BREAKING OF BREAD

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I have been reading posts about breaking of bread/lord's supper/communion/eucharist. No doubt there are some weird and wonderful interpretations of it and most of it is denominationally based, not biblically based.

The origins of this was not the New Testament Church (NTC). It was the Catholic church that turned a common meal into a mystical communion that could only be administered by a priest to give the priest more power and to make it more mystical.

The Reformation did not ditch all aspect of Catholicism. It kept the priest and called him pastor and kept the eucharist and called it the Lords Table.

If you go back to the NTC, you will find that they had the breaking of bread. Acts 2. In those days breaking of bread was a common term for a meal. If I invited you to come round and eat with me I would invite you to break bread.

At no time was it a sip of wine or a piece of bread. The church met daily to break bread as there was no welfare system in those days, so if you could not afford a meal you went hungry.

That all changed when the church was born as one of their acts of love was to make sure everyone had a meal that day, hence the breaking of bread. Over a meal, they were taught, had fellowship and prayed.

So when you see the term breaking of bread in scripture think in terms of a meal, not a sip of wine and a piece of bread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Apr 19, 2020
1,161
1,047
Virginia
✟95,788.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have been reading posts about breaking of bread/lord's supper/communion/eucharist. No doubt there are some weird and wonderful interpretations of it and most of it is denominationally based, not biblically based.

If this event is a ritual, in your own words how is this biblically based if not by Jesus at the Last Supper? Am I missing something here? I suspect I am.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,458
8,967
Florida
✟321,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I have been reading posts about breaking of bread/lord's supper/communion/eucharist. No doubt there are some weird and wonderful interpretations of it and most of it is denominationally based, not biblically based.

The origins of this was not the New Testament Church (NTC). It was the Catholic church that turned a common meal into a mystical communion that could only be administered by a priest to give the priest more power and to make it more mystical.

The Reformation did not ditch all aspect of Catholicism. It kept the priest and called him pastor and kept the eucharist and called it the Lords Table.

If you go back to the NTC, you will find that they had the breaking of bread. Acts 2. In those days breaking of bread was a common term for a meal. If I invited you to come round and eat with me I would invite you to break bread.

At no time was it a sip of wine or a piece of bread. The church met daily to break bread as there was no welfare system in those days, so if you could not afford a meal you went hungry.

That all changed when the church was born as one of their acts of love was to make sure everyone had a meal that day, hence the breaking of bread. Over a meal, they were taught, had fellowship and prayed.

So when you see the term breaking of bread in scripture think in terms of a meal, not a sip of wine and a piece of bread.

I prefer to see it for what it actually is. Throughout the new testament it is the Lord's body and blood. Among all of the original apostolic Churches it is the Lord's body and blood. There is an unbroken chain of commentaries from new testament times until today confirming that it is the Lord's body and blood.

Coming along two thousand years after the fact and claiming something different doesn't change that.
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I prefer to see it for what it actually is. Throughout the new testament it is the Lord's body and blood. Among all of the original apostolic Churches it is the Lord's body and blood. There is an unbroken chain of commentaries from new testament times until today confirming that it is the Lord's body and blood.

Coming along two thousand years after the fact and claiming something different doesn't change that.

The commentaries are irrelevant as the Law said it was forbidden for Jews to eat human flesh and drink human blood. All those at the Passover meal were Jews so they would not have eaten human flesh or drunk human blood.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,209
7,289
Tampa
✟767,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are making a lot of authoritative statements. The reality is that many of these ideas you are speaking about have been discussed ad-nauseum. Your sweeping statements about the Reformation would imply that you are not entirely familiar with the breadth of ideas it fostered at the time, or are over generalizing it for sensationalism.

The reality is that the action was based on norms of ritual Jewish custom, the Kiddush and Passover meal. Both use wine and bread as symbolic and ritual elements. Jesus continued this and took it to another level.

Now, whether you believe in the Real Presence or not is another matter. But the "Real Presence" does not have to mean actual transformation, if can be spiritual as Calvin taught, or not entirely physical as Luther taught. This is also a matter that is debated and has been debated since the Reformation, and before to a lesser extent. But to think that the New Testament Church simply celebrated a "meal" would be over simplifying what, why, and when the Last Supper took place.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,458
8,967
Florida
✟321,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The commentaries are irrelevant as the Law said it was forbidden for Jews to eat human flesh and drink human blood. All those at the Passover meal were Jews so they would not have eaten human flesh or drunk human blood.

