• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thoughts On the Eucharist

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Thoughts On the Eucharist

A resent thread by @e.r.m. and his doubt as to the centrality of the Eucharist in worship led me to reprise my thoughts on the matter………..

Most of the traditional churches believe that the Eucharist is central to Christian worship.

However they differ as to its meaning, in particular to the nature of the host. These differences go back to the earliest days of Christianity.

First I would like to introduce to those who have not seen it before, the form of Eucharist as used by one branch of the earliest (mid first century) Judaeo-Christian communities, as set out in the Didache


(translation by Aaron Milavech. From the Greek)

9:1 (And) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:

9:2 First, concerning the cup:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of your servant David
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.


9:3 And concerning the broken [loaf]:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:4Just as this broken [loaf] was scattered
over the hills [as grain],
and, having_been_gathered_together, became one;
in -like - fashion., may your church be_gathered_together
from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
Because yours is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ forever.


9:5(And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
except those baptized in the name of [the] Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."




It can be seen from this, that at that time, there was no thought of the Eucharist being in anyway related to the Body or blood of Jesus.

Earlier verses leading up to the ones shown, describe the Eucharist as an actual Friday evening meal that was given in thanks by the whole community, and in remembrance for the life of Jesus.

The Prayer 9:3...4 is an eschatological prayer of hope that the church, at the end of days, will be gathered together as one, in Gods Kingdom. Just as the seed which was scattered over the land is gathered together to form one bread. The Cup, as the Holy Vine of David was a Jewish messianic allusion, that Christians relate to Jesus.

It is interesting that unlike today the wine was blessed and given before the Bread. Just as you find in Luke's Gospel, but not elsewhere.

This shines a whole different light on the significance of the Eucharist, not for those early Christians, but for us today.

Through the ages The Catholic Church in particular and others because of their roots in that faith,
have come to see the Eucharist, not as one of remembrance, thanksgiving and, eschatological hope.
But as one of sacrifice and the real, or symbolic, eating of Jesus Body and Blood.

Some churches believe that the Eucharist is unique. In that when we celebrate the Eucharist, that we are celebrating with those original disciples, in the presence of Jesus. With the Holy family, Saints, and all that have gone before us.

That there is and was, only one celebration of the Eucharist, in which we all share.

I would go even further in suggesting that It was not only the disciples at that “Last supper”, but that it was prepared and attended by all those that were usually present with Jesus, including Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene and all those that were to be soon to witness his trial and crucifixion. And go on to witness his resurrection.

I feel more in tune with the meaningful Eucharist of the Didache, as one of celebration remembrance thanksgiving, and hope, than I do with the various modern understandings that are taught today.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Thoughts On the Eucharist

A resent thread by @e.r.m and his doubt as to the centrality of the Eucharist in worship led me to reprise my thoughts on the matter………..

Most of the traditional churches believe that the Eucharist is central to Christian worship.

However they differ as to its meaning, in particular to the nature of the host. These differences go back to the earliest days of Christianity.

First I would like to introduce to those who have not seen it before, the form of Eucharist as used by one branch of the earliest (mid first century) Judaeo-Christian communities, as set out in the Didache


(translation by Aaron Milavech. From the Greek)

9:1 (And) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:

9:2 First, concerning the cup:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of your servant David
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.


9:3 And concerning the broken [loaf]:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:4Just as this broken [loaf] was scattered
over the hills [as grain],
and, having_been_gathered_together, became one;
in -like - fashion., may your church be_gathered_together
from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
Because yours is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ forever.


9:5(And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
except those baptized in the name of [the] Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."




It can be seen from this, that at that time, there was no thought of the Eucharist being in anyway related to the Body or blood of Jesus.

Earlier verses leading up to the ones shown, describe the Eucharist as an actual Friday evening meal that was given in thanks by the whole community, and in remembrance for the life of Jesus.

The Prayer 9:3...4 is an eschatological prayer of hope that the church, at the end of days, will be gathered together as one, in Gods Kingdom. Just as the seed which was scattered over the land is gathered together to form one bread. The Cup, as the Holy Vine of David was a Jewish messianic allusion, that Christians relate to Jesus.

It is interesting that unlike today the wine was blessed and given before the Bread. Just as you find in Luke's Gospel, but not elsewhere.

This shines a whole different light on the significance of the Eucharist, not for those early Christians, but for us today.

