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.
Isolate Eucharist to those who use it and for what meaning and purpose.. and if you participate in "eating His flesh/drinking His blood"... where did that myth come from? And with that question, you now enter into a theology that takes a person outside of scripture.
Isolate Eucharist to those who use it and for what meaning and purpose.. and if you participate in "eating His flesh/drinking His blood"... where did that myth come from? And with that question, you now enter into a theology that takes a person outside of scripture.
And with that.. the tailspin begins as there is no foundation in OT to anchor it .. Left to the imagination... there are those who visualize they are truly eating flesh and blood as they chew the cracker and drink juice.John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33 - and still within Scripture!
And with that.. the tailspin begins as there is no foundation in OT to anchor it .. Left to the imagination... there are those who visualize they are truly eating flesh and blood as they chew the cracker and drink juice.
And with that.. the tailspin begins as there is no foundation in OT to anchor it .. Left to the imagination... there are those who visualize they are truly eating flesh and blood as they chew the cracker and drink juice.
Wow.. and the other thread on myths was trying to show that it has no damaging effects... and here we have centuries old myth.. perpetrated to the point where even eye opening perception via MJ can not mean that big a difference by some.In John 6 there are two groups of disciples - the ones who understood what Yeshua was saying, and those who didn't. The latter group equate to those in 1 Cor. 11:17-33 who would eat the bread and drink of the cup without discerning the body of the Lord - they walked away from him because they did not understand what he was saying - it was too difficult (See Isaiah 29 about a closed book!). The puzzle still existed as to how Yeshua could make such a statement whilst he was still in his body, given that they couldn't tuck in to him! In keeping true to his word the early Church worked out that it must mean that at some point the bread and wine must become his very body and very blood in order to make sense of John 6. The problem, then, was when does it happen? The Church then made a decision that, as it must clearly happen prior to eating it there needed to be a point at which this 'change' took place. To cut short a very long story, the bell rings at which point, thereafter, by a mystery of our faith, the bread and wine become as Yeshua's body, so fulfilling the requirement of both John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33.
I suggest you read more widely on the origins - not just on the heresy you believe happens!
I'm not sure why people get so wound up on this when we see in these threads decisions made by man to overcome a great many 'problem' texts in The Book.
You don't believe that there was a Last Supper where He commanded "do this in memory of Me" ?
We have that from Yeshua himself, in his own words, as an eye-witness. How do you see it being taken out of context and abused, and for what 'other purposes'?
They are synonyms, along with the terms Lord's, or Last, Supper - they do not mean different things, at their root.
There are many words that the disciples did not use in conversation that we now readily use to describe what The Book says - why pick on these two?
Look at the meanings and the action taken in The Book and think again, or are you saying that Passover should take place of Communion?
If the answer to that is 'yes', where would you place 1 Cor. 11:17-33 within the Passover meal - as a Messianic I assume you have found a theologically and Christologically correct place for them at the Passover seder?
Isolate Eucharist to those who use it and for what meaning and purpose.. and if you participate in "eating His flesh/drinking His blood"... where did that myth come from? And with that question, you now enter into a theology that takes a person outside of scripture.
John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33 - and still within Scripture!
In keeping true to his word the early Church worked out that it must mean that at some point the bread and wine must become his very body and very blood in order to make sense of John 6. The problem, then, was when does it happen? The Church then made a decision that, as it must clearly happen prior to eating it there needed to be a point at which this 'change' took place. To cut short a very long story, the bell rings at which point, thereafter, by a mystery of our faith, the bread and wine become as Yeshua's body, so fulfilling the requirement of both John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33.
I suggest you read more widely on the origins - not just on the heresy you believe happens!
I'm not sure why people get so wound up on this when we see in these threads decisions made by man to overcome a great many 'problem' texts in The Book.
Segregating the little sippy cup of juice/wine and a piece of chametz from its context of a Pesach seder strips the entire proceeding of its true significance. I believe the whole idea of a "communion service" was invented out of whole cloth, with the purpose of distancing the memorial from anything remotely "Jewish".
The seder, like many other traditions, seems to have been 'borrowed' from another culture. In this case, it came from the Romans. And after Yeshua's time.
They are first mentioned in the Mishnah and Tosefta (Pesahim Chapter 10) which scholars date to either shortly before or shortly after the Destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E. (3) What is the source of the elaborate rituals and literary forms of the Seder and Haggadah?
Avodat, are you advocating cannibalism??? I didn't think you would go in for transubstantiation. Do you?
Most Christians have moved on from those views and can see the difference between literal and allegorical etc., without too much trouble;
I find it quite easy to explain the positions taken by other Christians - they do not always reflect my own position, however! There seem to be very few on here who look at the other side of an argument and try to understand how things came about - some with a very logical, if erroneous, result. The myth to which Visionary refers was not a myth at all - it was how the early Church struggled with the texts they had before them, without the (apparently) better education from which we benefit. Most Christians have moved on from those views and can see the difference between literal and allegorical etc., without too much trouble; it does everyone no harm to learn and appreciate the origins. Rather than trash the work of those who went before us in their struggle to do what we are doing, it is better to study the history behind the problems you see in order to work it through instead making wild allegations about myths and unscriptural actions or understandings.
Neither cannibalism nor TS is a belief of mine - far from it. But I can put the case of those who do believe it, and why they came to believe it so that others can appreciate their efforts to understand G_d and his word in centuries or millennia past. This does not, of course, cover some of the things that were decided on in what appears to be a fairly random way.
