Excluding from Eucharist/Communion

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE=" @cloudyday2 , post: 73622149, member: 311563"]@RayJeena and @yeshuaslavejeff , I was reading this morning about possible interpolations in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. There is a tidy structure to Paul's writing that becomes clumsy and confusing in those chapters, and the views expressed seem inconsistent with Paul's views recorded elsewhere. The Eucharist section is one likely victim of these interpolations. I have always thought those verses sounded fishy, so learning about these interpolations reinforces my skepticism.[/QUOTE
====================================
And very well you should be skeptical of so-called interplations.

Instead, seek the truth. Then no worries, no contradictions, no man's view overriding God's Word like the way the interpolations you saw did.

Yahweh's Word is simple truth. Man's devices are many, deceptive and clumsy and confusing.

 

[cloudyday2]

There's not a shred of evidence that this section of 1 Corinthians is interpolated.

Scholars believe that this ENTIRE sentence was inserted by somebody closer to the time period when the Pastoral epistles were written by somebody - maybe 100 years after Paul was dead at a time when there were church traditions and pastoral authority and so on. Paul always reasoned with his readers. These chapters begin by saying that Paul is treating the reader as wise enough to listen to reason and make a good decision. Then in the interpolated sections of these chapters somebody else begins referencing church traditions that wouldn't have existed for Paul. There is also a somewhat poetic pattern of writing that breaks down in the suspect passages. And of course the passages contradict Paul's views. The section mentioned about women being silent in church is a prime example that almost all non-fundamentalist scholars suspect. The section describing proper behavior in the Eucharist has more disagreement among scholars.

Google for interpolations in Corinthians 10 and 11 and you can see the arguments in more detail.

 

[Rajni]

If it is a case that Paul's statements were geared for a specific
audience at the time, this underscores the futility of applying
his writings to today's audiences. It's akin to opening someone
else's mail and applying the contents therein to oneself. It
certainly explains all the confusion among those outside of his
originally-intended audience.

Either way, a non-Christian should not be participating in the Eucharist.

Even as a Christian, I still wouldn't partake.
I figure it's better safe than sorry.

 

[Robban]

If it is a case that Paul's statements were geared for a specific
audience at the time, this underscores the futility of applying
his writings to today's audiences. It's akin to opening someone
else's mail and applying the contents therein to oneself. It
certainly explains all the confusion among those outside of his
originally-intended audience.


Even as a Christian, I still wouldn't partake.
I figure it's better safe than sorry.

Is there a warning text?

"Don,t try this at home !"

 

[Albion]

I'm getting the idea that almost everyone is correct on this thread. They are merely looking at the issue from a number of different angles.

 

[cloudyday2]

You were brought into the Orthodox Church and left? Why? Even just a little bit of exploration into Orthodox life will show plenty of proof of God. Ever seen a myrrh streaming Icon up close? I have and there is nothing on Earth that can describe the experience. Ever seen an incorrupt saint's body or read the lives of modern day wonderworkers?

Go to a monastery if you can and ask to spend some time there. I recommend Hermitage of the Holy Cross if you are on the East Coast. I spent 5 months there and the monks are wonderful.

You should exclude yourself from communion because if you are not confessing your sin and repenting, and have some measure of real belief in Christ, then you can spiritually harm your soul or even suffer physically. It happened in the Bible and I've heard of it happening more recently. While the physical effects might be less frequent, the spiritual ones are much more powerful. If you want an easier way to harden your heart and quicken your path to pride, then commune without fear of God and repentance. You are partaking of the literal blood and body of God, in order to become deified.

Thank for the suggestions, Marius, I didn't see your post until today. Unfortunately many phenomena such as myrrh streaming icons have been discredited if you do some googling. Here is one link:
The Case of a Weeping Orthodox Icon - CSI

It's sad to think that priests and monks are cynical enough to use hoaxes to raise money or bolster piety, but there are many examples. I guess I'm pretty skeptical as a result.

Of course it is great that you get encouragement from monasteries and so on.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Thank for the suggestions, Marius, I didn't see your post until today. Unfortunately many phenomena such as myrrh streaming icons have been discredited if you do some googling. Here is one link:
The Case of a Weeping Orthodox Icon - CSI

It's sad to think that priests and monks are cynical enough to use hoaxes to raise money or bolster piety, but there are many examples. I guess I'm pretty skeptical as a result.

Of course it is great that you get encouragement from monasteries and so on.

You know the Church has professional investigators who review those cases correct?

I watched the Icon for an hour outside of its case as its keeper repaired it. I watched the Myrrh flow from the paper as it lay flat on a solid oak table. The room was overwhelmed with the scent.

It also flows through the glass when it is in the case. The glass is a centimeter away. I've also witnessed this. Your article didn't even give any official conclusion, just what the investigator thought was most "logical"

They scrape buckets full of myrrh off of it every week.