Through the ages The Catholic Church in particular and others because of their roots in that faith,
have come to see the Eucharist, not as one of remembrance, thanksgiving and, eschatological hope.
But as one of sacrifice and the real, or symbolic, eating of Jesus Body and Blood.

Some churches believe that the Eucharist is unique. In that when we celebrate the Eucharist, that we are celebrating with those original disciples, in the presence of Jesus. With the Holy family Saints, and all that have gone before us.

That there is and was, only one celebration of the Eucharist, in which we all share.

I would go even further in suggesting that It was not only the disciples at that “Last supper”, but that it was prepared and attended by all those that were usually present with Jesus, including Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene and all those that were to be soon to witness his trial and crucifixion. And go on to witness his resurrection.

I feel more in tune with the meaningful Eucharist of the Didache, as one of celebration remembrance thanksgiving, and hope, than I do with the various modern understandings that are taught today.
One thing that strikes me is they insist only baptized persons may eat at the eucharist. It has been a long time since I reviewed this document.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
If one needs a ritual to make themselves comfortable or happy or whatever reason they find the ritual to be necessary, so be it.
Rituals, traditions, sacraments are made by man to help men in their religious life. They are ok if they help in bringing the people to a closer relationship with Jesus. But if they are performed as part of their religious duty and lacking a heart for Jesus, then they are of no good. Jesus did not have good words to say regarding the religious leaders, their rituals done for show (to make themselves look better in public), and their traditions of man.
As far as the Catholic ritual of the eucharist, I will quote a valuable lesson from Jesus:
Matthew 7:13-14 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many find the wide gate that leads to destruction.
Few find the small gate that leads to life.
Would you say there are ‘many’ Catholics or ‘few’, practicing the ritual you speak of?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
If one needs a ritual to make themselves comfortable or happy or whatever reason they find the ritual to be necessary, so be it.
Rituals, traditions, sacraments are made by man to help men in their religious life. They are ok if they help in bringing the people to a closer relationship with Jesus. But if they are performed as part of their religious duty and lacking a heart for Jesus, then they are of no good. Jesus did not have good words to say regarding the religious leaders, their rituals done for show (to make themselves look better in public), and their traditions of man.
As far as the Catholic ritual of the eucharist, I will quote a valuable lesson from Jesus:
Matthew 7:13-14 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many find the wide gate that leads to destruction.
Few find the small gate that leads to life.
Would you say there are ‘many’ Catholics or ‘few’, practicing the ritual you speak of?

I do not speak for Catholics..
But baptism and the Eucharist were ordained and established by Jesus himself. In his words "do this in remembrance of me"
However you should have been aware of this from my OP.

In a majority of Christian churches it is the centre of worship. And has been so since Christs death on the cross.
But as I explaind, how it is celebrated and the understandings behind it changed soon after the church was established.

My OP gives my view on the matter.

You will find all practicing Catholics attend Mass.
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
I do not speak for Catholics..
But baptism and the Eucharist were ordained and established by Jesus himself. In his words "do this in remembrance of me"
However you should have been aware of this from my OP.

In a majority of Christian churches it is the centre of worship. And has been so since Christs death on the cross.
But as I explaind, how it is celebrated and the understandings behind it changed soon after the church was established.

My OP gives my view on the matter.

You will find all practicing Catholics attend Mass.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
I must respectfully disagree that baptism and a Eucharist were ordained by Jesus.
Reading His words, I find nothing to support that.
Also, per your own words “earlier verses” “describe the eucharist”
“as a Friday evening meal” “given in thanks by the whole community” “in remembrance of Jesus “
Earlier verses, yet no documents from any apostles proclaiming it as a necessity.
Also, there is no written documentation that a eucharist has been practiced from the time of Christ’s death. Paul mentions something in relation to it in his first epistle to the Corinthians.
But a discussion of Paul and his difficulties with the Corinthian church is another conversation, and anyway, it wasn’t immediately after Christ’s death.
If you want to make the words of Jesus into an establishment of the eucharist, then you would be better off following what the Catholic Church says and does.

John 6:53-55 53Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

The Catholic Church takes these words literally.

I have also read the Didache, which I find equally as useful as anything else man has said over the years.
Should you be inclined to follow its teacings, I must assume you fast on Wednesday and Friday of each week, as well as speak the Lord’s Prayer numerous times per day.
In Matthew 6:7, Jesus comments on repetitive prayer.

