Communion - Bread and Wine

[Botz]

The Lord's Supper was intended to be a simple ceremony with a deep meaning. Jesus instituted it. It involves 3 items. They are eating unleavened bread, drinking fruit of the vine, and meditating on what Christ did for us on the cross. It does have connections to Jewish ceremonies. Everything in the NT connects to the OT because the whole bible is all about Jesus. But, The OT is not for us to actually learn how to perform worship. That is what the NT is for. We learn about God's nature in the OT but we learn the tactics of worship in the NT. You can have a meal around communion but the meal is not communion. At some point you cease eating the meal and take communion. We make the Lord's Supper into a grand event but Jesus did things simply but powerfully.

UncleAbee I am not one to knock simplicity, and I understand that in many areas we can make things more complicated than were intended or are necessary...this isn't really a debate over complication though, it is about stripping things back past the traditions of the Church, past the teachings of the Church Fathers and getting back to the simplicity of unpolluted biblical precepts.

IMO the importance/significance of doing this, has been provoked by gaining some understanding of the departure of the Gentile Believers, from their connection to the Jewish Believers and ultimately the Fathers of the faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..I have also been loath to continue in something to which my heart and mind no longer subscribe, and thus becomes an act devoid of faith, despite the sincerity of trying to maintain a realistic perspective....but I ask myself 'why perpetuate something that appears to be a pale imitation of what was instituted/intended?'

Those that support the Jewish people and the nation of Israel (admittedly some from impure motives) often quote:

Gen 12:3And I will bless those who bless you,

And the one who curses you I will curse.

And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

[Botz]

During that time rabbinical Judaism was growing and many things were changing and one was that they were combining the

Passover and Unleavened Bread into one seven day feast. Its my opinion that Yeshua and the apostles kept the biblical law and had the Passover meal on the 14th instead of the 15th, something to do with they way the word day is used or misused not to clear in my memory right now. So the meal Yeshua said do this in remembrance was actual Passover and the remembrance was to be done just as the commands were given, with the exception of the actual sacrifice.

Hi Mizz...as far as I am aware the Passover seder/meal could take place over a number of days, certainly two, because of the distances people had to travel, and the amount of time it took to find lodgings, prepare the meal etc etc, while the priests at the Temple were kept busy with non-stop duties. Passover was meant to take place on the first day of the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread, and this was certainly how it was done in the L-rds day....the Feast of Unleavened Bread was also used as another name for Passover.

In Polycarps writings we find him going to Rome to hammer out the differences they happening between the way Yeshua did and they way Rome was going. In Eusebius Eccl History:

Traditional annual Passover continued to be practiced by the Christians in Asia for some time. However the rest of the world replaced Passover with Sunday communion crowned with Easter Sunday. The custom in the rest of the word was described by Ireaneus as a duty of

[mizzdy]

Hi Mizz...as far as I am aware the Passover seder/meal could take place over a number of days, certainly two, because of the distances people had to travel, and the amount of time it took to find lodgings, prepare the meal etc etc, while the priests at the Temple were kept busy with non-stop duties. Passover was meant to take place on the first day of the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread, and this was certainly how it was done in the L-rds day....the Feast of Unleavened Bread was also used as another name for Passover.

Hi Botz,

I only have a few minutes right now but the Passover that was given does not allow for two days but one, according to Lev. 23 on the 14 day of the first month at twilight is the Lord's Passover and on the 15 day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. That is what Yeshua did He kept the Passover on the Day His Father told Him, I truly believe the idea of a two day Passover came not from God but from man, it may be a convience for those in different countries than Israel but God put a day for us all and I its my thinking we need to stick to what God said and not man. Rabbinical Judaism has put the two things together and called the Feast Passover making it a seven day feast instead of one day of Passover and seven days of unleavened bread. Man can put whatever convience they wish on the days God calls us to do as He says and the times and days have been modified for mans convience, does that make things right with God? I find this topic really interesting I spent some time looking into it because some of the Jewish folk I know kept telling me it was ok to change things about the feasts, ya know the rabbis, according to the rabbis, that they can change what God wrote, that blew me away when I read the links they gave me about the right to do so! I'll try and get back later!

shalom aleichem,

Mizz

[UncleAbee]

OK, now this I have something to comment on.

But, The OT is not for us to actually learn how to perform worship. That is what the NT is for. We learn about God's nature in the OT but we learn the tactics of worship in the NT.

I do not follow your train of thought. How do you learn how to perform worship without the Psalms?

What acts of worship are you getting from Psalms?

