The Lords Supper a reverent celebration of thanksgiving

[BrotherJJ]

1 Cor 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
(MY NOTE: Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me & My > Finished sin redemptive work)

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: SHEW [ 11,,G1325, didomi ]
(3) katangello, Acts 16:17; Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 11:26, "proclaim;" in the last passage the partaking of the elements at the Lord's Supper is not a "showing forth" of His death, but a proclamation of it;

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do SHEW the Lord's death till he come.
(MY NOTE: As often as ye eat the bread & drink the cup of blessing you shew/PROCLAIM/remember the Lord's death)

1 Cor 11:27 Who ever eats this bread, & drinks this cup of the Lord, unworthily, will be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord
(MY NOTE: See Bible dictionary discern definition below)

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
(MY NOTE: The Lords supper is a intimate/sacred celebratory partaking/remembering of the Lords Holy Body & Blood sacrifice & should be received accordingly.)

1 Cor 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
(MY NOTE: He that doesn't DISCERN/understand what the partaking of the bread & wine represent (His broken body & spilled sinless God blood). REREADING; it READS: anyone that DRINKS unworthily! It DOESN'T read: he who IS unworthy (ALL are sinners & therefore unworthy)

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: DISCERN [ A-2,Verb,G1252, diakrino ]
1 Corinthians 11:29, with reference to partaking of the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper unworthily, by not "discerning" or discriminating what they represent;

Heb 9:22 accentuates why Christ's blood was shed

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
(MY NOTE: The sin payment is made thru Christ's sinless/innocent blood given (Lev 17:11) This sin payment is supplied thru Christ's love & grace Rev 1:5, Eph 7:7) & received thru faith (Rom 3:25)

Matt 8:17 accentuates Christ's body was broken

Matt 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities ""& bore our diseases""
(MY NOTE: Christs Body was Broken for the believers spiritual & physical health. By His strips/wounds we are healed (Also see Isa 53 4-6, 1 Pet 2:24) The promises in these verses are also received/accessed thru faith)

Ex 12:43-48. No foreigners, servants, sojourners or strangers could partake in the in the Passover meal unless they were circumcised. (Also see Gen 17:7-14)
(MY NOTE: Only people under the old covenant of circumcision were allowed to partake in the Passover meal. Under the new covenant anyone that partakes unworthily/undiscerningly will face God's judgment)

Passover/The Lords Supper are God given decreed ordinance's.

For Jews, deliverance from slavery & 10th plague/angel of death. For Christians deliverance from sin & death with an added health bonus

Proper partaking of the Lords supper brings HEALTH/by His strips/wounds you are healed (Also see Isa 53:4-6, 1 Pet 2:24)

And LIFE Jn 6:53 Jesus said, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man & drink his blood, ""ye have no life in you""

Both received by partaking with Faith placed in the Lord Jesus finished sin atoning work/sacrifice. Amen

 

[bling]

Communion is two memorials established by Christ for Christians to bring to memory: Christ’s crucifixion and shedding of Christ’s blood.

It really only has benefit for saved baptized adult Christians, although it can be somewhat of a witness to nonbelievers.

The bread is in remembrance of Christ’s body tortured, humiliated and murdered on the cross:

Christian look back at the cross with mixed emotions; the Christian out of empathy will be crucified with Christ at the taking of the bread, but instead of dropping to their knees unable to stand, there is also the greatest Love possible being experienced, so the Christian has an overwhelming feeling of forgiveness.

Throughout the Old Testament blood and water was used to cleanse stuff, but the blood of animals was used to cleanse the objects that were really to be holy. Christians today need to feel, know, experience not only an outward cleansing (like what was done with animal blood in the OT), but feel/experience the blood flowing over their heart. From Christ pray in the Garden prior to the cross we know Christ personally did not want his blood shed and God in heave out of empathy for His son would not personally wanted that blood to remain in Christ’s veins. It is I, who need to know the blood is out of Christ’s body and available to me to be poured over my heart and cleanse my heart. The wine, represents that blood, thus allows me to take it in and experience/feel it flow down my throat and over my heart literally. I can know I am cleansed.

 

[Mountainmike]

An alternative view - It’s far more than a memorial.

John wrote it.
He was taught by our Lord and so John knew what it meant.
And it is what he taught his disciples , polycarp and ignatius.

( as Paul notes, the faith was handed down - and we must stay true by word of mouth and letter which is paradosis , not helpfully translated as “tradition” because of contemporary use of that word)

Here is a letter.
Read the letter of ignatius eg to smyrneans and he clearly states:
1/ it IS the blood and body of our Lord ( Justin martyr says real flesh)
2/ it is valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.
3/ that was believed by almost all until the reformation (other than philosophical niceties on how what looks like bread can also be flesh )
4/ He says this IS my body , not “ this represents my body”

These were the first generation after apostles.