Regarding baptism, you would have to show me where Jesus ordained this. Some people use the following:
John 3:5-7
5Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

There are three consecutive verses reiterating the same concept.
Your first birth of the ‘flesh’ is born of water (woman’s womb), and your second is you are ‘born again’, when God’s Spirit comes to you. He says “the Spirit gives birth to spirit”, not immersion in water.

Last thing, I agree completely all practicing Catholics attend mass. That was what my comment about the wide gate was referring to. If attending mass and performing sacraments is the road to God’s kingdom, then it appears that many more than ‘a few’ have found the path. Tell me how my understanding is wrong.

I rambled too long.
Good night and God bless.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If I may comment on these points Gerry.....

I must respectfully disagree that baptism and a Eucharist were ordained by Jesus.
Reading His words, I find nothing to support that.

Baptism was unknown to Jews until John the Baptist came on the scene, six months before Jesus. He was sent to prepare God's people for the arrival of their Messiah. But his baptism was only for repentance over transgressions of the law of Moses. It wasn't Christian baptism.

When John indicated that the one coming after him was the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" he was making an allusion to the Passover Lamb that was offered every year on Nisan 14 in remembrance of God's deliverance of his people from slavery in Egypt.
Just as the blood of the Passover Lamb saved the Israelites from death when God brought the tenth and final plague on a proud Pharaoh and his people, so the blood of this Lamb was to save God's faithful worshipers by providing a permanent way to have sins forgiven.

When John hesitated to baptize Jesus, he was reassured that all things had to take place this way. The sinless Jesus was not baptized to repent of any wrongdoing and John knew it. So what did Jesus' baptism symbolize?
Why did Jesus insist that it take place?

It was a symbolic death and resurrection. Jesus the man died to his former life course and was raised up as God's anointed one, baptized in water, and immediately afterwards, baptized with holy spirit in order to carry out the final and most difficult part of his assignment.

On the night of his arrest as Jesus was sharing the Passover bread and wine with his apostles, he said to "keep doing this in remembrance of me"....so memorials of any event are generally celebrated on the anniversary of the event. The Passover was an annual event and it is no coincidence that the real Passover Lamb was to be offered on that exact date.

We as JW's celebrate the Memorial of Christ's death once a year on the date that coincides with Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar. It is done with due reverence and not associated with pagan trappings like chocolate eggs rabbits and chickens, which were a carry over from an ancient fertility festival in honor of a foreign goddess named Ishtar (Easter). Her symbols were of course rabbits eggs and chickens. Easter has nothing to do with Jesus.

I believe that the two baptisms referred to "from water and from spirit" were exactly the same as Jesus' baptism.
It has nothing to do with being in water in the womb, but for a follower of Christ to emulate the model left by the Master. Water baptism as a symbol of ones dedication to God, to follow his commands first in life, and for those chosen to rule with Jesus, this is followed by an anointing or baptism with holy spirit. These are the ones referred to in Revelation 20:6 as 'kings and priests' chosen from among mankind to assist Jesus in his kingdom. They are resurrected "first", but only after Christ's return. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)

there is no written documentation that a eucharist has been practiced from the time of Christ’s death. Paul mentions something in relation to it in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

Paul mentioned it as something that some Christians in Corinth were not showing the proper respect for.

1Corinthains 11:23-29
"For I received from the Lord that same thing that I handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was to be arrested, took bread 24 and gave thanks and broke it and said “This is my body that goes for you; do this in remembrance of me”; 25 in the same way the cup too, after eating the supper, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you are announcing the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Consequently one who eats the Lord’s bread or drinks his cup in unworthy fashion will be liable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man see how he is to be rated, and in such fashion eat from the loaf and drink from the cup; 29 for he who eats and drinks is eating and drinking a judgment upon himself when he does not distinguish the body."

Those who partook of the emblems unworthily were to receive judgment. Only those who make up the "body of Christ" could partake of the emblems since they are the only ones taken into the "new covenant". It is only for the ones who will be rulers in the Kingdom, not the subjects of their rulership.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
John 6:53-55 53Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

The Catholic Church takes these words literally.

Catholics take that very literally but if that were so, then Jesus was asking his Jewish listeners to break God's law. Any wonder many were stumbled at his words. :eek: His apostles were puzzled too so they waited for an explanation. It had nothing to do with literally eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood....an abhorrent thought, but in symbol, very meaningful.

In Matthew 6:7, Jesus comments on repetitive prayer.

