Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He took a cup with grape wine. He said drink. If I pick up a cup of pepsi and say drink am I telling you to drink root beer? No, I'm telling you to drink pepsi.
And the scripture tells us to take and drink grape wine.
I did. There was nothing specifically referencing the Lord's Supper.
Please read the commonly known scripture and the context of it. It was very clearly grape wine in the cup. It was the cup after the passover supper. We know from scripture this would have been wine.
As I have already said there is no live yeast in the wine we drink. And the dead yeast would have settled to the bottom before it was bottled. The yeast content of wine is low, and the very small amount taken for communion makes thsi even less an issue.
EDIT: Sorry, I was mistaken. But there are verying digrees of yeast allergies, and more severe cases still can get reaction from wine.
And it's the word of God that makes a baptism. Should we therefor baptize in oil because it sounds better to us? I mean if the physical element Christ instituted doesn't matter and all.
Sure he did. You choose to overlook it to support your view.
He did, and that's why it is important. And it is in no way limiting the power of God. Again, the same argument you use could be used by someone wanting to baptize with oil instead of water. It's the same used by those who want to commune with pop tarts and jolt cola.
Frankly, yes it does.
That may very well be, I'll concede that (although I bet there are severe cases in which even the little sip could be lethal.)
This is what I'm asking you to do when reading the scripture. Aside from that, you shouldn't be but simply reading the scripture.
Exactly, it's the word of God. However, Christ said these are the elements we are to use. Bread and wine. Just as Christ said to use water and therefor we should use water.
That would be legalism. The point wasn't the Jordan, the point was we were to use water. Just as it doesn't matter exactly what type of grape the wine was made from because Christ doesn't specify. But Christ used grape wine, this is what he told us to drink, which is why that's what should be used. That's not being legalistic, thats reading scripture and following it as it is given to us.
See? You take it one step too far. The point wasn't the wine, it is the blood.
But it doesn't say "fruit of the vine." Again I'll say: if the tpe of wine was important, don't you think he'd mention it..You've never read the passages on the Lords Supper?
We know that wine was served at the passover meal. We know the Lords Supper followed a passover meal. We know from taking the verse in context for the period fruit of the vine would mean wine, not simply grape juice. Hence, we know that when Christ said "Take and drink of it all of you...." he was telling them to drink grape wine. Scripture interprets scripture. It explains it all by itself.
It's not common flawed human sense, it's reading what is written. It's not legalistic to read what is said and follow it.