So then..
1/ That makes many denominations eucharist Invalid, they have no “bishop in succession”
2/ it’s why profaning it is serious - “ some are sick, some have died” said Paul
3/ it’s why John uses a word for eat that means “ gnaw “ not “ consume”
4/ it’s why romans considered christians as cannibals
5/ it’s why they all left at Capernaum in disgust.

It’s why
6/ Jesus chose to reveal his heart as flesh in the science of eucharistic miracles
And the messages at such as Fatima were
7/ God is offended by all the “ outrages , Indifferences and sacrilege’s”
against our Lord in the tabernacle and eucharist.

It really IS Him, This IS my body,..
far more than just a memorial or symbol!

 

[bling]

An alternative view - It’s far more than a memorial.

John wrote it.
He was taught by our Lord and so John knew what it meant.
And it is what he taught his disciples , polycarp and ignatius.

( as Paul notes, the faith was handed down - and we must stay true by word of mouth and letter which is paradosis , not helpfully translated as “tradition” because of contemporary use of that word)

Here is a letter.
Read the letter of ignatius eg to smyrneans and he clearly states:
1/ it IS the blood and body of our Lord ( Justin martyr says real flesh)
2/ it is valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.
3/ that was believed by almost all until the reformation (other than philosophical niceties on how what looks like bread can also be flesh )
4/ He says this IS my body , not “ this represents my body”

These were the first generation after apostles.

So then..
1/ That makes many denominations eucharist Invalid, they have no “bishop in succession”
2/ it’s why profaning it is serious - “ some are sick, some have died” said Paul
3/ it’s why John uses a word for eat that means “ gnaw “ not “ consume”
4/ it’s why romans considered christians as cannibals
5/ it’s why they all left at Capernaum in disgust.

It’s why
6/ Jesus chose to reveal his heart as flesh in the science of eucharistic miracles
And the messages at such as Fatima were
7/ God is offended by all the “ outrages , Indifferences and sacrilege’s”
against our Lord in the tabernacle and eucharist.

It really IS Him, This IS my body,..
far more than just a memorial or symbol!

Where ae you finding in scripture Polycarp and Ignatius were John's disciples?
I do not find Polycarp talking about this.
I take the words of Jesus and Paul in scripture is proof text.

 

[Mountainmike]

Where ae you finding in scripture Polycarp and Ignatius were John's disciples?
I do not find Polycarp talking about this.
I take the words of Jesus and Paul in scripture is proof text.

Pick iraneus if you prefer , who studied under polycarp, disciple of John who Says of Jesus …
“has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”

The question is not what the words say but what they mean.
Tradition - the faith handed down resolves the questions .
They all speak with one voice of real flesh and blood.
Even the romans thought christians were cannibals because of it!

” is the body “ “ is the blood”

You do not get to choose what they mean.

 

[Der Alte]

Where ae you finding in scripture Polycarp and Ignatius were John's disciples?
I do not find Polycarp talking about this.
I take the words of Jesus and Paul in scripture is proof text.

Even if they were not [I prefer] students of John, they give us a picture how the early church understood and put in to practice the relevant scripture. To dispute the ECF one must have some very strong credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence not just "Well my pastor, teacher etc. said the ECF were wrong."

 

[bling]

Even if they were not [I prefer] students of John, they give us a picture how the early church understood and put in to practice the relevant scripture. To dispute the ECF one must have some very strong credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence not just "Well my pastor, teacher etc. said the ECF were wrong."

If the Holy Spirit was involved in protecting and preserving the teachings of Polycarp and Ignatius He did a very poor job, especially compared to His protecting and preserving scripture. I never quote others in support of what I am teaching.

 

[Der Alte]

If the Holy Spirit was involved in protecting and preserving the teachings of Polycarp and Ignatius He did a very poor job, especially compared to His protecting and preserving scripture. I never quote others in support of what I am teaching.

It has been my experience those who reject any outside sources such as the ECF and lean on their own "interpretation" of scripture it always seems to align with the teachings of whichever religious group they belong to. There is no evidence that the writings of the ECF are corrupt in any way. They are the only sources I know of which gives us a picture how the early church understood and applied the scriptures.

 

[bling]

Pick iraneus if you prefer , who studied under polycarp, disciple of John who Says of Jesus …
“has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”

The question is not what the words say but what they mean.
Tradition - the faith handed down resolves the questions .
They all speak with one voice of real flesh and blood.
Even the romans thought christians were cannibals because of it!

” is the body “ “ is the blood”

You do not get to choose what they mean.

Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp, but is not quoting Polycarp.

