that, I really am! I wish there was some way you could have glorified God by it, and I am sure you have wished for that many times throughout the years too, so I guess all I can do is share in your sorrow and encourage you to keep sharing that value that you have gained through it


Strictly speaking, this position could be true if that is all that had been meant by it, because "the words that I speak are spirit and life!", but actually we can see that there's more to it than only glorifying God's Word:

I do remember having seen that all unfold (albeit after the fact), and to be honest, I think that the conversation could have taken a much better direction if there wasn't so much emotion involved. The scriptures tell us to "test all things and hold fast to the good", but what we saw was not the testing of anything, but the discarding of everything you were bringing merely because it was perceived to be the foundation of your position - a position that was at war with those on the other side.


That's interesting. So at this meal, you obviously have plenty of bread and other food, and its a thing that you say is happening weekly. So I'm tending to see it as the more authentic form of communion that you say modern churches have lost sight of. So I'm just wondering about this, whether it is customary for the host to break a loaf of bread and to share it with the others, and also whether it is customary to have wine at the meal and to share that around too. I'm just trying to find out how much of what you are doing can be transferred into common ground.

What do you think He was meaning when He said in John 6:53-56: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him"? Did you happen to see what I have already said about that in this thread?

Am I right to assume that you are not saying that it was only yesterday that you have read it for the first time? Didn't you already learn that many years ago?

To answer your queries......

If I have to be pendantic, I will have to be pendantic. It was only yesterday, THAT I READ AGAIN THE NTC was a jewish church etc..,

Our communion was a communal meal with all the trappings, lovingly prepared by the people present and that included wine. The breaking of bread bit was normal in Mid East homes. When they came together to eat, the head of the house broke apart a loaf of bread and gave everyone a piece and that signified the meal could begin.

You have to bear in mind that the Jews were big on tradition. Once a year for 400 years they had sat down to a passover meal and ate the prepared food all of which had significance and drank the wine (four cups). If anyone tells you it was not alcoholic tell them they do not know what they are talking about. Every year the head of the house retells the story about their deliverance from Egypt which was passed down by his father and his father and his father and his father and their hope for the coming messiah.

What was he meaning in John 6? Bearing in mind they did not drink anyone's blood human or animal, the saying was allegorical ot metaphorical and referred to the spiritual which came though the blood of Jesus on the cross. He was saying the way into the kingdom can only happen through his death on the cross and there is life in the blood, his blood so as he shed his blood we must be prepared to shed our blood for the kingdom of God. As we know we have to lose our life to find it.

There was no emotion from my end because being autistic,we do not have the ability to be emotional. We call a spade a spade and we talk about what we see, not what we feel.

 

[Serving Zion]

To answer your queries......

If I have to be pendantic, I will have to be pendantic. It was only yesterday, THAT I READ AGAIN THE NTC was a jewish church etc..,

Our communion was a communal meal with all the trappings, lovingly prepared by the people present and that included wine. The breaking of bread bit was normal in Mid East homes. When they came together to eat, the head of the house broke apart a loaf of bread and gave everyone a piece and that signified the meal could begin.

You have to bear in mind that the Jews were big on tradition. Once a year for 400 years they had sat down to a passover meal and ate the prepared food all of which had significance and drank the wine (four cups). If anyone tells you it was not alcoholic tell them they do not know what they are talking about. Every year the head of the house retells the story about their deliverance from Egypt which was passed down by his father and his father and his father and his father and their hope for the coming messiah.

What was he meaning in John 6? Bearing in mind they did not drink anyone's blood human or animal, the saying was allegorical ot metaphorical and referred to the spiritual which came though the blood of Jesus on the cross. He was saying the way into the kingdom can only happen through his death on the cross and there is life in the blood, his blood so as he shed his blood we must be prepared to shed our blood for the kingdom of God. As we know we have to lose our life to find it.

There was no emotion from my end because being autistic,we do not have the ability to be emotional. We call a spade a spade and we talk about what we see, not what we feel.

Oh! well this is interesting, it almost sounds as though what you are doing in your weekly church meals is like the authentic way to do communion and that the meal has gradually changed over the years to become a ritual. Would you say that too? It isn't so far-fetched you know, to think that your way of doing the meal is the proper and original way to do the communion - because there's been so much lost knowledge over the years, and people just tend to absorb the traditions of their own church in full trust and then carry them forward without ever thinking too much about it. It's only occasionally that someone comes along and challenges the status quo (eg: Luther): someone who has a healthy skepticism and an eye for detail and has confidence to ask the questions that everyone else hasn't asked. That would be interesting and the more I think about it the more I want to really see your weekly meals in action!

Is there a church that you know of in New Zealand that observes the meal as you are telling it?

 

[andy pandy]

Oh! well this is interesting, it almost sounds as though what you are doing in your weekly church meals is like the authentic way to do communion and that the meal has gradually changed over the years to become a ritual. Would you say that too? It isn't so far-fetched you know, to think that your way of doing the meal is the proper and original way to do the communion - because there's been so much lost knowledge over the years, and people just tend to absorb the traditions of their own church in full trust and then carry them forward without ever thinking too much about it. It's only occasionally that someone comes along and challenges the status quo (eg: Luther): someone who has a healthy skepticism and an eye for detail and has confidence to ask the questions that everyone else hasn't asked. That would be interesting and the more I think about it the more I want to really see your weekly meals in action!

Is there a church that you know of in New Zealand that observes the meal as you are telling it?

You have hit the nail on the head. When you study the scripture in depth which is what I do because I have trained as a teacher at university and have been given an anointing for teaching in the body of Christ, you soon discover that what you read is not always what it says. We are told to SEARCH the scriptures, not skim over them and then forget what you have read. And as I have found out what the church teaches today is far from the truth.

Too many pastors do not want you to think. If you do you may end up knowing more than he does and that is something he would definitely not like. They want you to stay with the traditions as it makes it easy for them.

And I have said on other forums, no church that follows the teaching of scripture will lose out for the simple reason that Jesus said he would build HIS church, not ours.

I can't help you with the NZ situation as I know next to nothing about it. My only contact was through Bill Zubritski who was part of the restoration movement in the 70's and 80s.

 

[D-D-W]

Nor daily, monthly, annually... Only "so often".

Actually that is not true. Since it was already part of the Passover Seder, annual would have been the basic understanding. "as often as ..." would be taken to mean EVERY PASSOVER.