Do you understand?-The Lords supper?

[Keiw1]

1Thess 2:11 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1 Jn 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

I write to you, children, because you know the Father.

I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.​

Job 29:16 I was a father to the poor; the complaint of the stranger I pursued

Gen 45:8 So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.

2 Kg 2:12 and Elisha saw it happen. He cried out, “My father! my father! Israel’s chariot and steeds!” Then he saw him no longer.

2 Kg 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?”

Rom 9:10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac

Acts 7:2 And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran

Acts 7:2-53 (Saint Stephen says father 17 times)

All those called Father, fathered something. Like through Abrahams seed-Israel came, etc
Its to ones taking the lead in Jesus' religion he was speaking about. They fathered 0 spiritual things. God in heaven fathered them all.

 

[Josheb]

Nisan 14th.

Yes my error-Nisan 14th is the night.

Then Jesus was not celebrating the Passover as dictated in Tanakh, was he? He ate his "Passover meal" on what the Jews call the day of remembering, not the day the meal is normally prepped, served, and eaten. Yes?

 

[Keiw1]

Then Jesus was not celebrating the Passover as dictated in Tanakh, was he? He ate his "Passover meal" on what the Jews call the day of remembering, not the day the meal is normally prepped, served, and eaten. Yes?

3 nt accounts say the passover had begun. On Nisan 14,15 it was held.

 

[Josheb]

3 nt accounts say the passover had begun. On Nisan 14,15 it was held.

Well.... None of the gospel accounts explicitly specify Nissan 14.


Saying "the Passover had begun" can be easily understood to mean the Passover week had begun AND if that is not the case then the three unspecified accounts all have Jesus dying AFTER Passover. That's an even bigger problem! Either way it poses a problem for this op. Either Jesus ate the meal a day earlier, or he ate the meal on the correct and then a day later died. Not only would that be the case but all the Jewish leaders, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the temple guards, Sanhedrin - all those involved would be breaking the Sabbath rules. A variety of conflicts and inconsistencies result. Remember: John was there; the other gospel writers were not. Matthew and John were two of the original 12. Mark and Luke were not. Of the two who were originals, only John was there at Calvary. His and his alone is the only truly eyewitness account. Do we favor the testimony of the only guy there for both the meal and the death, or do we trust our speculations about non-specific second-hand reports? I am inclined to emphasize the more specific first-hand eyewitness than the post hoc inferences of second-hand reports.*



If the goal of this conversation is to understand the Lord's Supper, then isn't it more consistent and efficacious to say he ate a day earlier than he died a day later? Jesus is, after all, the Passover sacrifice. How can the sacrifice occur after the sacrifice is supposed to occur?














*Personally, I believe Matthew was the first gospel written, not Mark, but for the purposes of this op it's not critical which was written first.
.

 

[Keiw1]

Well.... None of the gospel accounts explicitly specify Nissan 14.


Saying "the Passover had begun" can be easily understood to mean the Passover week had begun AND if that is not the case then the three unspecified accounts all have Jesus dying AFTER Passover. That's an even bigger problem! Either way it poses a problem for this op. Either Jesus ate the meal a day earlier, or he ate the meal on the correct and then a day later died. Not only would that be the case but all the Jewish leaders, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the temple guards, Sanhedrin - all those involved would be breaking the Sabbath rules. A variety of conflicts and inconsistencies result. Remember: John was there; the other gospel writers were not. Matthew and John were two of the original 12. Mark and Luke were not. Of the two who were originals, only John was there at Calvary. His and his alone is the only truly eyewitness account. Do we favor the testimony of the only guy there for both the meal and the death, or do we trust our speculations about non-specific second-hand reports? I am inclined to emphasize the more specific first-hand eyewitness than the post hoc inferences of second-hand reports.*



If the goal of this conversation is to understand the Lord's Supper, then isn't it more consistent and efficacious to say he ate a day earlier than he died a day later? Jesus is, after all, the Passover sacrifice. How can the sacrifice occur after the sacrifice is supposed to occur?














*Personally, I believe Matthew was the first gospel written, not Mark, but for the purposes of this op it's not critical which was written first.
.

I read write ups online. After sundown that night the passover began.

 

[Josheb]

I read write ups online. After sundown that night the passover began.

So you base your views on extra-biblical (biased) sources rather than the Bible...... and, apparently think I will be persuaded by your practice. Were any of them not modern futurists holding to a Dispensationalist eschatology?

Why is it you do not walk the timeline with scripture and rely on other men?