Your commentary is irrelevant. The commentary of Ignatius of Antioch is not. On the heretics:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
If this event is a ritual, in your own words how is this biblically based if not by Jesus at the Last Supper? Am I missing something here? I suspect I am.

Good question. One that needs to be asked if we are going to interpret scripture correctly.

I was taught in Bible College that a text without a context is a pretext. Most people have ignored the context of this passage which is the Passover Meal which they met to celebrate once a year as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt and a reminder of the hoped for Messiah. This was evidenced by an empty chair which was there if he should come that night.

Do this in remembrance of me has been interpreted as a sip of wine and piece of bread once a day/once a week/once a month and all sorts of mystical applications.

In addition they have decided the eating my flesh and drinking blood is literal which is total nonsense for one simple reason. The Jewish Law which they would have obeyed forbade them to eat human flesh and drink human blood. If Jesus had dished up a meal of his flesh and blood it would have been roundly rejected because they were all Jews.

Apart from the fact that Jesus said he would not drink this fruit of the vine again etc. The fruit of the vine would have been understood as wine, not blood.

As do this in remembrance of me is not in every record of the Passover meal, there is some doubt that is was in the original.

Supposing it is, Jesus did not give any alternative instruction regarding that aspect of the Passover Meal. If they had been doing it all their lives once a year, they were not suddenly going to have a Passover meal every week bearing in mind you cannot divorce it from its context because there was no instruction from Jesus to do so.

So, when you look at the context and every aspect of the Passover meal, if you have an open mind, it is obvious that it does not mean what we have made it to mean. We have put our own spin on it as is often the case with so much of what we believe today and to illustrate this point, I read a book written by an Anglican women who said it was akin to yoga.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,458
8,967
Florida
✟321,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Good question. One that needs to be asked if we are going to interpret scripture correctly.

I was taught in Bible College that a text without a context is a pretext. Most people have ignored the context of this passage which is the Passover Meal which they met to celebrate once a year as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt and a reminder of the hoped for Messiah. This was evidenced by an empty chair which was there if he should come that night.

Do this in remembrance of me has been interpreted as a sip of wine and piece of bread once a day/once a week/once a month and all sorts of mystical applications.

In addition they have decided the eating my flesh and drinking blood is literal which is total nonsense for one simple reason. The Jewish Law which they would have obeyed forbade them to eat human flesh and drink human blood. If Jesus had dished up a meal of his flesh and blood it would have been roundly rejected because they were all Jews.

Apart from the fact that Jesus said he would not drink this fruit of the vine again etc. The fruit of the vine would have been understood as wine, not blood.

As do this in remembrance of me is not in every record of the Passover meal, there is some doubt that is was in the original.

Supposing it is, Jesus did not give any alternative instruction regarding that aspect of the Passover Meal. If they had been doing it all their lives once a year, they were not suddenly going to have a Passover meal every week bearing in mind you cannot divorce it from its context because there was no instruction from Jesus to do so.

So, when you look at the context and every aspect of the Passover meal, if you have an open mind, it is obvious that it does not mean what we have made it to mean. We have put our own spin on it as is often the case with so much of what we believe today.

"If Jesus had dished up a meal of his flesh and blood it would have been roundly rejected because they were all Jews."

Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

...

Jhn 6:66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
"If Jesus had dished up a meal of his flesh and blood it would have been roundly rejected because they were all Jews."

Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

...

Jhn 6:66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
So?
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You are making a lot of authoritative statements. The reality is that many of these ideas you are speaking about have been discussed ad-nauseum. Your sweeping statements about the Reformation would imply that you are not entirely familiar with the breadth of ideas it fostered at the time, or are over generalizing it for sensationalism.

The reality is that the action was based on norms of ritual Jewish custom, the Kiddush and Passover meal. Both use wine and bread as symbolic and ritual elements. Jesus continued this and took it to another level.

Now, whether you believe in the Real Presence or not is another matter. But the "Real Presence" does not have to mean actual transformation, if can be spiritual as Calvin taught, or not entirely physical as Luther taught. This is also a matter that is debated and has been debated since the Reformation, and before to a lesser extent. But to think that the New Testament Church simply celebrated a "meal" would be over simplifying what, why, and when the Last Supper took place.

