• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

The Lord's supper

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by Hervey, Jan 19, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Do we do the Lord's supper -- or not ?

    I Corinthians 11:20 - When ye come together therefore into one place, this is "not " to eat the Lord's supper"

    How could one verse be "so clear", yet "so many" disobey the "will of God" ? ? ? :confused:

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Why do so many disobey the rule of taking scripture IN IT"S CONTEXT! Here is the verse in context:
    17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

    Paul is rebuking them for the manner in which they are celebrating the Lord's supper which was blasphemous in that "one is hungry and another is drunk." The Lord's supper is a very serious matter as Paul explains to them in verses 27-33:

    27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
    33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

    Context, context, context!

    God Bless
     
  3. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Apologist - sir :

    Context - Yes !

    But "dont" change what the context is saying !!

    You said > "Paul is rebuking them for the manner in which they are celebrating the Lord's supper

    Oh realy ?

    I Corinth. 11:20 says it as plain as the nose is on your face - "When you come together, this is "not" to eat the Lord's supper" !

    What Paul is saying, is that they were "eating" the Lord's supper, and he was telling them to "stop" eating the Lord's supper !

    What they "were doing" , was "ignoring " those who had a "need" , such as those who were hungry.

    "And shame them which have not ?" - verse 22

    "Shall I praise you?" - Verse 22

    "I praise you not !" - Verse 22

    They were more concerned about religious concerns than they were about the body of Christ, and the need within the body !

    Did you not know that "we" now are the "bread" ? > I Corinth. 10:17

    Did you not know that God has "made us to drink into one Spirit" ? > I Corinth. 12:13

    I Corinth. 12:14 - "For the body is not one member , but many"

    Keep reading down from this verse , until you get to verses 24 & 25. 'Members should have the "same care", one for another".

    The "Church" today is more interested in religious worship, than they are in doing the will of God, which is to have the same care one for another ! !

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
  4. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
     
  5. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apologist:

    You asked > "I'm sorry Hervey I must have misunderstood your original post.
    I thought you were trying to say that 'WE' are not to observe the Lord's supper, but I think you meant to say that not everyone should observe it unless they have examined themselves.
    Is this what you meant? "

    No , that is not what I meant. I meant just what verse 20 says- "When ye come together , this is "not" to eat the Lord's supper"

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  6. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    If we are not to partake of the Lord's supper then why does Paul say: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." (1 Cor. 11:28)
    As I said before you are taking a verse out of context and pouring your own meaning into it.

    Here is an explanation for you to consider from the Bible Knowledge Commentary from Dallas Theological Seminary:

    11:18-19. The church was divided at a celebration which was meant to express unity (cf. 10:17). If these divisions (schismata; 1:10; 12:25) were related to those noted earlier (1:10-4:21), then one factor contributing to those divisions is evident here, namely, economic differences in the church (11:21).
    Paul did not want to believe the report about their divisions (v. 18b), but he knew that sin was inevitable (cf. Luke 17:1) and would not pass unnoticed by God. God’s approval (dokimoi) resumed a point Paul had discussed earlier (1 Cor. 9:27-10:10), where he used in 9:27 the contrasting word “disqualified” (adokimos).
    In the whole nation of Israel, freed from bondage in Egypt and bound for the Promised Land of Canaan, only two of that vast company gained God’s approval and entered the land (cf. 10:5). Many in the Corinthian assembly did not have this approval, which His discipline on them demonstrated (cf. 11:30-32). If the Corinthians thought the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and baptism somehow communicated magical protection to the participants (cf. 10:12; 15:24), Paul’s excoriation must have been doubly painful since their behavior at this rite was directly linked to their chastisement (11:30-32)—the very thing they sought to avoid.
    11:20-21. The Lord’s Supper should have been the remembrance of a preeminently selfless act, Christ’s death on behalf of others. Instead the Corinthians had turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness and had made a rite of unity a riotous disunity. While one brother went hungry because he lacked the means to eat well, another brother drank to excess.
    11:22. If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord’s Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit. To act in a spirit of selfish disregard for the needs of a brother was to despise the church of God, composed not of lifeless stones but of living people who could be grievously hurt. Did the Corinthians somehow think their libertarian acts were a matter for praise? (cf. 5:1-2) Just the opposite!

    God Bless
     
  7. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apologist:

    You said and asked >If we are not to partake of the Lord's supper then why does Paul say: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." (1 Cor. 11:28)
    As I said before you are taking a verse out of context and pouring your own meaning into it.



