Communion

[Andrew]

It would be nice if the OP would stop pushing his legalism. He is leading people astray. That is serious.

Not only that, this is hardly WOF teaching. I've never heard any WOF preacher or teacher say that it MUST be wine and worse, it MUST be leavened bread. This is a first.

So rather than warn us and delete our posts, the mods should be warning the OP!!!

 

[Prosperity]

Not only that, this is hardly WOF teaching. I've never heard any WOF preacher or teacher say that it MUST be wine and unleavened bread.

Maybe you haven't heard it all.

Peace Brother.

 

[Prosperity]

I agree that the elements are anointed, but this is not the position you have taken previously. YOu said that the elements are not symbolic but literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Transmutation, constipation whatever. This is what I mean by "spin"!
PJ

I've said a lot, but I'm certain that I didn't say that. Please point out where I said that. Cite the Post and paragraph. I'm awaiting your reply with anticipation.

 

[PastorJoey]

Jesus didn't say that the bread and wine simply represented His body and blood, He said they were His body and blood.......... In this way, perhaps the body and blood of Jesus, which exists in the spiritual world, emanates from God while cohabitating in the same space as the bread and wine until it is released by your faith through your obedience to Jesus eating it as Jesus instructed. Perhaps when you bless the bread and wine, in the Name of Jesus, it charges the elements with His body and blood is a spiritual sense as you are a spirit. Is this the reason that we should bless the elements. Consider the following scriptures:

I dont see anointing mentioned here one time. I'd still like quotes from you proving that Copeland said that Adams blood was the glory of God and that blood is now coagulated glory. This is amazing to me.
PJ

 

[Prosperity]

This is fromn Post# 35:

"Let me attempt to define my thinking. My, as yet unidentified term, means an inclusion of one substance in another, specifically the blood and body of Christ are in spiritually seeded in the unleavened bread and wine communion elements, when the element are blessed in the name of Jesus. The body and blood of Christ are in the same dimension that our spirit-man and Jesus are in, while the actual bread and wine are in what we know as our physical universe. The blood and body of Jesus have the same relationship to the bread and wine as our spirit-man has to our body. When our flesh dies, our spirit-man, complete with our soul, is released from this physical universe. Likewise, when we consume the blessed bread and wine, in faith, Jesus' blood and body are released into our spirit and flesh. Both our spirit and flesh derive Godly benefits form this release."

I later added to my writing that the anointing takes place when the elements are blessed in faith.

Your turn to show me where I said otherwise or, as an honorable man, admit you were wrong.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe you haven't heard it all.

Peace Brother.

Don't "peace" me if you want to bring in legalism.

grace/peace and legalism don't mix.

 

[Father Rick]

You are once again putting words into my mouth. I did not use the word. "...insist..."

I didn't say you used the word "insist"... rather I accurately described your actions/tone in posting.

I've already presented excerpts from apologetics, scripture and valid extrapolation of scripture to support that the bread was leavened. You have simply elected to believe otherwise.

Uhh,... No, you haven't presented valid extrapolation-- and even less in apologetics/scriptures. You accuse me of 'simply electing to believe otherwise', yet I simply presented to you the ONLY 4 times in scripture in which the institution of communion are described. In ALL 4 times, it says it was unleavened bread. It uses a specific word for bread that actually means "unleavened bread". I even gave you the greek word used there.

You are the one choosing to ignore the plain face value of scripture because it doesn't agree with your pre-determined interpretation of it. There is nothing ANYWHERE in scripture that says, or even remotely implies, that Jesus used leavened bread. I challenge you to present even a single scripture that says that. I have already presented 4 that specifically say otherwise.

You can get on-line and find plenty of arguments that swing both ways, if arguing is what you want to do.

If I look online, I can find arguments that Jesus was really an alien and he is coming back in a UFO. That has nothing to do with actually studying the scriptures however.

Jesus was not administering over Passover when he offered the first communion. He was teaching his decuples what the Passover was a fore runner of, which is communion.

Once again, Scripture actually says differently from what you are proposing. I gave you the actual scriptures--not just an interpretation of them. Again, you are choosing to ignore the plain face value of scriptures in favor of your predetermined 'interpretation'.

Passover is Old Covenant. Communion is New Testament. Different elements, different procedure, different purpose and different results.

