The true significance of the Communion

Righttruth said:

Paul claims to have had a special tutorial for him by Jesus!

Click to expand...

That's debatable. I agree that he has testified of having revelations, but I believe that reference of having received "of" the Lord is pertaining what He was sharing was of the Lord; and not necessarily attributing that as from a revelation. Paul did meet with the disciples and he undoubtedly had communion with them to know what communion was for by the disciples.

Yeah! Not even facebook! LOL

Click to expand...

Makes one wonder how far the disciples & the first century church would have gone if they had, but then again, no man can come to the Son unless the Father draws him.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Holy Spirit cannot be partial to Paul only!

Click to expand...

I doubt the disciples would let Paul get away with teaching something that they did not have the same mind of in saying. Paul did not let them get away with separating themselves from the Gentiles believers when sitting down so they would not allow Paul to teach differently.

Tellastory said:

Luke 22:9 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. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24 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 remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Yeah... I am still not seeing anything extra added to it for what we are to "do" communion for.

You are going to have to lead me by the hand in seeing it, brother.

Click to expand...

All right. Consider this--

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27, says “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Why would anyone be guilty of not remembering accurately?

And what is such a person guilty of--not handling bread or wine properly? No, it's “the body and blood of the Lord,” according to Paul, and the person is guilty of “not discerning the Lord’s body” ( 1 Cor 11: 29). Three Bible versions (that I just checked) translate that as "sinning against the Lord's body and blood."

Albion said:

All right. Consider this--

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27, says “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Why would anyone be guilty of not remembering accurately?

And what is such a person guilty of--not handling bread or wine properly? No, it's “the body and blood of the Lord,” according to Paul, and the person is guilty of “not discerning the Lord’s body” ( 1 Cor 11: 29).

Click to expand...

Context, brother Albion.

The rebuke was towards those looking at communion as a means to satisfy their hunger & thirst and so it was in that light that they were doing so in an unworthy manner.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 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 remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

The rebuke was taking the Lord's Supper not in remembrance of Him, but taking it to satisfy their hunger & thirst. The primary motivation for having communion is to be done in remembrance of Him. That is all that I see here as meaning, brother Albion.

Tellastory said:

Context, brother Albion.

The rebuke was towards those looking at communion as a means to satisfy their hunger & thirst and so it was in that light that they were doing so in an unworthy manner.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 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 remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

The rebuke was taking the Lord's Supper not in remembrance of Him, but taking it to satisfy their hunger & thirst. The primary motivation for having communion is to be done in remembrance of Him. That is all that I see here as meaning, brother Albion.

Click to expand...

But the rebuke was also because of what the bread and wine mean. You can't just say that it was a rebuke THEREFORE it's only a remembrance.

Whatever Paul's warning was based upon, the wording tells us that it's a sin or terrible wrong AND related to the bread and wine themselves. You don't seem to have taken account of what I showed you about that in the previous post, so I'd recommend another reading of it.

Albion said:

But the rebuke was also because of what the bread and wine mean. You can't just say that it was a rebuke THEREFORE it's only a remembrance.

Whatever Paul's warning was based upon, the wording tells us that it's a sin or terrible wrong AND related to the bread and wine themselves. You don't seem to have taken account of what I showed you about that in the previous post, so I'd recommend another reading of it.

Click to expand...

But... regardless of how Paul was explaining what communion means, of which I believe you are misunderstanding him, he reiterated that it was to simply to be done in remembrance of Him.

Since those believers at Corinth were taking communion for more than just in remembrance of Him, one could apply my understanding of that reference to mean communion only to be taken in remembrance of Him.

Tellastory said:

But... regardless of how Paul was explaining what communion means, of which I believe you are misunderstanding him, he reiterated that it was to simply to be done in remembrance of Him.

Click to expand...

Well, all you are doing there is determining not to take account of the parts of the passage that show your interpretation to be wrong--and after you asked for specifics about what is written that you had not taken account of.

Since those believers at Corinth were taking communion for more than just in remembrance of Him, one could apply my understanding of that reference to mean communion only to be taken in remembrance of Him.

Click to expand...

That would be very illogical IMO. We know for a fact, and from the passage, that Paul's criticism of them is not just about them approaching the sacrament wrongly. He also tells us why they are sinning against the sacrament. Not just doing wrong or being unworthy, as you'd have us think, but offending against the substance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That wouldn't be so if it were just a remembrance.

Righttruth said:

This helps in looking at the ritual of communion started by Paul in a different way. Jesus was preparing His apostles of His death. He never wanted the ritual of Passover to continue after His final sacrifice. Henceforth, it was His words and commandments that would offer eternal life.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We are the "firstborn" in a sense...we should be keeping that fast, I think, in remembrance of the true meaning of Passover...we should be honoring His sacrifice.
I have always wondered how it is that so many Christians will fix a huge ham dinner for Easter...Resurrection Sunday. How does it honor Christ to indulge in a food that was forbidden to Him and to His disciples?

Albion said:

Well, all you are doing there is determining not to take account of the parts of the passage that show your interpretation to be wrong--and after you asked for specifics about what is written that you had not taken account of.

That would be very illogical IMO. We know for a fact, and from the passage, that Paul's criticism of them is not just about them approaching the sacrament wrongly. He also tells us why they are sinning against the sacrament. Not just doing wrong or being unworthy, as you'd have us think, but offending against the substance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That wouldn't be so if it were just a remembrance.

Click to expand...

#1. Paul never addressed the bread nor the wine as a sacrament. That would make it an idol. You would be hard pressed to show the difference between that and an idol. Do not men make idols out of wood and believe there is a presence of a deity in their idols? And yet men make the bread and the wine and somehow God would have us all wink in treating an inanimate object like the bread & the wine as if Christ's Presence is in them to be "consume". Hardly abstaining from all appearances of evil there.