    Actually, I would say that the commentary was nothing more than private interpretation. And I did not adding my own meaning to verse 20. It is a very clear verse of scripture. However, where people fail, is when they read the rest of the context with the "own" minds, rather than with their mind in the Spirit.

    Let me try and explain.

    I Cor. 11:28 is speaking spiritually , and not literally.

    If you keep reading through verses 29 and 30 and if you read these verses literally, then you would have to conclude that by not doing a literal communion service ( Lord's supper ) properly, then this "causes" many to be weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (die).

    Stop for a moment and think about that ! If you eat or drink not properly, then because you did not drink or eat properly some will get sick and die ? ? ?

    Verses 28 & 29 & 30 are to be read spiritually, and not literally, and because those who read these verses literally, they overlook what these verses are actually saying ! !

    I Cor. 10:17 tells us that "we" being many are -- "One Bread ", -- "One body " -- For, we are all partakers of that - "One Bread "

    "We" the body of Christ "is" that --- > "One Bread "

    I Corinth. 11:29 - "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthly" -- Stop a moment and ask youself, which bread is Paul talking about ? That "Bread ", which is the "One Body " of Christ, is what it is talking about ! So the bread that can be eaten "unworthly " is talking about the --> "Body of Christ ", which is "the" ---> "Bread " Paul is talking about !

    How can we eat of the body of Christ -- "unworthly" ? The answer is, --> when we do not take care of the needs of the Church - the body of Christ. And that is what they were "not" doing. Paul told them to stop eating - literally - the Lord's supper, and to start walking spiritually by taking care of the Church.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  8. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hervey said:
    "If you keep reading through verses 29 and 30 and if you read these verses literally, then you would have to conclude that by not doing a literal communion service ( Lord's supper ) properly, then this "causes" many to be weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (die).

    Stop for a moment and think about that ! If you eat or drink not properly, then because you did not drink or eat properly some will get sick and die ? ? ? "

    There is nothing in the text to assume a "spiritual interpretation."
    Yes, that did happen to the believers in the Corinthian church which Paul was writing to in this epistle. That is what I am always referring to when I say to take it in context. The context of these verses is Paul speaking to the church at Corinth regarding the way they were abusing the Lord's supper. During the early church days God did drastic things to people such as Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to establish His holiness in the early church. Paul is telling them that some of the brethren in Corinth are sick or have died because they ate in an unworthy manner.
    God may or may not not take our life for eating in an unworthy manner today, but He will chastise in one way or another.
    Hervey, I tried the best I could to explain it to you but you are only seeing what you want to see, not what the text teaches.
    Learn exegesis of the word of God, not eisegesis.

    God Bless
     
  9. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apologist:

    How then, do you eat and drink worthly, so that others will not get sick and die, because you claim that they did eat literally, the Lord's supper unworthly ? ?

    How does one eat the Lord's supper "unworthly" ?

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  10. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hi Hervey.

    We are to examine ourselves:
    1 Cor. 11:28- But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

    Why is this necessary?
    1 Cor. 11:29- For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

    The answer as to how is in the next verse.
    31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

    We are to judge ourselves which means to confess our sins before God before partaking of the Lord's supper. Our church as well as many others across this nation has a silent time before communion to confess any known sins to the Lord so that He does not have to judge us. We judge ourselves when we confess our sins against Him.
    If you read Corinthians carefully you will see that much of it is Paul having to correct this church in many areas such as the Lord's supper, and the gifts of the Spirit which Corinth was really doing wrong.
    I hope this helps.

    God Bless
     
  11. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apolosgist:

    So after reading these verses, what your saying is, is that you must be concerned about one's self, as far as one's walk in righteousness . And not be concerned about the one who is going hungry , while you are eating the Lord's supper ? ?

    I ask this, because you never mentioned the one who is going hungry, that the Apostle Paul mentioned !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  12. rkbo

    rkbo Member

    272
    +0
    Hervey I would like to clear something up that you have said several times now. This business of saying that commentaries are just someones private interpretation, is actualy not true. They have teams of scholars on their staff. Bakers Dictionary of Theology actualy list pages of contributors. Ph.D's, Th.D's etc.

    Not that all scholars are to be unquestioned but let's look at it like this. If 50 of them say this is the context and that is the grammer and the word meaning is such and such. I should give this more weight than if one none scholar gives his own private interpretation. I believe this to be the prudent way of looking at this. Having said this and making you mad I think we should look at
    1 Cor 11:33-34
    33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
    34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
    (NAU)

    It grammaticaly can be said using verse 34 first. "eat at home" if you are hungry.

