You don't think the Lord's Supper was given by God??

[Bananna]

This looked like a really good discussion. I made a thread for it.

Bananna

[A_Pioneer]

The "Lords Supper" is wholely man made.
What it is drawn from is of God, but not the service of the Christian Church.
Good to see you around Bananna.

Shalom

[GerTzedek]

"Do this."

Nuff said.

[Kalanit]

"... as you are sitting back, enjoying the Passover meal, do these things and remember Me - the passover lamb."

Not "every month do this, or every week do this... " like the Church has taught.

[GerTzedek]

"... as you are sitting back, enjoying the Passover meal, do these things and remember Me - the passover lamb."

Not "every month do this, or every week do this... " like the Church has taught.
The apostolic fathers were trained by the apostles, or trained by those trained by the apostles, the apostles trained by the Lord himself. How did it go wrong by the time of the apostolic fathers, given that the apostles only ordained those they could trust to teach properly what they were taught? Please make sure your answer is plausible.

[Bananna]

It would seem it went wrong when they took the Jews out of the picture and started persecuting them.

However Passover happened as Yeshua hung on the cross, whas not the feast the night before only a partial prefeast after the removal of unleavened bread? Therefore in teaching the parts of the passover to his disciples Yeshua said "Do this in rememberance of me"

Quite frankly the bread and wine are taken at every Jewish meal and I am thinking that Yeshua meant literally not just at passover but as often as you bless your bread and wine, Remember who really sustains us.

Bananna

[ContraMundum]

The Church has always met for "eucharist" (as it is called in scripture - ευχαριστέω- 1 Cor 11:24 etc etc) at LEAST weekly.

We know of NO time when it has been otherwise.

This has nothing to do with "getting rid" of the Passover or some other conspiracy theory.

We all agree that Christ instituted this eucharist (thanksgiving) at the Passover, however, it is not to be restricted to the Passover, as is clear in the scriptures and the living, unbroken and continuing practice of the Body of Christ, His Church. Nor does it replace the Passover.

Simply put, the eucharist is NOT the "new" passover meal. It is a communion with the Body and the Blood of Jesus with the elements of bread and wine (1 Cor 10:16,17). It is a great feast like the Passover, but much more, because it is an "anamesis"- a "remembrance" that is also an actual communion.

Why Bread and Wine? Because Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizidek, who brought bread and wine to Abraham, and when Christ gave His disciples the command "this do", those ministers become His emissaries to "do" it. Just like preaching, baptism and healing or whatever.

Christ as a priest in the Order of Melchizidek brings bread and wine to His disciples, they bring it to us.

I think the question is a no-brainer. Of course God gave us the "thanksgiving/eucharist/Lord's Supper/mass/ whatever-name-or-names-you-prefer-to-call-it-by".

[GerTzedek]

It would seem it went wrong when they took the Jews out of the picture and started persecuting them.

However Passover happened as Yeshua hung on the cross, whas not the feast the night before only a partial prefeast after the removal of unleavened bread? Therefore in teaching the parts of the passover to his disciples Yeshua said "Do this in rememberance of me"

Quite frankly the bread and wine are taken at every Jewish meal and I am thinking that Yeshua meant literally not just at passover but as often as you bless your bread and wine, Remember who really sustains us.

Bananna
Since that happened AFTER the establishment of eucharist as a rite, I rest my case.

[Bananna]

Since that happened AFTER the establishment of eucharist as a rite, I rest my case.
What in your opinion happened after the eucharist? The blessing of the bread and wine is an anchient custom as I understood it to be a commentary on the messiah that was well established before Christ.

This weeks Parsha commetary dealt with this oral tradition.

Just like the first five books of the bible tell of a time before Moses, so to does the Talmud record things said and argued long before Yeshua was born.

Bananna

[simchat_torah]

I think Transubstantiation was borrowed from the Dyonosis cult. The Seder is complete in itself and the odd blending of the pagan practice and the seder to make the Eucharist is.... frankly... gross.