 

[bling]

It has been my experience those who reject any outside sources such as the ECF and lean on their own "interpretation" of scripture it always seems to align with the teachings of whichever religious group they belong to. There is no evidence that the writings of the ECF are corrupt in any way. They are the only sources I know of which gives us a picture how the early church understood and applied the scriptures.

It has been some time since I did a study of the early "Christian" writings we have and there was a lot of corruption found in many of the works. If we have several copies, they might be poor matches of each other. We are missing lots of their works referenced, so why do we have these few? By the time of Revelation if we take the seven churches as an example there are lots of problems.

 

[Der Alte]

It has been some time since I did a study of the early "Christian" writings we have and there was a lot of corruption found in many of the works. If we have several copies, they might be poor matches of each other. We are missing lots of their works referenced, so why do we have these few? By the time of Revelation if we take the seven churches as an example there are lots of problems.

Once again empty accusations. Which studies, by which scholars analyses supported by credible, verifiable etc. evidence? Someone saying this or that ECF was wrong is not evidence, it is unsupported opinion.

 

[Mountainmike]

Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp, but is not quoting Polycarp.

Are you interpreting polycarps silence as dissent?

Are you trying to say that Jesus had so little power over his church that even the first and then subsequent generations were apostate?

The literal interpretation of John is the same as all successive generations in unbroken succession,
Same as Paul. Same as the councils. Same councils chose your scripture and told you what it means!

Other than philosophical detail, on how what looks like bread can be flesh, all till the reformation believed the same, and many Protestants since!

 

[bling]

Are you interpreting polycarps silence as dissent?

Are you trying to say that Jesus had so little power over his church that even the first and then subsequent generations were apostate?

The literal interpretation of John is the same as all successive generations in unbroken succession,
Same as Paul. Same as the councils. Same councils chose your scripture and told you what it means!

Other than philosophical detail, on how what looks like bread can be flesh, all till the reformation believed the same, and many Protestants since!

The Holy Spirit guided the churches at the time to what He considered cannon scripture and that is what we got.
Iraneus is not quoting Polycarp, so I do not know what Polycarp thought.
Trust scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit and not men's thoughts.
Which of these early writers do you feel was fully inspirited to write what he wrote?

 

[Mountainmike]

The Holy Spirit guided the churches at the time to what He considered cannon scripture and that is what we got.
Iraneus is not quoting Polycarp, so I do not know what Polycarp thought.
Trust scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit and not men's thoughts.
Which of these early writers do you feel was fully inspirited to write what he wrote?

So you think your personal interpretation of scripture is right and the entire church for one and a half millenia ( and most of it since then) got it wrong.!!!.? . That’s a “ bold” place to be!

My suggestion is YOU study scripture.

1/Jesus gave power to the apostolic succession to “ bind and loose” we know means to give definitive judgement.
Thats the reason you can trust the verdict of councils, and even tryst the bible you read. The FIRST canon was rejected by Rome!
The church was vociferous on real presence, valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

thats why

2/ the “ pillar and foundation of truth is the church” ( physical) it says “ household of God”
notice it does not say scripture. Why? because the new testament did not exist in early times, faith was handed by traditiom.

3/ so when all the early fathers state it is the “ real body” “ real flesh” , which is also why Paul says “ some are I’ll and have died” profaning it, we know THE RIGHT interpretation of John6 - entirely consistent with words =is a Eucharist of the real flesh.

4/ tradition ( true faith meaning handed down) was the yardstick used to accept some books, reject others.

5/ Jesus said the gospel would be preached until the end times, not with a 2000 year gap until bling rediscovered it! And so it was.
6/ He came back with Eucharist miracles to prove it really is Him!!

You sola scriptura folk need to recognise that is the source of division. The meaning of scripture is not obvious. That’s why truth from outside - authority and tradition are needed to resolve meaning.
Jesus did not order disciples to write , he ordered them to teach. And we know what John taught by the succession after him, to which Paul tells you to hold true.

 

[bling]

So you think your personal interpretation of scripture is right and the entire church for one and a half millenia ( and most of it since then) got it wrong.!!!.? . That’s a “ bold” place to be!

My suggestion is YOU study scripture.

Fully agree, but would add “and not the writings of men!!”

1/Jesus gave power to the apostolic succession to “ bind and loose” we know means to give definitive judgement.
Thats the reason you can trust the verdict of councils, and even tryst the bible you read. The FIRST canon was rejected by Rome!
The church was vociferous on real presence, valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

The Bible does not say: “The binding and loosing” will be past down through earthly church leaders. Are you adding that interpretation?

I believe the Holy Spirit used men to protect and preserve what I need in scripture, but the Holy Spirit did not need their wisdom to decide what was to be in scripture and what was to be left out and they could not over rule the Spirit.

thats why

2/ the “ pillar and foundation of truth is the church” ( physical) it says “ household of God”
notice it does not say scripture. Why? because the new testament did not exist in early times, faith was handed by traditiom.