It is written just before the Lord's Prayer too. That was a model prayer, not something to be recited mindlessly every time prayer was said. It was meant to demonstrate priority in our requests to God. First and foremost was the sanctification of God's name and the hope of the kingdom to come, and God's will to be "done on earth as it is in heaven". Giving thanks for our food and blessings whatever they might be, and to ask for God's forgiveness if we have overstepped.

Most Christians have no idea what the Kingdom of God actually is and what it is going to do. (Daniel 2:44)

Regarding baptism, you would have to show me where Jesus ordained this. Some people use the following:
John 3:5-7
5Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

What does it mean to be "born again"? Who does this apply to? Why was it necessary?
Those whom God chose to rule with Christ in his Kingdom have to die the same death and experience the same resurrection as he did. This requires a new birth as spirit beings in order to follow Jesus into heaven.
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom" so those who go to heaven must give up their fleshly bodies and experience a resurrection in a new kind of body....experiencing a new birth.

This is the water and the spirit....water baptism first, followed by baptism in holy spirit.
Not all Christians are "born again"...only those who make up the "bride of Christ". (Revelation 21:1-4)

If attending mass and performing sacraments is the road to God’s kingdom, then it appears that many more than ‘a few’ have found the path.

"Few" survive the corruption of foretold apostasy. But the weeds are battling for existence anyway and the time is coming for the harvest to begin. The weeds are gathered first and thrown in the fire, then the remaining sons of the kingdom will finish their earthly life and the rule of the kingdom can begin....bringing paradise conditions back to this earth.
47b20s0.gif
Bring it on!
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
@Gerry
In reply to your post, I note that we do not see eye to eye on the matter of baptism and the Eucharist so I will not labour the point.

On the question of catholic practise. I am perfectly happy for them to do as they will, but I note that the Catholic Church has played a major role in the spread of Christianity throughout the world. Of course I accept that more recent churches have their own and different practices, and their own reasons for doing so. But I have no reason to judge between them.

On your point about ritual and sacraments. I would add that all groups of worshippers, be they church congregations or what ever. Need some form of consensus on how to proceed. This is the basis of all liturgy. This is neither good nor bad…. It is simply necessary.

In its simplest form The society of Friends (Quakers) sit in silence.

It is not for anyone else to to measure these practices one against the other. It is a matter between God and themselves alone.

The Didache is indeed an important record as to how Judaeo-Christian communities gave instruction to new gentile converts to their faith.
However time has moved on and what was appropriate then, is not necessarily so today.
We do not celebrate the Eucharist today with an actual meal as they did, nor would it be sensible or practical to do so. Nor do we accommodate wandering Prophets into our services as they did.
But I do share much of their reasoning behind their Eucharistic practices especially as to remembrance, thanksgiving and hope for the coming Kingdom.

Though the words that they used in the Lords prayer are remarkably similar to those we use today. For them it was entirely eschatological, and reads as follows…

Our Father, the one in heaven,
your name be made holy,
your kingdom come,
your will be born upon earth as in heaven,
give us this day our loaf that is coming,
and forgive us our debt at the final judgement
as we likewise now forgive our debtors.
and do not lead us into the trial of the last days
but deliver us from that evil
because yours is the power and glory forever.

In more modern English that could be understood as….

Our Heavenly Father,
may your name be holy throughout the world
and your kingdom established among us,
so that the earth, like heaven, obeys your will.
may we soon be gathered in to your kingdom
and be forgiven at the final judgement,
as we have forgiven others. but spare us on the day of trial
and from the evil of the last days.
because yours is the power and glory forever.

( for Trial you could substitute tribulation)

Their expectation was, that the second coming, Judgement and the promised kingdom was imminent.
They were impatient for it to occur.

It seems to have been an expectation that they should pray three times a day, and that the Lords Prayer was central to this. It certainly was not the only prayer used, but not everyone is good at extemporary prayer, and having a framework, such as the prayer given to them by Jesus was as reasonable to use then, as it is for us today.
 
Last edited:

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
@Deeje.
I understand your JW unique viewpoint though do not share much of it.
As I have strong Unitarian leanings, I share much of your emphasis on God (Jehovah)

I recognise that you do practice the Eucharist, though only one a year, which would be considered the absolute minimum by most churches. What few would agree with, is the limitation on those who can accept the Bread and wine.

I too, do not share the concept that the host is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. but favour the concept taught in the Didache. of remembrance, thanksgiving and hope for the coming Kingdom.

I also not that "The coming Kingdom" is a basic concept for both those Didache communities, and the JW's even though they held rather different expectations of what was involved.