In my opinion anyway.

[stone]

The apostolic fathers were trained by the apostles, or trained by those trained by the apostles, the apostles trained by the Lord himself. How did it go wrong by the time of the apostolic fathers, given that the apostles only ordained those they could trust to teach properly what they were taught? Please make sure your answer is plausible.


I'll give an example of another situation that may be a good answer.


It's an old elementary school game. You take about 20 or so people and sit them in a circle. The 1st one whispers a story into the ear of one sitting next to them and that person continues to retell the story till it goes all the way around and back to the original teller of the story.

[Bananna]

I think Transubstantiation was borrowed from the Dyonosis cult. The Seder is complete in itself and the odd blending of the pagan practice and the seder to make the Eucharist is.... frankly... gross.

In my opinion anyway.

Transubstantiation is a part of whose belief system?

Is this a cult practise from before Christ or after him?

bananna

[stone]

The Church has always met for "eucharist" (as it is called in scripture - ευχαριστέω- 1 Cor 11:24 etc etc) at LEAST weekly.

We know of NO time when it has been otherwise.

This has nothing to do with "getting rid" of the Passover or some other conspiracy theory.

We all agree that Christ instituted this eucharist (thanksgiving) at the Passover, however, it is not to be restricted to the Passover, as is clear in the scriptures and the living, unbroken and continuing practice of the Body of Christ, His Church. Nor does it replace the Passover.

Simply put, the eucharist is NOT the "new" passover meal. It is a communion with the Body and the Blood of Jesus with the elements of bread and wine (1 Cor 10:16,17). It is a great feast like the Passover, but much more, because it is an "anamesis"- a "remembrance" that is also an actual communion.

Why Bread and Wine? Because Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizidek, who brought bread and wine to Abraham, and when Christ gave His disciples the command "this do", those ministers become His emissaries to "do" it. Just like preaching, baptism and healing or whatever.

Christ as a priest in the Order of Melchizidek brings bread and wine to His disciples, they bring it to us.

I think the question is a no-brainer. Of course God gave us the "thanksgiving/eucharist/Lord's Supper/mass/ whatever-name-or-names-you-prefer-to-call-it-by".


I was asked recently about why would i place a yoke on a believer by requireing them to eat kosher? I answered that i don't require them of it, but i'm not going to tell them that its ok to not eat kosher, that's teaching lawlessness. I said that by my example i show others that it is not difficult to do.


Why would the l-rd place a yoke on believers to keep this eucharist everyday? Even if its not everyday and once a week, isn't this now crossing the line of salvation through works?

[Bananna]

The Church has always met for "eucharist" (as it is called in scripture - ευχαριστέω- 1 Cor 11:24 etc etc) at LEAST weekly.

We know of NO time when it has been otherwise.

This has nothing to do with "getting rid" of the Passover or some other conspiracy theory.

We all agree that Christ instituted this eucharist (thanksgiving) at the Passover, however, it is not to be restricted to the Passover, as is clear in the scriptures and the living, unbroken and continuing practice of the Body of Christ, His Church. Nor does it replace the Passover.

Simply put, the eucharist is NOT the "new" passover meal. It is a communion with the Body and the Blood of Jesus with the elements of bread and wine (1 Cor 10:16,17). It is a great feast like the Passover, but much more, because it is an "anamesis"- a "remembrance" that is also an actual communion.

Why Bread and Wine? Because Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizidek, who brought bread and wine to Abraham, and when Christ gave His disciples the command "this do", those ministers become His emissaries to "do" it. Just like preaching, baptism and healing or whatever.

Christ as a priest in the Order of Melchizidek brings bread and wine to His disciples, they bring it to us.

I think the question is a no-brainer. Of course God gave us the "thanksgiving/eucharist/Lord's Supper/mass/ whatever-name-or-names-you-prefer-to-call-it-by".