    When you come together to eat wait for one another.

    The eating when they come together is obviously not to satisfy hunger. It must be the Lords Supper being talked about. If we use this verse to shed light on 1 cor 11:20 we see what is meant. It is clear they were doing it wrong. Not that they souldn't do it, but that it be done in the right way.

    Now Hervey I don't expect you to repeat yourself. I think we all understand what you are saying. Most of us aren't swallowing it. That leaves you with your own private interpretation. I personaly believe you are disobeying the Lords command
    Luke 22:19-20
    19 And when He had taken {some} bread {and} given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
    20 And in the same way {He took} the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
    (NAU)

    Yes he was talking to the Desciples but the fact that 1 cor shows is that more than the Desciples were doing it "in remembrance of Me" (the Lord) but doing it wrong. I think teaching and preaching against this is hurting the cause of Christ. Jesus instituted this and Baptizm for a reason and you are not it line with Biblical teaching. When confronted you simpley cry wrong "context" or wrong "private interpretation". You are quilty of your own charges. I ask that you reconsider and look again at the truth. You don't want to be a false teacher do you? I know you don't . If this wasn't important we could just have a friendly debate but this is an ordinance from our Lord and is too important to take lightly.

    Oh yeah I forgot to paste this also
    1 Cor 11:26
    26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
    (NAU)
     
  13. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    rkbo,

    Amen brother! That is what I have been saying all along to no avail. Paul was rebuking the church at Corinth because they were coming to the Lord's supper as gluttons and drunkards and that is a dangerous thing to do for such a holy thing as the Lord's supper. People need to learn to exercise biblical exegesis (gleaning from the text), rather than eisegesis (reading into the text your own ideas).

    God Bless
     
  14. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    rkbo:

    Your conversation within this forum have become very unprofitable. You use whatever translation that suits your purpose at any give time. And you are now trying to invite a hostile communication between other's who post here.

    You said >Not that all scholars are to be unquestioned but let's look at it like this. If 50 of them say this is the context and that is the grammer and the word meaning is such and such. I should give this more weight than if one none scholar gives his own private interpretation.


    Little do you know anything about me , or if I am a scholar or not ! And yet you have made more than one comment about me, that you can not back up, because you have no idea who I am, nor my background !

    And I won't play your silly games of cat and mouse either.

    You are quoting from the (NAU) here. Does that mean that those who put togther the (NAU) are scholars, and those who put together the (KJV) are not ? Have you even taken the time to compare the two ?

    I'll bet you don't even know this, but the (NAU) , also like the (NIV) are 90 % private interpretation, instead of "translations"

    The greatest "translation", even though it has its problems and flaws also, is the (KJV) - "translation". Does this mean that you should only read the (KJV) ? No , not at all, but these other bibles are "very" skeptical pieces of work.

    The bibles of the our modern times, such as the (NAU) and the (NIV) were "never" interested in doing a translation ! They were more interested in doing their own "private interpretation".

    Look at I Corinth. 11:34 in the (NAU), and notice that it is telling the one who is hungry to go home to eat !

    The full context of the whole chapter of I Corinth. chapter 11 in the ( KJV ) deals with those who ate the Lord's supper, and Paul is reproving them to go to their own homes to eat and quit shaming those who have not.

    The (NAU) and the (KJV) are in total opposite contrast, of each other as to "who" is to "go home to eat" ! In other words, as to where the "blame" was to lie, in this reproof by Paul to these Corinthians. IN the (KJV) Paul blames those who have eaten the Lord's supper, but in your (NAU) they are blaming , by the wording, those who were hungry ! This tells you that the (NAU) does not make any sense ! Those who were hungry were not participating in the Lord's supper to begin with ! In the (KJV) Paul was reproving the glutton's and the drunks, who were eating the Lord's supper, and was telling "them" - "what have you not houses to eat and to drink in ? And shame them that "have not" Verse 22 ) !

    By your own admission rkbo , you are claiming that those who put the (KJV) together, were not scholars, because those who put the (NAU) together were scholars, because of the total contrast between the two bibles ! You can't claim both groups to be scholars, because of the direct contrast between the two !

    I can clearly see that you , as well as Apologist , have "no idea" what the "Lord's supper" was !

    First let me state, what it was not > The Lord's supper was "not" a religious ceremony !

