• 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!

The Lord's supper

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

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

    Debbie Active Member

    504
    +0
    Reread the end of my post Hervey. I did write that, in agreement with you, we are to" care for the congregation & the poor". How about this interpretation: They were not eating the Lord's Supper PROPERLY. Are you saying we shouldn't have communion, or are you saying, as I agree, that we need to do it properly, as i noted above?
     
  2. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Debbie:

    I know that my post to you did not sound very polite. But I have completely explained myself time and time again throughout this thread.

    How about the KJV - "When you come together , this is "not" to eat the Lord's supper" ?

    The Lord's supper "was" a full fledged meal.

    These that were eating in I Corinth. chapter 11 were eating the Lord's supper and Paul said - do "Not" eat the Lord's supper.

    Today's communion services, are nothing more than religious services that does not line up with scripture.

    I Corith. 11:23 - Paul speaking about the Lord's supper and when he took bread

    Verse 24 - Take eat: this is my body which is broken for you

    Verse 25 - the cup

    Verse 26 - doing a literal Lord's supper and drinking this literal cup and eating this literal bread, you show the Lord's death until he comes.

    We are not to show the Lord's death until he returns. We are to show his resurrection , not his death ! Doing a literal eating and drinking shows only his death ! The last supper was the night before his death.

    We are now to eat and drink spiritually, not literally ! Verses 27 - 29 are speaking spiritually and not literally !

    You can not drink and eat literal bread and wine unworthily, unless you are talking about a religious ceremony, which these three verses are not talking about.

    These three verses are talking about the body of Christ, which we as Christians are a part of. This is why , what Paul says , comes in Chapter 12 , in talking about the Lord's body, which was spoken about in verse 29. We are the members of the Lord's body, and chapter 12 gives a full explanation of the Lord's body.

    We are 'not' to eat the Lord's supper, the Lord's supper was a literal full fledged meal, nor perform a religious ceremony, but we are to take care of the members in the Lord's body, the church !

    We are the bread - I Corinth. 10:17 and are "partakers" of that one bread, and have been made to drink into one Spirit - I Corinth. 12:13 - Do not drink or eat "this" unworthily. If you do, then you eateth and drinketh damnation to yourself (himself) - I Corinth. 11:29, not discerning the Lord's body - - which is the "body of Christ", which we are members.

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
  3. Debbie

    Debbie Active Member

    504
    +0
    Hervey thank you for explaining what you meant, but when you were quoting scripture above, "verse 25- cup", you left out the most important part which Paul repeated Jesus' command- 1 Cor. 11:25-"... This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink IT, in remembrance of me."
     
  4. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Debbie:

    One thing I failed to mention, was that you quoted from your new century version, and your new century version tells you to believe, that the one who is hungry is to go home and eat,and the KJV says the opposite. Yes, you said to take care of the church Debbie, but the NCV does not ! The NCV tells the one who is hungry to go home and eat. That is not taking care of the Church, wouldn't you agree Debbie ? Also that the NCV contradicts itself ? The KJV tells those who were eating the Lord's supper to go home and eat at home, and that they were shaming those whom lacked. While the NCV is telling the one who is hungry to go home, as if it was their fault that they came to fellowship hungry. If they came to fellowship hungry, then why would they go home to eat, if they just came from home , and came to fellowship hungry because they lack at home to feed themselves ? You see, it just does not make any sense !

    Now to your new post, which you wanted to point out verse 25.

    First I want to point out, that this is talking about the"New" covenant (testament), and not the old. Why keep eating that which shows his death, is the question you need to ask yourself, becaue of what it says in verse 26.

    Also look at the word "oft" in verse 25. Which is to mean "often". This is an added word by the tranlsators. Go back to the original Last supper with his disciples, and there is "no" record of Jesus telling his disciples to eat this supper often ! In fact the opposite is true. He told them that this was the "Last supper", and he does not give them instructions to continue to do this Last supper - Lord's supper . He said - "do this in remembrance of me". Which meant right there and then , with the Lord - do this in remembrance of me.

    You do not need to do the Lord's supper to remember the Lord ! How silly to even think that.