While what you just said might be grossly misunderstood by some... This is basically my understanding also. It was not a strictly Passover practise and weekly would have been part of bringing in Shabbat as part of the Messianic promise.

I found the passages we discussed in Torah study on the issue.

Deuteronomy 7:13
1 Cornthians 15:36-38
Deuteronomy Rabbah 3:5
"Why does the scripture compare the fruit of the ground? God said, "as the fruit of your ground will grow abundantly, so too will the fruit of your body." Another explanation says, " Just as there can be no sin or iniquity in the fruit of your ground, so there will be neither sin nor iniquitey in the fruit of your body."

Jeremiah 31:11-12
Hosea 2:21-22
Joel 2:19
Joel 2:23-24
Deuteronomy 7:14

Okay like I'm tired of typing all these.... LOL Nothing like a diaper needing changing to get me back to realiality...
Blessings
bananna

[simchat_torah]

Transubstantiation is a part of whose belief system?Traditional Christianity such as Catholocism. Since Protestant Christianity (and subsequently MJ'ism) is a relatively modern invention, the idea of communion itself was largely borrowed from Catholocism. While many practices and traditions were tossed aside, this one in particular was kept.... though slightly altered (transubstantiation was removed as a theological belief, but communion itself remained).

Is this a cult practise from before Christ or after him?before, contemporary, and after. Dionysus, the Grecian g-d of wine and celebration, was also known as Bacchus to the Romans. I'm not sure when Dionysus began as a cult, but Bacchus was introduced to Rome circa 200 B.C.E.

The practice of transubstantiation in the Dionysus cult was called Omophagia. The cultists would tear apart the flesh of a bull, and once consumed the flesh would literally become the flesh of the deity within their bodies, giving them special "powers of the spirit". They would also crush grapes and drink the "blood" of the grapes, believing the grape juice would become the blood of the deity, resulting in the infusing of the "spirit of the g-d" empowering them.

Transubstantiation has been well documented, showing its direct correlation and invention stemming from Omophagia. Transubstantiation is where one partakes in the Eucharist, when eating the communion bread it literally becomes the body of Jesus inside of their stomach, and the grape juice becomes the blood of Jesus.

There's tons of well documented research showing the origins of Transubstantiation having roots in Omophagia.

But the question remains...
Since Protestant Christianity (and subsequently MJ'ism) removed this theology (that the bread becomes the body and the wine or juice becomes the blood, literally) does communion still have pagan roots? Or because the practice was changed theologically, is it now removed from pagan origins? I would argue it is the same, merely evolved a second time.

[HeatherMicaela]

The "eucharist" as a big church-led event is man made. The Passover Supper is created by G-d and refined by Yeshua.

I think that there are passages that lead one to belive that the "do this in remembrence of me" was done during the feasts the believers had. BUt I think its purest observence is during Pesach.

[Henaynei]

The Church has always met for "eucharist" (as it is called in scripture - ευχαριστέω- 1 Cor 11:24 etc etc) at LEAST weekly.

We know of NO time when it has been otherwise.

This has nothing to do with "getting rid" of the Passover or some other conspiracy theory.

We all agree that Christ instituted this eucharist (thanksgiving) at the Passover, however, it is not to be restricted to the Passover, as is clear in the scriptures and the living, unbroken and continuing practice of the Body of Christ, His Church. Nor does it replace the Passover.

Simply put, the eucharist is NOT the "new" passover meal. It is a communion with the Body and the Blood of Jesus with the elements of bread and wine (1 Cor 10:16,17). It is a great feast like the Passover, but much more, because it is an "anamesis"- a "remembrance" that is also an actual communion.

Why Bread and Wine? Because Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizidek, who brought bread and wine to Abraham, and when Christ gave His disciples the command "this do", those ministers become His emissaries to "do" it. Just like preaching, baptism and healing or whatever.