You will note that I do not give chapter and verse for anything. I am not a Bible literalist, and prefer to talk about what I learn from it, rather than use any particular translation or interpretation. Though I note that you have no difficulty arriving at suitable quotations for yourself.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It can be seen from this, that at that time, there was no thought of the Eucharist being in anyway related to the Body or blood of Jesus.
I don't have time right now as I have to boogey out, but I believe it's John's gospel that refers to the Eucharist as being Jesus' "real blood" and "real body", or something like that. Maybe someone can fill this in for me.

However, one should also remember that the apostles were undoubtedly influenced by the Hellenization process, so when we think of the above, it's also probably a good idea to also think about Plato's "essence". IOW, the "essence" of Jesus being in the bread and wine, so in one sense it's symbolic but in another sense it's real.

Have a great weekend.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I don't have time right now as I have to boogey out, but I believe it's John's gospel that refers to the Eucharist as being Jesus' "real blood" and "real body", or something like that. Maybe someone can fill this in for me.

However, one should also remember that the apostles were undoubtedly influenced by the Hellenization process, so when we think of the above, it's also probably a good idea to also think about Plato's "essence". IOW, the "essence" of Jesus being in the bread and wine, so in one sense it's symbolic but in another sense it's real.

Have a great weekend.

I would not argue that with the availability of the writings in the Bible that it is easy to support the body and blood argument.
However at the time of the Didache, though some of the gospels in some form, might have been written, they had not yet been collated or distributed.
It is also clear from the Didache, as a whole, that these communities had no access to Pauls writings either... for them , some of whom, in their lifetime, would have been able to hear Jesus speak, had no idea that a blood and body concept might exist, nor did they have any concept of atonement, or salvation... all these concepts were in the future. Their concentration and expectation, was on Jesus returning and the advent of the Kingdom.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
If I may comment on these points Gerry.....



Baptism was unknown to Jews until John the Baptist came on the scene, six months before Jesus. He was sent to prepare God's people for the arrival of their Messiah. But his baptism was only for repentance over transgressions of the law of Moses. It wasn't Christian baptism.

When John indicated that the one coming after him was the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" he was making an allusion to the Passover Lamb that was offered every year on Nisan 14 in remembrance of God's deliverance of his people from slavery in Egypt.
Just as the blood of the Passover Lamb saved the Israelites from death when God brought the tenth and final plague on a proud Pharaoh and his people, so the blood of this Lamb was to save God's faithful worshipers by providing a permanent way to have sins forgiven.

When John hesitated to baptize Jesus, he was reassured that all things had to take place this way. The sinless Jesus was not baptized to repent of any wrongdoing and John knew it. So what did Jesus' baptism symbolize?
Why did Jesus insist that it take place?

It was a symbolic death and resurrection. Jesus the man died to his former life course and was raised up as God's anointed one, baptized in water, and immediately afterwards, baptized with holy spirit in order to carry out the final and most difficult part of his assignment.

On the night of his arrest as Jesus was sharing the Passover bread and wine with his apostles, he said to "keep doing this in remembrance of me"....so memorials of any event are generally celebrated on the anniversary of the event. The Passover was an annual event and it is no coincidence that the real Passover Lamb was to be offered on that exact date.

We as JW's celebrate the Memorial of Christ's death once a year on the date that coincides with Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar. It is done with due reverence and not associated with pagan trappings like chocolate eggs rabbits and chickens, which were a carry over from an ancient fertility festival in honor of a foreign goddess named Ishtar (Easter). Her symbols were of course rabbits eggs and chickens. Easter has nothing to do with Jesus.

I believe that the two baptisms referred to "from water and from spirit" were exactly the same as Jesus' baptism.
It has nothing to do with being in water in the womb, but for a follower of Christ to emulate the model left by the Master. Water baptism as a symbol of ones dedication to God, to follow his commands first in life, and for those chosen to rule with Jesus, this is followed by an anointing or baptism with holy spirit. These are the ones referred to in Revelation 20:6 as 'kings and priests' chosen from among mankind to assist Jesus in his kingdom. They are resurrected "first", but only after Christ's return. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)



Paul mentioned it as something that some Christians in Corinth were not showing the proper respect for.

1Corinthains 11:23-29
"For I received from the Lord that same thing that I handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was to be arrested, took bread 24 and gave thanks and broke it and said “This is my body that goes for you; do this in remembrance of me”; 25 in the same way the cup too, after eating the supper, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you are announcing the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Consequently one who eats the Lord’s bread or drinks his cup in unworthy fashion will be liable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man see how he is to be rated, and in such fashion eat from the loaf and drink from the cup; 29 for he who eats and drinks is eating and drinking a judgment upon himself when he does not distinguish the body."