I read write ups online. After sundown that night the passover began.

Did you catch the contradictions and problems the authors of those write-ups made? You can read all the write-ups you but the fact still remains.....

• He ate the Passover meal a day early, then he died on Passover.
• He ate the Passover meal on Passover, then he died after Passover and all the Jews involved in the conspiracy violated the Sabbath.

Those are the only two options available. The timeline of scripture does not permit him to eat and die on the same night. If the write-ups read did not make mention of that then they are seriously flawed sources; so seriously flawed that they are not to be relied on (especially not over scripture). Jesus ate the meal, then went to Gethsemane where he prayed and was then arrested. That night he was interrogated, mocked, and beaten by the Jewish leaders. When the morning came they bound him and took him to Pilate. Pilate interviewed hi and then sent him to Herod. Herod interviewed him and then sent him back to Pilate. Pilate offered to set either Jesus or Barabas free because it was his custom to set one prisoner free on the feast day of the Passover. The Jews chose Barabbas, so Pilate handed Jesus off to the soldiers to be beaten, mocked, tortured with scourging (and who knows what else) before carrying a timber on his shredded back the mile and a half to Golgotha where he died before the sun set on the Sabbath. The Jews asked Pilate to take down the bodies because it was the preparation day for the Passover. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers got there.

It is a bigger problem to have him eating on the Passover and then dying after the Passover than it is to have eat his meal a day early and die on Passover.

 

[Mr GLee]

I read write ups online. After sundown that night the passover began.

The promised three day and night demonstration of the Passover began in the garden of Gethsemane, a different kind of demonstration moved to the hill of shame the cross and the demonstration of the tomb. The demonstration of the working of faith The unseen work God works with us yoked to Him

Then finishing the word of two. . The Father removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone opening a new day a new era of sabbaths the first day of the week the day he said let thier be chidden of light .

All three witnesses working as one Passover witness .

 

[Keiw1]

So you base your views on extra-biblical (biased) sources rather than the Bible...... and, apparently think I will be persuaded by your practice. Were any of them not modern futurists holding to a Dispensationalist eschatology?

Why is it you do not walk the timeline with scripture and rely on other men?

Did you catch the contradictions and problems the authors of those write-ups made? You can read all the write-ups you but the fact still remains.....

• He ate the Passover meal a day early, then he died on Passover.
• He ate the Passover meal on Passover, then he died after Passover and all the Jews involved in the conspiracy violated the Sabbath.

Those are the only two options available. The timeline of scripture does not permit him to eat and die on the same night. If the write-ups read did not make mention of that then they are seriously flawed sources; so seriously flawed that they are not to be relied on (especially not over scripture). Jesus ate the meal, then went to Gethsemane where he prayed and was then arrested. That night he was interrogated, mocked, and beaten by the Jewish leaders. When the morning came they bound him and took him to Pilate. Pilate interviewed hi and then sent him to Herod. Herod interviewed him and then sent him back to Pilate. Pilate offered to set either Jesus or Barabas free because it was his custom to set one prisoner free on the feast day of the Passover. The Jews chose Barabbas, so Pilate handed Jesus off to the soldiers to be beaten, mocked, tortured with scourging (and who knows what else) before carrying a timber on his shredded back the mile and a half to Golgotha where he died before the sun set on the Sabbath. The Jews asked Pilate to take down the bodies because it was the preparation day for the Passover. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers got there.

It is a bigger problem to have him eating on the Passover and then dying after the Passover than it is to have eat his meal a day early and die on Passover.

3 witnesses, who are inspired bible writers, who wrote bible books say the passover began that night after sundown. That is all i need.

 

[ChristB4us]

On the night of the passover, Jesus implemented the Lords supper. He said --Keep on doing this in remembrance of me.= On the night of the passover only.
He as well made a special covenant for those who are to partake=Luke 22:29-30= Those who will sit on thrones( only)-Only the little flock( Luke 12:32) will sit on thrones, the great crowd( Rev 7:9) of other sheep( John 10:16) who are not of that fold will not sit on thrones. The little flock= the anointed bride of Christ=144,000 bought from the earth( Rev 14:3) these will be kings and priests on thrones beside Jesus( Rev 1:6,, Rev 20:6)
Paul warned that some are not worthy=the great crowd. 1Cor 11:27-29)--verse 28 approve oneself( being of the little flock) after scrutiny. Thus-All others partaking are committing serious sin, only the false religions lead by blind guides tell ALL to partake. Those reside in darkness and are misleading ones to not enter Gods kingdom. Luke 22"29-30 is clear-who will you believe?

