Communion?

[Lotuspetal_uk]

I believe that Missy put it quite elegantly, and you can trust her answer to be in line with the majority of messianic congregations.

shalom,
Yafet.

Thank you Yafet and I forgot to thank you also for your earlier reply

 

[dignitized]

NOW on the topic of Communion :

What do you have to say to this http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html ?

 

[simchat_torah]

Should communion be addressed in the FAQ?

 

[iitb]

The question "Do Messianics Observe or Recognize Communion?" is included in the Shabbat section. Did you want something more in depth?

 

[simchat_torah]

hahah, guess my weak eyes missed that, lol... sorry justin

 

[Fiskare]

People seriously into this topic should read How Christ said the First Mass and leave the conspiracy theories behind.

"Shows how the traditional Mass sums up the entire Old Testament worship from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, how even minute details of the present Mass were used by Christ in the very First Mass, and how they have come down to our day with the same symbolic into the history and tradition of every aspect of Hebrew worship and shows clearly how Our Lord blended and wove them all together into the beautiful liturgy we call the Mass. Informative, thought-provoking and inspiring beyond all lauds. "

This book is awesome, fascinating and engrossing.

 

[sojeru]

Its funny how In spanish they call saturday "el sabado"
and just recently I spoke with a woman who has no idea what judaism is... and i was telling her that I needed to observe Yom kippur and that monday the 6th is a "sabado"
and she said, no it isnt?
then i said, it is for me, since a HOLY day falls on that day its a"sabado judio"
sabado-sabbath

and then in spanish they have domingo- l-rds day for sunday.
But which is which as far as the spanish language?
is the sabbath (sabado) the L-rds day or Sunday (domingo) the L-rd's day according to English language logic?
Yet in scandanavia and the norweigian call Saturday "LORDAG" which means L-rd's day.
So now it looks like we have a big confusion here just in language.
And I know that the topic of langauge was never brought up.
However, in bringing this up- we can have an insight of how the leaders of the people using these languages viewed things and how they enforced their beliefs.
Italian has the same problem as the spanish.

SEE this is the problem, all of these peoples who spoke spanish to the italians to whoever had the same idea that one day was sabado and another was the l-rds day were taught by their leaders. The "holy" roman catholic church.
now- ASK a learned RCC member and they will say that the sabbath WAS NEVER sunday, but the l-rds day is sunday.
So why do protestants come up with their doctrine? Well they just want to remove themselves from the RCC with their own idea of scripture.
The RCC made it good in NO ONE observing the sabbath.
They made the sabbath a fasting day- all day- and a dreadfulday- a day when no one could do anything fun at all- nothing of joy- and this was every week.
and this was mandated for 200 years before a day of actual worship arrived by the RCC. the inneverable day of the sun- now called the l-rds day.
They say, "try not to do work on this day- but if you have to then its ok- but work on the sabbath".
this is TRUE. all we have to do is read the history in the "church fathers" and there we have it.
So who indeed are the evil keepers? the keepers of the sabbath that G-D has laid as an enduring perpetual covenant FOREVER as he has told us in his word? or those that do away and nullify the Torah to make themselves a distinct group and NEW religion?


and my bad all, i know this one post is not dealing at all with communion

 

[simchat_torah]

I thought I'd ressurect this old Communion thread since there seems to be renewed interest in MJ's stance on communion.

enjoy!
yafet

 

[simchat_torah]

People seriously into this topic should read How Christ said the First Mass and leave the conspiracy theories behind.

From the book:

This phenomenal work reveals many curious insights such as Adam and Eve's 63 children, the origin of the races, Adam's skull buried on Calvary, and the fact that Judas was the nephew of Caiphus, the high priest.

Does this all come from catholic tradition???

 

[ShirChadash]

I haven't read all of the thread yet (oy, my eyes, it's a long thread!) but, from what I have already seen, I agree completely with S_T's posts. (...bet you never would've guessed that, Yafet! )

"Communion" was also the hardest and last thing for me to let go of in my stepping into Biblical Messianic Judaism: first my Catholic understanding of it, but also later, my protestant understanding (and acceptance) of the teaching as well.

As re: Catholic communion, and the concept of transubstantiation, I have a couple of links about the practice and its origins, which I can add to the thread too. Hopefully no one else has already given these links (and if so, my apologies for repeating them).

