Icons and the last few years on CF

[visionary]

Inconsequential statement, unless it is the case that we have examination of every point in history where you were long-winded or others felt such when it wasn't even relevant to what was being said

Remember the period to break up sentence structure. For emphasis, for clarity, continuity, and just because it becomes easier to read. I am working on it, are you?

 

[Shimshon]

That will always be a matter of what others have noted when it comes to what is said in the MJ Community with differences in what observation is about - no different than the Orthodox Jews saying the Chasidic are "chipping away" or the MJish assuming one has to walk according to purity laws from Leviticus 13 and thinking other MJs who don't think that's possible (due to a lack of a priest) don't "value God's Law" - for what matters is what CHRIST and the Apostles noted (which was building upon the foundation set by Mosaic Law and previous Covenants) - and if not going with them, ultimately, one ends up going against what has been held central in the MJ Community (mainstream/the origins of the movement from the 1960s) and Jewish believers since day 1 of the Body being made 1,000 of years ago.

It's one thing for others to say "Torah is foolish!!!" or claiming that "Nothing from Torah is important - it's all done away with!!!" - for those things will never be a matter of truly valuing the Foundational Law. Those are the things that keep someone from being identified as not part of the MJ Community. However, discussing the importance of the Law/seeing how it is to be lived out is another - one of the reasons discussion has occurred over how/why we do not stone others to death when they commit a sin like it was in the Civil Law of Israel (as that wasn't the culture WE live in) and it's one of the reasons believers didn't practice the same even though it was in the Mosaic - for they knew that certain things didn't apply in the same way as before. There are several other variations of the issue that've occurred - from what is defiend as Kosher....to seeing how others (be it Jew or Gentile) keep Sabbath since some feel that they should gather in communities on the Sabbath like in the OT while others feel the OT required one to remain at HOME for the Sabbath....to noting times where the Lord Christ seemed to respond differently to people than the judges/magistrates did in the OT (i.e. touching those who were unclean without becoming "unclean", etc.)..

If going on what has been said in the MJ movement since its inception, it is a matter of upholding the Law of God when discussing how it is applied today - and it is also seen as chipping away when others, zealous for it, make claims on how the Law applies for others even when the Lord and the Law never did such. ...as what matters is representing God's Law - for Jew and Gentile - the way that it was when it was developed. That's something many see as being at stake - for it doesn't go with historical consistency to do otherwise and that will never be a matter of walking out things as the Lord intended.

And what the Apostles noted was very direct:

1 John 3:13-15
​

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

1 John 4:20
​

If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
​

1 John 3
​

​

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
​

If one isn't committed to doing love for neighbors as Christ noted, they're really not commited to doing things in the interpretation of Covenant that Yeshua required.

Apostle John was very direct on it and spoke in no uncertain terms

John 13:34-35
​

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 15:8-18
​

This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.


Romans 13:8
[ Love, for the Day Is Near ] Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

​

Galatians 5:6
​

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

James 2:8
​

​

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[] you are doing right.9
​

QFT!!

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Long winded sentence...but yeah for the most part... I think the biggest complaint is from those who have left things found in churches, like eucharist, sunday, christmas, easter, halloween, pigs in diet, etc.. that find it promoted in this corner of the forum.. to be too little away from the things of this world for their taste in Him.

Okay....these are the kind of questions I'm talking about.
Are you saying Messianics don't believe in the "eucharist," and if no, why not?
All the other things you mentioned are gone from my life (well, except for a lingering smidgen of Christmas.)

Also, when you say Torah, do you mean Mosaic Law?

 

[visionary]

Okay....these are the kind of questions I'm talking about.
Are you saying Messianics don't believe in the "eucharist," and if no, why not?
All the other things you mentioned are gone from my life (well, except for a lingering smidgen of Christmas.)

Find sucharist in any of Yeshua's practices or traditions or lifestyle? There is not even a hint of thinking that eating human flesh anywhere within Judaism is kosher. It is one thing to have the miracle of water to wine.. but it is quite another to think wine to blood, which isn't kosher as something to ingest in any form.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Find sucharist in any of Yeshua's practices or traditions or lifestyle? There is not even a hint of thinking that eating human flesh anywhere within Judaism is kosher. It is one thing to have the miracle of water to wine.. but it is quite another to think wine to blood, which isn't kosher as something to ingest in any form.

