The Lord's Supper

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The celebration of Passover ended at the cross because it was fulfilled.

Christ resurrected on Sunday, the first the the week.


Luke 22:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 New International Version (NIV)
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Re: "'The celebration of Passover ended at the cross because it was fulfilled.'"

No Scripture against all Scripture.

Re: "'Christ resurrected on Sunday, the first the the week.'"

No Scripture against all Scripture.

Re: "'In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'"

Why don't you? Why don't you, in the same way as you drink the wine and eat the bread, EAT THE CUP? “This cup is the new covenant in my blood" yes? So why don't you Catholics EAT the wood or glass or iron thing "in the same way" as you drink the wine and chew the wafer and eat yourselves saved and drink yourselves blessed happy? And like the disciples did, leave the room blurry-eyed and drunk like lords vying for highest position and kill your pope and crown yourselves with a fish-head symbol one could guess would be edible too...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Catholicism, Catholic Christianity, is Antichrist.

 

[ScottA]

Catholicism, Catholic Christianity, is Antichrist.

I have been enjoying your fresh and spirited rejection of religious nonsense and blindness. Press on!

However, to be fair, the Catholics may indeed be the best of the worse and the greatest offenders, but that does not mean the Protestants are any better, or any other denomination for that matter. We are sheep among wolves in every corner, as the flesh now of this second fold of Christ wages its own war against the Spirit He has sent, just as Israel did. Except, this time many do not reject Him physically, but spiritually - even preaching the return of the flesh!

This is the fulfillment of Christ setting His sword among us, the falling away, and the man of sin revealed, the flesh against the Spirit. Once again ("where the eagles are gathered together") the wolves among the chosen kill the prophets, and inhibit those who would enter in by imposing their religious practices. Even among them all, is the message not "Apply these words of spirit to your fleshly life." as if the spirit was for the flesh, instead of the flesh for the spirit, for the dividing thereof? They preach unity as if light should commune with darkness, for which Christ warned, "Take heed therefore, that the light within you is not darkness."

It is an epidemic across all denominations.

 

[CoreIssue]

Re: "'The celebration of Passover ended at the cross because it was fulfilled.'"

No Scripture against all Scripture.

Re: "'Christ resurrected on Sunday, the first the the week.'"

No Scripture against all Scripture.

Re: "'In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'"

Why don't you? Why don't you, in the same way as you drink the wine and eat the bread, EAT THE CUP? “This cup is the new covenant in my blood" yes? So why don't you Catholics EAT the wood or glass or iron thing "in the same way" as you drink the wine and chew the wafer and eat yourselves saved and drink yourselves blessed happy? And like the disciples did, leave the room blurry-eyed and drunk like lords vying for highest position and kill your pope and crown yourselves with a fish-head symbol one could guess would be edible too...

I'm not Catholic. Obviously haven't read what I have said.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Blindness! Don't you SEE? No you don't; you cannot see just how here, you argue directly against yourself! Ag, dear Jesus Christ, help, please help! This person says "'Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically.'" WHAT IS HYPERBOLE IF NOT METAPHOR?! Can I go on and waste the rest of my life arguing against stone and wood stupidity?!

TRANSLATION:
"I don't have an intelligent response for your Scripturally-sound post - so I'll feign a tantrum instead."

 

[farouk]

Hello @Acolyte

I appreciate and respect the fact that you do not perhaps agree with all that you have read in certain posts, even though you have indicated that you have 'liked' what is said. I would like to comment on the Lord's words, 'do this in rememberance of me', that you refer to in your post.

During the period covered by the book of acts, as you know, the door was open for Israel to repent, and had they done so, the Lord would have returned, as God told them through Peter in Acts 3:19-21. The letters written during this period of approximately 40 years, indicate that the expectation of the Lord's imminent return was very much the expectation held by the believers of that day. That return depended on the repentance of Israel, which did not come. Finally the door was closed to the nation of Israel, at the end of the Acts period, when they continued to reject the witness of the Apostles as to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Acts 28). So, they and all the promises of God associated with them are in abeyance, awaiting fulfillment in a coming day.

During this intervening period, the Church which is the Body of Christ is being called out, and the hope and expectancy of this company is not Christ's coming, but His 'appearing' in glory, when they will appear with Him there (Col. 3).

