What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

[narnia59]

Thats whats scripture is for (convincing) and persuading, could be sure

Yet he and scripture didn't manage to get their on their own. If they had, there wouldn't have been such a ruckus.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yet he and scripture didn't manage to get their on their own. If they had, there wouldn't have been such a ruckus.

At least there he certainly found agreement in accord with the prophets and then ushered his sentence of confirmation.

The church is built upon both the prophets and the apostles and their referring "to them" gave even themselves a confirmation and the ability give ones judgment, which I think is pretty kool, very confirming too.

 

[narnia59]

At least there he certainly found agreement in accord with the prophets and then ushered his sentence of confirmation.

The church is built upon both the prophets and the apostles and their referring "to them" gave even themselves a confirmation and the ability give ones judgment, which I think is pretty kool, very confirming too.

No problem he found agreement. I'm guessing he was looking for a way to save face.

According to Ephesians 2 the church is built on the prophets and apostles. No matter which way you interpret Matthew 16:18, it doesn't identify the rock the church is built on as the prophets and apostles, does it?

 

[Fireinfolding]

No problem he found agreement. I'm guessing he was looking for a way to save face.

According to Ephesians 2 the church is built on the prophets and apostles. No matter which way you interpret Matthew 16:18, it doesn't identify the rock the church is built on as the prophets and apostles, does it?

Unless that rock can be revealed by flesh and blood

 

[ivebeenshown]

The command to do this in memory of Christ was given to only the apostles. "Do this" -- what Jesus had done for them, they were to do for the church community.

1 Corinthians 11

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


Acts 2
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.



Acts 27
34Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
36Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.


Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


I honestly do not believe that my thanksgiving is any less valid than another brother's... the LORD's supper is a supper, not a wafer and a sip.

 

[Fireinfolding]

1 Corinthians 11

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

I dont know if others have changed this to let others examine you though now

 

[narnia59]

1 Corinthians 11

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


Acts 2
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.



Acts 27
34Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
36Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.


Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


I honestly do not believe that my thanksgiving is any less valid than another brother's... the LORD's supper is a supper, not a wafer and a sip.

Actually if you read all of 1 Corinthians 11 you discover that the Lord's Supper indeed consists of the bread and wine, and Paul is chastising them for making it more. He tells them in verses 20-22 "20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!" He ends up telling them in verse 34 that if they are hungry, they should eat at home before they come so as not to make a mockery of the Lord's Supper. In all likelihood, what they were celebrating was an agape meal in conjunction with the Eucharist, and he is stressing the importance of keeping the Eucharist separate and holy.

Acts 2 is probably an agape meal also, but not entirely clear. At any rate, check multiple translations on that. The "meat" is questionable I think.

Acts 27 -- Paul is hungry and eating a regular meal. He does indeed bless his bread before he proceeds to eat it. But it is not the communal Lord's Supper that is occuring here.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Actually if you read all of 1 Corinthians 11 you discover that the Lord's Supper indeed consists of the bread and wine, and Paul is chastising them for making it more. He tells them in verses 20-22 "20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!" He ends up telling them in verse 34 that if they are hungry, they should eat at home before they come so as not to make a mockery of the Lord's Supper. In all likelihood, what they were celebrating was an agape meal in conjunction with the Eucharist, and he is stressing the importance of keeping the Eucharist separate and holy.

Matthew 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mark 14:22
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.

1 Corinthians 11
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22What? 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.

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

I'm pretty sure that it is a SUPPER, not a bite and a sip (His own supper; When ye come together to eat.) Paul is stressing that if you have a home to eat and drink at (have ye not houses to eat and drink at), you should have the courtesy to wait on everyone to be there for the feast, (tarry one for another) or at least feed yourself beforehand so you can be patient, because not everyone has food at home for themselves (shame them that have not.)

So why would them that have not be shamed? Because they came later than those who did have the privilege of foodstuffs at home, would not wait to eat, and then them that have not were shamed in being late and could not have a meal for sustenance. Them that have not were coming to the assembly for a sustaining meal, that's the whole reason we are told that they have not!

 

[narnia59]

Matthew 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mark 14:22
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.

1 Corinthians 11
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22What? 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.

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

I'm pretty sure that it is a SUPPER, not a bite and a sip (His own supper; When ye come together to eat.) Paul is stressing that if you have a home to eat and drink at (have ye not houses to eat and drink at), you should have the courtesy to wait on everyone to be there for the feast, (tarry one for another) or at least feed yourself beforehand so you can be patient, because not everyone has food at home for themselves (shame them that have not.)

So why would them that have not be shamed? Because they came later than those who did have the privilege of foodstuffs at home, would not wait to eat, and then them that have not were shamed in being late and could not have a meal for sustenance. Them that have not were coming to the assembly for a sustaining meal, that's the whole reason we are told that they have not!

The Last Supper was a meal; it was a Jewish seder meal celebrating the feast of Passover. It was the memorial feast of the Exodus, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb.

Jesus institutes a new covenant memorial in its place -- the bread and cup which are his body and blood. But if you're going to make it a 'supper' in line with the actual Last Supper -- you need to sacrifice a Passover lamb and follow the order of the seder.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Last Supper was not a sedar meal. It was a Chaburah.

Forgive me..

 

[narnia59]

The Last Supper was not a sedar meal. It was a Chaburah.

Forgive me..

The synpotic Gospels are clear it was the Passover. The church fathers agree.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The Last Supper was a meal; it was a Jewish seder meal celebrating the feast of Passover. It was the memorial feast of the Exodus, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb.

Jesus institutes a new covenant memorial in its place -- the bread and cup which are his body and blood. But if you're going to make it a 'supper' in line with the actual Last Supper -- you need to sacrifice a Passover lamb and follow the order of the seder.