[UncleAbee]

Nowadays, for the most part, I don't think there is anything of malicious intent in carrying on this tradition, and for the 'Gentile Church' to have a paradigm shift on this matter would take a deep work of Grace...but I believe it is a distinct possibility, if not a pressing necessity.....but I exercise a level of caution until fully convinced myself, and continue to weigh possibilities and to think and pray about it. I had thought more people would get in on the discussion/argument, but perhaps the boards are a bit slow at the moment, or it does not really provoke.

I don't think theres anything malicious in the intent at all its just my position that the communion is not what was intended and what we see today was probably changed over the years from the original meaning and day, that it was not meant to be done weekly. The friendship meal we see, which I think is what is meant by the breaking of bread we see in some scriptures I believe is not refering to communion. I would like to dig into this a bit busy this week but perhaps its mixed up, the meaning of day, when Ptolemy ll had the Torah translated for the Alexandria library, or later during the translation into Latin, something like that certainly could prove true I think.

Mizz

Jesus instituted communion in the gospels. He said "do this in remembrance of me." If Jesus commanded it why would you not do it every available chance? Communion is meant to be done in a gathering and not an indiividual sense. Jesus brought all His disciples together to do it. He prepared them for it and had them to prepare a place where they could all gather. We assemble on the 1st day of the week. That is when it is appropriate to take communion. Paul does a discourse on comminion in 1 Cor 11. He's not discussing eating dinner. He tells them to do that at home (1 Cor 11:22). In 1 Cor 11:33 Paul says "when you come together to eat...." This "eating" is not regular supper. It is the Lord's Supper. This is what the disciples gathered together on the 1st day of the week to do. Acts 20:7 reiterates this. It says "on the 1st day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread....." This breaking bread is not eating a regular meal. They have their own houses to do this in. They met at their houses daily to eat their common meals (Acts 2:46). On the 1st day they came together to take communion. Their is a 1st day in every week.

[UncleAbee]

The Lord's Supper was intended to be a simple ceremony with a deep meaning. Jesus instituted it. It involves 3 items. They are eating unleavened bread, drinking fruit of the vine, and meditating on what Christ did for us on the cross.

How was it that they meditated upon the sacrifice of Christ when the sacrifice of Christ hadn't occurred yet? The "Last Supper" was partaken of by Christ, His disciples, and others, on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Passover. The Passover meal consisted mainly of unleavened bread, wine, and bitter herbs. That there was a lamb without spot or blemish among them was obvious. ;o)

In Matthew 26 Jesus is discussing "what is to come." They were celebrating the Passover when Jesus moved into a different mode. He took the bread and broke it and said "take eat this is my body." He took the cup and told them to drink it telling them this represents His shed blood on the cross in the future. This is the first passover where this was done. Jesus is transitioning His disciples to a new commemoration. Passover is a remembrance of the death angel passing over and sparing the Israelites. This is a type of salvation. Communion is the rembrance of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. This is our salvation. We know The doctrine of communion was passed to future disciples by reading Acts 2:42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine, Fellowship, and the Breaking of Bread. This is describing spiritual acts. This Breaking of Bread is communion while the breaking of bread discussed further in Acts 2:46 is a common meal. We know this because directly afterwards it says "did eat their meat..." This "meat" is a common meal.

[UncleAbee]

The Lord's Supper was intended to be a simple ceremony with a deep meaning. Jesus instituted it. It involves 3 items. They are eating unleavened bread, drinking fruit of the vine, and meditating on what Christ did for us on the cross. It does have connections to Jewish ceremonies. Everything in the NT connects to the OT because the whole bible is all about Jesus. But, The OT is not for us to actually learn how to perform worship. That is what the NT is for. We learn about God's nature in the OT but we learn the tactics of worship in the NT. You can have a meal around communion but the meal is not communion. At some point you cease eating the meal and take communion. We make the Lord's Supper into a grand event but Jesus did things simply but powerfully.

UncleAbee I am not one to knock simplicity, and I understand that in many areas we can make things more complicated than were intended or are necessary...this isn't really a debate over complication though, it is about stripping things back past the traditions of the Church, past the teachings of the Church Fathers and getting back to the simplicity of unpolluted biblical precepts.

IMO the importance/significance of doing this, has been provoked by gaining some understanding of the departure of the Gentile Believers, from their connection to the Jewish Believers and ultimately the Fathers of the faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..I have also been loath to continue in something to which my heart and mind no longer subscribe, and thus becomes an act devoid of faith, despite the sincerity of trying to maintain a realistic perspective....but I ask myself 'why perpetuate something that appears to be a pale imitation of what was instituted/intended?'