Christ as a priest in the Order of Melchizidek brings bread and wine to His disciples, they bring it to us.

I think the question is a no-brainer. Of course God gave us the "thanksgiving/eucharist/Lord's Supper/mass/ whatever-name-or-names-you-prefer-to-call-it-by".here is where I see a problem begins :) the "L-rd's Supper" and the Love Feast were not the same. It is true that the believers seem to have gathered together frequently to eat together - but that was not the same as the "L-rd's Supper" which was instituted "after the meal when He took the cup .... and blessed it...." That was the 3rd cup of the Seder, the Cup of Redemption. At no other time do Jews take a cup of wine in the middle of a meal and say the brakha... only during the Seder.

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[GerTzedek]

I'll give an example of another situation that may be a good answer.


It's an old elementary school game. You take about 20 or so people and sit them in a circle. The 1st one whispers a story into the ear of one sitting next to them and that person continues to retell the story till it goes all the way around and back to the original teller of the story.
And if there are only three people playing telephone? It just doesn't get that messed up. Paul speaks to the Church at Corinth about the breaking of bread, repeating the words to be said. He speaks about those who receive unworthily, warning it may bring sickness, even death. He speaks with concern about those who "do not recognize the body of the Lord" bringing the judgement of HaShem upon themselves. First generation apostle. The rite of breaking bread is clearly there.

[GerTzedek]

Okay folks, transubstantiation is a real side issue. I have no idea why you feel the need to take this joy ride. But since you want the roller coaster...

Transubstantiation has nothing to do with omophagia. It was an eventual development over time in the western church of the idea of Real Presence.

Real Presence is the idea that the memoreum in the breaking of bread is MORE than only symbolic. Real Presence is the blanket term, under which there are a number of different ways to approach eucharist. The main way it has historically been approached has simply been: a Mystery. In the Eastern Church, they feel no compulsion to nail down precisely what happens into exact sentences, which is more in line with Jewish tradition. The West, however, inherited Greek tradition, and has always felt the compulsion to define and work out the exact truth of everything. The Lutherans of course have their Consubstantiation, which is also a form of Real Presence.

It is clear to me at least from Paul's letter to the Corinthians that the Apostles taught Real Presence, but obviously not every believer accepted the idea.

The differences between the various groups which except Real Presence (Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Mystery) are miniscule compared to the chasm between those that accept Real Presence and those that hold to Symbolic ONLY.

I had never occurred to me that anyone could possibly hold the position that the breaking of bread was not a rite established by the apostles until I came to this forum.

Shalom

[simchat_torah]

Breaking of Bread was a specific practice, also often called a "Love Feast". The community would gather and break bread to share with one another, whereby even the poor could have something to eat. It had nothing to do with what eventually became the Eucharist. Omophagia directly impacted the theology of transubstantiation though. This can be learned even through a simple encyclopedia. Its not renegade scholarship that presents the thought. It isn't some wacky out there internet site. It is simple history.

But...

Why you question bringing up transub. in a thread about the Eucharist is beyond me... the two are entwined to the heart. Only someone of a strict protestant upbringing who despised all things Catholic would question the validity in a thread discussing such practices. Moreover, the Catholic practice is the origin of the Protestant practice! How silly to say it doesn't belong in the thread?

[simchat_torah]

are miniscule compared to the chasm between those that accept Real Presence and those that hold to Symbolic ONLY.

Yes, absolutely. Only those who are ardent anti-catholic will say there is no direct link... which is just silly.

To borrow a practice from catholocism and then take away the meaning and at the same time claim that it doesn't have pagan origins (when it was clearly derived from paganism in its catholic conception) doesn't make sense to me.

[GerTzedek]

I was asked recently about why would i place a yoke on a believer by requireing them to eat kosher? I answered that i don't require them of it, but i'm not going to tell them that its ok to not eat kosher, that's teaching lawlessness. I said that by my example i show others that it is not difficult to do.