I looked for evidence to discredit many Orthodox miracles during my entry into the church. But if you pay attention closely to the writers, with the exceptions of the ones where a priest was proven by other Orthodox to be faking a miracle, that the observers always approach the situation unwilling to believe, so they write with the premise that miracles are illogical. They will try to reach the most ridiculous theories about how the legitimate miracles are occurring.

 

[Radagast]

Scholars believe

Which scholars?

There is also a somewhat poetic pattern of writing that breaks down in the suspect passages.

I read Greek and I don't see that.

 

[cloudyday2]

Which scholars?



I read Greek and I don't see that.

Try a quick google and you can read the thinking of these scholars for yourself - unless you are simply trying to score rhetorical points without any actual interest in learning the truth.

 

[cloudyday2]

You know the Church has professional investigators who review those cases correct?

I watched the Icon for an hour outside of its case as its keeper repaired it. I watched the Myrrh flow from the paper as it lay flat on a solid oak table. The room was overwhelmed with the scent.

It also flows through the glass when it is in the case. The glass is a centimeter away. I've also witnessed this. Your article didn't even give any official conclusion, just what the investigator thought was most "logical"

They scrape buckets full of myrrh off of it every week.

I looked for evidence to discredit many Orthodox miracles during my entry into the church. But if you pay attention closely to the writers, with the exceptions of the ones where a priest was proven by other Orthodox to be faking a miracle, that the observers always approach the situation unwilling to believe, so they write with the premise that miracles are illogical. They will try to reach the most ridiculous theories about how the legitimate miracles are occurring.

Yeah, I guess I'm skeptical. When something is too good to be true it usually is. It also doesn't seem like God's way of revealing himself to people. These flowing icons and weeping statues and so on arose from medieval superstitious thinking. It isn't God's way IMO. If these things were real, then I think the scientists would be taking them seriously. From your description this icon's behavior is very reproducible and would be very easy for scientists to analyze.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Yeah, I guess I'm skeptical. When something is too good to be true it usually is. It also doesn't seem like God's way of revealing himself to people. These flowing icons and weeping statues and so on arose from medieval superstitious thinking. It isn't God's way IMO. If these things were real, then I think the scientists would be taking them seriously.

Russian Scientists have tested quite a few of these things with permission of the Church.

So you deny my personal experience and the experience of at least 20 other people in that room who had the rare opportunity to watch myrrh form on a paper icon well known for healing people of various things? Why are miracles medieval? If anything God would make them more prevalent now to bring witness to his true church in these doubting times.

 

[Radagast]

Try a quick google and you can read the thinking of these scholars for yourself

So no answer then.

 

[cloudyday2]

So no answer then.

No answer for those who are not actually seeking an answer

 

[cloudyday2]

Russian Scientists have tested quite a few of these things with permission of the Church.

So you deny my personal experience and the experience of at least 20 other people in that room who had the rare opportunity to watch myrrh form on a paper icon well known for healing people of various things? Why are miracles medieval? If anything God would make them more prevalent now to bring witness to his true church in these doubting times.

You have watched stage magicians pull rabbits out of hats? Do you believe they were actually pulling rabbits out of hats?

 

[Uber Genius]

I would sort out Jesus' claims about himself first and leave the church sacraments or ordinances to the side for now. If Jesus is not who he claimed you are wasting your time, if he is then he wants you to be in a relationship with him. Neither are predicated on a view of the eucharist.

 

[FireDragon76]

I grew-up in the Episcopal Church and received communion many times, but now my beliefs are confused and probably closer to agnostic. If I attend an Episcopal Church then the issue of communion will arise. I believe that Jesus (if he exists) would not exclude anybody from communion - even skeptics and militant non-believers. So either Christianity is fantasy and participating in communion is harmless, or Christianity is true in some subtle way and NOT participating in communion is a rejection and/or misunderstanding of Jesus and God.

So I'm curious what Christians think on this issue.

I am OK with just about anyone who desires to receive communion, to be able to do so, as long as they do so in a way that is respectful of our beliefs and is done in an orderly manner.

There is a good book by Sara Miles called Take This Bread about how she came to faith as an atheist at St. Gregory of Nyssa, in San Francisco. St. Gregory is a very liberal church and in her book she details her experiences with food and how her experience of the Lord's Supper illumined those experiences.

In my denomination, this puts me on the more radical end of the spectrum, but I am not alone in my views. My pastor, on the other hand, would be reluctant to commune someone who openly opposes the essentials of the faith, though he would be careful to point out that ultimately it is a pastoral issue and not a matter of merely wanting to exclude people- the Lord's Supper is not a reward that must be earned. Both are acceptable perspectives in our denomination (ELCA).

You were baptized in the Episcopal Church, chrismated in the Orthodox Church (?), and if you showed up at our church my guess is that you would be able to receive communion. Having doubts doesn't make you faithless.

The question I have is that in the Catholic Church they are always serving Communion. But not so much in Protestant Churches. Why is that?

Our congregation has communion every Sunday. This was historically the norm for Lutherans.