Your insistence of it to be done on the night of the Passover is adding to His Words. Why not insist on having that Passover supper, the lamb sacrifice, and then conclude with the communion too?

What He did say to do communion for is just in remembrance of Him and that is whenever they do communion.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

One can say that a year has gone by after that event at Pentecost before they held that breaking of the bread again on Passover but I do not believe that is what is conveyed here. It seems to me that communion was held soon after.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Here it is specified when they had broken bread on the first day of the week, rather than specifying it was on the Passover.

Paul had to write a rebuke for how believers were coming to church each Sunday, that first day of the week.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

So the last two verses sounds like they held communion every week for why Paul insisted that believers eat at home to avoid using the bread and the wine at church service for their meals so that everyone can have communion.

Now Paul did not say they had to do communion every week either. But from this scriptural reference, that looks like the practice to me at this time, but whenever they do communion, it was to be done only in remembrance of Jesus Christ in proclaiming His death till He comes.,

 

[ChristB4us]

.
I was brought up in a denomination wherein the Lord's Supper was called
Communion, and we consumed Jesus' flesh and blood by means of a process
called transubstantiation; in accord with John 6:53-58.
_

You should prove all things with Jesus Christ because what Jesus was talking about in John 6:28-71 was about how we are saved by coming to and believing in Jesus Christ; that is how they were to receive the bread of life.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

They had asked Jesus fir that bread of life and He told them how to receive that bread of life by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ but they did not believe Him.

The Jews were stuck in that mindset of eating manna from heaven like their forefathers but no. So the verses you cited for transubstantiation is misapplied because Jesus was just referring to His crucifixion; not communion. Look a John 6:35 as proof that He was not talking about communion for that promise is to never thirst nor hunger again and so if the RCC applied your reference to mean communion, then they would only have to take communion one time and that is it, but no.

Jesus explained it plainly to His disciples that the flesh profiteth nothing in verse 63 for He was talking about how we are saved and even inferred His ascension which was to take place after His crucifixion in verse 62.

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him

It is by coming to and believing in Jesus Christ is how we are saved; not by coming to the Mass for receiving the one time sacrifice for sins again to receive atonement for sins since last Mass. That would be insulting the blood of the New Covenant for putting His blood on par with the blood of goats and bulls that it bears repeating again. It does not, because the Holy Spirit in believers is proof of that.

Hebrews 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: ............

So there is a danger to Catholics continuing in the Mass for why they should stop doing that and only do it in remembrance of Him which is anathema to the RCC for why saved believers should leave the RCC.

That sin willfully part is about having knowledge that there is no more sacrifice for sins to be had or received and yet they are sinning willfully in the Mass.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Catholics are still saved and still His people for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God has raised Him from the dead, but the Mass is a work of iniquity.

It does not matter if they believe Jesus is "willing" to make that one time sacrifice for sins "present" for them to receive again because that is the same thing as saying His blood was not good enough the first time when shed on the cross.

The fact that all Catholics that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God has raised Him from the dead are saved thus born again of the Spirit, thus having the Holy Spirit in them is evidence that there is no more sacrifice for sins to be received "any more".

All believers has to do for the forgiveness of sins is go to Jesus Christ and ask Him for it & His help not to commit that sin again because they are His and thus saved.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

That is the truth as found in the scriptures and may those that fear Him, heed His words to repent and rejoice and hold communion in remembrance of what He has done; what He has accomplished as "it is finished" in remembering * proclaiming the Lord's death till He comes.

 

[ChristB4us]

I wish to share that Protestant Churches are not understanding the Lord's supper when they believe Christ's presence is in the bread and the wine thus committing idolatry and that they are receiving "spiritual benefits" when holding "holy" communion as they see the bread and the wine as "sacraments", terms carried over in the Reformation which should have been dropped all together also, and not just the terms of Eucharist and the Mass.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Some even begin communion service with " we come into His Present today.." as if He is not in us and with us always. Since He is in us and with us always, there is no coming into His Presence anywhere, especially at communion.

We certainly not receiving Him again les we ignore Paul's warning below in those preaching another receiving of Jesus....