Why would the l-rd place a yoke on believers to keep this eucharist everyday? Even if its not everyday and once a week, isn't this now crossing the line of salvation through works?

Oh these are such delicious questions!

The reason you tell a gentile it is okay to eat non-kosher food is because you have been instructed by the apostles and bishops to say so!! We are under their authority. The council of Yerushalayim was very clear on this decision, as recorded in Acts 15. Further, just in case you want to slide out of it by saying it was temporary, Ya'akov (James) reiterates the decision years later in Acts 21. Jews are under Mosaic covenant for behavior. Gentiles are under Noachide covenant for behavior. You and I do not have some sort of private authority to overturn this. We are not some sort of "independent Pope" or "self-styled Moshe."

So let's talk about that authority, because your next question hinges upon it as well.

The apostles created a new sort of "semicha" or ordination for the new gentile churches. They ordained helpers aka deacons (diakonos), elders or presbyters/priests (presbyteros), and overseers or bishops (episkopos). To these, especially the presbyteros and episkopos, they passed on their teaching authority. Remember that the only existing scriptures were the Hebrew scriptures. The only teaching of the gospel and faith traditions were orally taught, so the teachers had to be very carefully trained and chosen.

Those bishops in turn ordained bishops to succeed them, and so on, in a new unbroken chain, analogous to the one Moshe had created with his original 40 elders. Except this one was for the gentile churches.

Just as Moshe's elders had AUTHORITY to interpret law, to create a binding oral Torah, these new elders and overseers in the Church also had AUTHORITY to create binding oral tradition for the gentile churches.

The answer to your question, why must I receive eucharist once a week? Because the bishops have determined it so. This is oral tradition. It is binding. It is "Christian Halakhah."

[simchat_torah]

Acutally, Ger... you believe as you wish ;)

I've given you the basics to searching it out on your own if you're interested. Suffice it to say there is plenty of scholastic evidence that the Eucharist is directly evolved from Omophagia, but I'll let you make up your own mind, I'm not going to bother forcing you to believe ;)

But if you have specific questions or things you want to address, I'll be more than happy to answer those.

[GerTzedek]

To borrow a practice from catholocism and then take away the meaning and at the same time claim that it doesn't have pagan origins (when it was clearly derived from paganism in its catholic conception) doesn't make sense to me.Nothing to do with paganism. Sometimes things just happen that are similar.

It has entirely to do with, "This is my body..." "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have not life within you."

[GerTzedek]

Acutally, Ger... you believe as you wish ;)I really like you. You are very good at knowing how to disagree agreeably. Where is that reputation button?

[simchat_torah]

Nothing to do with paganism. Sometimes things just happen that are similar.So, to recap:
*the leadership of the Ecumenical council just so happened to be high priests in various pagan cults
*specifically those involving Omophagia
*and the Eucharist did not exist before said Ecumenical council's influence over early Christianity....
....was all a coincidence?

It has entirely to do with, "This is my body..." "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have not life within you."So... no chance that this was added later? No chance it could possibly mean something else? No chance that there isn't a coincidence between the Eucharist and Omophagia?

No chance that various scholars at Princeton could be right? No chance that most encyclopedia's which happen to cite Omophagia as the source to the Eucharist would be right? No chance that such noted scholars such as Seaford, Charlesworth, etc could be right? No chance that the Encyclopedia of Religion or the Encyclopedia Mythica which both cite omophagia as the source for the Eucharist is correct?

We should just chalk it all up to coincidence you say?

interesting.

[simchat_torah]

I really like you. You are very good at knowing how to disagree agreeably. Where is that reputation button?hehe, don't worry... you'll hate me soon enough ;)

And as far as that button... IT seems I'm a bafoon. I've been on this forum longer than anyone else in this section, yet I still don't know how to use half of the functions of CF. I guess I'm too thick headed to know how to place that button on my posts.

lol

[RebbeCohen]

Eucharist, Communion, The L-rd's Supperl no matter what you call it, its still the same thing.