Well, I disagree but I'm not here to debate!
Also, I edited and added another question to my above post.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Remember the period to break up sentence structure. For emphasis, for clarity, continuity, and just because it becomes easier to read. I am working on it, are you?

To be clear, I am aware of the grammatical rules you brought up - but it is not something I always seek to keep in mind since I've been able to read others who didn't do that and it was clear, full of continuity and easy to go through. IMHO, there's no need for any of that always being nit-picked at (nor brought up in this discussion out of nowhere) as if we're writing academic articles or papers to be graded - for there are times that is kept in mind and other times where it's not really necessary since I read others for what they say/have to offer and give grace. If I wanted to be technical, I could - including times where you've not be grammatically accurate at all points. But it's not that important since I read what you say/understand it as others do - and of course, others work on it....as I have.

Find sucharist in any of Yeshua's practices or traditions or lifestyle? There is not even a hint of thinking that eating human flesh anywhere within Judaism is kosher. It is one thing to have the miracle of water to wine.. but it is quite another to think wine to blood, which isn't kosher as something to ingest in any form.

A lot of this has been dealt with repeatedly when it comes to not understanding what the Eucharist was even about - and that it was never a matter of "eating human flesh" (as goes the general Protestant stereotype many in the Messianic world have adopted.... especially Radical Protestants) - for there have always been differing views of things like the Eucharist within the Body of Christ.... more in the following threads:

• What is the Messianic equivalent to the eucharist? (#22/ #59 #72 #93 )
• Anyone from any religion can be Messianic ( #36 )
• What is your personal view on Communion/Eucharist/L-rd's Supper?
• Messianic Judaism? ( #24 #1, #11, #81, #427, Was the Lord's supper Passover )

A lot of Messianic fellowships have supported Eucharist - but their understanding is different than what many understand it to be - and that goes for other camps in the Protestant world who accept the Eucharist concept/have no more problem believing in it than they do with understanding we are a mystical reflection of the Body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30
For I have received of the L-rd that which also I delivered unto you, That the L-rd Yeshua 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 covenant 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 L-rd's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the L-rd, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the L-rd.

​

John 6:47-69
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Yeshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


​

Personally, based on what I Corinthians 11 notes and John 6, I personally believe that there is in some mystical/supernatural way the prescence of the Lord present whenever communion takes place...and dishonoring that is not merely a symbolic action, but one where (as Paul said) one sins against the Body of the Lord. In the past, my own personal view tends toward Consubstantiation ....but it is not as if I think anyone can fully understand the mystery of communion anyhow.....no more than it is with other mysteries that describe the prescence of Yeshua with His people in ways that are truly amazing. For we, as the Bride, are part of the groom..in full communion ( Philippians 2:1-3, Revelation 19:6-8 , Revelation 21:1-3, Revelation 21:8-10 Revelation 22:16-18 ).

Ephesians 5:28
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
​

I do think it'd be wisdom for others to consider the Eucharist/the concept of DIVINE Connection from the perspective of how the Early Body of Believers saw it when it came to the concept of God's Prescence being manifest (that which is Eternal/WITHOUT limit being simultaneously experienced by that which is Mortal...a mystery..JUST as it was when the PRESCENCE of the Lord was somehow able to fill a Temple or be amongst His people even though God cannot be contained fully by any house per Acts 7).

Historically, the early Jewish church understood the concept of redeemption by blood as being based on what occurred with the Levitical sacrifices when a spotless lamb was presented before the priests, sacrificed and atonement happened with the shedding of blood since life was in the blood....and with Christ, His blood is what justified the believer, according to the early church. Interestingly enough, the concept of the blood being what saved came across as cannibalism toward outsiders to the world of believers...and they constantly had to defend against it...noting that partaking of it was no different than partaking of the Passover Lamb - except for them, Yeshua was the sacrifice they partook of in remembrance...and in a symbolic way and mysterious dynamic of connecting with him. For historical review, one may consider investigating Page 64 OF the book entitled "Symbols of Jesus: a Christology of Symbolic Engagement" ( )

The Bible is full of types and antitypes, or, shadows of things to come and the very image of those things (see Heb. 10:1). The Passover is a type of Christ; the Apostle Paul says so explicitly (see 1 Cor. 5:7). John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” twice in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:29, 36 cf. the many references to the Lamb in Revelation, esp. 5:6, 12; 13:8). Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and the Passover wasn’t completed by the sacrifice of the lamb alone, the flesh had to be consumed - and Jesus is the manna from heaven that provides eternal life in the age to come (John 6).