It was the days of unleavened bread according to Jewish custom, however Jesus was the Passover Lamb during this year and for all time. It was the time to introduce Jesus' followers to what the Passover was the forerunner of, which was communion. Passover was instituted under the law, while communion was instituted under grace.

The disciples may or may not have celebrated Passover prior to Jesus introducing them to communion. This is a non issue.

Your statement that this is a "non-issue" sinply reveals your ignorance of the bulk of the teaching of Scripture (both New and Old Testaments).

BTW, you might want to decide when the Law was fulfilled and Grace instituted. If grace was instituted by the shedding of Christ's blood on the Cross, then Communion was actually instituted BEFORE that occurred (if you remember correctly). You might also want to remember that Jesus perfectly kept the Law (in fact He was the only one who could). This meant that He would have only eaten unleavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened bread-- otherwise, He would have broken the Law and automatically been disqualified from being the perfect sacrifice for sins and therefore our Savior.

Jesus blessed the bread and the wine. The bread was His body, the wine was His blood. I don't recall Him assigning the rest of the meal any significance.

The meal already had significance assigned to it by God in the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it, if you remember.

By the way, just to save you some work, I'm not going to go look up a couple of hundred Bible verses, most of which are unrelated or out of context, just to answer your post. Like I said, I'm just extending you a courtesy which will hopefully stop you from wasting you time.

I don't expect you to look up "a couple of hundred Bible verses". I haven't done that either. I have simply give you the ONLY 4 passages in Scripture that actually deal with this subject and looked at them. You don't seem to like those passages, apparently, since they totally disprove your arguement, but those are the passages you must deal with if you want to actually have a scriptural basis for any discussion of this subject.

 

[Prosperity]

Jesus didn't say that the bread and wine simply represented His body and blood, He said they were His body and blood.......... In this way, perhaps the body and blood of Jesus, which exists in the spiritual world, emanates from God while cohabitating in the same space as the bread and wine until it is released by your faith through your obedience to Jesus eating it as Jesus instructed. Perhaps when you bless the bread and wine, in the Name of Jesus, it charges the elements with His body and blood is a spiritual sense as you are a spirit. Is this the reason that we should bless the elements. Consider the following scriptures:

Jesus is the one who called it the wine his blood and the bread his body. I guess that he must have known what He was saying and must have said it for a reason.

I said, "perhaps." Although I have come to believe that this anointing does take place when the element are blessed in faith. The Blood and Body are the forms that God's anointing would take in this instance. God can use his spirit any way He chooses and in this instance it would make Jesus' statement make perfect sense.

[size=+0]Now please be so kind as to show me where I said, "... that the elements are not symbolic but literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. "
[size=+0]
[size=+0]In the alternative, please admit that you misquoted me.

[/size]
Thank you!

By the way, I checked with my wife as to what Copeland said and she remembers it the same way. I'll ask my friend tomorrow where I might find Kenneth's quote. He is a walking Encyclopedia on WOF teachers. He may know. I would keep looking if I were you, just incase we can't get you going in the right direction. He has taught this on more than one occasion and I'm sure that if you really want to know that you could call or write KCM to confirm what I've said. Then you can tell me where you found it so I can tell the next guy that asks.


[/size]
[/size]

 

[PastorJoey]

Not the way that I understand the use of the term Transubstantiation.

I don't believe that the bread and wine are transforme in any way.

I beleive that when the are blessed, in the name of Jesus, that that they become a tool by which God injects the bllod and body of Jesus into us.

Jesus said that this is my body (bread) and my blood (wine). He stated this very literally. I personally believe that the spiritual essence of Jesus blood and body are ushered into us by eating the bread and drinking the wine. In other words the bread and wine contain the actual body and blood of Jesus, even though we can't physically discern this. If we could see into the spiritual world we would see the reality of this. I believe that when we bless the bread and wine, in the name of Jesus, that the bread and wine ushers the actual blood and body of Jesus into out spirit-man as well as out flesh. It is just like how our physical body is host to our spirit-man. We do not see this because the blood and body of Jesus is where Jesus is at, in what we call the spiritual world, but we can see the manifestations of this consumption. We see the results in healing, deliverance and in all promises of Gods that manifest in our lives. It also goes hand in hand with the verse that says we are seated with Christ in Heavenly places.

