- Sep 18, 2010
- 7,568
- 2,695
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Often mixed with water? Since when? Not that I see any problem with that. Just wondering.
Upvote
0
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.
It is Passover. To keep it properly you need to keep Passover from a Christian perspective. And yes it is unleavened. And yes the wine is alcoholic but was often mixed with water to about 2-3% alcohol. A sip of that is not getting anyone drunk.
In our tradition we do not add water, in the Catholic tradition they do. The addition of water does not negate the fact that there is wine; however the water symbolizes the 5th wound that Christ suffered on the Cross, the spear piercing His side, and the mixture of blood and water that came from that final wound.There is also water in the eucharist. Where does that idea come from? Jesus said nothing of water in the wine. As far as I know it's not mentioned in the NT.
Is it possible to use like less wine and more water? Would that do?
Of course. So that's another reason why if someone today, officiating at a Communion service, were to turn it into some other kind of meal than what Jesus intended, that it would be invalid. It would, in other words, be something else, not the sacrament.Didn't the Eucharist come out of the Jewish Seder meal?
It needs to be done correctly or not at all. It is a portrayal of Christ's sacrifice....
anything with leaven in it portrays sin and Christ had no sin. ... etc.
It has it's basis in the Passover Meal.
The first-century congregation of Corinth did not understand the significance of the Passover. They observed it “in an unworthy manner,” not “discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29); they did not comprehend its real meaning.
What do you think? I heard that some guys used coke and cookies, when they were out camping.
It is not a case of "Must" but "Should". A person who is not ordained does not have the authority of the Church, and therfore Christ to do so.
Actually, he only told the Apostles to do this "in memory of me," and they are universally considered to be the first clergy of the church that Christ founded, and that they then commissioned others to carry on and expand the work of the church. This is recorded in the New Testament.Christ gave all his followers authority.
He also told all his followers to "do this in memory of me" - he said nothing about waiting for a member of the clergy to be present first.
Actually, he only told the Apostles to do this "in memory of me," and they are universally considered to be the first clergy of the church that Christ founded, and that they then commissioned others to carry on and expand the work of the church. This is recorded in the New Testament.
But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
If people want to celebrate this as the last supper was celebrated, it should be a meal, with lamb. In fact, if people want to celebrate it as OT Jews celebrated the Passover, they should clean their houses for a week to get rid of all traces of yeast and make sure that any bread eaten has no yeast.
It wasn't at the time; it was a final meal for Jesus with his friends.
Of course it was hugely symbolic - Jesus, the Passover Lamb, was killed on the day that the Passover lambs were slaughtered. He was also the Lamb of God, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19, the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11 and the true vine, John 15:1.
But it was a Passover meal, not a service with a small piece of bread and a drop of wine/juice. And Jesus said "do THIS is memory of me" - when you have a Passover meal remember, not that you were rescued from slavery in Egypt, but that I have given my body and blood for your sins and rescued you from slavery to sin.
So if we're going to do it "properly", we too should have a meal - not a bit of bread/wafer and thimbleful of wine/juice in the middle of a service.
They were not respecting, or looking out for each other.
That is why Paul was annoyed with them - some got to the meal early and started eating straight away, without waiting for anyone else, 1 Corinthians 11:21. Some indulged so much they got drunk from drinking too much wine, while others went hungry, 1 Corinthians 11:21. He said that the people who had nothing were being humiliated by those who ate and drank what they wanted, 1 Corinthians 11:22.
He did not say anything about them not understanding the Jewish Passover.
Just like in the rest of the letter, the Corinthians were behaving in a divisive manner - in chapter 3 they boasted that they followed different leaders, in chapters 12+14 some of them boasted that they had "better" gifts of the Spirit.
But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
If people want to celebrate this as the last supper was celebrated, it should be a meal, with lamb. In fact, if people want to celebrate it as OT Jews celebrated the Passover, they should clean their houses for a week to get rid of all traces of yeast and make sure that any bread eaten has no yeast.
The Greek word for bread in the passages is artos not azymos, which indicates that bread was leavened.
Matt 26:26
Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον
True, but are we at liberty to say that whatever Christ did NOT specify is ours to innovate? I don't think so, and the commission given to the Apostles at the Last Supper (and also at other times) amounts to making them the first ministers of the church.But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
Why does the West use unleaven?
Often mixed with water? Since when? Not that I see any problem with that. Just wondering.
Regardless, it is still wine that has been consecrated. When intinction is used the bread is dipped in the wine, and both are consumed, the bread with a small amount of wine. The person has received the body and blood of our Lord. If I am assisting and Pastor and I consume the remaining consecrated wine in the chalice, and we each happen to get 3 or 4 oz, the person who communed via intinction received the same as Pastor and I did.For one, Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that they cut their communion wine with water.
I am fairly certain that you likely don't accept the very real presence of the body and blood, but only treat this as a commemoration rather than a sacrament. Purely symbolic with no efficacy what so ever?My belief is that:
a) another word for Communion is "fellowship"; we are in fellowship with the Lord Jesus all the time if we are born again and live in him.
b) Jesus was sharing a meal with his friends - the Passover meal, in which every element represented something about their time in slavery in Egypt and how they were rescued.
c) We can eat any meal and remember the Lord Jesus who gave his life so that he can be with us and in us. It might not be what the church would call "communion"; but that doesn't detract from the fact that God can still be with us, bless us and send his Spirit.
d) I don't, personally, see that a church service where people file up to the front to receive a tiny bit of bread and wine is any more, or less, "Communion" than believers sitting in a Bible study group, thinking about Jesus's death, eating and drinking tea and snacks.
e) the idea that an ordained person has to "preside", read the account of the last supper and correct liturgical words, is not Scriptural. The early church broke bread daily - we are not told that they had to wait for an apostle to lead them, nor that an apostle even had to be present. The only account in Scripture of a church celebrating the Lord's supper is in 1 Corinthians 11. Again, this was a meal; there is no mention of any special liturgy, that an apostle had to preside, and they ate more than just bread and wine/juice.
I say this as someone who still loves communion services.
Even though I haven't taken part in one for over 18 months, I don't feel hard done by, spiritually bereft nor that God hasn't been with me during that time - quite the opposite.
Regardless, it is still wine that has been consecrated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?