Left over Communion Wine/Juice

[tah]

I half way agree with you..When in the service its self it is indeed a solemn occasion ..

but when the service is over...

it is over...

leftover bread is just bread and juice..nothing more nothing less...

[Ovedya]

"Indeed unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart;" (2 Cor. 3:15)

I believe that this verse applies in principal to anything taken from the Old Testament as a practice in the church. Someone once pointed to the reading of Moses as a reason for having pulpits in the sancturies, and for reasoning that a certain portion of the sactuary is "blessed" or "holy" (This is a common belief held in many Southern Baptist denoms). Well, the fact of the matter is that the Old Testament is a type or a shadow of something real. It should point us to Christ, who is the reality of everything in the Old Testament. Therefore, our appreciation of items related to the Old Testament should be in Christ. It is not that certain religious practices should be taken from the practices of the Old Testament and carried over into the church.

[Kansasdad]

If in-fact the bread and wine are nothing special, no more than reminders like a picture then why would scripture say this,

1 Corinthians 11:27

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

How could they sin against the body and blood if the eucharist was nothing more than a reminder?

Kansas Dad

[EricH]

If in-fact the bread and wine are nothing special, no more than reminders like a picture then why would scripture say this,

1 Corinthians 11:27

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

How could they sin against the body and blood if the eucharist was nothing more than a reminder?

Kansas Dad

If you read the entire passage the context is not an abuse of the elements. rather the issue was a situation where there were divisions. They were holding a love feast along with the Lord's supper where some were not eating at all and some were getting drunk. It was a heart issue, not an element issue. Context is everything

[Kansasdad]

If in-fact the bread and wine are nothing special, no more than reminders like a picture then why would scripture say this,

1 Corinthians 11:27

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

How could they sin against the body and blood if the eucharist was nothing more than a reminder?

Kansas Dad

If you read the entire passage the context is not an abuse of the elements. rather the issue was a situation where there were divisions. They were holding a love feast along with the Lord's supper where some were not eating at all and some were getting drunk. It was a heart issue, not an element issue. Context is everything

[/quote

I agree they were having a drunk fest and making a mockery of the eucharist. Absolutely it was a heart issue. Just like in this thread people are making a mockery of the eucharist. In context please explain how making a mockery of a piece of bread would make you guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The passage says you must take it in a worthy manner. If it is only a piece of bread what difference would it make. Tell me what it means to be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Nice to hear from you Eric.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Guest Spook]

Actually, the word "Fault" in James 5:16 is the greek "Paraptoma".

Paraptoma: "a side-slip" " a lapse" "a deviation".

the word in 1 Cor. 15:3 is hamartia.

Ironicly, James 5:15 "sins" is also hamartia. If James intended for "fault" in 5:16 to indicate that we are to confess "sins", why did he use a completely unrelated word from hamartia?

What Greek text are you using? I'm looking at the UBS second edition of the Greek New Testament (ed. by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren). Their text has harmartias in both 5:15 and 5:16. I checked the critical apparatus for these verses and they list no variants using paraptoma.

So, again, which Greek text are you consulting?

Curious, I checked the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, under hamartias (Vo. 3, pg 582, near the bottom), where it references both verses -- James 5:15-16 -- under its treatment of harmatias.

On the other hand, in the same reference, under paraptoma, we find in Vol 3, pg 586 the following:

"The vb. only occurs in the NT in Heb. 6:6 ... Apart from the Pauline writings, the noun is only found in the NT in Matt 6:14, Lk. 11:25ff ..."

In other words, this reference as well seems to know of no Greek text of James 5:16 that uses paraptoma where the other greek texts are using hamartias.

Yes, harmartias is in 1 Cor. 15 as well.

Oveydra,

I understand what you are saying. I simply point out that this way of reading the OT is fairly recent. Before the Reformation, it was unknown, and in the Reformation, your reading of the OT is peculiar to Zwinglians, Anabaptists, and much later iterations of the Calvinists (who followed Zwinglian/Anabaptist methods of reformation by amputation). Said another way, for 1500 years, no one read the OT like this.

Yes, I know this doesn't prove your reading wrong all by itself, but it should make you think twice before dismissing Chesterton's aweful mob .

In general, the Church has abandoned what the NT expressly abandons (e.g. animal sacrifice). Many things in the OT worship was retained -- the Psalter in its entirety (replete with all the OT sacrificial references). In fact the first Church council (Jerusalem) mandated one point of the Levitical code on marriage and the eating of blood. To say that the OT was fulfilled "in Christ" as if this erased any tangible impact on the later Church worship and piety is simply wrong.

On the other hand, the OT worship is rich in pattern and precedent which the Church joyfully incorporated into her worship (e.g. incense during prayers). On the latter matter, it's still being offered in heaven, just as it was before the pattern for the Tabernacle was ever shown to Moses.

Spook

[EricH]

The body and blood of Jesus were broken and shed for forgiveness of sin. People in the Corinthian church were clebrating a remembrance of what Jesus had done for them yet continuing in sinful lifestyles. According to 1 Corinthians 11:26:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

1 Corinthians 11:26 CSB

Thus they were proclaiming one thing by taking communion, but living another reality. As a result of this their proclamation was hypocritical. Paul thus instructed them to examine them selves and deal with any unconfessed sin, so that their walk matched their talk

To be guilty of the blood and body of our Lord actually harkens to Hebrews 10:29 (Which is clearly not a communion reference). It sepaks of taking the sacrifice of Jesus lightly by "going on sinning" after receiving the knowledge of the truth.

It is not the elements that are at issue. It is what is being remembered and the reality that should have in our lives.

Good to see you again KS as well

[pointer]

So we should ONLY do what the New Testament specifically says? Well, in the New Testament the only places Christians met together was on Solomon's Portico of the Temple at Jerusalem, or private residences. Let us bulldoze all our churches TOMORROW!

The Catholic position must be desperate if it has to resort to 'argument' of this sort.

Edited August 4, 2006 by pointer

[Kansasdad]

The body and blood of Jesus were broken and shed for forgiveness of sin. People in the Corinthian church were clebrating a remembrance of what Jesus had done for them yet continuing in sinful lifestyles. According to 1 Corinthians 11:26:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

1 Corinthians 11:26 CSB

Thus they were proclaiming one thing by taking communion, but living another reality. As a result of this their proclamation was hypocritical. Paul thus instructed them to examine them selves and deal with any unconfessed sin, so that their walk matched their talk

To be guilty of the blood and body of our Lord actually harkens to Hebrews 10:29 (Which is clearly not a communion reference). It sepaks of taking the sacrifice of Jesus lightly by "going on sinning" after receiving the knowledge of the truth.

It is not the elements that are at issue. It is what is being remembered and the reality that should have in our lives.

Good to see you again KS as well

Then why does Paul associate it with the eucharist at all, if the real issue was that they received the knowledge of truth and continued sinning. No Paul was making a very clear distinction. He was referring to taking of the eucharist, not, claiming to be followers of Christ and doing the opposite. Paul seams to be making a clear statement that the eucharist is very much part of the issue.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Leonard]

So we should ONLY do what the New Testament specifically says? Well, in the New Testament the only places Christians met together was on Solomon's Portico of the Temple at Jerusalem, or private residences. Let us bulldoze all our churches TOMORROW!

The Catholic position must be desperate if it has to resort to 'argument' of this sort.

I am 'catholic' not 'Catholic'. And that was NOT my argument, but merely carrying out the 'argument' of others to its logical conclusion. It is called 'reductio ad absurdum, dear fellow, and is perfectly logical. You are right, the arguments against Christ's Real Presence are indeed arguments of desperation rather than consideration!