I appreciate the depth of our conversation. The deep calls to the deep.

Coments are welcome.

In one sentence you said the elements arent transformed but then you say that it is the literal blood and body of Jesus. Then you say that it was "spiritually injected" into the elements. Come on. No wonder WOF gets so much criticism. Tell me one WOF minister that teaches this other than your self. YOur making alot of statements and havent given one single quote to back them up. If your going to quote a minister you need to have its source.
PJ
PJ

 

[PastorJoey]

It sounds close, but I don't think it the exact same thought I'm endeavoring to convey.



Let me attempt to define my thinking. My, as yet unidentified term, means an inclusion of one substance in another, specifically the blood and body of Christ are in spiritually seeded in the unleavened bread and wine communion elements, when the element are blessed in the name of Jesus. The body and blood of Christ are in the same dimension that our spirit-man and Jesus are in, while the actual bread and wine are in what we know as our physical universe. The blood and body of Jesus have the same relationship to the bread and wine as our spirit-man has to our body. When our flesh dies, our spirit-man, complete with our soul, is released from this physical universe. Likewise, when we consume the blessed bread and wine, in faith, Jesus' blood and body are released into our spirit and flesh. Both our spirit and flesh derive Godly benefits form this release.

Can you think of a word that fits the above paragraph?

OK here is post 35 and where is it that you "added" anything about the anointing?
Man! Jesus must have an aweful lot of body and blood to go around, injecting Himself into every piece of element all over the world for thousands of years.
Al His blood was poured out on the Heavenly Altar, not being injected into bread and wine.
PJ

 

[PastorJoey]

Jesus is the one who called it the wine his blood and the bread his body. I guess that he must have known what He was saying and must have said it for a reason.

I said, "perhaps." Although I have come to believe that this anointing does take place when the element are blessed in faith. The Blood and Body are the forms that God's anointing would take in this instance. God can use his spirit any way He chooses and in this instance it would make Jesus' statement make perfect sense.

Are you "coming to believe" these things as you are going along, reconstructing your position every time your put on the spot? Here we are at post 300 or something and now your coming to believe something else and only now "perhaps" it was the literal blood & body of Jesus?
I know I'm being tough on you but you cant even seem to humble yourself enough to admit when your wrong. You are 100% sure a minister said something but have to ask your walking enyclopedia for a source? Come on!
I know you dont like me very much right now, but just so my heart is clearly seen, if you can give me one quote from anything you have stated that I conflicted with and I will take a picture of myself with a dunce hat on and post it right here on this thread. Then you will getr your apologies.
PJ
PJ

 

[Prosperity]

I didn't say you used the word "insist"... rather I accurately described your actions/tone in posting.

I see no tone in my posting no do I see anything that approaches a demand. You will have to point out how you determine the tone of someone writings.

Uhh,... No, you haven't presented valid extrapolation-- and even less in apologetics/scriptures. You accuse me of 'simply electing to believe otherwise', yet I simply presented to you the ONLY 4 times in scripture in which the institution of communion are described. In ALL 4 times, it says it was unleavened bread. It uses a specific word for bread that actually means "unleavened bread". I even gave you the greek word used there.

It doesn't say unleavened bread and I've present evidence to the contrary. You can go find it if you choose. There are some linguists who don't interpret the scriptures the way you do. I reject your interpretation out right.

You are the one choosing to ignore the plain face value of scripture because it doesn't agree with your pre-determined interpretation of it. There is nothing ANYWHERE in scripture that says, or even remotely implies, that Jesus used leavened bread. I challenge you to present even a single scripture that says that. I have already presented 4 that specifically say otherwise.

I've presented scripture to the contrary. Again, go find it if you want it.
[size=+0][/size]

If I look online, I can find arguments that Jesus was really an alien and he is coming back in a UFO. That has nothing to do with actually studying the scriptures however.

So what! There are also plenty of good writings on-line as well

Once again, Scripture actually says differently from what you are proposing. I gave you the actual scriptures--not just an interpretation of them. Again, you are choosing to ignore the plain face value of scriptures in favor of your predetermined 'interpretation'.

Brother, I don't think you and I are reading the same Bible.

Your statement that this is a "non-issue" sinply reveals your ignorance of the bulk of the teaching of Scripture (both New and Old Testaments).