If Protestants wishes to defer from catholicism, they need to drop that word "sacrament". Making something sacred is different from an ordinance to be kept.

#2. Paul critically reminding what the bread & wine represent was to set communion apart from what believers do when eating and drinking normally to satisfy their hunger & thirst.

#3. Paul only reiterated the sole point of doing communion and that was in remembrance of Him which reflected as Jesus had taught.

I agree with Albion...the communion is a remembrance...a memorial to our Lord.
However, I wonder if it ought to be associated with the Passover, or what we Christians call Easter. Should we not also fast, as the Firstborn did, before going into our Easter weekend? Then, Thursday evening after sundown, would be the time to break that fast with a light meal of bread and wine...or grape juice for those who prefer juice. Friday is the day our Lamb was slaughtered...my Mom always made us fishsticks on Good Friday, I never was quite sure why...and then Saturday we are quiet as He descends into hell....and then Sunday we celebrate His glorious resurrection. I always do a turkey dinner with all the fixins...my family loves a turkey dinner, and I just can't bring myself to do the ham thing...I don't really like ham all that much to begin with. I suppose if I really wanted to do it right, I ought to do a lamb...except I've never had lamb, and have no idea how to cook it...

Tellastory said:

If Protestants wishes to defer from catholicism, they need to drop that word "sacrament". Making something sacred is different from an ordinance to be kept.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't what the word means or where it comes from. And I'm not one to change everything in the faith for no reason other than that "the Catholics do it that way." Such was the Puritans' approach, but most Protestants are not into changing what was not wrong along with that which needed reform.

Albion said:

Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't what the word means or where it comes from. And I'm not one to change everything in the faith for no reason other than that "the Catholics do it that way." Such was the Puritans' approach, but most Protestants are not into changing what was not wrong along with that which needed reform.

Click to expand...

Define sacrament and do cite a source, please.

I still say that believing Christ's Presence in the bread & wine adds credence to the Eucharist and the Mass. I doubt very much the Lord would give an inch for what the wayward believers take a mile with.

Righttruth said:

The division between Paul and chosen apostles began after his first journey. I strongly think, he started to take his own way without the understanding of the spirit behind what was said by the Lord during the Last Supper.

Click to expand...

Do continue to put that thought in the theoritical realm and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd to clarify the matter by citing that the disciples would expose such in their letters of Peter & James & John if Paul had actually done that.

So not likely.

The contradictory record of the vision of Paul recorded by Luke on the way to Damascus makes us think that as if Paul was obliged to work for the sake of suffering servant, Jesus. Jesus was no longer a suffering servant after His ascension. In fact, Stephen had a better vision of Jesus in the right hand side of God.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly with His help, there was no contradiction. The varying accounts was where the latter one was on when Paul was reporting of the first time when he had actually met any of the actual remaining 11 disciples of Jesus since his conversion. There are two topics in that varying account & the latter was not really about the same thing from the first account.

Yes, with humility. I don't see that in case of Paul among semi-literate apostles.

Click to expand...

You forget the power of the Holy Ghost in those semi-literate apostles, even for Paul.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. 14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

1 Corinthians 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

None of the chosen apostles used to be there along with Paul with regard to the congregation he wrote subsequently.

Click to expand...

Peter kept up with all of Paul's epistles.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter made no mention of Paul being wrong about how to have communion. Peter still called Paul a brother and reported that some errant believers misunderstood Paul, and wrest not only Paul's words but scripture as well, thus Peter was placing Paul's words in the category of the scripture as accepted writings.

So you may want to ask the Lord to see that Paul was not contrary after all.

Tellastory said:

Define sacrament and do cite a source, please.

Click to expand...

As closely as I can explain it here, the word derives from something signified. It was borrowed by the early Christian church from Roman military use where a soldier had to attest to his loyalty to the Emperor. So, in church usage, it signifies something about grace and forgiveness (which are believed to be features of any genuine "ordinance" i.e. "sacrament.")

Albion said:

As closely as I can explain it here, the word derives from something signified. It was borrowed by the early Christian church from Roman military use where a soldier had to attest to his loyalty to the Emperor. So, in church usage, it signifies something about grace and forgiveness (which are believed to be features of any genuine "ordinance" i.e. "sacrament.")

Click to expand...

So .... one has to do the sacraments even though it is a representative of "grace & forgiveness"? Is that not what the RCC is using the sacraments for as a means to obtain grace & forgiveness?

Sounds like just cause for dropping the word "sacrament". You do not need to use that word in performing communion.

Righttruth said:

Notice again that Peter never called Paul an apostle. Never said that the Holy Spirit inspired to write up the letters. The chosen apostles were not crafty like Paul but believed in the work of the Spirit instead of writing letters that can be altered, manipulated, added, deleted, etc.

Click to expand...

Peter put Paul's epistles on par with the accepted scripture as what the believers that err do when they wrest Paul's words and the scripture to their own destruction.

Only Jesus can help you see that.

John 15:1-2 speaks of believers that are His disciples as bearing fruit and how He will prune fruitful believers into bearing more fruit. So no believer should take a "stand" on his perspective if he values following Him as His disciple.

I wish the churches would do that but they seem set in their "established denomenational beliefs" as if they have abtained perfection to never see a need for reformation to even confirm their established denomenational beliefs by the scripture as kept in the KJV.

Righttruth said:

Easter declares freedom from ritual and letter of the Law. It ought to be a great celebration!

Click to expand...

In my house, it is as great a celebration as Christmas. Everyone loves a turkey dinner...