While not the most eloquent of pieces this one has some decent insights:
http://sxws.com/charis/apol8.htm

I can't link the article directly, for some reason, but if you click on "articles" on the left menu at this site, and then select "Do THIS in Remembrance of ME!" in the pull-down box that comes up, you'll get to an interesting article from a MJ perspective.
http://www.petahtikvah.com/

I would also like to mention an excellent point made to me by a Messianic woman whom I hold in very high regard. She pointed out that since it was against the Law for Jews to partake of blood, if Yeshua had meant for His literal blood to be drunk by Him and the disciples during the Last Supper, He would have been unclean because of it and He would have been unable to die having perfectly obeyed Torah. Since partaking of blood (and even flesh of a living thing, no?) would have been breaking the Torah, Yeshua was clearly not doing so in the meal, and never changed the bread and wine into His body and blood; it was symbolic, Pesach-related, as so many of you have been trying to make clear in this and the other discussion thread going on.

My other thoughts on it: since the atoning sacrifice had not yet been done by Yeshua, the price had not yet been paid... so the disciples were not partaking of an efficacious sacrifice in that Passover meal... and there would certainly be no point in Yeshua taking any of the bread and wine Himself, then, if it were in fact His very blood and flesh.

 

[ShirChadash]

As re: the idea that the last supper was a Passover meal celebrated at the time the Essense's would have observed, here are two interesting links that support this understanding.

http://www.bibarch.com/articles/Article-Last%20Seder.htm

http://www.bibarch.com/articles/CrucifixionWeek.htm

I am adding them to this thread since Pesach, having just passed, and First Fruits are the feasts currently on the calendar

 

[Flavius]

Bah, my Hebrew blows... lol... I'm still learning.

I can pronounce pretty much everything (though I have to refer to some of the vowel points on a chart once in awhile) and I can tell you whether a word is a noun, verb, plural, blah blah blah...
but I don't know half of what it all means...

Sure, I know almost every common saying, phrase, blessing, etc...
But I doubt I'd be able to hold much of a full conversation!

err... we had a topic, right?
uhhh... yeah, Bacchus... Well, essentially there is historical proof that a certain sect of popes and bishops were 'bacchants' and ironically it was directly at that time frame in history which the specific doctrine of the body in 'communion/eucharist' evolved.... that the body of the g-d became one with the flesh that they consumed, and thusly received power from this 'g-d flesh'.

but I'd have to pull out some dusty history books from my boxes (I just recently moved a month ago and I'm still living in boxes! AHHHH, I hate that)

But I've read quite a bit online as well about this topic, but I prefer to give actual book references than online ones...

I'm sure you can find quite a bit in a google search if you are so inclined.

Shalom aleichem,
Yafet.

I probably don't have to tell you that bachuss is nimrod.I struggled with these questions before myself,I look at it like this.All paganism can be traced to Nimrod,Nimrod was taught by Noah who was almost contemperary with Adam who spoke to Hashem directly and I believe was taught the word at his hand,The word always was.Evil always duplicates G-d.It might seem that this practice of Bachuss pre-dates christian communion but it doesn't.
Put it this way,most people think the first Passover sacrifice happened in Egypt but it really happened When Hashem cloth Adam and Eve.
It's the same as saying that Osirus a supposed 4000bc pharoh predates Jesus as being the branch from heaven because an evergreen sprung up on his grave,the tree cut down that came back to life,cast upon the waters like Noah.But as Hyslop prooved.Osirus is cast upon the waters in his coffin on the 17th day of the 2cnd month,same day Noah entered the ark,stayed in the ark{coffin} same amount of time.So we can see that Osirus never lived but was only a duplicate religion that was a mixture of noah and Nimrod worship.Osirus means {takin from the waters} wich means he survived the old world and came to the new world while everyone else died.

Bachuss,when you see his seal,his picture,you will notice that one face looks to the east and one face looks to the west.This is Noah who lived in the old world and survived to make it to the new world.Noah worship.So if Bchuss predates anything,what you are saying actually is that noah prdated wich is true.