You are just a friendly sort of guy aren't you. Well, in light of the fact that communion takes the place of the Passover, I guess that whether the disciples took communion before the communion is a non issue.

BTW, you might want to decide when the Law was fulfilled and Grace instituted. If grace was instituted by the shedding of Christ's blood on the Cross, then Communion was actually instituted BEFORE that occurred (if you remember correctly). You might also want to remember that Jesus perfectly kept the Law (in fact He was the only one who could). This meant that He would have only eaten unleavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened bread-- otherwise, He would have broken the Law and automatically been disqualified from being the perfect sacrifice for sins and therefore our Savior.

Jesus couldn't break the law. he was the fulfillment of the law. He wasn't born in sin so He wasn't under the law. This is what frustrated the religious scholars of his time and is apparently a point of confusion with you. Like I said, you and I aren't reading the same Bible. Tell me, during the communion, did they eat the Passover lamb, did they put the lambs blood on the door posts and the lentils? During the Passover did they drink wine and call it the Passover lamb's blood? I guess that Jesus wasn't celebrating Passover when he offered communion.

The meal already had significance assigned to it by God in the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it, if you remember.

Jesus was not under the law he fullfilled the law by his sacrifice.

I don't expect you to look up "a couple of hundred Bible verses". I haven't done that either. I have simply give you the ONLY 4 passages in Scripture that actually deal with this subject and looked at them. You don't seem to like those passages, apparently, since they totally disprove your arguement, but those are the passages you must deal with if you want to actually have a scriptural basis for any discussion of this subject

Either make it reader friendly or expect no answer from me from now on.

Peace Brother!

 

[PastorJoey]

I see no tone in my posting no do I see anything that approaches a demand. You will have to point out how you determine the tone of someone writings.



It doesn't say unleavened bread and I've present evidence to the contrary. You can go find it if you choose. There are some linguists who don't interpret the scriptures the way you do. I reject your interpretation out right.



I've presented scripture to the contrary. Again, go find it if you want it.


So what! There are also plenty of good writings on-line as well


Brother, I don't think you and I are reading the same Bible.



You are just a friendly sort of guy aren't you. Well, in light of the fact that communion takes the place of the Passover, I guess that whether the disciples took communion before the communion is a non issue.




Either make it reader friendly or expect no answer from me from now on.

Peace Brother!

PJ

 

[Prosperity]

In one sentence you said the elements arent transformed but then you say that it is the literal blood and body of Jesus. Then you say that it was "spiritually injected" into the elements. Come on. No wonder WOF gets so much criticism. Tell me one WOF minister that teaches this other than your self. YOur making alot of statements and havent given one single quote to back them up. If your going to quote a minister you need to have its source.
PJ
PJ

I'm telling you what I believe. Maybe my choice of words isn't to your liking, but I have tried to be clear. Jesus said the wine was His blood and the bread his body. Since I don't believe that communion lelments are actully transoforme into bolld and flesh, then I must conclude that Jesus was speaking about somethin in the spiritual realm that coesists witht eh elements. Does this hel you?

OK here is post 35 and where is it that you "added" anything about the anointing?
Man! Jesus must have an aweful lot of body and blood to go around, injecting Himself into every piece of element all over the world for thousands of years.
Al His blood was poured out on the Heavenly Altar, not being injected into bread and wine.
PJ

I said later in my writteings. Go find it if you have a burning need toknwo, It is trhere.

Are you "coming to believe" these things as you are going along, reconstructing your position every time your put on the spot?

How am I being put on the spot? Oh, is that what you've been trying to do. I hadn't noticed.

Here we are at post 300 or something and now your coming to believe something else and only now "perhaps" it was the literal blood & body of Jesus?

This isn't true. I've een pretty considtent throughout. i have learned many things since post number one. Thisis because I have a teachable mind.

I know I'm being tough on you but you cant even seem to humble yourself enough to admit when your wrong. You are 100% sure a minister said something but have to ask your walking enyclopedia for a source? Come on!

I guess that you haven't ever remember what someone said but couldn't put your fingers on it. Again, if you have a burning need to know, go ask KCM or start going through his teaching tapes and books. I have no need to verify what the Bible has already told me and would tell you if you could hear it..