Good points and thanks for sharing them. There are some good threads that give good information on the issue - such as in threads like #1, #11, #81, #427, Was the Lord's supper Passover? and What is your personal view on Communion/Eucharist/L-rd's Supper? [I really don't think one should mix up the practice of the Pesach Seder (which remembers the exodus) with the eucharistic ceremony (which remembers the Cross and anticipates the second advent).
Whether or not the eucharistic celebration was insituted on Pesach or not, it is not intended to remember the exodus in the way a Pesach seder does. It has another function. They may have some common form, but they have different functions and are instituted for different purposes. This is why I think both should be done at their own appointed times.
A lot of people get stuck in the either/or paradigm. Either it's all about Pesach or it's all about communion. I say it's both/and.
Good analysisThe Eucharist (also known as Communion, the Last Supper, the Lord's Supper etc etc) is based solely on the the words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-33. These are the words from an eyewitness who was present on the night Yeshua ate the meal, described in the Gospels as having taken place on the night he was betrayed - namely Yeshua himself. Try reading the words in the first person singular ie '...on the night in which I was betrayed, I took bread...' - it gives a far better understanding of the import of what is said, rather than just reading Paul's writing of what Yeshua said.
So, in answer to the OP, the Eucharist is simply a re-enactment of that last meal Yeshua enjoyed with his disciples before they went outside, sang a few songs and had a time of prayer - before 'Judas' turned up. There is not an equivalent one in sense, because it is for all who believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, though MJ's tend to ignore it because of wrong theology making it some sort of latter day attempt at re-writing the Passover seder. The connection with the Passover comes about not so much because of what Paul wrote, but because of the fact that the Gospels refer to Yeshua indicating that the meal they ate, the night before he was arrested and put on trial, was 'the Passover' which he had sent his disciples to prepare in a village ahead of them. Do remember that Paul wrote his words before the Gospel writers put pen to paper, and they clearly did not feel the need to correct what he had written!
It is a memorial of that last supper they had together - as Yeshua says: Do this in memory of me. The bread and the wine were two of the items on the table to which Yeshua, in his words, gave special significance - they were NOT the only items on the table! They were symbolic of the Bread of Affliction and the Cup of Life and Joy - the latter being the new covenant, a 'Covenant of Life and Joy' offered to us through Yeshua having given up his life, voluntarily, to cover those sins we do not realise we have committed (those we know about we have to repent of, as always) - we can, at last, be at one with G_d by living as Yeshua showed us how to. It does not mean that he ditched the original Covenant or that G_d has finished with the Jews or with Israel or any of the greatly mis-guided theories that pass for theology!
In John 6 there are two groups of disciples - the ones who understood what Yeshua was saying, and those who didn't. The latter group equate to those in 1 Cor. 11:17-33 who would eat the bread and drink of the cup without discerning the body of the Lord - they walked away from him because they did not understand what he was saying - it was too difficult (See Isaiah 29 about a closed book!). The puzzle still existed as to how Yeshua could make such a statement whilst he was still in his body, given that they couldn't tuck in to him! In keeping true to his word the early Church worked out that it must mean that at some point the bread and wine must become his very body and very blood in order to make sense of John 6. The problem, then, was when does it happen? The Church then made a decision that, as it must clearly happen prior to eating it there needed to be a point at which this 'change' took place. To cut short a very long story, the bell rings at which point, thereafter, by a mystery of our faith, the bread and wine become as Yeshua's body, so fulfilling the requirement of both John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33.
.
It is like saying Buddists have no issue with the Eucharist... because it has nothing to do with this faith.Gxg (G²);62817847 said:.....]For Jews coming from a background of liturgy/mysticism, it is natural for them to see no issue with things concenring Eucharist.. _
Seeing that Buddists don't have any connection with the Eucharist, of course it'd not be an issue. Nonetheless, for Jewish believers throughout the centuries who understood their faith, hearing others outside of it telling them "It has nothing to do with their faith!!!" would be akin to a Gentile telling them that rabbinical traditions (including the mystical ones) have nothing to do with their walk with Yeshua - even though they grew up understanding the nuances of Jewish tradition and would see that what was said against them was essentially an argument based on ignorance of what happened historically, even if the zeal was in place (Proverbs 19:2)It is like saying Buddists have no issue with the Eucharist... because it has nothing to do with this faith.
Indeed,In John 6 there are two groups of disciples - the ones who understood what Yeshua was saying, and those who didn't. The latter group equate to those in 1 Cor. 11:17-33 who would eat the bread and drink of the cup without discerning the body of the Lord - they walked away from him because they did not understand what he was saying - it was too difficult (See Isaiah 29 about a closed book!). The puzzle still existed as to how Yeshua could make such a statement whilst he was still in his body, given that they couldn't tuck in to him! In keeping true to his word the early Church worked out that it must mean that at some point the bread and wine must become his very body and very blood in order to make sense of John 6. The problem, then, was when does it happen? The Church then made a decision that, as it must clearly happen prior to eating it there needed to be a point at which this 'change' took place. To cut short a very long story, the bell rings at which point, thereafter, by a mystery of our faith, the bread and wine become as Yeshua's body, so fulfilling the requirement of both John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:17-33.
...I'm not sure why people get so wound up on this when we see in these threads decisions made by man to overcome a great many 'problem' texts in The Book.
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?