Now, when it came to the Passover LAMB, the concept was that one had to eat the Passover lamb. There's one of many OT types to look at. Ezekiel eating the scroll ( Ezekiel 3:1-3 ) and later with John doing the same ( Revelation 10:8-10 ( )being another to consider..as it concerns imagery used to illustrate DIvine points of connection - just as it is with the Eucharist when it comes to participating in the shed blood/body of the Messiah in remembrance..

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Matthew 26:25-27 /Matthew 26
​

Mark 14:22
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
Mark 14:21-23

Luk 22:17
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves...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. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”


John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
John 6:53-55
​

The scriptures confirm this when showing the ways the Lord portrayed himself to the Apostle John in the form of a sheep in the Heavenlies (according to Revelation 13:7-9 , Revelation 5:5-7 , Revelation 7:16-17, Revelation 14:3-5 ) and how the scriptures declare, from John the Apostle to John the Baptist, that Christ is the Lamb of God ( 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 )....the one whom we partake of in order to be cleansed of our sins/redeemed.


Israelites shared many cultural views with the surrounding Canaanites, including the reverence with which blood was viewed as the source of life and its subsequent use in rituals of worship. But they clearly rejected the Canaanite view that sacrifice was a magical appeasement of angry gods. Over and over again in biblical writings, alongside the use of blood in liturgy, the Israelites presented the view that the blood itself was not the cause of God's action nor did it in itself effect anything. They clearly understood that the use of blood was a symbol both of the disorder and death that sin brings into the world, and of the love of God that allows new life in the midst of death. It is against this background of blood sacrifice as a symbol both of the disorder and death that sin brings into the world, and of the love of God that allows new life in the midst of death, that Jesus Christ can be confessed in the New Testament as the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29; cf. 1 Peter 1:18-20). It is with this sense that Christians share Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus the Christ. It is a celebration, a thanksgiving (which is the meaning of "Eucharist"), of the grace of God, that God has chosen to be merciful rather than exercise absolute retributive justice. It is that grace that brings newness of life, which we celebrate with the bread and wine .


And as my friend said best on the issue, "There is a difference between literal and real..... The point is that we must defend and uphold the Word of God. We must not define what has not been revealed by either allegorizing or by literalizing what has been revealed.... Whatever the Lord says, we must take it and eat.... The words are "take and eat" not "take and understand". ...The minute someone says "it's an allegory", they are re-defining the words."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

QFT!!

 

[Avodat]

There's no need for any of that as if we're writing academic articles or papers to be graded - for there are times that is kept in mind and other times where it's not really necessary since I read others for what they say/have to offer and give grace. If I wanted to be technical, I could - including times where you've not be grammatically accurate at all points. But it's not that important since I read what you say/understand it as others do - and of course, others work on it....as I have.

A lot of this has been dealt with repeatedly when it comes to not understanding what the Eucharist was even about - and that it was never a matter of "eating human flesh" (as goes the general Protestant stereotype many in the Messianic world have adopted.... especially Radical Protestants) - for there have always been differing views of things like the Eucharist within the Body of Christ.... more in the following threads:

• What is the Messianic equivalent to the eucharist? (#22/ #59 #72 #93 )
• Anyone from any religion can be Messianic ( #36 )
• What is your personal view on Communion/Eucharist/L-rd's Supper?
• Messianic Judaism? ( #24 #1, #11, #81, #427, Was the Lord's supper Passover )

That is not true - it is an RCC, HA or Ortho view, certainly not Protestant.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is not true - it is an RCC, HA or Ortho view, certainly not Protestant.

Incorrect - seeing that the Anglicans have long spoken on the issue repeatedly as well as Lutherans as well. And they don't have a mindset that participating in the Eucharist is a matter of "eating human flesh" - and have both addressed it when that claim is commonly thrown out in the Protestant world. And the Orthodox certainly do not view Eucharist as a matter of "eating Human Flesh" either....