As far as your being tough on me goes, you aren't even on the playing field. I'v had the toughest in my face and Brother, you aren't tough. You are mildly irritating at times.

You can either take my word for what Kenneth said or go prove me wrong, if that is what you are about.

I know you dont like me very much right now, but just so my heart is clearly seen, if you can give me one quote from anything you have stated that I conflicted with and I will take a picture of myself with a dunce hat on and post it right here on this thread. Then you will getr your apologies.
PJ
PJ

God love you and I love you Brother. Sorry, but I grew up a long time ago and have no desire to take revenge on you by having you wear dunce cap. You are the beneficiary of the information. I just shared it with you because I thought you might find edifying. Guess I was wrong. I will still help you find it if you're really interested and I don't care if you wear a dunce cap or not.

Peace Brother!

 

[Prosperity]

I see no tone in my posting no do I see anything that approaches a demand. You will have to point out how you determine the tone of someone writings.

It doesn't say unleavened bread and I've present evidence to the contrary. You can go find it if you choose. There are some linguists who don't interpret the scriptures the way you do. I reject your interpretation out right.

I've presented scripture to the contrary. Again, go find it if you want it.

So what! There are also plenty of good writings on-line as well

Brother, I don't think you and I are reading the same Bible.

You are just a friendly sort of guy aren't you. Well, in light of the fact that communion takes the place of the Passover, I guess that whether the disciples took communion before the communion is a non issue.

Either make it reader friendly or expect no answer from me from now on.

Peace Brother!

And you point is?

 

[Prosperity]

Jesus didn't say that the bread and wine simply represented His body and blood, He said they were His body and blood. The only way that this could be true is if His statement were made in the same context as when the Bible states that man is a spirit. Your physical body is not a spirit but the real you, which is your spirit, emanates from God and cohabitates the same space as your physical body until your body dies. In this way, perhaps the body and blood of Jesus, which exists in the spiritual world, emanates from God while cohabitating in the same space as the bread and wine until it is released by your faith through your obedience to Jesus eating it as Jesus instructed. Perhaps when you bless the bread and wine, in the Name of Jesus, it charges the elements with His body and blood is a spiritual sense as you are a spirit. Is this the reason that we should bless the elements. Consider the following scriptures:


Quote

Matthew 26:26-28
19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
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.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-25
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.



Quote
The Greek word for "leaven" is zume

The Greek for what we read as "unleavened bread" is azumos which is translated more properly as "unleavened" with out the word "bread."

When an author wishes to be specific about the type of "bread" in any incident, he uses azumos. That is, the emphasis is on "unleavened", and not on bread, e.g., I Corinthians 5:8.

The "bread" used at the Last Supper is the more generic Greek artos Hebrew lechem. In fact, Psalm 41:9 which describes a normal meal is used as a prophecy of this supper.

The conclusion drawn from these scriptures is that the last Supper was just that, a normal meal served with leavened bread.

 

[PastorJoey]

I'm telling you what I believe. Maybe my choice of words isn't to your liking, but I have tried to be clear. Jesus said the wine was His blood and the bread his body. Since I don't believe that communion lelments are actully transoforme into bolld and flesh, then I must conclude that Jesus was speaking about somethin in the spiritual realm that coesists witht eh elements. Does this hel you?
Fair enough. Do you suppose that Jesus was being illustrative? If I was to give you directions, I could get a stick draw a line in the dirt and say "this is HWY 72 going east', place a rock on the end of the line and say 'this is the huge elm tree where you will turn left, etc...." Does this mean that the line I drew into the dirt ws injected into HWY 72? Or the rock injected into the Elm tree? You really have to go "way out on a limb" (no pun intended) to come to your conclusion.



I said later in my writteings. Go find it if you have a burning need toknwo, It is trhere.



How am I being put on the spot? Oh, is that what you've been trying to do. I hadn't noticed.



This isn't true. I've een pretty considtent throughout. i have learned many things since post number one. Thisis because I have a teachable mind.



I guess that you haven't ever remember what someone said but couldn't put your fingers on it. Again, if you have a burning need to know, go ask KCM or start going through his teaching tapes and books. I have no need to verify what the Bible has already told me and would tell you if you could hear it..
There are many things I cant put my finger on but I dont go around spouting off supposed quotes without their source.