    Now, please allow me the privilage to tell you and Apologist what the Lord's supper was --> The Lord's supper was a "full fledged meal -> Matthew 26:26 " ! That was purchased by Jesus Christ and his disciples. It was the "Last supper" between himself and his disciples. Do you know what the word > "Last" means ? ? That is right, the Lord's supper , was also his - the "Last supper ".

    Jesus Christ told his disciples that he would "Not" eat again with them until he came into his Father's kingdom -> Matthew 26:29. The verse which states - when two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them, does not apply when you come together to eat the Lord's supper ! The reason why, is because he is not going to eat again until he enters his Father's kingdom. Nor did he tell them to continue doing the Lord's supper ! Nor do you find any records in the Word which state that they - his disciples, continued doing the Lord's supper !

    I Corinth. 11:20 is "clear" ! !

    "When you come together, this is "not" to eat the Lord's supper" ! !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  15. rkbo

    rkbo Member

    272
    +0
    Hervey I am not trying to get under your skin but I am trying to rightly divide the Word of God
    You said
    rkbo:

    Your conversation within this forum have become very unprofitable. You use whatever translation that suits your purpose at any give time. And you are now trying to invite a hostile communication between other's who post here.

    (Now Hervey do you realy think I am trying to invite hostile communication between other posters?)

    You said >Not that all scholars are to be unquestioned but let's look at it like this. If 50 of them say this is the context and that is the grammer and the word meaning is such and such. I should give this more weight than if one none scholar gives his own private interpretation.


    Little do you know anything about me , or if I am a scholar or not ! And yet you have made more than one comment about me, that you can not back up, because you have no idea who I am, nor my background !

    And I won't play your silly games of cat and mouse either.

    (Hervey you are being defensive here. IF I was talking about you I used your name. No cat and mouse here. )

    You are quoting from the (NAU) here. Does that mean that those who put togther the (NAU) are scholars, and those who put together the (KJV) are not ? Have you even taken the time to compare the two ?

    I'll bet you don't even know this, but the (NAU) , also like the (NIV) are 90 % private interpretation, instead of "translations"

    The greatest "translation", even though it has its problems and flaws also, is the (KJV) - "translation". Does this mean that you should only read the (KJV) ? No , not at all, but these other bibles are "very" skeptical pieces of work.

    The bibles of the our modern times, such as the (NAU) and the (NIV) were "never" interested in doing a translation ! They were more interested in doing their own "private interpretation".

    (Hervey you attack the New American Standard Uptdated and the NIV. What authoritative sources do you use to do this? Also why don't you attack all the other sources I quoted? )

    Look at I Corinth. 11:34 in the (NAU), and notice that it is telling the one who is hungry to go home to eat !

    The full context of the whole chapter of I Corinth. chapter 11 in the ( KJV ) deals with those who ate the Lord's supper, and Paul is reproving them to go to their own homes to eat and quit shaming those who have not.

    The (NAU) and the (KJV) are in total opposite contrast, of each other as to "who" is to "go home to eat" ! In other words, as to where the "blame" was to lie, in this reproof by Paul to these Corinthians. IN the (KJV) Paul blames those who have eaten the Lord's supper, but in your (NAU) they are blaming , by the wording, those who were hungry ! This tells you that the (NAU) does not make any sense ! Those who were hungry were not participating in the Lord's supper to begin with ! In the (KJV) Paul was reproving the glutton's and the drunks, who were eating the Lord's supper, and was telling "them" - "what have you not houses to eat and to drink in ? And shame them that "have not" Verse 22 ) !

    By your own admission rkbo , you are claiming that those who put the (KJV) together, were not scholars, because those who put the (NAU) together were scholars, because of the total contrast between the two bibles ! You can't claim both groups to be scholars, because of the direct contrast between the two !

    I can clearly see that you , as well as Apologist , have "no idea" what the "Lord's supper" was !

    ( Hervey now who's getting hostile? I would just rebutt that last statement by saying........we do too.)

    First let me state, what it was not > The Lord's supper was "not" a religious ceremony !

    Now, please allow me the privilage to tell you and Apologist what the Lord's supper was --> The Lord's supper was a "full fledged meal -> Matthew 26:26 " ! That was purchased by Jesus Christ and his disciples. It was the "Last supper" between himself and his disciples. Do you know what the word > "Last" means ? ? That is right, the Lord's supper , was also his - the "Last supper ".

    (Yep it was their last meal together . So. )

    Jesus Christ told his disciples that he would "Not" eat again with them until he came into his Father's kingdom -> Matthew 26:29. The verse which states - when two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them, does not apply when you come together to eat the Lord's supper ! The reason why, is because he is not going to eat again until he enters his Father's kingdom. Nor did he tell them to continue doing the Lord's supper ! Nor do you find any records in the Word which state that they - his disciples, continued doing the Lord's supper !