The epistles written following the laying aside of Israel in unbelief by the Apostle Paul (Eph. Col. Phil. 1&2 Tim. Titus) have no mention of the Lord's supper, or of remembering the Lord's death until He come: for the Church of the Body of Christ, of which He alone is the Head, which is the subject of those epistles, is intimately identified with Christ, in His death, burial, quickening, resurrection, and ascension to God's right hand. It's members merely await His appearing in glory, for they will appear with Him there. It's hope is a heavenly hope, and the return of Christ to the earth is not what it's members look for. It is not affiliated with Israel as a nation, in it's blessings or it's hope, and it needs no symbols to remember Christ death, for it has died with Him, been buried, quickened and raised with Him, and now live in newness of life in Him,while looking for His blessed 'appearing'.

Praise His Holy Name!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

@charity:

I do see the Lord's Supper as normative for all Christians, right from Acts 2 until the Rapture, whether they be from a Gentile or Jewish background, don't you?

 

[charity]

@charity:

I do see the Lord's Supper as normative for all Christians, right from Acts 2 until the Rapture, whether they be from a Gentile or Jewish background, don't you?

Hello @farouk,

Why do you believe so?

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

I keep hearing that the flesh profits nothing in regards to your O.P.

What exactly does that mean to you?
What does it have to do with the Lord's Supper?

Hello @GodsGrace,

I believe that the emphasis has been upon the fact that 'the flesh profits nothing' because of what the communion service, or, 'The Lord's Supper' has evolved into: with transubstantiation being the worst of it's forms. Whereas participation in the repitition of a 'type', a 'shadow' is of no profit to us whose worship is truly in spirit.

The flesh (religious flesh) glories in doing something, whether it be drinking the wine or eating the bread, it panders to the flesh, and makes it feel good. Yet it profits nothing, for all is of and in spirit, in Christ Jesus.

I hope this answers your question.
Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[farouk]

Hello @farouk,

Why do you believe so?

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Plenty of authority for it: Acts 2.42; Matthew 26; Mark 14; 1 Corinthians 11 (this passage even links the Supper to His coming - verse 26).

 

[charity]

Plenty of authority for it: Acts 2.42; Matthew 26; Mark 14; 1 Corinthians 11 (this passage even links the Supper to His coming - verse 26).

Hello @farouk,

Thank you for your response, in which you have given the references to the Lord's Supper. However, whom these words were spoken to, at what time, at what occasion (or context), and with what intent, is also to be taken into consideration, in relation to it's application to believers within this dispensation, I believe: For example, The first occasion was during the Passover feast, spoken to the disciples (who were believing Jews) to whom, with Christ Himsef, that feast was obligatory. On the basis of the fact that Christ their 'passover' was soon to be sacrificed for them.

The context of Paul's instruction to the believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34), in which he referenced the Lord's words, spoken in Matthew 26, was as a corrective regarding the behaviour of those who met to eat together collectively. It was to govern their mindset at those times, so that while eating and drinking as a redeemed company, they were to eat and drink with the remembrance of the sacrificial nature of the death of Christ in mind. This would modify their selfishness and engender a sacrificial consideration of those with whom they shared the communion of a meal together, with mutual sharing, so that there would be equality of provision, and Christ's sacrificial love manifested among them. This was to be the pattern of behaviour, in remembrance of the Lord's death, until He come. Which was anticipated to be very soon.

When the necessary condition for the Lord's return was not forthcoming, Israel as a nation laid aside in unbelief (temporarily), and the Lord's coming delayed until a future time. Then God revealed through Paul, the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3) which should govern the present behaviour of members of the Church which is the Body of Christ. There is no instruction concerning a 'Lord's Supper' in the epistles of Paul in which this new administration is made known (in Eph. Col. Phil. 1&2 Tim. Titus and Philemon) which was to govern the operation of the Church which is the Body of Christ during this interval prior to either His 'appearing' or His 'coming'.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

so that is how you eat/drink Him?

Yes, one of the ways.

 

[farouk]

Hello @farouk,

Thank you for your response, in which you have given the references to the Lord's Supper. However, whom these words were spoken to, at what time, at what occasion (or context), and with what intent, is also to be taken into consideration, in relation to it's application to believers within this dispensation, I believe: For example, The first occasion was during the Passover feast, spoken to the disciples (who were believing Jews) to whom, with Christ Himsef, that feast was obligatory. On the basis of the fact that Christ their 'passover' was soon to be sacrificed for them.

The context of Paul's instruction to the believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34), in which he referenced the Lord's words, spoken in Matthew 26, was as a corrective regarding the behaviour of those who met to eat together collectively. It was to govern their mindset at those times, so that while eating and drinking as a redeemed company, they were to eat and drink with the remembrance of the sacrificial nature of the death of Christ in mind. This would modify their selfishness and engender a sacrificial consideration of those with whom they shared the communion of a meal together, with mutual sharing, so that there would be equality of provision, and Christ's sacrificial love manifested among them. This was to be the pattern of behaviour, in remembrance of the Lord's death, until He come. Which was anticipated to be very soon.