As far as your being tough on me goes, you aren't even on the playing field. I'v had the toughest in my face and Brother, you aren't tough. You are mildly irritating at times.
I am honestly glad you feel this way. My intention is not to be hard, If your just making quotes on a rabbit trail no big deal, but your trying to use the credibility of other ministers to valid the topic of this post and without a source.
You can either take my word for what Kenneth said or go prove me wrong, if that is what you are about.
This is not what I am about at all. The burden of proof is always on the one making the statements or claims. That means YOU.


God love you and I love you Brother. Sorry, but I grew up a long time ago and have no desire to take revenge on you by having you wear dunce cap. You are the beneficiary of the information. I just shared it with you because I thought you might find edifying. Guess I was wrong. I will still help you find it if you're really interested and I don't care if you wear a dunce cap or not.

Peace Brother!
I am glad to know you wouldnt seek revenge on me. I am willing to go to that extent to show that I am willing to be corrected and try to have a teachable spirit.

PJ

 

[Prosperity]

Fair enough. Do you suppose that Jesus was being illustrative? If I was to give you directions, I could get a stick draw a line in the dirt and say "this is HWY 72 going east', place a rock on the end of the line and say 'this is the huge elm tree where you will turn left, etc...." Does this mean that the line I drew into the dirt ws injected into HWY 72? Or the rock injected into the Elm tree? You really have to go "way out on a limb" (no pun intended) to come to your conclusion.

There are many things I cant put my finger on but I dont go around spouting off supposed quotes without their source.

Well I guess that is you.

I am honestly glad you feel this way. My intention is not to be hard, If your just making quotes on a rabbit trail no big deal, but your trying to use the credibility of other ministers to valid the topic of this post and without a source.

I've told you the truth. I don't owe you anything more.

This is not what I am about at all. The burden of proof is always on the one making the statements or claims. That means YOU.

You are not a prosecutor and I'm not on the witness stand. I don't answer to you.

I am glad to know you wouldnt seek revenge on me. I am willing to go to that extent to show that I am willing to be corrected and try to have a teachable spirit.

I have no interest in anything you do. I was just trying to share my heart with you and you have decided to try to persecute and prosecute me as if I were some sort of suspect in a crime. I'm not the demon seed that you seem to think that I am.

If you want to address me in love I will answer your questions, otherwise I ask you to stop posting to me, even consider another thread or start one of your own.

Several of you seem to think you are protecting the WOF movement from me. Well then why don't you conduct yourselves as Brother Hagin would. Brother Hagin did not attack people, prosecute or persecute people, gang up on people or engage in intellectual sophistry. Brother Hagin loved people, in truth and in the Word. He was truly a Godly man.

Peace be with you Brother!

 

[Prosperity]

Jesus didn't say that the bread and wine simply represented His body and blood, He said they were His body and blood. The only way that this could be true is if His statement were made in the same context as when the Bible states that man is a spirit. Your physical body is not a spirit but the real you, which is your spirit, emanates from God and cohabitates the same space as your physical body until your body dies. In this way, perhaps the body and blood of Jesus, which exists in the spiritual world, emanates from God while cohabitating in the same space as the bread and wine until it is released by your faith through your obedience to Jesus eating it as Jesus instructed. Perhaps when you bless the bread and wine, in the Name of Jesus, it charges the elements with His body and blood is a spiritual sense as you are a spirit. Is this the reason that we should bless the elements. Consider the following scriptures:


Quote

Matthew 26:26-28
19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
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.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-25
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.



Quote
The Greek word for "leaven" is zume

The Greek for what we read as "unleavened bread" is azumos which is translated more properly as "unleavened" with out the word "bread."

When an author wishes to be specific about the type of "bread" in any incident, he uses azumos. That is, the emphasis is on "unleavened", and not on bread, e.g., I Corinthians 5:8.

The "bread" used at the Last Supper is the more generic Greek artos Hebrew lechem. In fact, Psalm 41:9 which describes a normal meal is used as a prophecy of this supper.

The conclusion drawn from these scriptures is that the last Supper was just that, a normal meal served with leavened bread.

 

[irenemcg]

The Lord broke the bread a symbol of His body broken for us, should we not then actually break the bread?

We partake of the bread and wine in rememberance of Him and His sacrifce for us until he comes.

Therew is also the element of looking foward to our soon coming King.