Those who partook of the emblems unworthily were to receive judgment. Only those who make up the "body of Christ" could partake of the emblems since they are the only ones taken into the "new covenant". It is only for the ones who will be rulers in the Kingdom, not the subjects of their rulership.

Deeje,
I always enjoy your thoughtful and informative posts.
I’m sorry I don’t have the time to respond in length all the time as I would like to do. I have already come to the conclusions your religion has regarding the pagan Christian holidays. I no longer celebrate those, but also celebrate the annual passover which would be a commemoration of Christ’s death. The fact that the timeline made no sense is what started my search. Also, from research regarding the Christmas and Easter holidays , I also concluded that it makes no sense to celebrate our own birthdays. I don’t know if that is the case with JW or not, but my own reasoning brought me to that conclusion.

As far as the eucharist and baptism it is possible that we both look at it the same way. I don’t know.
Anyway, my thoughts were that they are not requirements from Jesus, that absolutely must be done for salvation. That was my point. I have partaken communion frequently in the various churches I previously attended. I have no problem doing so, but do not believe it is a necessity. I would see nothing wrong with my wife and I sharing communion at home if we chose to. We would do it as Jesus prescribed, although we remember Him always.
I look at baptism as an outward sign to the world of my decision to follow Jesus, and Him only. My wife and I were both baptized together in a lake high in the Rocky Mountains a few years back.
And the rest of the day was spent on the beach with the other members of the congregation, sharing time with them and enjoying all the beauty God had provided.
Neither of us felt it was a requirement.

I always look forward to hearing your wisdom.

God bless.

Edit.
I just caught your previous post as well.
I agree again regarding the Lord’s Prayer. It was obviously a model, since Jesus spoke about the uselessness of repetitive prayers.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Overly ritualistic. mocks metaphorical meaning. treats the people like dogs getting their Scooby snacks.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
@Gerry
In reply to your post, I note that we do not see eye to eye on the matter of baptism and the Eucharist so I will not labour the point.

On the question of catholic practise. I am perfectly happy for them to do as they will, but I note that the Catholic Church has played a major role in the spread of Christianity throughout the world. Of course I accept that more recent churches have their own and different practices, and their own reasons for doing so. But I have no reason to judge between them.

On your point about ritual and sacraments. I would add that all groups of worshippers, be they church congregations or what ever. Need some form of consensus on how to proceed. This is the basis of all liturgy. This is neither good nor bad…. It is simply necessary.

In its simplest form The society of Friends (Quakers) sit in silence.

It is not for anyone else to to measure these practices one against the other. It is a matter between God and themselves alone.

The Didache is indeed an important record as to how Judaeo-Christian communities gave instruction to new gentile converts to their faith.
However time has moved on and what was appropriate then, is not necessarily so today.
We do not celebrate the Eucharist today with an actual meal as they did, nor would it be sensible or practical to do so. Nor do we accommodate wandering Prophets into our services as they did.
But I do share much of their reasoning behind their Eucharistic practices especially as to remembrance, thanksgiving and hope for the coming Kingdom.

Though the words that they used in the Lords prayer are remarkably similar to those we use today. For them it was entirely eschatological, and reads as follows…

Our Father, the one in heaven,
your name be made holy,
your kingdom come,
your will be born upon earth as in heaven,
give us this day our loaf that is coming,
and forgive us our debt at the final judgement
as we likewise now forgive our debtors.
and do not lead us into the trial of the last days
but deliver us from that evil
because yours is the power and glory forever.

In more modern English that could be understood as….

Our Heavenly Father,
may your name be holy throughout the world
and your kingdom established among us,
so that the earth, like heaven, obeys your will.
may we soon be gathered in to your kingdom
and be forgiven at the final judgement,
as we have forgiven others. but spare us on the day of trial
and from the evil of the last days.
because yours is the power and glory forever.

( for Trial you could substitute tribulation)

Their expectation was, that the second coming, Judgement and the promised kingdom was imminent.
They were impatient for it to occur.

It seems to have been an expectation that they should pray three times a day, and that the Lords Prayer was central to this. It certainly was not the only prayer used, but not everyone is good at extemporary prayer, and having a framework, such as the prayer given to them by Jesus was as reasonable to use then, as it is for us today.

