unity at the cost of doctrine

[JimR-OCDS]

Messianic seder as you mention, must be a new invention, because throughout the history of the Church, the belief has been that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

No, the belief has been throught the CATHOLIC church that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus. Most denominations reject transubstantiation.

That is not in the Bible, and sound hermeneutics do not allow for the wine and bread to physcially become the body and blood of Jesus.

Messianic seders put communion back in its proper context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not in the Bible? It most certainly is. You just ignored it.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,

28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." Mathew26:25- 29

Prior to giving us himself in the Eucharist, Jesus said : "

[Guest shiloh357]

nebula

[You said]

Again I will refer you to shiloh's post:

QUOTE

Messianic Seders put communion back in its proper context.

[My question]

What does this statement mean

[Guest shiloh357]

Messianic seder as you mention, must be a new invention, because throughout the history of the Church, the belief has been that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

No, the belief has been throught the CATHOLIC church that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus. Most denominations reject transubstantiation.

That is not in the Bible, and sound hermeneutics do not allow for the wine and bread to physcially become the body and blood of Jesus.

Messianic seders put communion back in its proper context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not in the Bible? It most certainly is. You just ignored it.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,

28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." Mathew26:25- 29

Prior to giving us himself in the Eucharist, Jesus said : "

[JimR-OCDS]

Well you don't have the traditions and history of the Church that were handed down by the apostles, so how could you understand what is in Scripture?

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't need the early church fathers to understand the Bible. I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who helps me to understand. Furthermore I study according to proper hermeneutic principles.

The fact remains that the eucharist/transubstantiation is a Catholic thing, and that is where it ends. I am not going to turn this into discussion of church history.

If you want to believe that stuff it is up to you. I have no need to believe it and frankly, I have no respect for the early church fathers as they were rabid anti-Semites, and I will not acknowledge such filth as having any connection with God or the truth of Scripture.

[Guest Greg G.]

Well you don't have the traditions and history of the Church that were handed down by the apostles, so how could you understand what is in Scripture?

ie, you must be Roman Catholic to understand scripture. This is true only if your Roman Catholic, and wish to support unscriptural doctrine.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

He did write this,(I looked it up) but it's unclear if he was speaking figureatively or literally. As well the writings of the church fathers underwent considerable editing,(else why would there be a short and long version of these particular letters. Justin Martyr when refering to this subject also used the passage in Luke," as oft as ye do this, do it in REMEMBERANCE of me", which all by itself destroys your arguement,

Origen, even by the standards of the RC church was a heritic was he not? It makes for intresting source material.

Shiloh, no matter how caustic his response is totally correct here, (sorry for agreeing with you Shiloh, but if your right your right, what can I say ) Communion can not be understood outside of it's Jewish framework, Jesus started talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, long before the Last Supper, when he told his diciples to beware the leven of the pharisees, does anyone actually think he was telling them not to partake of canabalism?

[JimR-OCDS]

He did write this,(I looked it up) but it's unclear if he was speaking figureatively or literally.

Well it's clear according to the Church which Christ established and which the Holy Spirit has guided since Pentecost. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, both still believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It's a tradition supported in Scripture and has lasted for 2000 years.

Sorry you are not part of it!

[Repent1]

He did write this,(I looked it up) but it's unclear if he was speaking figureatively or literally.

Well it's clear according to the Church which Christ established and which the Holy Spirit has guided since Pentecost. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic,  both still believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It's a tradition supported in Scripture and has lasted for 2000 years.

Sorry you are not part of it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings Jim,

God bless

Knowing that God hates a liar, can you honestly say that when you part-take of communion, that the bread taste like flesh to you or that the wine taste like blood?

How would you explaine this verse?

[i Corinthians 10:16]

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (spiritual fellowship) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (spiritual fellowship) of the body of Christ?

[My testimony]

In this passage, as one selected from among many, Jesus testifies that he himself shall not eat of the bread until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, nor drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come, do you think that he was talking of munching on himself or drinking his own blood?

Jesus also said: This cup is the new testament [in my blood], which is shed for you. (what do you think that he meant by this statement?)

[Luke 22:15-20]

And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Your brethren in Christ,

Repent1

[Guest Greg G.]

Well it's clear according to the Church which Christ established and which the Holy Spirit has guided since Pentecost. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, both still believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It's a tradition supported in Scripture and has lasted for 2000 years.

Yet still a tradition. Protestants(of which I am one by the way) by and large hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, and reject many if not most of Roman tradition. My point is that it makes a pretty weak argument to appeal to tradition, when we reject it out of hand. The same with appealing to history, since Romanism bears none of the characteristics of the early church, (tho you'd claim contrary,) and has had a long and quite bloody history. If you want to appeal to a protestant, best use scripture alone. I know it's hard since your scriptural foundation in doctrines like this are at best very slim, but that's about the best chance you've got.

[His son]

1 Cor 11:24-25

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

(KJV)

Why do some have to claim the bread is actually His body when we all know it is bread? We take the sacrifice as a rememberance of what His body went through for us. Thats all. The same with the wine.