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

The consequence? I see it below. Do you as communion is not another way to come to God the father by but Jesus Christ is the only way.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

 

[Eleanor]

I offer the following on the Lord's Supper:

1) John Calvin said: "I am not satisfied with those persons who, recognizing that we have some communion with Christ, when they would show what it is, make us partakers of the Spirit only, omitting mention of flesh and blood. As though all these things were said in vain: that his flesh is truly food, that is blood is truly drink (Jn 6:55); that none have life except those who eat his flesh and drink his blood (Jn 6:53); and other passages pertaining to the same thing."
---Institutes, IV, XVII, 7

"Other passages pertaining to the same thing" being Mt 26:26-28, 1 Co 10:16, 18, 11:27, 29.

2) The Lord's Supper is prefigured in:

a) Passover meal commemorating their delivery from the angel of death in Egypt, by the blood of the lamb, which Jesus changed to a commemoration of our deliverance from eternal death, by the blood of the Lamb on Calvary (1 Co 11:25). In that meal, they were commanded to eat the flesh of the lamb that was slain (Ex 12:3-11, Dt 16:17).

b) Peace (or Fellowship) sacrifice of Lev 3 (also 7:14-21, 19:5-8), where of the five different sacrifices, the only sacrifice eaten by the Israelites was the peace (or fellowship) offering, whose purpose was threefold: peace with God, thanksgiving to God, and fellowship with God and the priest who offered it. The flesh of the sacrifice was eaten in a fellowship or communion meal where, on the basis of the sacrifice, the offerer participated in the benefits of the sacrifice, I.e., restoration of peace and fellowship with God.

c) Covenant meal on Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:4-11), which is the most complete picture of the Lord's Supper (Mt 26:26-28) and where, having made atonement by (death) burnt offering (v. 5), a covenant is established between God (represented by an altar, which were erected to honor God--Ge 8:20, 12:7, 13:8, 26:25, 33;20, 35:1, Ex 17:15) and Israel (represented by 12 pillars), probably with Moses passing between them as Mediator (Ex 32:30), as in Ge 15:8-9. The covenant was then ratified by both parties, and sealed by the sprinkling of blood on both parties (vv. 6-8). Being sealed in covenant with them, God then admits them near to him (vv. 9-10), where they feast on the fellowship offering (v. 5) in the presence of God (v. 11, cf Dt 27:7), receiving or participating in the benefits of it (1 Co 10:18) because of that covenant.
Other covenant feasts are found in Ge 16:28-30, 31:44-47, 2 Sa 3:20.

Throughout the Bible, eating with is a symbol of communion with; e.g., Rev 3:20 where Jesus says, "Here I am. I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me," a symbol of our communion with Jesus. And in Rev 19, we have the marriage supper of the Lamb, a symbol of the communion of the Church with Jesus (cf Mt 8:11, Lk 13:29, 22:30).

d) Feeding of the 5,000 in Jn 6 brings us to our fourth picture of the Lord's Supper. There, the sick, the lame, the lonely, the lost, and the confused, who had received healing and comfort from the works and words of Jesus, are served a feast which satiated them all, as they ate and rejoiced with one another in the love of Jesus. And it is out of this fellowship meal (Jn 6:1-15) that came the discourse of Jn 6:30-60 on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which many of the disciples were not able to accept, Jesus himself linking the two (Jn 6:26-32).

It is Paul who puts all of these pictures together in 1 Co 10:16 when he says, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation (communion) in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation (communion) in the body of Christ?" While in 1 Co 11:27 he states, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. . .For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." And in 1 Co 11:30, he applies Lev 7:20 on the fellowship offering to the Lord's Supper.

So in light of all the above, we can see what Jesus means at the Last Supper when he takes bread, gives thanks, gives it to them and says, "Take and eat; this is my body." And when he takes the cup, gives thanks, gives it to them and says, "Drink. . .this is my blood of the new covenant. . ." To eat his flesh and to drink his blood in the Lord's Supper is to participate in, or to receive, the benefits of the sacrifice of that flesh and flood. And the OT types show what those benefits are: passing over me of God's judgment of eternal death on my sin, cleansing of my guilt, acceptance and peace with God (Ge 26:28-30, 31:51-54), adoption as sons, access to the throne of grace, promises of the covenant, and eternal life.

Jesus' body is the living bread given on the cross for the life of the world, which life is appropriated (eaten) through faith in his atoning sacrifice. Unless you appropriate (eat) Jesus, through faith in his sacrifice, as the sustenance of eternal life, you will have no eternal life in you (Jn 6:51-53).

 

[Josheb]

3 witnesses, who are inspired bible writers, who wrote bible books say the passover began that night after sundown. That is all i need.

Well, let's look at that in greater detail shalle we?


I have already showed how Matthew explicitly stated Jesus was taken to Pilate the next day. Matthew recounts Jesus' Passover meal in chapter 26.