Thankyou for your opinion. It does not convince me to change what I believe as it took me two years of in-depth study to find out what I did, from men who know a lot more than I do.
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Your commentary is irrelevant. The commentary of Ignatius of Antioch is not. On the heretics:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.

I don't follow Ignatius for the truth that sets me free. I follow the scriptures and the numerous people I studied over a two year period to come to the conclusions that I have. You are entitled to your opinion and what you believe, as I am.
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Your commentary is irrelevant. The commentary of Ignatius of Antioch is not. On the heretics:.

That is a subjective analysis and not one that can stand up to scrutiny when seeking to study to show oneself approved to God. That is the only approval I need.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Two years vs. two thousand years of testimony, by those who were taught by the Apostles. Ignatius and Polycarp, both who died for the faith, were taught by John the Apostle. You know far better than those taught by the apostles?

There are those of us here who do entire church services in Koine Greek and Aramaic . We're still doing our services in the original Biblical languages on a regular basis.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have been reading posts about breaking of bread/lord's supper/communion/eucharist. No doubt there are some weird and wonderful interpretations of it and most of it is denominationally based, not biblically based.

The origins of this was not the New Testament Church (NTC). It was the Catholic church that turned a common meal into a mystical communion that could only be administered by a priest to give the priest more power and to make it more mystical.

The Reformation did not ditch all aspect of Catholicism. It kept the priest and called him pastor and kept the eucharist and called it the Lords Table.

If you go back to the NTC, you will find that they had the breaking of bread. Acts 2. In those days breaking of bread was a common term for a meal. If I invited you to come round and eat with me I would invite you to break bread.

At no time was it a sip of wine or a piece of bread. The church met daily to break bread as there was no welfare system in those days, so if you could not afford a meal you went hungry.

That all changed when the church was born as one of their acts of love was to make sure everyone had a meal that day, hence the breaking of bread. Over a meal, they were taught, had fellowship and prayed.

So when you see the term breaking of bread in scripture think in terms of a meal, not a sip of wine and a piece of bread.
Of course it was not the (Roman) Catholic Church that invented anything there; the sacraments far preceded the coming of that particular institution.

And the meaning of "break bread" in connection with worship has been studied a lot and the conclusion is that it can refer to the Eucharist but also to a fellowship meal that the churches held in conjunction with the Eucharist. It is the other parts of the relevant verses in the NT that indicate which is which.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Two years vs. two thousand years of testimony, by those who were taught by the Apostles. Ignatius and Polycarp, both who died for the faith, were taught by John the Apostle. You know far better than those taught by the apostles?

There are those of us here who do entire church services in Koine Greek and Aramaic . We're still doing our services in the original Biblical languages on a regular basis.

Good for you.
 
Upvote 0

Dick Barton

Active Member
Aug 4, 2021
87
37
82
Victoria
✟2,141.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Of course it was not the (Roman) Catholic Church that invented anything there; the sacraments far preceded the coming of that particular institution.

And the meaning of "break bread" in connection with worship has been studied a lot and the conclusion is that it can refer to the Eucharist but also to a fellowship meal that the churches held in conjunction with the Eucharist. It is the other parts of the relevant verses in the NT that indicate which is which.

Is it.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I don't follow Ignatius for the truth that sets me free. I follow the scriptures and the numerous people I studied over a two year period to come to the conclusions that I have. You are entitled to your opinion and what you believe, as I am.
Respectfully, Ignatius, and the other Early Church Fathers speak with more authority than you do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
That is a subjective analysis and not one that can stand up to scrutiny when seeking to study to show oneself approved to God. That is the only approval I need.
It is very clear that you believe that you follow "Sola Scriptura", yet by changing the clear reading of Scripture regarding the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are in effect promoting "another Gospel"; something Scripture also warns us about. This Biblical truth was held universally by all Christians up until the time of the "Radical Reformers". Good short article here: Radical Reformation - Wikipedia

Considering also the admonitions found in Scripture regarding the "discerning the body and blood" and "worthy reception" and the consequences of God's judgement for those who fail in these respects; is it any wonder that the vast majority of Christianity views teachings that reject the "Real Presence" and the efficacy of the sacraments as heterodox, and even heretical?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0