    As Christians, we are to show the resurrection of our Lord , and not his death !

    The body of Christ, which is the Lord's body, died with Christ and was raised with Christ and was seated with Christ on the right hand of God. <-- This is the thing we are to "show" by our spiritual walks IN Christ.

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
  5. Debbie

    Debbie Active Member

    504
    +0
    I use the KJV & the NCV both. The verse implies Jesus is ordering them to do this in remembrance of Him"as oft as ye drink". I think I am interpreting it correctly & so do you. It's ok. I get what you are saying.
     
  6. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hervey is using a classic example of biblical eisegesis.
    Main Entry: eis·ege·sis
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural eis·ege·ses /-"sEz/
    Etymology: Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis -- more at IN
    Date: 1892
    : the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

    The text does NOT say what you are reading into it Hervey. Even using the KJV you can't come up with your interpretation without tampering with the text. We have given you good, solid arguments and I even quoted from the Bible Knowledge Commentary but you don't want to hear any other interpretation.
    You believe what you want to believe the text says, but I agree with the biblical scholars and their interpretation of the text which I already showed you.

    God Bless
     
  7. M.O.G.

    M.O.G. New Member

    47
    +0
    Hervey, your a context nightmare!! I'm convinced your an 8 year old know it all brat who wants to sway the straight with his silly "I'm right & your wrong" mentallity!

    Am I ashamed to have said it? NO!

    Am I anyless a brother in Christ? NO Are you? NO

    Does it need to be said? YES!


    Apologist & others are RIGHT & you are wrong!


    BOO on hervey for being blind & liking it!


    M.O.G. against moronic know it alls :eek: :D
     
  8. rkbo

    rkbo Member

    272
    +0
    Come on MOG, that was a little rough. I've seen this before. A guy reads a book or gets in with a near cult like group and off they go. We are called to stand against false teachings. We are even called to try to restore such a person. In doing this we will make him mad, but that's just the way it goes. The Holy Spirit has the job of changing the heart.

    We do have an obligation to stand against false teaching especialy if a new Christian is reading these post. I think we have done that.

    I know that talking about Hervey in front of his back will make him mad, but this will give him a chance to practice his patience.
     
  9. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Apologist:

    You still have not answered my question about the person who is hungry ! !

    You need to give an account of yourself , as you handle these verses of scripture !

    Are you going to send the hungry person home who came to fellowship ?

    According to your information that you have been giving me, that is exactly what your saying !

    Where is - "Love thy neighbor as thyself" fit into your explanations ? ?

    You and others are more interested in doing a religious service, than you are of taking care of those in the body of Christ ( Church ) !

    Please explain youself !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  10. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hervey,

    What are you talking about? I already explained this to you before, but I will try one more time. Paul is rebuking the church at Corinth for abusing the Lord's Supper in a manner that was blasphemous. It was to be a time of remembrance of what Christ had accomplished on the cross by His death, but instead the Corinthians were getting drunk and being gluttons (1 Cor. 11:21)
    The Lord's Supper that Paul is addressing was to be a time of sharing in the bread and the cup just as Christ did at the Last supper, but the Corinthians were not observing it in this way.
    Verse 21 says: "one is hungry and another is drunk." In other words, some were not able to share in the breaking of bread because some of the ones who came there hungry had eaten everything and so some were left out from sharing in the symbolism of Christ's body by the breaking of bread. Many also were coming to the supper and getting drunk, which shows that they were doing the same thing with the cup symbolizing Christ's blood.
    Paul told them this to clear this problem up:
    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.

    This passage is very easy to understand if you will just let the text say what it says and not interject a preconceived idea into it. I hope this helps my friend. :)

    God Bless
     
  11. M.O.G.

    M.O.G. New Member

    47
    +0
    rkbo, :)


    rkbo, :)


    A little rough. Well, I get really sick of bad teaching! You are right :) , a new christian can be brought into error over bad teaching.
    Then what? It spreads like cancer. That's whats happening today because us christians want to restore or correct someone in "love," nice, nice, nice, that's not doing much today , is it? Paul rebuked peter "to his face," he (paul) had "sharp" words over john mark joining the journey with him and barnabus. He left & took silas.