I appreciate your taking your time to give me your very thoughtful response.
I can see we will not agree on this, but it doesn’t matter.
I am confident in knowing that anything that I think, say, or do is meaningless. I have no problem with that concept. I rely only on what Jesus says and does. I have been told not to lean on my own understanding. That is a problem I previously had.

But I see that concept as one which should be carried to all of the human race. And I do so. I spend plenty of time reading black words. And by that; I mean the rest of the Bible, the things you and others post here, what the pastors and church leaders say, what the pope says (yes, I even read that), and all other words from all other people that I wish to research. But the only truth I will hold dear are the red words. I will not compromise on that.

Also, I would really like to know your thoughts on the question I asked twice. Wikipedia says there are 2.4 billion Christians. Do you feel that what Jesus says in Matthew 7:14 is true? If it is, how do you explain Christianity and the Christians in it all believe they found the way? I think this is a question that should be looked at seriously. Too many people are being misled into thinking they are saved, and that deception is coming from somewhere.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I appreciate your taking your time to give me your very thoughtful response.
I can see we will not agree on this, but it doesn’t matter.
I am confident in knowing that anything that I think, say, or do is meaningless. I have no problem with that concept. I rely only on what Jesus says and does. I have been told not to lean on my own understanding. That is a problem I previously had.

But I see that concept as one which should be carried to all of the human race. And I do so. I spend plenty of time reading black words. And by that; I mean the rest of the Bible, the things you and others post here, what the pastors and church leaders say, what the pope says (yes, I even read that), and all other words from all other people that I wish to research. But the only truth I will hold dear are the red words. I will not compromise on that.

Also, I would really like to know your thoughts on the question I asked twice. Wikipedia says there are 2.4 billion Christians. Do you feel that what Jesus says in Matthew 7:14 is true? If it is, how do you explain Christianity and the Christians in it all believe they found the way? I think this is a question that should be looked at seriously. Too many people are being misled into thinking they are saved, and that deception is coming from somewhere.

Matthew 7:14 is the eye of the needle example but in other words.
How ever I do not believe that God's love is exclusive, it extends to everyone, and luckily so as we are all sinners.

We follow the teachings of Jesus because we love God. Not because of any hope of reward in this or the new life.
The rules are few, and all are based on the love of God, love of our fellow man and love of creation.
Rules and laws that do not comply with those aims are false. Words we find in scripture that do not comply are false, Words that our superiors might impose on us, that do not comply with Gods love, are false.

The road is indeed narrow, but it is not fenced in by religious words and rules, it is marked out in Love.

I have no Idea what saved means, no one is saved in this life. We all enter the next life, with our souls wiped clean of our sin, we will all without exception, need this Gift from God, as we are all sinners.
None of us stands any heigher than anyone else in the face of God.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Just a thought. Did you ever draw a map and put an X and say "this X is the gas station on Main Street" Or "this is the store on First Street" Of course that X is not really a store or gas station. It REPRESENTS those things for purposes of the map. When Jesus broke bread and said "This is my body" is it possible He meant it represented His body for purposes of the ceremony. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus actually changed the bread into His body like e changed water to wine. And even if Jesus did change the breaf to His body does that mean a priest has the same power since a priest cannot change water into wine.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Matthew 7:14 is the eye of the needle example but in other words.
How ever I do not believe that God's love is exclusive, it extends to everyone, and luckily so as we are all sinners.

We follow the teachings of Jesus because we love God. Not because of any hope of reward in this or the new life.
The rules are few, and all are based on the love of God, love of our fellow man and love of creation.
Rules and laws that do not comply with those aims are false. Words we find in scripture that do not comply are false, Words that our superiors might impose on us, that do not comply with Gods love, are false.

The road is indeed narrow, but it is not fenced in by religious words and rules, it is marked out in Love.

I have no Idea what saved means, no one is saved in this life. We all enter the next life, with our souls wiped clean of our sin, we will all without exception, need this Gift from God, as we are all sinners.
None of us stands any heigher than anyone else in the face of God.
Great comments.
Thank you.
I can’t find anything to disagree with.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have already come to the conclusions your religion has regarding the pagan Christian holidays. I no longer celebrate those, but also celebrate the annual passover which would be a commemoration of Christ’s death. The fact that the timeline made no sense is what started my search. Also, from research regarding the Christmas and Easter holidays , I also concluded that it makes no sense to celebrate our own birthdays. I don’t know if that is the case with JW or not, but my own reasoning brought me to that conclusion.