Did you read my post? I do NOT want to get into whether or not it was a seder meal right now. The main focus is that the LORD's table is more than just a bite and a sip, because it is meant to be a community-provided MEAL, in helping those who are less fortunate and do not have food to feed themselves with!

So why would them that have not be shamed? Because they came later than those who did have the privilege of foodstuffs at home, would not wait to eat, and then them that have not were shamed in being late and could not have a meal for sustenance. Them that have not were coming to the assembly for a sustaining meal, that's the whole reason we are told that they have not! A bite and a sip are not going to keep someone who has no food at home alive!

 

[heymikey80]

I honestly do not believe that my thanksgiving is any less valid than another brother's... the LORD's supper is a supper, not a wafer and a sip.

I appreciate your thought. No, there isn't something in Scripture that really says a sacrament is invalidated based on who delivers it. It seems to be an "ad hominem" view that developed to combat heresy. Delivery of the sacrament by someone who doesn't think a certain way about God, means God isn't there. =Shrug=. It's possible.

So the basic assertion of "God isn't there" is really the question that's at issue. I think! I'm not strictly speaking sure of that, but it feeds into the historical, covenantal view the sacraments emerged from.

The sacramental meal seems to have been a real meal, with a ritual at some time during it. 1 Cor 11 describes some situations that only occur when you have a real meal going on -- but also describes some of the ritual that would be performed during the meal.

Not to deflect from your point, but there is a situation which Paul says, "It's not the Lord's Supper you're eating." It's further up in 1 Cor 11, and in the theology I follow it's considered an invalidation of the sacrament, when factions force separate communion among believers.

 

[Secundulus]

Did you read my post? I do NOT want to get into whether or not it was a seder meal right now. The main focus is that the LORD's table is more than just a bite and a sip, because it is meant to be a community-provided MEAL, in helping those who are less fortunate and do not have food to feed themselves with!

This first century document does not speak of a meal to fill the belly, unless you think that Christians are only supposed to feed the poor once a week.

The Didache

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

 

[ivebeenshown]

Not to deflect from your point, but there is a situation which Paul says, "It's not the Lord's Supper you're eating." It's further up in 1 Cor 11, and in the theology I follow it's considered an invalidation of the sacrament, when factions force separate communion among believers.

Exactly...

1 Corinthians 11
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

He's saying that the LORD's supper is about fellowship and communion and waiting for one another... and then specifically, because when they weren't waiting for the less fortunate 'them who have not', they shamed them by eating without waiting, because the less fortunate were shamed for their lateness in that they did not receive a meal.

 

[narnia59]

Did you read my post? I do NOT want to get into whether or not it was a seder meal right now. The main focus is that the LORD's table is more than just a bite and a sip, because it is meant to be a community-provided MEAL, in helping those who are less fortunate and do not have food to feed themselves with!

That is not what the Lord celebrated with the apostles.

Feeding the physically hungry is a wonderful thing and as Christians we are called to do so, but that is not the meaning of the Lord's Supper. It is spiritual food, not physical.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The synpotic Gospels are clear it was the Passover. The church fathers agree.

That doen't make it a sedar meal.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Did you read my post? I do NOT want to get into whether or not it was a seder meal right now. The main focus is that the LORD's table is more than just a bite and a sip, because it is meant to be a community-provided MEAL, in helping those who are less fortunate and do not have food to feed themselves with!

Oh.. sorry.

Forgive me...

 

[ivebeenshown]

This first century document does not speak of a meal to fill the belly, unless you think that Christians are only supposed to feed the poor once a week.

The Didache
Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

Hebrews 13:16
But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.


Isn't it interesting how 'communicate' here is the same word as 'communion' KOINONIAS? 1 Corinthians 10:16 Greek Texts and Analysis "The KOINONIAS of the blood/body of Christ?"

Oh.. sorry.

Nothing wrong here, I was speaking to narnia59... I just wanted to make sure she noticed what I had to say because she didn't seem to acknowledge it.

That is not what the Lord celebrated with the apostles.

Feeding the physically hungry is a wonderful thing and as Christians we are called to do so, but that is not the meaning of the Lord's Supper. It is spiritual food, not physical.

Please explain to me why you believe the distinction is made for 'those who have not' and why are they shamed?

 

[sunlover1]

Delivery of the sacrament by someone who doesn't think a certain way about God, means God isn't there. =Shrug=. It's possible.

Discerning of the body seems to be the key here. But did I read anywhere that one
person is responsible for "delivery" of communion??

Not to deflect from your point, but there is a situation which Paul says, "It's not the Lord's Supper you're eating." It's further up in 1 Cor 11, and in the theology I follow it's considered an invalidation of the sacrament, when factions force separate communion among believers.

Amen. Not discerning the Lord's body

This first century document does not speak of a meal to fill the belly, unless you think that Christians are only supposed to feed the poor once a week.

But it does speak of a full meal in a sense if you look at v 24 and v 25.
Jesus took the bread (after He had given thanks) in v 24
(And then it mentions nothing about how much time elapsed or what else was eaten if anything)
Then in v 25 it says that "in the same manner" AFTER HE HAD SUPPED

Besides, it's obvious that there is a lot of food otherwise why would it say one is going
hungry and another is pigging out? (becomes drunk)
He's saying, if you're going to be a pig , do it at home, but when you come together
prefer other's above yourself. Be a foot washer like Jesus!
imo

Exactly...

1 Corinthians 11
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

He's saying that the LORD's supper is about fellowship and communion and waiting for one another...

Amen. The "therefore" is an important conjunction here.