    What then do we do? I've had words with herv, he wouldn't even address the truth. I say we need not bare his "out of context" teaching. Let him know he's full of crap and maybe he'll get sick of being ignored.


    Rough? maybe so, but I believe the Lord's going to be alot rougher then I am on bad teachers.


    So if I'm being rough so what! I'm gonna stand up & call puke-puke....not a used meal.


    Apologist is doing, and has done an excellant job! Is hervey listening???? NO!


    Apologist, ;)

    You guy's do the love part, and I'll tell them they've lost their noodle. deal? :eek:

    This little sign -----> :rolleyes: I love it! but it dont say enough.


    Sorry if your affended, or he's affended, but being nice about it is not changing things. Now dont pass me off as mean, I dont want to hurt him, just letting him know the facts.


    :D M.O.G. :)
     
  12. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Apologist:

    This is what you said, and quoted from your version that you are using, and I will point out the contradiction and misues of scriptures , below which I cute and pasted from your last post >

    Verse 21 says: "one is hungry and another is drunk." In other words, some were not able to share in the breaking of bread because some of the ones who came there hungry had eaten everything and so some were left out from sharing in the symbolism of Christ's body by the breaking of bread. Many also were coming to the supper and getting drunk, which shows that they were doing the same thing with the cup symbolizing Christ's blood.
    Paul told them this to clear this problem up:
    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

    You said > "That those who came and were hungry , came and ate everything. Which is in direct contradiction to verses 33 & 34 (see below in this post)

    This is "not" what Paul was telling the whole group ! Paul never tells those who are hungry that they ate too much ! !

    Paul told those who came to eat the Lord's supper, that those who were hungry , were not eating, because they could not afford to eat, so that is why they came to the fellowship hungry in the first place !

    Paul states in verse 22 (KJV) - "What ? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God , and shame them that have not ? What shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not ."

    Those who had not were being put to shame , because they had not !

    Paul was speaking to those who "had " and were eating the Lord's supper and were getting drunk.

    Why did you jump from verse 21 and then go directly to verses 33 & 34 ? This is the way in which one gets private interpretation. In Verse 33 Paul is talking about "eating", and not about the Lord's supper !

    Verse 33 is another verse that is misused ! Verse 33 is not talking about doing the Lord's supper ! It clearly says - "When you come together to eat, tarry (wait) for one another" The word "wait" or "tarry" is the Greek word - "ekdechomai" - which means to "receive in ". It is translated using these different words > "expect" - "look for" - "tarry for" - "wait" - "wait for". This Greek word is poorly understood in looking at the word "wait",and is misused when taken out of context !

    Verse 34 is talking about - when you come together to eat, it is not talking about the Lord's supper ! And if you are hungry, eat at home, that you come not together unto condemnation. This verse is telling those who have very little to eat, not to go , and come together to eat, if you can not afford it ! <-- That is what these two verses are saying, and they should never be taken out of their proper context !

    The "Lord's supper" was a "purchased meal by Christ and his disciples. And these Corinthians went out and purchased a meal that resembles the Lord's supper,and ate and drank until they were full and drunk. <-- Paul was reproving them ! Not those who could not afford to eat !

    There is no mention of those who were hungry , were eating ! The opposite is true !

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

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  13. M.O.G.

    M.O.G. New Member

    47
    +0
    rkbo See what I mean? hervey is clearly misreading & taking things out of context in his above post.

    Yet poor apologist (no offense Bro) keeps beating his head against a wall trying to get poor misguided hervey to see the light in the Word, will hervey? No . He's to busy trying to convert somebody to his theology.

    Pretty pathetic huh?

    Apologist! Tell him he's blowing farts to the wind! Ignore him and show him he's not convincing anyone!

