Significance of the Last Supper

[stovebolts]

The Lord's table only serves the actual purpose of individualizing incrimination. Therefore participation in the ceremony cannot result in an exoneration of sin since the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed in the first place. Participation at this table based on the false assumption that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct postive benefit is incriminatory by disregarding the fact that it is actually a unilatterally accountable sin.

Say what? :help I've heard a lot of things said over the years about the Lord's Table, but never anything like this. Help me out here.

The Lord's table only serves the actual purpose of individualizing incrimination.
I would disagree that it "Only Serves" the function you assert. But please, explain this if you would. I can't seem to wrap my mind around that concept.

Therefore participation in the ceremony cannot result in an exoneration of sin since the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed in the first place.

Without blood, there is no forgiveness of sin... Anyway, please also explain how you derive this conclusion.


Participation at this table based on the false assumption that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct postive benefit is incriminatory by disregarding the fact that it is actually a unilatterally accountable sin.

That's a pretty tough exertion. Put for it to hold up, I think you'll need to go back and qualify your first statement.

Thanks!

 

[Asyncritus]

dbl posting.

 

[Asyncritus]

Participation is as often as you like. But NOT discerning, comprehending, that the crucifixion of Lord's body is a sin is incriminatory for that individual. It is not possible for anyone to be exonerated of being guilty of a sin(s) whenever it is a sin that the claimant claims to have exonerated himself. This type of reasoning is always incriminatory. Understand?

Er, no. This makes no sense at all to me, so could you please simplify?

In any case, the popular understanding of 'discerning the Lord''s body' and 'let a man examine himself' is totally wrong, and has very little to do with the context of 1 Cor 10.

Perhaps you might like to have a look at the chapter?

 

[stranger]

I'll stipulate that I am very well aware of the flawed reasoning of Reformed theology. But in this contemporary setting all salvific proposals relative to Jesus' crucifixion are articulations that assume that it is only his death that is salvific. The error is not the resident of only Reformed theology. Maybe it should be recalled that it only takes one little pinch of a particular form of leaven to corrupt the whole lump.

Theodore,

There is the jargon and popular expressions which are misleading. That aside, some focus so much on the cross (preaching nothing but Christ crucified) that they ignore the resurrection or relegated preaching about it to once a year at Easter. That would result in emphasis distortion. Of course, men who are themselves dead in their sins offer a poor witness about new life in Christ.

But tell me - what is the lump that is not corrupted?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Er, no. This makes no sense at all to me, so could you please simplify?

In any case, the popular understanding of 'discerning the Lord''s body' and 'let a man examine himself' is totally wrong, and has very little to do with the context of 1 Cor 10.

Perhaps you might like to have a look at the chapter?

I am not understanding what it is that you are misunderstanding. Would you state what the term "popular understanding" means to you and elorabrate why it is wrong?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore,

There is the jargon and popular expressions which are misleading. That aside, some focus so much on the cross (preaching nothing but Christ crucified) that they ignore the resurrection or relegated preaching about it to once a year at Easter. That would result in emphasis distortion. Of course, men who are themselves dead in their sins offer a poor witness about new life in Christ.

But tell me - what is the lump that is not corrupted?

And after his resurrection what happened?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Say what? :help I've heard a lot of things said over the years about the Lord's Table, but never anything like this.

"and without the shedding of blood there is no remission."

from the penalty of sin. Doesn't Jesus state that after his crucifixion the whole world remains guilty of at least a sin? Jn. 16:8 So then are you able to crucify him again to resolve the complication of that sin? So then what is the avaliable method to you to resolve the remaining issue or serve the penalty?

 

[Asyncritus]

I am not understanding what it is that you are misunderstanding. Would you state what the term "popular understanding" means to you and elorabrate why it is wrong?

Participation is as often as you like. But NOT discerning, comprehending, that the crucifixion of Lord's body is a sin is incriminatory for that individual. It is not possible for anyone to be exonerated of being guilty of a sin(s) whenever it is a sin that the claimant claims to have exonerated himself. This type of reasoning is always incriminatory. Understand?

Participation is as often as you like.

Do it as often as you like - that what you mean?

But NOT discerning, comprehending, that the crucifixion of Lord's body is a sin is incriminatory for that individual.