Both Anglicans and Lutheran are a part of the Protestant world and support Eucharist - particularly when it comes to the views such as consubstantiation and the concept of Real Presence...even though structures and forms of worship within the Anglican world represented a different kind of middle way, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism — a perspective that came to be highly influential in later theories of Anglican identity, and was expressed in the description "Catholic and Reformed." But they, alongside others such as Ortho culture, have long had to address many stereotypes that typically come from Protestants when assuming anything on Eucharist is about cannibalism or "eating human flesh." And this is in addition to even RCC views since many RCCs have often had to address things within the ranks when it comes to others believing it to be a matter within Catholicism of eating flesh - and others who've long noted where the RCC has altered on its stances/clarified a lot of things that were not well understood originally.

On the differing views of the Eucharist within the Protestant world (as well as the RCC and the Orthodox world), this has often come up in extensive discussions/debates on the issue. Rachael Rachael was present for one of them which was referenced elsewhere when it came to inviting her over to CF - as seen in the thread entitled Can anyone explain the different views of the Eucharist? ( #59 , #61 /#70 , #72 and #93 ).

Contra Mundum has also shared on the issue in-depth before as it concerns the ways things play out.

 

[Avodat]

Incorrect - seeing that the Anglicans have long spoken on the issue repeatedly as well as Lutherans as well. Both a part of the Protestant world - particularly when it comes to the views such as consubstantiation and the concept of Real Presence. And this has often come up in extensive discussions/debates on the issue. Rachael Rachael was present for one of them which was referenced elsewhere...

I referenced High Anglicans - some Lutherans added in does NOT make it a 'general Protestant stereotype'.

I suppose I'd better join the trend of adding to my post after I've saved it - I am not in the least concerned about how others paint the picture - sheer numbers does not make an incorrect view to be correct, if sheer numbers proved matters then all the clamour against the Law by the Church would be proven right by sheer weight of numbers and the Law would be null and void; thankfully that is not the case and never has been. You were selling the view as being current today as a 'general Protestant stereotype' - in that you are decidedly wrong. Historically, I suggest you read more widely to get your facts correct. You have simply made a gross over-statement in relation to the overall Protestant peoples of today.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I referenced High Anglicans - some Lutherans added in does NOT make it a 'general Protestant stereotype'.

No one missed where you referenced High Anglicans - as that was never the focus since what was noted was that it is a Protestant stereotype often brought up that the Eucharist is not celebrated within the Protestant world - and it is illogical trying to argue that Lutherans (for the concept of Real Presence ) doesn't make a comment a 'general Protestant stereotype' since it was never claimed that the stereotype was based on that. What was noted was that it typically comes from many in the Protestant world whenever it comes to the claims that the Eucharist is only in the Catholic world - no different than saying it's generally Protestants saying that Catholics "worship Mary" when they don't.

As said before, on the differing views of the Eucharist within the Protestant world (as well as the RCC and the Orthodox world), this has often come up in extensive discussions/debates on the issue. Rachael Rachael was present for one of them which was referenced elsewhere when it came to inviting her over to CF - as seen in the thread entitled Can anyone explain the different views of the Eucharist? ( #59 , #61 /#70 , #72 and #93 ).


Focus - as there's no need to wrangle what was said in a specific context out of place. For when it comes to consistently being against things like the Eucharist, it tends to be those within the Protestant world that offer the most complaint - and as said before:

It is to some. Sad but true. There is an element of MJism that is your garden variety anti-Catholic.

Primitive Messianic Judaism most likely developed into Christianity. At a certain juncture in history (say around the time of Chrysostom) the Jewish practices were spoken against and brought into disuse, but the threads have remained to this day. However, the modern day Messianic Movement is clearly historically and theologically from Protestantism and has adopted a number of very unJewish fundamentalist protestant notions- most obviously a rejection of tradition as both an interpretive authority and a norm for praxis. While the movement is attempting to revive early NT Christian (Heb = Messianic) practice and belief it has adopted the Protestant prolegomena which forms and informs it. Maybe that's the right path, too. Time will tell.

So, I don't think this is an either/or problem. It's both/and. Messianic Judaism developed into Christianity. Modern MJism at its radical end is an attempt to repristinate the Church (a very Protestant idea which every movement claims to aim for) while at the more moderate end it seeks to return to Jewish people a place within the Church. Your position is clearly the former, and mine the latter.

Let me take a punt on this and say that I think the anti-Catholicism is a lay-over from radical Protestantism that has managed to find its way into the thinking of some who have journeyed into the Messianic Movement.