Matthew 26:1-2, 17-21
When Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion." ...........Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with my disciples."'" The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. As they were eating, he said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray me."

In two days he'd be handed over for crucifixion. According to the Jewish ritual, the first day is the day of remembrance, not the day of preparation. According to Matthew, they prepared the Passover on the first day, the day of remembrance. The prepared the day before the day of preparation. They ate that same evening. Therefore, Matthew, an inspired Bible writer, disagrees with you.

Mark's account is found i chapter 14 of his gospel.

Mark 14:1, 12-17
Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize him by stealth and kill him......... On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, his disciples said to him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, 'The teacher says, "Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?"' And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there." The disciples went out and came to the city and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover. When it was evening, he came with the twelve.

Mark has Jesus eating Passover on the day of preparation, not the day of remembrance. Luke makes the same report.

Luke 22:7-13
Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it." They said to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare it?" And He said to them, "When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' "And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there." And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

John, as has already been evidenced, has Jesus eating the Passover a day early.

3 witnesses, who are inspired bible writers, who wrote bible books say the passover began that night after sundown. That is all i need.

No, only two witnesses, not three, and those two were not there. The two inspired Bible writers that were there both say he at his Passover a day early. Jesus knew he'd be crucified on the day of the Passover Sabbath. There is a reason for the seeming disparity but it's not specifically germane to the subject of this op. Perhaps once the matter of understanding the Lord's Supper is resolved the seeming discrepancy can be discussed. Until then you don't have three; you have only two and neither of them were actually there.

3 witnesses, who are inspired bible writers, who wrote bible books say the passover began that night after sundown. That is all i need.

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. You're not dealing with your own position. If those three inspired writers said Jesus ate his Passover meal on the Passover meal night, then you still have Jesus dying after Passover, not on Passover. This is the necessary consequent of your position. I'm not attempting to force you to change your position. I am asking you to look at the very real and necessary consequences of your stated position.


Your op is posted for the purpose of understanding the Lord's Supper. Since the Lord's Supper is inherently tied to the precursor of the Jewish Passover (now fulfilled in Christ) and your timeline dictates a post-Passover crucifixion these are necessarily germane to (correctly) understanding the Lord's Supper. Even though I disagree, I will work with your timeline. Jesus ate Passover on the night of Preparation, the night the Passover meal was traditionally eaten and then, the next day, the day after Passover, he was crucified.

With those positions in mind, do please elaborate on what you think is the correct understanding of the Lord's Supper.

Move the conversation forward.

 

[ChristB4us]

I offer the following on the Lord's Supper:

1) John Calvin said: "I am not satisfied with those persons who, recognizing that we have some communion with Christ, when they would show what it is, make us partakers of the Spirit only, omitting mention of flesh and blood. As though all these things were said in vain: that his flesh is truly food, that is blood is truly drink (Jn 6:55); that none have life except those who eat his flesh and drink his blood (Jn 6:53); and other passages pertaining to the same thing."
---Institutes, IV, XVII, 7

"Other passages pertaining to the same thing" being Mt 26:26-28, 1 Co 10:16, 18, 11:27, 29.

John Calvin is not the one to be proving the scriptures with. Jesus Christ is.

If you apply certain scriptures out of context of what Jesus is talking about from John 6:28-71 like the Catholics did, I cannot stop you, but you should apply what He said to His disciples about how the flesh profit nothing rather than what He has said to the unbelieving Jews.

John 3:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is by believing in Him and His words that by believing in Him is HOW they can receive the bread of life.

If you apply John 6:28-71 as if He is talking about communion, then why did He not provided communion at the time they had asked Him for that bread of life in verse 34 below?

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

So if you were to apply the promise of John 6:35 to communion, then you would only have to take communion once, right? So no. Jesus was not talking about communion but about His coming crucifixion.

When He talked plainly to His disciples, He referred to His ascension in John 3:62 to explain He was not talking about His flesh in communion as the flesh profits nothing in John 6:63 because He was talking about how to receive eternal life and that was by coming to & believing in Him and that is why John Calvin is wrong.

Jesus gave the same references to His ascension and to His crucifixion in explaining to Nicodemus on how one is born again of the Spirit and that is by believing in Him.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus is not teaching idolatry which is what the bread and the wine is as made with men's hands to believe His Presence is in them, but leave it to the RCC to make outward social compromises to avoid following martyrdom of Peter & Paul in Rome.

 

[Eleanor]

duplicate

 

[Eleanor]

John Calvin is not the one to be proving the scriptures with. Jesus Christ is.