Not discerning = not understanding?

that the crucifixion of the Lord's body is a sin

What on earth does that mean, and where does it come from, please?

is incriminatory for that individual

Does that mean that the individual is condemned?

Sorry to be perspicuously challenged, but the polysyllabic terminology obfuscates what may otherwise be an egregiously comprehensible significance.

I'll deal with the question in my next post.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. ref. Acts 7:52
To answer one of your questions.

 

[Asyncritus]

The crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. ref. Acts 7:52

That, of course, is unquestionable.

But if I understand you correctly,

that the crucifixion of Lord's body is a sin is incriminatory for that individual.

you're saying that such a charge can be laid at the believer's door at the Lord's supper.

Have I got that understanding right?

If I have, then where does that idea come from?

 

[stranger]

And after his resurrection what happened?

The witnessed resurrection appearances followed by the ascension, Pentecost .... the question was about the 'lump' that isn't corrupted.

Perhaps a clarification is in order.

Quote: "Maybe it should be recalled that it only takes one little pinch of a particular form of leaven to corrupt the whole lump." To what are you referring as a particular form of leaven? Then my question: is there a lump which is free of this form?

 

[stovebolts]

from the penalty of sin. Doesn't Jesus state that after his crucifixion the whole world remains guilty of at least a sin? Jn. 16:8 So then are you able to crucify him again to resolve the complication of that sin? So then what is the avaliable method to you to resolve the remaining issue or serve the penalty?

1 John 1 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



Matthew 26 26And 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.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



testament can also be translated as covenant.


So we see that the shed blood of Jesus, is the blood of the new Covenant which Jeremiah spoke of.


Jer 31 31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:



So we see that the blood that Jesus shed on the cross does not point towards his crucifiction, but it points to the new covenant in Christ.


This has nothing to do with crucifying Christ over again. It is only when we go into disbelief that Christ is thus "crucified" again.


Hebrews 6 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The witnessed resurrection appearances followed by the ascension, Pentecost .... the question was about the 'lump' that isn't corrupted.

Perhaps a clarification is in order.

Quote: "Maybe it should be recalled that it only takes one little pinch of a particular form of leaven to corrupt the whole lump." To what are you referring as a particular form of leaven? Then my question: is there a lump which is free of this form?

I am aware of your question about which lump, i.e. belief system, that has not been corrupted by the particle of the leaven Jesus has warned us about. But isn't this the contemporary condititon? "We have our notions about things" and there are others saying "We have our notions about things too" and each says that they are "superior to the notions you have" etc? And representing this is a church building of some sort on the corner of every block and several more inbetween those. But isn't it the actual truth that there are only a very few whomever find what the small narrow gate is that the individual must actually use to get into God's kingdom? Reading your first response I thought your belief system only went as far as his resurrection. So then upon his ascention the scripture records, even if your dogma doesn't, that at least two more things have happened. And it is one of these two things in particular that is NEVER heard about in any contemporary church house that I know of! What are these two things?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

1 John 1 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



Matthew 26 26And 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.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



testament can also be translated as covenant.


So we see that the shed blood of Jesus, is the blood of the new Covenant which Jeremiah spoke of.


Jer 31 31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:



So we see that the blood that Jesus shed on the cross does not point towards his crucifiction, but it points to the new covenant in Christ.


This has nothing to do with crucifying Christ over again. It is only when we go into disbelief that Christ is thus "crucified" again.


Hebrews 6 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Bolts, you've got a few without nuts.

 

[stovebolts]

Bolts, you've got a few without nuts.

What I posted was a rough outline.

Let's look at the passages in Luke
19And 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.

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Testament in Greek is diatheke and can be translated into english as either testament or covenant.

So we see that the Blood of Jesus, is the blood of the new covenant and the bread, we are to partake in remembrance of Jesus.

Which new covenant? The covenant the prophet Jer spoke of in Jer 31:31

Do you also need a washer?...

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

What I posted was a rough outline.

Let's look at the passages in Luke
19And 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.

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Testament in Greek is diatheke and can be translated into english as either testament or covenant.

So we see that the Blood of Jesus, is the blood of the new covenant and the bread, we are to partake in remembrance of Jesus.