But that is just the opinion of a simple bloke like me.

For those Messianic Jews who are either in support of Catholicism or are active within the Catholic church (i.e. Hebrew Catholics) and thankful for the ways the Lord has used the Catholic Church in many things ranging from community involvement to benevolence ministry, spreading the Gospel of Christ, I'm sadden to see where the Messianic movement would allow for anti-Catholicism to occur under the name of "biblical discussion."

However, as many Messianic ministers/ministries actually take on some of the aspects of the camps out of which they are either hosted or developed from, it would not surprise me to see some Messianic ministries take on aspects of what they saw previously in the Protestant Movement. For many Evangelical circles hosting Messianic circles tend to influence people in being rabbidly anti-Catholic and thinking that to be anti-Catholic is to be pro-Christ/pro-Scripture. If there was an article like the 21st Century one where all things Protestant were disssed (including Messianic circles), of course it would not be taken well because of how it'd be quickly claimed that misrepresentation occurred. But that same honor must be given to others as well, even if you disagreed with the theology. Some of this reminds me of what was discussed in the forums when it came to Catholicism intersecting with the Messianic Movement, as seen in the thread entitled Mel Gibsons New Biblical Movie

Philip Jenkins had some wonderful things to say on the issue of Anti-Catholicism that I was very thankful for:

Anti-Catholicism​

​

It's not that complicated, Bruh..

I suppose I'd better join the trend of adding to my post after I've saved it - I am not in the least concerned about how others paint the picture - sheer numbers does not make an incorrect view to be correct, if sheer numbers proved matters then all the clamour against the Law by the Church would be proven right by sheer weight of numbers and the Law would be null and void; thankfully that is not the case and never has been. You were selling the view as being current today as a 'general Protestant stereotype' - in that you are decidedly wrong. Historically, I suggest you read more widely to get your facts correct. You have simply made a gross over-statement in relation to the overall Protestant peoples of today.

Nothing you've said either deals with the fact that it is largely the Protestant world that has complained the most about the Eucharist (including those in the Messianic world ) - nor does it have anything to do with what was said. It doesn't matter whether you think sheer numbers don't make a fact correct - for as said before, had you paid attention, you'd realize where other Messianics have long said that just because there are a lot of numbers within the Protestant world that are against Eucharist does not make the celebration of it incorrect. Within that simple fact (i.e. recognizing the validity of not doing "Three Men Make a Tiger" logic in repeating something in large numbers so that it appears true even when it isn't) comes the reality that it is still the Protestant world in general that has the most comments against the Eucharist since the movement itself has an ethos that tried to divorce itself from all things pertaining to the Catholic world as they saw it.


Had you actually read the threads listed/what was discussed in them (as I suspect you didn't based on your train of argument), you'd not be sitting here making an argument on something NO ONE in the thread was saying - for the context is what's said in the Protestant world TODAY - not what was said in the beginnings of the Reformation since many of the Reformers were never trying to be divorced from all things as it pertains to the Eucharist - including Luther. But later generations, including the Radical Reformers, did go to the point of being against Eucharist.

If you want to talk on Luther/his views on Eucharist when it comes to the Protestant Reformation, here are the facts: Martin Luther admitted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. ..although he taught that the glorified Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist along with the bread and wine - something many others did not like even though the idea of partaking of the BODY/Blood of Christ in fullness was something that was already taught in the early body of believers repeatedly. Of course, although both acknowledge the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Luther rejected the doctrine concerning the conversion of the earthly gifts (bread and wine) as a philosophical explanation, which has nothing to do with revelation. At the end of the year 1519, Luther still maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation intact. In his Ein Sermon von dem hocwurdigen Sakrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi und von den Bruderschaften, he taught that there is a change of the substance of the bread and wine but emphasizes that it is symbolical of our union with the spiritual body of Christ. ..and this change must be interpreted not only sacramentally but spiritually and is aimed at the change of the natural man by a common life with Christ. Later on, Luther had some changes in thought - and when Luther saw in Zwingli a further threat to the true doctrine of the real presence, he replied in a number of sermons issued under the title Sermon von dem Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi, wider die Schwarmgeister (1526).