    Hervey , buy some real Commentarys! Go to TTB.org and get some by McGee. In love my bro :D


    M.O.G. :)
     
  14. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hervey,

    I tried to show you what Paul was talking about but it isn't getting through so I thought I would paste what the Bible Knowledge Commentary says about this subject one more time for your consideration:

    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!
    11:23-24. Paul proceeded to remind the Corinthians of what they knew but had denied by their actions. Whether this teaching came to Paul directly (by a vision; cf. Gal. 1:12) or indirectly (by men; 1 Cor. 15:1), it came with the Lord’s authority. The bread represented the incarnate body of Christ unselfishly assumed (Phil. 2:6-7) and unselfishly given on the cross for the benefit of others (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:8), that kept needing to be remembered (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13).
    11:25. The wine was a poignant reminder of Christ’s blood, without the shedding of which there could be no forgiveness from sin (Heb. 9:22) and through which cleansing and a new relationship (covenant) with God was made (Heb. 9:14-15). The word “covenant” referred to a relationship in which one party established terms which the other party accepted or rejected. The focus of the Old Covenant was the written Word (Ex. 24:1-8). The focus of the New Covenant is the Living Word (John 1:14-18). Christ intended the cup to be a representational (cf. John 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4) reminder of Him: do this . . . in remembrance of Me.
    11:26. The Lord’s Supper was a visible sermon that proclaimed “the message of the Cross” (1:18, 23; 2:2, 8), that is, the reality of the Lord’s death, and also the certainty of His return (until He comes) (cf. John 14:1-4). Though there apparently was no prescribed schedule for the observance of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 13:1), whenever it was celebrated its message of humiliation and subsequent exaltation (Phil. 2:6-11) went forth. This was a needed reminder to all saints, especially those in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13).
    11:27-29. The Corinthians’ despicable behavior at the communal meal was not without result, which Paul proceeded to point out. Nowadays when this passage is read before participation in the Lord’s Supper, it is usually intended to produce soul-searching introspection and silent confession to Christ so that no one will sin against the spiritual presence of the Lord by irreverent observance. Paul’s application was probably more concrete. No doubt his experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4-5) contributed to this, for the body of Christ is the church, which consists of individual believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12, 27). His body, the church, is also pictured by the bread of Communion (5:7; 10:16-17). Thus to sin against another believer is to sin against Christ (8:12). Those guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord were those who despised a poorer member by utter disregard for his need (11:21-22). These came to the remembrance of Christ’s work of unity and reconciliation (cf. Eph. 2:15-16) with a trail of deeds that had produced disunity and alienation! If these would examine (dokimazetoµ, “test to approve,” 1 Cor. 11:28) themselves, they would see that they lacked God’s approval (dokimoi, v. 19) in this behavior. They should seek out the wronged brother and ask his forgiveness. Only then could a true spirit of worship flourish (cf. Matt. 5:23-24 and Didache 14. 1-3). Coming to the Lord’s Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing (diakrinoµn, “properly judging”) the unity of the body of the Lord—and acting accordingly—could they avoid bringing “judgment” (krima) on themselves.
    11:30-32. What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1-11). The solution was self-examination (diekrinomen, 11:31; cf. vv. 28-29; 5:1-5; 10:12), self-discipline (9:27), and promoting of unity. The alternative was God’s judging (krinomenoi, 11:32), which was a discipline that they were then experiencing. This was not a loss of salvation, but of life (cf. 5:5).
    11:33-34. If the believers were self-disciplined, they should wait in the Agapeµ meal till all arrived. This also may have implied sharing the meal with others (cf. v. 22). If the demands of hunger were too great for some, they should satisfy those pangs at home before coming to the assembly. The Lord’s Supper was a time not for self-indulgence but for mutual edification (v. 26). If the former prevailed, God would continue to discipline severely. Other matters—apparently less serious aberrations related to the Lord’s Supper—Paul would attend to when he returned to Corinth (16:5-9).
    Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.


    This section of the commentary was written by a biblical scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary which is world-renown for it's biblical exegesis.
    Before you go saying, "That is just his interpretation" let me give this man's credentials:
    David K. Lowery, A.B., ThM., PhD. Cand.
    Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis

    I would be inclined to listen to a man like this who has given his life to the study of God's word. God has given us men like this to lead us into gleaning God's truth from scripture.