Hello Gerry, I am warmed by the feeling that our beliefs are very similar. You have seen through the veneer to the real truth and that can only come about by means of God's spirit. :)

We too shun birthday celebrations for all the same reasons why we shun Christmas and Easter. It's about their origins. When you understand where the birthday customs originated, you see yet another adoption from paganism. Astrologers used birthdates to cast horoscopes. (something forbidden in God's law) The birthday cake with lighted tapers was to keep away evil spirits and the birthday wishes were to ensure good luck for the birthday child.

The ancient Jews did not celebrate birthdays, which means that Jesus didn't either. He would not have celebrated his own birthday....so why would we? :shrug: especially when he doesn't even rate a mention for most people who do celebrate.

As far as the eucharist and baptism it is possible that we both look at it the same way. I don’t know.

It sounds like we have similar views here too. Since Passover was an annual commemoration, we hold the Lord's Evening Meal in the same way. After sundown on the anniversary, which means that it doesn't fall on a Friday - Monday every year. It keeps us separated from Easter, which suits us just fine. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

The Passover was replaced by the Lord's Supper. This is because the Passover pertains only to Jews as a commemoration of their deliverance from Egyptian slavery. Our Passover Lamb is Jesus Christ whose blood will deliver all his faithful disciples when the final judgment comes on this godless world. However, just claiming to be Christian will not be enough as Jesus demonstrated in Matthew 7:21-23.

Anyway, my thoughts were that they are not requirements from Jesus, that absolutely must be done for salvation. That was my point.

Since Jesus insisted that he be baptized by John, and all Christians had to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as a public symbol of their dedication to serve the Christ as one of his disciples, JW's undertake a serious study of God's word and when they are ready to dedicate their lives to the service of God, they declare before many witnesses that they are ready to put self-interest second to the doing of God's will, and promoting his kingdom as the only hope for mankind. It means separating ourselves from the world, morally, spiritually and politically. Why? Because of who is in control of it. (1 John 5:19) It doesn't make us very popular. (John 15:18-21)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have partaken communion frequently in the various churches I previously attended. I have no problem doing so, but do not believe it is a necessity. I would see nothing wrong with my wife and I sharing communion at home if we chose to. We would do it as Jesus prescribed, although we remember Him always.

As we understand it, those who are "chosen" to rule with Christ are the only ones who partake of the bread and the wine as parties to a covenant. Only they know that God's spirit has anointed them. Jesus made that covenant with these ones "for a kingdom"....they were to rule with him as' kings and priests'. (Revelation 20:6)
Kings do not rule one another and priests need sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties. Those who go to heaven are no longer sinful, having shed their fleshly bodies and being given spirit bodies so that they can dwell in the presence of God, like the angels do. All of those "chosen ones" have lived life as a human...as has Jesus our High Priest. They understand our weaknesses.

Since kings need subjects and priests need sinners for whom to intercede.....who are these?

The apostle John saw two groups in his Revelation from Jesus. One was a limited number and the other without number......

"And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. . .

After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb. . . .In response one of the elders said to me: “These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?14 So right away I said to him: “My lord, you are the one who knows.” And he said to me: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb
” (Revelation 7:1, 9-10, 13-14)

So two group of Christians are mentioned here, not just one. The finite number have been chosen from the earth as "firstfruits".....they are resurrected "first".

"Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. . . .And they are singing what seems to be a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders, and no one was able to master that song except the 144,000, who have been bought from the earth. . . . .These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, 5 and no deceit was found in their mouths; they are without blemish." (Revelation 14:1, 3-5)

These specially chosen rulers will have empathy for human weakness in the journey of their subjects back to perfection and reconciliation with the Father. That is what the rule of God's Kingdom is for. That "great crowd...out of all nations" are the earthly subjects described in Revelation 21:1-4. Christ and his "bride" are seen bringing their rulership to mankind....with resulting blessings.....

Blessings to you

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”


I look at baptism as an outward sign to the world of my decision to follow Jesus, and Him only. My wife and I were both baptized together in a lake high in the Rocky Mountains a few years back.

Sounds like a beautiful setting.
128fs318181.gif


I agree again regarding the Lord’s Prayer. It was obviously a model, since Jesus spoke about the uselessness of repetitive prayers.

As a former church member, I recited that prayer every week without a single clue as to what I was praying for.
Now it all makes perfect sense.
bliss.gif


Blessings to you and yours.
 
Top