It was important to some of the Reformers to maintain understanding how the Lord can be at all places at once is one of the things the early body of believers understood when it came to the Eucharist/COMMUNION and partaking of the Body of Christ - as they knew that it wasn't an issue for believers around the world, in all times and places/eras (from the 1st century to the 17th century to the 21st century) to partake of the ONE Sacrifice that Christ made in light of the fact that the Lord is not bound nor limited by time itself...a temporary construct. One of the most beautiful ways in which we commune with the whole Christ is in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34). And even for others arguing that Jesus has a human body with all its limitations and therefore his body does not become omnipresent and distributed around the world in the elements, there are still ways of seeing the reality of how we all partake of His body nonetheless whenever we have Communioon.

As John Calvin explained:

[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin's womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning! [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

​

As Calvin noted in his view we are raised to heaven, where we feed on the whole Christ in His humanity and in His deity. And therefore, we should not neglect the sacrament and the grace it offers.


For THE sacrament of the Lord's supper is a testimony of CHRIST power over the grave. As Paul originally didn't write with Chapter/verse (as that was added later), his writings were originally one flowing document that connected one thought to the next - and it's easy to take what He said in I Corinthians 11 and divorce it from what he noted later on when pointing out the centrality of Christ in the final chapters of I Corinthians. I Corinthians, Chapter 15 is devoted to the Apostle Paul's persuasive argument in favor of Jesus' triumph over death: "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain" (I Corinthians 15:12-14). In addition to this passage, verses 19 through 21 of the same chapter bring more clarification: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

But after the first generations of Reformers passed on, the later generation rose up - and the later generation did not view Eucharist favorably - and from there came evolution of what we see in the MAJORITY of the Protestant world today when it comes to thinking of Eucharist as a negative/disconnected from the Bible. More of this was discussed elsewhere (here, here, here and here).

As important as the facts are with how the Protestant world saw things, I shouldn't even have to do review on it. For again, what matters in the context of THIS discussion is what's said on the makeup of how the Protestant world looks today and what's said generally at this juncture. ..

Thus, historically, I'd suggest you'd be quick to listen before speaking next time and arguing on what was never said (Proverbs 18:13) - for it already shows where you made a gross misstatement without verification - and that'll not be taken seriously. Chill out and get the facts before speaking next time...:

 

[Avodat]

Oh well, changing your argument is as good as an apology for an error.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Oh well, changing your argument is as good as an apology for an error.

Ad hominem via emotion doesn't really address where something was spoken out of context AND context was overlooked before speaking - but if wanting to utilize such, you're free to do so. It'd be better to listen to what's said rather than assuming based on what wasn't spoken (Proverbs 19:2)

Some things are simple enough to understand if/when one really wants to have understanding - and it's no different here for your part.

 

[Avodat]

No emotion, I assure you. Quite cool, calm and collected, thanks. I haven't attacked you I have simply noted that you are changing your argument a bit.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

No emotion, I assure you. Quite cool, calm and collected, thanks. I haven't attacked you .

Talking on switching argument with a comment is as good as apology is not logical discussion - nor does talking on being calm/collected change where an emotionally based argument is used when it comes to sentiments based in the claim that something switched...plus symbols of "sigh" used to indicate that.

It is what it is - for there was never a switch in argument to begin with, nor did you deal with the context. What was noted was that it tends to be from the Protestant world in general whenever comments against the Eucharist as a whole occur - even though there are others within the Protestant world who accept the Eucharist.

 

[Avodat]

If I could follow what you were saying there, I would respond, but I can't, so I'll just stick you in the ignore box for a while.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If I could follow what you were saying there, I would respond, but I can't, so I'll just stick you in the ignore box for a while.

And as said before, that is what's known as an ad-hominem via emotion. For rather than responding logically on what was noted and addressing context, there has to be resorting to quick passing commentary that is akin to trying to snip in passing commentary when one doesn't get their way - one of the reasons why it can be hard at times to take seriously what you say if/when you ask questions since you've done this before (as others have noted)...and it's not necessary.

That said, it's inconsequential as to who you do or don't ignore since it was never something of a real loss when that occurs - no different than when others ignore you for the most part. And what was said plainly is there for others - as the facts are the facts. Moving on..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I disagree but I'm not here to debate!

There'll always be disagreements, sis.

 

[dnc101]

LROL!

We can't even answer a post from the moderators about the rules without an Eastern Orthodox trying to teach us about why the Eucharist is ok and an argument! Ya gotta luv th' ir'ny!