    God Bless
     
  15. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apologist:

    First I would like to thank you for your efforts in trying to convey what your trying to say by bringing this commentary to this conversation.

    However, I can not agree with this commentary , no matter how many credentials one thinks this individual has.

    One would still have to ask one's self , if Jesus was a part of the Lord's supper in this record in I Corinth. 11, as to what he would have done , verses what is actually said by this commentator ?

    The first thing that comes to my mind, is that Jesus Christ would not send anyone home just because they were hungry when they came to an assembly of gathering, and worship. Was not Jesus Christ fellowshipping with the four thousand and the five thousand and he feed them "when" they were hungry ! Is this not true ? Did he send them home if they were hungry ? I do not believe that Jesus Christ would even do such a thing !

    There was one who was a betrayer among them when he ate his Last supper with his disciples. He did not send him home , nor did he ask him to not be in his sin of his betrayal while eating this Last supper with him. He also did not ask him for his forgiveness. Do you not believe that this sounds contradictory with this commentary that you gave me to read ? I know that I do indeed see the contradiction !

    This commentary also promotes the continual doing of the Lord's supper, which was "never" intended by Jesus Christ. And was a correction by Paul in I Corinth. 11:20. Jesus Christ told his disciple to do this in remeberance of him. He never said to go and do this Lord's supper continually.

    Paul said that when you do a literal Lord's supper , you show his death until he comes. This was telling them who were doing this Lord's supper , and shaming them that "had not", that they were not showing his resurrection. Only his death.

    Paul points out in verse 21 that if you do the Lord's supper , you are eating your own supper. And the one who is hungry can not afford to eat the Lord's supper as you do, so goes hungry. You who do eat and drink, drink to excess and become drunk

    Paul says in verse 22 - Don't you have houses to "drink" in ? If you will look closely here, you will notice that in this question Paul does not mention the food, but he does mention the drink. That is because they were getting themselves drunk of the excessive drinking of the wine . And by doing this, you "shame" them that have not. Which means that those who could not afford to eat a full meal, and could not afford the wine were put in shame by your ability to eat and drink, but they lacked, and were put to shame because they did lack.

    What they had done , was to put the Lord's supper in an ability to purchase those things to eat and drink, based upon their finacial abilities to join in with them to eat and drink. This shows a lack of "caring" for the Church, and it shows, that those who could afford such a meal , were the one's who could eat this meal called the Lord's supper. Paul "never" tells those who were hungry, to go home and eat at home - never ! You can not find this in this record !

    It is not until you get to verses 33 & 34 that Paul is telling them , that it is alright when you come together to eat. But always be ready to receive in (wait - tarry) one another. This is so that there will be no condemnation unto them that can not afford to eat , like those who can afford to eat those things which are more affordable to those who have more than those who lack in finacial ability to eat "what" they are eating.

    Verse 34 is saying, that if one lacks the ability because he "has not" that ability to afford this expensive food, then instead of going hungry and come into condemnation, for them to eat at home those things which they can afford to eat.

    Verses 33 & 34 should "never" be associated with verses 20 - 21 & 22 ! If you do , you then take out of context what Paul is saying. Paul never told them that they could not come together to eat, but that if one can not afford to eat , then go home to eat that which you can afford , so that you do not come into condemnation.

    I find this commentary in total disagreement with what Jesus Christ would have said and done, if he were there during this commentaries comments. Pertaining to this record in I Corinth. 11.

    I believe that Jesus Christ would have reminded him of the one who betrayed him and how Jesus let him continue in this Last supper with him . And he would tell this person who put this commentary together , that he "never" intended that this be done as a remembrance of him , other than with his disciples, which were with him on that day that he was betrayed. And he would remind this commentator , that he prayed and feed four thousand that were hungry and five thousand that were hungry who followed him, and that listened to his every word. < This was one of the greatest "communion" of fellowship in the records of the gospels.

    For we are that bread > I Corinth. 10:17 and partakers of that bread, which is the body of Christ.

    WE are to fellowship one with another, and not let ability or inability stand in our way of fellowshiping one with another.