    I Corinth. 11:20 is "clear" ! !

    "When you come together, this is "not" to eat the Lord's supper" ! !

    (OOps You only quoted what you wanted to take out of context again. I thought you wasn't going to do that. Hervey I see your intelligence, I will not insult that, I see your sincerety, I will not insult that either, I will how ever stand against false teaching. I am called to do this. The Lords Supper is a clear teaching and you have bent all the rules of Bible interpretation to teach a false doctrine. I don't know why you would do this. As I've said before, it is not a small thing and ask you to change your mind. No need to repeat myself cause my posts are there to reread. Use what ever translation you want. )

    Love IN Christ - Hervey

    (Yes)
     
  16. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    rkbo:

    So, you are going to stick with you beliefs then ! So when someone comes to church(fellowship) , and they are hungry, you are going to tell them to not eat the Lord's supper, and go home and eat at home ! ?

    Please answer this question !

    IN Christ - Hervey
     
  17. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    rkbo :

    You said > The eating when they come together is obviously not to satisfy hunger. It must be the Lords Supper being talked about.

    This is what you said after quoting your chosen bible to read from.

    I then told you that the Lord's supper was a full fledged meal, and you said - >(Yep it was their last meal together - So. )

    You also said that you knew what the Lord's supper was -- Apparently you are confused in your reply , as well as your understanding of what the Lord's supper truly was !

    This is what Matthew 26:26 says > "And as they were eating , Jesus took bread, etc" <-- this verse shows that this was a full fledged meal. The Lord's supper was a meal that "was" for the satifying of one's hunger !

    This is why the KJV is correct and your chosen bible , the (NAU) is incorrect in its private interpretation.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  18. Debbie

    Debbie Active Member

    504
    +0
    Hi all!! Is it safe to join? I'm not clear really on whether you guys are debating the ceremony of "The Last Supper" or communion. I know of people who during house church fellowship, have a full meal together they refer to as "The Lord's Supper". They claim everyone SHOULD be doing it. Is that what you were saying is wrong Hervey? Also, our communion on Sunday is blessed, and we feel it is the body & blood of Christ & hold this as holy. So Hervey are you saying that we should not have communion? The New Century Version reads 1 Cor.11:20- "When you come together, you are not really eating the Lord's Supper". .....You seem to think God's church is not important, and you embarrass those who are poor.....The teaching I gave you is the same teaching I recieved from the Lord.... Every time you eat this bread and drink this cup you are telling others about the Lord's death until He comes.So a person who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is not worthy of it will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.. all who eat the bread and drink the cup without recognizing the body eat and drink judgement against themselves... when you come together to eat, wait for each other. Anyone who is too hungry should eat at home so that in meeting together you will not bring God's judgement on yourselves." Nowhere does it say to have a full meal. But whichever way, a full meal or communion, it is symbolic & holy. (not referring to regular meals). Partaking of the bread & cup is holy & symbolic. But I further interpret it to mean: have some manners about yourself & be concerned about the needs of the congregation & the poor instead of your bellies. It also indicates to make sure your own heart is in order before partaking of this bread & cup lest God judge's you.
     
  19. rkbo

    rkbo Member

    272
    +0
    Debbie I like that idea of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

    Our post is debating the "communion" or as some call it the Lord's Supper or Last Supper. The Last Supper is what the communion or "Lord's supper" symbolizes. I also believe this is to be done with a searching of the heart. I have never seen it done wrong in church. It has always been done in reverence and internal reflection. I do believe we are to do this "till he come".
    1 Cor 11:26
    26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
     
  20. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    The newer the bible versions get the worst they become !

    Debbie said this , as she brought this version to this conversation > The New Century Version reads 1 Cor.11:20- "When you come together, you are not really eating the Lord's Supper

    Now this version, can not make up its mind if they are, or if they are not doing the Lord's supper ! :D

    Well, were they eating the Lord's supper, or were they not , in I Corinth. chapter 11 ? ?

    And it just amazes me that everyone is not concerned with those who are hungry ! Everyone wants to send them home hungry, and tell them to eat at home. While they do a relgious service , and feel good about themselves, and not care for the Church.

    What's next, a celebration that some might call christmas, and have a santa claus, and bring gifts unto the children , and of course, do the will of man, rather than the will of God ?

    IN Christ - Hervey
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...