Seriously, several people have said the only reason to come here is the fellowship. I disagree. I came because there were, at the time anyway, several posters who seemed to have a good handle on Messianic faith. I'm not that "old" in Messianism, and trust me there is a LOT of manure on the internet- but it doesn't all smell like it. It's good to have people to bounce things off of. A few of you may remember my assertion that Yeshua's sacrifice did away with the temple sacrifices. Long "discussion," but in the end I had to admit I was entirely in error. And I'm grateful to those who showed me I was wrong.

I can't get that kind of feedback from the net. And I could NOT have gotten that kind of feedback had the thread been hijacked by a bunch of Christian Crusaders on a mission to force us all back to the true faith! Some here still want to push the idea it is just about icons, and we are just oversensitive or "anti" everything from Jews to Christ to poor mistreated souls who journey here to tell us the "truth."

It is not. Your icon means squat to me, it is what you teach. If it is the same mainstream dogma I grew up with, or worse some form of neo-Catholicism, then I don't need to hear it here. You have your own niche in these forums (or "fora" as the more erudite might say)- please go back there with my heartfelt blessings and prayers. But show a little integrity and respect and don't barge in where you do not belong.

If you think I was talking about you, ... I probably was!

Dan C

 

[Gxg (G²)]

LROL!

We can't even answer a post from the moderators about the rules without an Eastern Orthodox trying to teach us about why the Eucharist is ok and an argument! Ya gotta luv th' ir'ny!

Ironically, one could say you can't even answer a post from the moderators about rules without other Messianics (specifically others not present for long) complaining on it the moment it disagrees with them.. despite the history of the boards - or addressing other Messianic Jews noting the same as the moderators

And to note, it's Oriential Orthodox , not Eastern Orthodox (something Ethiopian Jews will note that quickly when it comes their involvement in it/their lives based on God's Torah ). That's a basic difference in understanding that others aware of Biblical history realize before speaking on it - and falling into the error of hasty generalization that isn't historical, no different than saying all Pentecostals are with Word of Faith or saying all in Messianic Judaism are akin to Hebrew Roots cults Again, Ethiopian Jews in the OO Church already have high reverence for Torah. They are very concerned about Kosher (as they don't eat pork, for example), they circumcise, often worship on Saturday (or both), follow OT laws on menstruation and celebrate Festivals.....so clearly a Torah observant lifestyle possible within the realms of Orthodoxy. More was discussed in one of the earlier threads entitled Messianic Judaism and Ethiopian Orthodoxy (more here /here). Early Jewish Christianity was always seen as a form of Judaism - even though the form of Judaism it was got deemed "Christianity"

Moreover, other Messianic Jews have also noted Eucharist being acceptable - lest one ignores what has happened on the forums. It has also been noted in the larger world of Messianic Judaism - as Kesher Journal of Messianic Judaism has often pointed out amongst many others.

I can't get that kind of feedback from the net. And I could NOT have gotten that kind of feedback had the thread been hijacked by a bunch of Christian Crusaders on a mission to force us all back to the true faith! Some here still want to push the idea it is just about icons, and we are just oversensitive or "anti" everything from Jews to Christ to poor mistreated souls who journey here to tell us the "truth."

It is not. Your icon means squat to me, it is what you teach. If it is the same mainstream dogma I grew up with, or worse some form of neo-Catholicism, then I don't need to hear it here. You have your own niche in these forums (or "fora" as the more erudite might say)- please go back there with my heartfelt blessings and prayers. But show a little integrity and respect and don't barge in where you do not belong.

Unless it can be shown - at any point - that Messianic Judaism in the mainstream or its beginnings was ever about not identifying as Christian or not working with Churches, one does not deal with Messianic Judaism as it is whenever they claim any reference to the world of Christendom is not "Messianic" ...for that's not what's advocated in Israel when the Messianic Jewish community rising nor is it noted amongst the founders of the Modern Messianic Movement from the 60s/70s. They all denounced each and every attempt to assume that referencing Christ or what was shared in Christian circles was automatically divorced from "The Way"/Sect of the Nazarenes as was the case in 1st Century Judaism.