    We can not drink the cup of the Lord , and the cup of devils : ye cannot be partaker of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" > I Corinth. 10:21. We are not to seek our own, but every man anothers > I Corinth. 10:24

    When these Corinthians were eating the Lord's supper, they were seeking their own, as recorded in I Corinth. 11:21

    Paul told them that they could come together to eat, but not to shame those that "had not" the ability to buy this food and wine. And for those who could not afford to buy this food and wine to eat at home so that they would not come into condemnation.

    These two words "hungry", and "hunger" in this record of I Corinth. 11 means, that they could not join in the eating, because they lacked the ability to buy that which was necessary to join those who had the ability. It does not mean that they were starving people who hungered. To send them home to eat, was a way in which they would not come into condemnation , because they lacked the finacial capabilities , that those who "had " did not lack in.

    You do not put people to shame and condemnation because they are not as capable as some others are to purchase such a meal as they were eating, and drinking, that they called in a religious manner, > The Lord's supper.

    Paul put his foot down, and said, that when they came together this was not to eat the Lord's supper.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  16. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Apologist:

    Here is a comment made within the commentary that I am totaly against with all of my heart and mind. Here is what this individual said >

    Coming to the Lord’s Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing (diakrinoµn, “properly judging”) the unity of the body of the Lord—and acting accordingly—could they avoid bringing “judgment” (krima) on themselves.
    11:30-32. What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1-11).


    This comment is so far out into left field, I had a hard time believing that he even made such a comment.

    Coming to the Lord's supper without confessing one's sins could bring a judgment of sickness and death ? ? ?

    We know from the Word that sin is death, and we know that we are to confess our sins one to another , and pray for one another, and ask the Lord for forgiveness.

    But to connect the Lord's supper in such a religious manner, and not confessing one's sin(s) being a "judgment " upon them that would bring sickness and death , is nothing short of blasphemy unto the Lord God Almighty !

    If one has eyes to see and ears to hear, then listen and look at these three verses in I Corinth. 11:27 - 29.

    These verses are "not" talking about a literal eating and drinking of the Lord's supper !

    WE are the bread ( I Corinth. 10:17 ) - WE who are a part of the body of Christ, which "is" the Lord's body. WE are to commune one with another, and care one for another. WE are to partake and not "take part".

    When Christ and his disciples "took part" of the Lord's supper, they took and ate.

    WE are to "partake" of the Lord's body and blood, which is the members of his body , which is the bread, and the blood , which is what we have been made to drink into one Spirit. ( I Corith. 12:13)

    To "partake" is to "give out" unto those who have needs within the body of Christ. READ I Corinth. 12:14 - 27.

    WE are not to do any religious service whatsoever !

    These three verses in I Corinth. 11:27 - 29 are talking about those who "partake" of the body of Christ. If we partake unworthily, we are not caring for the body (bread) of the Church. It is in the not caring for the Church that many are weak and sickly and sleep (die). This means that the Church is not operating the nine manifestations of the Spirit, which were given to every member of the body of Christ. These nine manifestations of the Spirit are recorded in I Corinth. 12:3 - 12

    The weakness and sickness and sleep(death) who are among you , comes from the lack and care of the Church, and not "partaking" of the nine manifestations which were made available for us to operate. It is "not" a judgement upon those who do a literal Lord's supper service which still have sin !!!!!

    It is a lack of desire to partake of the body (bread) of Christ , with those who have a need, be it physical or spiritual. To eat and drink is to partake and to walk in the Spirit. < This unworthyness is why many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep - both spiritually and physically !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  17. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Hervey,

    I tried my friend, I really did, but your mind is made up so all I can do is commit it to the Lord.

    Have a great day

    God Bless
     
  18. M.O.G.

    M.O.G. New Member

    47
    +0
    Apologist you did a fine job my friend! :)


    M.O.G
     
  19. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Thank You brother. I appreciate the kind comments.
    God's word is a passion to me and I like to see people "rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

    God Bless you my friend

    Mike
     
  20. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    I see you live in Brea huh? That's not too far from BIOLA in La Mirada is it? You are blessed to live in an area with so many good bible colleges and seminaries, not to mention some great bible teachers.

    God Bless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...