Who said otherwise?

 

[Keiw1]

Your insistence of it to be done on the night of the Passover is adding to His Words. Why not insist on having that Passover supper, the lamb sacrifice, and then conclude with the communion too?

What He did say to do communion for is just in remembrance of Him and that is whenever they do communion.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

One can say that a year has gone by after that event at Pentecost before they held that breaking of the bread again on Passover but I do not believe that is what is conveyed here. It seems to me that communion was held soon after.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Here it is specified when they had broken bread on the first day of the week, rather than specifying it was on the Passover.

Paul had to write a rebuke for how believers were coming to church each Sunday, that first day of the week.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

So the last two verses sounds like they held communion every week for why Paul insisted that believers eat at home to avoid using the bread and the wine at church service for their meals so that everyone can have communion.

Now Paul did not say they had to do communion every week either. But from this scriptural reference, that looks like the practice to me at this time, but whenever they do communion, it was to be done only in remembrance of Jesus Christ in proclaiming His death till He comes.,

The passover = Israels firstborn being SAVED, then Israel being saved from Pharoah--The Lords supper emblems= Mortals being saved and given an opportunity for everlasting life( being saved) -- He chose that night for that reason.

 

[Mr GLee]

Well, let's look at that in greater detail shalle we?


I have already showed how Matthew explicitly stated Jesus was taken to Pilate the next day. Matthew recounts Jesus' Passover meal in chapter 26.

Matthew 26:1-2, 17-21
When Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion." ...........Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with my disciples."'" The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. As they were eating, he said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray me."

In two days he'd be handed over for crucifixion. According to the Jewish ritual, the first day is the day of remembrance, not the day of preparation. According to Matthew, they prepared the Passover on the first day, the day of remembrance. The prepared the day before the day of preparation. They ate that same evening. Therefore, Matthew, an inspired Bible writer, disagrees with you.

Mark's account is found i chapter 14 of his gospel.

Mark 14:1, 12-17
Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize him by stealth and kill him......... On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, his disciples said to him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, 'The teacher says, "Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?"' And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there." The disciples went out and came to the city and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover. When it was evening, he came with the twelve.

Mark has Jesus eating Passover on the day of preparation, not the day of remembrance. Luke makes the same report.

Luke 22:7-13
Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it." They said to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare it?" And He said to them, "When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' "And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there." And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

John, as has already been evidenced, has Jesus eating the Passover a day early.

No, only two witnesses, not three, and those two were not there. The two inspired Bible writers that were there both say he at his Passover a day early. Jesus knew he'd be crucified on the day of the Passover Sabbath. There is a reason for the seeming disparity but it's not specifically germane to the subject of this op. Perhaps once the matter of understanding the Lord's Supper is resolved the seeming discrepancy can be discussed. Until then you don't have three; you have only two and neither of them were actually there.

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. You're not dealing with your own position. If those three inspired writers said Jesus ate his Passover meal on the Passover meal night, then you still have Jesus dying after Passover, not on Passover. This is the necessary consequent of your position. I'm not attempting to force you to change your position. I am asking you to look at the very real and necessary consequences of your stated position.


Your op is posted for the purpose of understanding the Lord's Supper. Since the Lord's Supper is inherently tied to the precursor of the Jewish Passover (now fulfilled in Christ) and your timeline dictates a post-Passover crucifixion these are necessarily germane to (correctly) understanding the Lord's Supper. Even though I disagree, I will work with your timeline. Jesus ate Passover on the night of Preparation, the night the Passover meal was traditionally eaten and then, the next day, the day after Passover, he was crucified.

With those positions in mind, do please elaborate on what you think is the correct understanding of the Lord's Supper.

Move the conversation forward.

Thanks for that. Do you think the three days and nights promised demonstration began in the garden of Gethsemane on Thursday evening?

 

[ChristB4us]

Who said otherwise?

Just pointing out that John Calvin is wrong in this regard for why we should lean on Jesus Christ and trust Him as our Good Shepherd & Friend to help us to understand and abide in His words in following Him as His disciples.

 

[ChristB4us]

The passover = Israels firstborn being SAVED, then Israel being saved from Pharoah--The Lords supper emblems= Mortals being saved and given an opportunity for everlasting life( being saved) -- He chose that night for that reason.

That does not validate how you added to His words that they were to do this in remembrance of Him only on that night.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Not to mention how He was not crucified yet for when He did that "communion" for His disciples, thus proving it to be symbolic for what was to come.