Those that support the Jewish people and the nation of Israel (admittedly some from impure motives) often quote:

Gen 12:3And I will bless those who bless you,

And the one who curses you I will curse.

And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

[nebula]

OK, now this I have something to comment on.

But, The OT is not for us to actually learn how to perform worship. That is what the NT is for. We learn about God's nature in the OT but we learn the tactics of worship in the NT.

I do not follow your train of thought. How do you learn how to perform worship without the Psalms?

What acts of worship are you getting from Psalms?

The Psalms are one big collection of worship. I am seriously not following your train of thought.

[mizzdy]

Nowadays, for the most part, I don't think there is anything of malicious intent in carrying on this tradition, and for the 'Gentile Church' to have a paradigm shift on this matter would take a deep work of Grace...but I believe it is a distinct possibility, if not a pressing necessity.....but I exercise a level of caution until fully convinced myself, and continue to weigh possibilities and to think and pray about it. I had thought more people would get in on the discussion/argument, but perhaps the boards are a bit slow at the moment, or it does not really provoke.

I don't think theres anything malicious in the intent at all its just my position that the communion is not what was intended and what we see today was probably changed over the years from the original meaning and day, that it was not meant to be done weekly. The friendship meal we see, which I think is what is meant by the breaking of bread we see in some scriptures I believe is not refering to communion. I would like to dig into this a bit busy this week but perhaps its mixed up, the meaning of day, when Ptolemy ll had the Torah translated for the Alexandria library, or later during the translation into Latin, something like that certainly could prove true I think.

Mizz

Jesus instituted communion in the gospels. He said "do this in remembrance of me." If Jesus commanded it why would you not do it every available chance? Communion is meant to be done in a gathering and not an indiividual sense. Jesus brought all His disciples together to do it. He prepared them for it and had them to prepare a place where they could all gather. We assemble on the 1st day of the week. That is when it is appropriate to take communion. Paul does a discourse on comminion in 1 Cor 11. He's not discussing eating dinner. He tells them to do that at home (1 Cor 11:22). In 1 Cor 11:33 Paul says "when you come together to eat...." This "eating" is not regular supper. It is the Lord's Supper. This is what the disciples gathered together on the 1st day of the week to do. Acts 20:7 reiterates this. It says "on the 1st day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread....." This breaking bread is not eating a regular meal. They have their own houses to do this in. They met at their houses daily to eat their common meals (Acts 2:46). On the 1st day they came together to take communion. Their is a 1st day in every week.

What day did Yeshua say to do this in remembrance of Him? it was on Passover and as the Feast as God ordained we are to keep it in remembrance of what He has done for us so I do not see it as anything brand new other than we do not have to sacrifice a lamb every year since His sacrifice is enough. The prep and gathering was done for Passover not any other day and Passover was not just any meal but an ordained one by God. In Luke 22 we see the upper room, which was in the temple compound, then they go and prepare the Passover which He says He 'with fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer' so we know this was the Passover seder they were having, I agree not a regular meal but a special one God set aside for all of His children.

The passage in Acts 20: 7 is not about Passover nor in anyway connected to the 'Lords supper' either it is just what it is they were teaching on the Sabbath and as the new day was dawning they ate a meal together, this passage has nothing to do with this topic.

1Cor. 5:7-8 we read where Paul himself says,

"1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

So here we have another witness to what Yeshua Himself said at Passover, to do this in remembrance of Him, and each year we are to do just that just as the Israelites were to remember what He did to bring them out of bondage with the blood of lamb now we have the blood of our Messiah. I would like to know why people call the Messiah and Savior the Passover lamb say He died at that time, read where the apostles and He met, He said to this on Passover to remember Him and then say Passover is done away with and we have something brand spanking new to do every single week, but hey thats just me wanting to know. We have writings that show Rome was doing something totally different than those who were still in the land, a breaking away from the tradtions that Yeshua Himself did and said to do. Polycarps writings alone show that Rome was changing Passover into something else altogether.

Mizz

[Guest shiloh357]

We are connected to the Jews through Christ. We are sons of Abraham spiritually. The Jews are physically the sons of Abraham. All who believe and obey Christ have been adopted into the family. The Jews today will not be saved unless they do it through Christ. We need to bring the Jews forward to Christ and not go back with them and try to identify with OT ways. The land of Israel is unimportant. Physically being an Israelite is unimportant. What is important is Christ and all who believe in Him. Christ is for everyone and when you enter into His body you become one with Christ and nothing else (Gal 3:28).

This is a theological trainwreck. I don't even know where to begin...