Which new covenant? The covenant the prophet Jer spoke of in Jer 31:31

Do you also need a washer?...

Better. I understood that your comment was an outline, but Jer. 31:31 is only an outline too.
The question under consideration is "What is the signifiance of the last supper?". Generally the contemporary churches teach that participation in communion, the Lord's supper, Euchrist, etc. is without complication. However that is not the truth according to the Bible. When I was a young fellow and arrived at the age of being allowed to be a participant at the Lord's table. I began to listen carefully to the text of 1 Cor. 11:23-31, KJV only, mind you. Since this happened every week and the issue of guilt relative to the Lord's body and blood is a factoid. That fact became significant to me. On the one hand churches assumed to be built on the foundation of the Lord's crucifixion assert that his crucifixion has resolved mankind's problem with sin and the associated factor of relative guilt. But he states a one hundred and eighty degree opposite fact. "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin."
To the point. Either what is taught in the churches about Jesus' crucifxion is entirely false or both statements in the record are false. The attempt to have one's cake and eat it, can be attempted, but any defence you make to defend the status quo is argumentive against facts in evidence that you have already agreed to be true. There may be questionable statements in the Bible, but there are, as an absolute, no quotes atributed to the Living God that an upstart man puts to the question of validity if he wishes to remain alive. Therefore, "On the night in which Jesus was betrayed he took bread: And when he had given thanks he brake it and said, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: this do in rememberance of me. 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 rememberance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." that it is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed and is only benefical to the man who is totally convicted that he must give an account that is acceptable directly to God or remain guilty of not obeying God. His body was broken and his blood was shed by crucifying him to become the one sin every man must confess to in order to save himself from God's wrath. There are no exceptions.

 

[stranger]

I am aware of your question about which lump, i.e. belief system, that has not been corrupted by the particle of the leaven Jesus has warned us about. But isn't this the contemporary condititon? "We have our notions about things" and there are others saying "We have our notions about things too" and each says that they are "superior to the notions you have" etc? And representing this is a church building of some sort on the corner of every block and several more inbetween those. But isn't it the actual truth that there are only a very few whomever find what the small narrow gate is that the individual must actually use to get into God's kingdom? Reading your first response I thought your belief system only went as far as his resurrection. So then upon his ascention the scripture records, even if your dogma doesn't, that at least two more things have happened. And it is one of these two things in particular that is NEVER heard about in any contemporary church house that I know of! What are these two things?

Theodore,

We got as far as the ascension... take your pick what comes from our sense of chronology... sitting down at God's right hand, dominion of the world, conquest of death, return of Christ, final jugdment.... creation of a new heavens and a new earth..... all part of a Christian world view. Unless you want to stick to generalisations you have to be more specific.

The apostolic standard of faith is the reference. Anything that deviates from that standard, even by 1 part in a million is corrupted. So back to the tread: what is the apostolic standard for the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist as the Early Church called it?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore,

We got as far as the ascension... take your pick what comes from our sense of chronology... sitting down at God's right hand, dominion of the world, conquest of death, return of Christ, final jugdment.... creation of a new heavens and a new earth..... all part of a Christian world view. Unless you want to stick to generalisations you have to be more specific.

The apostolic standard of faith is the reference. Anything that deviates from that standard, even by 1 part in a million is corrupted. So back to the tread: what is the apostolic standard for the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist as the Early Church called it?

The standard is to show and prove guilt relative to Jesus' crucifixion. The two things related to his ascension are 1, a change of the priesthood and 2, a change made to the law, an addition. The contemporary teaching and deviated standard is exactly opposite. The contemporary doctrines do not explain to each individual that it is Jesus' crucifixion, that sin, that each individual MUST give account of to receive the grace to be allowed to escape eternal death. There are NO exceptions. There is no church of God of which Jesus Christ is the head that teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct positive benefit. And in this contemporary era there is no church that does not teach anyother doctrinal standard than Jesus' crucifixion being a direct positive benefit. They are all tares. There are no exceptions. Which is why it is true that God has prepared this table before Him in the presence of his enemies.