When the necessary condition for the Lord's return was not forthcoming, Israel as a nation laid aside in unbelief (temporarily), and the Lord's coming delayed until a future time. Then God revealed through Paul, the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3) which should govern the present behaviour of members of the Church which is the Body of Christ. There is no instruction concerning a 'Lord's Supper' in the epistles of Paul in which this new administration is made known (in Eph. Col. Phil. 1&2 Tim. Titus and Philemon) which was to govern the operation of the Church which is the Body of Christ during this interval prior to either His 'appearing' or His 'coming'.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

My understanding - very widely shared - is that the Lord's Supper and baptism are the two Scriptural ordinances for the church to observe.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

TRANSLATION:
"I don't have an intelligent response for your Scripturally-sound post - so I'll feign a tantrum instead."

'Translation' of no Scripture is unanswerable for me.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

the Catholics may indeed be the best of the worse and the greatest offenders, but that does not mean the Protestants are any better,

Correct. 'Christianity' of the present in totality, in my opinion is 'Catholicism' - universal Christianity. For what my opinion might be worth to anyone; most probably, sultsch. As I prefer it. Agreement with me almost always shows I'm not understood; applause always shows I'm misunderstood. Insult shows I'm understood but not the implication; being ignored proves the implication is understood as well.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

My understanding - very widely shared - is that the Lord's Supper and baptism are the two Scriptural ordinances for the church to observe.

Sunday is the one visible and practical, most widely shared and meaningful ordinance in Christianity and its worship, for which the Resurrection of Jesus Christ--the one basic and saving, essential Scriptural Truth of The Faith--is corrupted and misappropriated.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, one of the ways.

OK.....What are the other ways? Your answers are a bit confusing since you also said "I don't accomplish that" when I asked you how you accomplish it.

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Catholicism, Catholic Christianity, is Antichrist.

Soooo what are the Protestant Churches that have some of the same doctrines and practices that the Catholic Church has?

Baby antichrist? Spawn of the antichrist?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I have been enjoying your fresh and spirited rejection of religious nonsense and blindness. Press on!

However, to be fair, the Catholics may indeed be the best of the worse and the greatest offenders, but that does not mean the Protestants are any better, or any other denomination for that matter. We are sheep among wolves in every corner, as the flesh now of this second fold of Christ wages its own war against the Spirit He has sent, just as Israel did. Except, this time many do not reject Him physically, but spiritually - even preaching the return of the flesh!

This is the fulfillment of Christ setting His sword among us, the falling away, and the man of sin revealed, the flesh against the Spirit. Once again ("where the eagles are gathered together") the wolves among the chosen kill the prophets, and inhibit those who would enter in by imposing their religious practices. Even among them all, is the message not "Apply these words of spirit to your fleshly life." as if the spirit was for the flesh, instead of the flesh for the spirit, for the dividing thereof? They preach unity as if light should commune with darkness, for which Christ warned, "Take heed therefore, that the light within you is not darkness."

It is an epidemic across all denominations.

Hi Scott,

Is anyone immune to this "epidemic"?


Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

'Translation' of no Scripture is unanswerable for me.

Ummmmm, I GAVE you the Scripture verses AND the translation of the Greek, Einstein.

You're simply living in denial . . .

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Soooo what are the Protestant Churches that have some of the same doctrines and practices that the Catholic Church has?

Baby antichrist? Spawn of the antichrist?

"'Churches that have the same doctrines and practices that the Catholic Church has'" are 'Protestant Churches' in name only. That's my point, that they are 'the same' old 'Catholic Church'--in no manner Protestant Churches! The 'churches' we both speak of are 'catholic', viz., universal which in the first place does not mean that the doctrines and practices they have are Protestant or more important are Scriptural. Universal Christianity itself makes up the Antichrist, not only in the form of being a church, but in any form whatever be it society or the state or form of majority rule (democracy) or scientific and intellectual grip on institutions of learning or whatever like 'culture' or 'heritage'. It makes no difference you do not consider the Protestant Churches in the present era Catholic. They are as universal or catholic as is the Roman Catholic Church; in fact the core problem with them is that they are the same church and that they "'have the same doctrines and practices that the Catholic Church has'"--that they have and are the same abomination of desolation as Roman Catholicism. Christianity unqualified is Antichrist and its doctrines and practices are the proof of it. Whether with regard to high idolatry or common virtue, between Christianity and Islam for example, there is no comparison possible--of the two Islam is the more Christlike.