Noah worship was wide spread but Nimrod took it and made it his own also,So it's a mixture of the two

 

[koilias]

As re: the idea that the last supper was a Passover meal celebrated at the time the Essense's would have observed, here are two interesting links that support this understanding.

http://www.bibarch.com/articles/Article-Last%20Seder.htm

http://www.bibarch.com/articles/CrucifixionWeek.htm

I am adding them to this thread since Pesach, having just passed, and First Fruits are the feasts currently on the calendar

As a scholar of second temple period Judaism, I can say that nothing could be more heretical than celebrating the Passover at a different time than the nation. Such an act would make Yeshua a separatist, one of the minim, and would fly in the face of Judaism. To make Yeshua an Essene is tantamount to make him separate from all Israel. Nothing, nothing in Yeshua's theology makes him an Essene.

Sorry, but these articles are the result of an extremely poor understanding of first century Judaism.

 

[ShirChadash]

Another article indicates that Yeshua's followers fully expected to keep Pesach in line with the Pharisaic reckoning as well:


http://members.aol.com/prophecy04/Articles/Yeshua/lastsupper2.html

[size=+3]The Last Supper: was it a Passover Seder? Part 2[/size]
[size=-1]by Roy A. Reinhold May 4, 2002[/size]

​

Part 1 showed that the bread and wine ceremony at the Last Supper was not a Passover Seder. The disciples knew that point, because in John 13:29, the meal was already over when Judas left, and the disciples thought Jesus had sent him off to buy the necessary items for the upcoming Passover meal celebration on the following evening.

​

Was the "Last Supper" a Pesach meal or no?

 

[koilias]

Was the "Last Supper" a Pesach meal or no?

Personally, I don't believe it was. I can accept that it was figuratively indicating the Pesach. But it was a "love feast" or covenant meal. Yeshua was the Passover sacrifice after all! Yeshua says that the bread, not the Pesach lamb, represents his body. He means, I believe, that we are to think of the bread and wine as representing his teaching, the teaching that brings the Kingdom of G-d, which was first manifested at Sinai, after the liberation of the slaves. But Yeshua makes a new teaching: No longer do I call you slaves, for a slave knows not what his master is doing. The bread and wine represent the knowledge of the ways of HaShem.

 

[ShirChadash]

And is there any reason why the "Last Supper" couldn't have been a Pesach meal anyway (even at the "wrong" time), in the Essense quarter? Though it certainly didn't take the PLACE of the Pesach meal to come, it was a perfect teaching opportunity for Yeshua to show His followers not only what was to take place, but the significance of His death.

 

[Henaynei]

And is there any reason why the "Last Supper" couldn't have been a Pesach meal anyway (even at the "wrong" time), in the Essense quarter? Though it certainly didn't take the PLACE of the Pesach meal to come, it was a perfect teaching opportunity for Yeshua to show His followers not only what was to take place, but the significance of His death.

Well, for one thing, it *can't* be Pesakh unless it is celebrated at the time G-d designates. Doing the things of G-d deliberately/willfully at the wrong time is one of the signs of the anti-Messiah according to scripture.

What it WAS was a "teaching Seder." It was not uncommon for a rabbi who had a school of followers to do a teaching Seder before Pesakh, highlighting some faucet that he particulary wanted them to study or consider during their *real* Seder. Then they were released to return to their homes to celebrate the Seder with their families according to scriptural instruction.

So, it was a meal "about" the Seder. But it was not *a* Seder. Does that help?

 

[ShirChadash]

Yes it does, Henny. Thanks so much. I didn't post any of this to offend anyone.

 

[Henaynei]

Yes it does, Henny. Thanks so much. I didn't post any of this to offend anyone.

Please forgive me if my response sounded as if I took it that way I did not

 

[koilias]

Yes it does, Henny. Thanks so much. I didn't post any of this to offend anyone.

No offense taken here! I realize I sounded somewhat stern. I was only trying to highlight the seriousness of this issue from the standpoint of a historian. But I mean nothing personally.

It's good you brought it up, because one must always be wary of those certain attempts in Christianity to paint Yeshua as an Essene. If you were to put Yeshua and the Essenes on the spectrum of Judaism, they would be plotted on opposite sides of one another. These claims are very serious indeed! Just know that that is the equivalent of calling him a heretic.

The Essenes did not believe in the resurrection, considered the temple desolate and unclean, would have spat on the path crossed by a Pharisee or any other Jew who did not agree with them (not to even speak of Samaritans or, oh my, uncircumcized Gentiles who claimed to have faith in G-d!), they prayed for the slow and painful destruction of their enemies, and many other obhorent things Yeshua could not disagree more with.