3/ so when all the early fathers state it is the “ real body” “ real flesh” , which is also why Paul says “ some are I’ll and have died” profaning it, we know THE RIGHT interpretation of John6 - entirely consistent with words =is a Eucharist of the real flesh.

4/ tradition ( true faith meaning handed down) was the yardstick used to accept some books, reject others.

5/ Jesus said the gospel would be preached until the end times, not with a 2000 year gap until bling rediscovered it! And so it was.
6/ He came back with Eucharist miracles to prove it really is Him!!

You sola scriptura folk need to recognise that is the source of division. The meaning of scripture is not obvious. That’s why truth from outside - authority and tradition are needed to resolve meaning.
Jesus did not order disciples to write , he ordered them to teach. And we know what John taught by the succession after him, to which Paul tells you to hold true.

Jesus, Peter and Paul warn us of false teachers, even from among us, why can’t we trust the Spirit within us, if we find that Spirit totally consistent with scripture?

 

[Fervent]

You sola scriptura folk need to recognise that is the source of division. The meaning of scripture is not obvious. That’s why truth from outside - authority and tradition are needed to resolve meaning.
Jesus did not order disciples to write , he ordered them to teach. And we know what John taught by the succession after him, to which Paul tells you to hold true.

So...uninspired writings and opinions of men are more readily discernable than inspired writings of God? ECF writings and similar can serve as a supplement to Scripture, but placing them as authoritative over Scripture is where the dispute lies.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Considering that Ignatius considered the rejection of Christ's body and blood to be something only heretics did.
Considering that Polycarp is spoken of favorably by Ignatius.
Considering that Irenaeus, who had studied under Polycarp, also confessed the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and spoke favorably of Polycarp.

I think it's safe to say that Polycarp held to views akin to both Ignatius and Irenaeus. There's certainly no reason to assume that Polycarp held to views which both Ignatius and Irenaeus would have seen as heretical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mountainmike]

So...uninspired writings and opinions of men are more readily discernable than inspired writings of God? ECF writings and similar can serve as a supplement to Scripture, but placing them as authoritative over Scripture is where the dispute lies.

The early church handed down the faith by “ word of mouth and letter”
And we can look at what it handed down , to resolve disputes on what scripture means.
We also can take instruction from Those given power to bind and loose what it means.

So you are completely wrong about where the dispute lies.
protesrants reading scripture post 1500 come to many mutually exclusive opinions about what it means.
Without tradition and magisterial authority , they schism again and again.

You only have the word of God if you have the words and meaning. You need traditon and authority to have the true meaning. That is not setting tradition Over scripture, it is putting it along side it. Much like a Greek lexicon gives meaning to words.

go back to the early church to discover rthat a eucharist of the Real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop is what Johe 6 means. All believed it till luther took the wrecking ball that is sola scriptura to the Word ofGod . Even luther despaired of the monster he so created.

 

[Fervent]

The early church handed down the faith by “ word of mouth and letter”
And we can look at what it handed down , to resolve disputes on what scripture means.
We also can take instruction from Those given power to bind and loose what it means.

So you are completely wrong about where the dispute lies.
protesrants reading scripture post 1500 come to many mutually exclusive opinions about what it means.
Without tradition and magisterial authority , they schism again and again.

You only have the word of God if you have the words and meaning. You need traditon and authority to have the true meaning. That is not setting tradition Over scripture, it is putting it along side it. Much like a Greek lexicon gives meaning to words.

go back to the early church to discover rthat a eucharist of the Real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop is what Johe 6 means. All believed it till luther took the wrecking ball that is sola scriptura to the Word ofGod . Even luther despaired of the monster he so created.

That sounds suspiciously like "oral torah" of pharisaical judaism

 

[Mountainmike]

That sounds suspiciously like "oral torah" of pharisaical judaism

Actually quoting Paul!
but yes - the faith , and so meaning of scripture was handed down by tradition , the word “ paradosis “ means handing down. The word tradition in contemporary english used as translation of “ paradosis” has unhelpful connotations , and has confused the simple idea that the faith was handed down.

indeed the ideas of “ traditin” and “ authority” are already there in first century Judaism.

Jesus told all to “ obey , and do everything ( the Pharisees) tell you to do” when they teach from Moses seat.
yet Moses seat is only known from tradition, no Old Testament scripture describes it. It was the forerunner of the Cathedra of Peter.

It is also where definitive judgement on laws and faith was made by “ binding and loosing” . That was the power given to Peter alone “ ex cathedra”and apostles jointly Acting in council. It is why the church is declared the “ foundation of truth”, not scripture.