And the bottom line is that CF was - and will always be - a CHRISTIAN forum. Not a forum for denouncing Christians overall as not following Yeshua as He was or saying that Christians are lesser "followers of Messiah" than those associated with the Messianic Jewish movement. It is what it is...and that has been present for many followers within Messianic Judaism for years when it comes to coming here to live life/share with other Jewish believers all over the world in them seeking Messiah - be it those solely in Messianic Judaism or those working with other Jewish believers outside of it or others making bridges. It's why others speak on it and why they enjoy being present when it comes to outreach amongst the Jewish people/seeing the varieties of how Jewish life takes place.

I remember all the flack one poster (sevengreenbeans ) got for identifying with Samaritan culture ( #146/#33 ) - a part of Israelite culture - and yet she was already involved in Messianic culture as well and loving Jewish culture.

There has never been a rule talking on "Mainstream Christian" thought not allowed on the forum since CF IS A CHRISTIAN Forums as are all faith-groups - and the site-wide rules promote Christianity, with Messianic Judaism being a Sub-Set of that and in line with it. As long as others don't go around saying "Torah is dead!!!" or "Torah is useless", it's fine.....but others are often prone to generalize and assume that others speaking against Torah in GT must mean that all mainstream Christianity is like that...and so they assume all other cross-bearers are the same because of SOME who choose to do so. That's no more logical than one assuming "Nazis use knives to kill others - and doctors used knives, so doctors MUST BE Nazis!!!".....

Some argue that others don't need to belong simply because they (as Messianics with a Cross icon) may open the door for others coming into the forum who don't have the Messianic (or Non-Trinitarian Messianic) icon - and somehow open the door for others to come in discussing things that go counter to what Messianics value. Others discussing things counter to a Messianic view have been an issue - especially when people ask "questions" that end up degenerating into outright attacks on Messianic Jews/Messianic Gentiles saying they're crazy for loving God'd Torah or celebrating the Festivals, hating Anti-Semitism and a host of other things. For those doing so, indeed - there are other forums (or "fora" as the more erudite might say) for them to go - and if they have integrity, they'll not try to stay/push those things .....or be offended when/if they get reported for it.

However, it should also be realized that many have shared in fellowship on common issues that Messianic Jews/Messianic Gentiles already have in common with them - and often, they've been demonized simply because another Non-Messianic with a Cross Icon attacked others.......guilt-by-association that's no different than me stereotyping all lawyers as "liars" because of where others did so - or saying all people from the hood "love crime" because of where many in the hood were involved with drug-dealing and gangs. It does no good doing slothful generalization that really demeans others - and shuts down potential discussions that can be fruitful because people don't know how to categorize. Moreover, it becomes a bit ludicrous to say "Well that's not Messianic!!! with every single thing that may be a common issue - like saying it can't be "Messianic" to discuss geology or art or sports/politics or nature/zoology or funny stories simply because it wasn't explicitly focusing on typical issues Messianics focus on (i.e. Torah, Rabbinical studies, Eschatology with Israel, etc.) ....for Messianics discuss those issues as well in their fellowships. They are not that limited or divorced from everyday life - and often, people come INTO the forums with an assumption of what a Messianic HAS to talk on continually.

This also applies to coming in with assumptions of what a Messianic HAS to identify as - like saying no Messianic Jew could ever identify as a Lutheran, an Orthodox individual, an Anglican or others. What makes the difference is if a cross-bearer chooses to blast Torah/Jewish people. If one cross-bearer sees another cross-bearer (of one who's Messianic) and shares, it has to be respectful of what Messianics have shown to be valuable. They cannot at that point say "But other cross-bearers got to share!!!" - just as other Messianic posters cannot claim "Well I have rights due to the Messianic icon" when breaking the rules via judging others/attacking Christians and the Church with claims of all being "against Torah" or seeking to promote views CF doesn't allow site-wide. We have to learn to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. This also goes for those who are not even Messianic Jewish...but simply are non-believing Jews who share often and are supported without icon because they are Jews with much to offer.

If saying one cannot have "mainstream" present for discussion, that's really a matter of personal preference - and you may not want to come here seeing it, but that doesn't mean that other Messianics are the same. Technically, it's not a matter of "Mainstream" since your Bible (all 66 books) was made by those involved in it (Church Councils) - and the same thing goes for noting what CF supports when it comes to site itself, others who helped out Israel become a State and other things pertaining to the news.

The forums were made for others who LOVE God/His Torah - and they were made for others wanting who also work with Churches. Those not for that are NOT for the forums as they were designed - and thus, it's not for them...although there are other places in existence to go to.