 

[stranger]

The standard is to show and prove guilt relative to Jesus' crucifixion. The two things related to his ascension are 1, a change of the priesthood and 2, a change made to the law, an addition. The contemporary teaching and deviated standard is exactly opposite. The contemporary doctrines do not explain to each individual that it is Jesus' crucifixion, that sin, that each individual MUST give account of to receive the grace to be allowed to escape eternal death. There are NO exceptions. There is no church of God of which Jesus Christ is the head that teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct positive benefit. And in this contemporary era there is no church that does not teach any other doctrinal standard than Jesus' crucifixion being a direct positive benefit. They are all tares. There are no exceptions. Which is why it is true that God has prepared this table before Him in the presence of his enemies.

Theodore,

''The standard is to show and prove guilt relative to Jesus' crucifixion.''

Guilt is a consequence of braking God's laws which he has revealed:

1. Some of these laws are relative to God and in that sense I agree e.g. The Jews shouted to Pilate 'his blood be upon us and our descendants.' How that implicates Gentiles is a point that could be argued.

2. Most of God's revealed laws apply to our neighbors. e.g. don't steal or bear false witness.
In terms of sacrifice for the sin of stealing, these could be said to be relative to the crucifixion....

In what way are you saying that Jesus changed the law? Summarizing the law as love God and love neighbor?

I would say sin is sin either against God or man, except for sin which is not forgiven and leads to damnation. So it isn't one sin in particular that needs to be forgiven but all sin.

You may have made a typo in saying:

"There is no church of God of which Jesus Christ is the head that teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct positive benefit." cf "And in this contemporary era there is no church that does not teach any other doctrinal standard than Jesus' crucifixion being a direct positive benefit."

A church can't teach and not teach the same thing so this must be a typo.

It might help me if you tell me what your denominational affiliation is? The reason I ask this is that I don't readily recognize the direction you are coming from nor this form of argument.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Theodore,

''The standard is to show and prove guilt relative to Jesus' crucifixion.''

Guilt is a consequence of braking God's laws which he has revealed:

1. Some of these laws are relative to God and in that sense I agree e.g. The Jews shouted to Pilate 'his blood be upon us and our descendants.' How that implicates Gentiles is a point that could be argued.

2. Most of God's revealed laws apply to our neighbors. e.g. don't steal or bear false witness.
In terms of sacrifice for the sin of stealing, these could be said to be relative to the crucifixion....

In what way are you saying that Jesus changed the law? Summarizing the law as love God and love neighbor?

I would say sin is sin either against God or man, except for sin which is not forgiven and leads to damnation. So it isn't one sin in particular that needs to be forgiven but all sin.

You may have made a typo in saying:

"There is no church of God of which Jesus Christ is the head that teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct positive benefit." cf "And in this contemporary era there is no church that does not teach any other doctrinal standard than Jesus' crucifixion being a direct positive benefit."

A church can't teach and not teach the same thing so this must be a typo.

It might help me if you tell me what your denominational affiliation is? The reason I ask this is that I don't readily recognize the direction you are coming from nor this form of argument.

1. Denominational affiilation? None nor will there ever be again for me.
2. How that implicates Gentiles?

Since I am not a scholar of any sort. The expression of my thought is admittedly rough edged. So bear with me in a recapitulation of the dichotomy as I see it.
In Acts 5:27-33 the primary complaint aganist what all of the apostles taught is stated, "ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." The NIV states, "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
In what church house today is their doctrine heard? If you find one, friend, let me know. For what is actually heard in today's church houses is the exact opposite of their doctrine, a lie. As it is written, "Men love the darkness of a lie, rather than the truth." about the crucifixion of God's only begotten son.
Once upon a time I was sitting in a Presbyterian church, PCA mind you, during what they call communion. The bread having been served and eaten now we're down to the cup. This tangled headed fully trained scholar of a preacher says "Drink. Feel the juice trickle down your throat. Feel forgiveness!" But God says, "Come now and let us reason together" in regard to how these sins he's talking about got to be those two colors. Scarlet. The color of dried blood. Crimson. The color of freshly shed blood. "If ye be willing and obedient". Willing and obedient to do what? "Brothers!! What shall we do?" about crucifying the only begotten son of the Living God? Is the grace to repent of this one sin to be forgiven of pasts sins only for the Jew?