Catholcis and the other Liturgical Churches practice it one way, Protestants do it another way.

the core scripture is: "As oft as you do this, do so in remberance of Me."

Whatever you call it, it is ordained in scripture. Therefore it is not a pagan practice.

[GerTzedek]

So, to recap:
*the leadership of the Ecumenical council just so happened to be high priests in various pagan cults
*specifically those involving Omophagia

you really believe this?


*and the Eucharist did not exist before said Ecumenical council's influence over early Christianity....
I've already shown you where it existed in the time of the apostles. So much for the brilliance of the scholars you are noting.

These are the same sort of scholars that have no respect for the hebrew scriptures either. My guess would be, if any of them are anti-semitic, they likely don't believe the holocaust ever happened. They rewrite history to their liking.

I am not anti-scholarship. Trust me, I left fundamentalism decades ago back in childhood. But this? This is just another brand of fundamentalism, not true scholarship. The point may be different, but the thinking is the same: decide first, then prove it.

[simchat_torah]

I've already shown you where it existed in the time of the apostles.What you showed me is that they "broke bread". I already addressed this (As did Henaynei). "Breaking of Bread" was a common Jewish custom also referred to as a "Love Feast". At a Love Feast the whole community would gather together and break bread, sharing equally with the poor, hungry, and rich.

It had nothing to do with the Eucharist.


So much for the brilliance of the scholars you are noting.
Seaford is one of the primary sources most Encyclopedias turn to. Charlesworth (someone who I am more intimately familiar with) is the world's leading scholar on the DSS and the early messianic sect of Judaism. He is one of few that Israel has allowed hands on with the DSS in order to do direct manuscript translations. He is a widely known scholar that teaches at Princeton and often graces Hebrew University in Israel as well. He is nothing short of brilliant.

But the shcolarship I presented wasn't something from the rogue far left, something radical if you will. No, what I've presented has become accepted as the norm in acedamia.
These are the same sort of scholars that have no respect for the hebrew scriptures either. My guess would be, if any of them are anti-semitic, they likely don't believe the holocaust ever happened. What an utterly silly and baseless accusation. It is especially silly in light of the fact that Charlesworth works directly with Hebrew University in Israel and is probably the world's foremost scholar on the early messianic sect of Jews.

Not only is this accusation unrelated, but is merely a ploy to stir emotions. Why would you even present such?

I am not anti-scholarship. Trust me, I left fundamentalism decades ago back in childhood. But this? This is just another brand of fundamentalism, not true scholarship. Maybe you're not familiar with your terms. Christian Fundies would believe exactly contrary to what I've presented. They would believe traditional Christian theories of the Eucharist.

But aside from that, anyone who is truly interested in shcolastic pursuits of their faith would put aside personal feelings when exploring the sources. One would cautiously examine the origins of the sources, and if true they would inspect the source material quite closely. If the sources run contrary to what you believe one would change their beliefs, not reject the sources.

decide first, then prove it.

A true scholar would not decide first. They would discover first, then decide.

Interestingly though, you have wholly ignored my question:
So... no chance that this was added later? No chance it could possibly mean something else? No chance that there isn't a coincidence between the Eucharist and Omophagia?

No chance that various scholars at Princeton could be right? No chance that most encyclopedia's which happen to cite Omophagia as the source to the Eucharist would be right? No chance that such noted scholars such as Seaford, Charlesworth, etc could be right? No chance that the Encyclopedia of Religion or the Encyclopedia Mythica which both cite omophagia as the source for the Eucharist is correct?

We should just chalk it all up to coincidence you say?

[ContraMundum]

Why would the l-rd place a yoke on believers to keep this eucharist everyday? Even if its not everyday and once a week, isn't this now crossing the line of salvation through works?

He doesn't. I don't think I said that, did I? If I did, it's my fault. The early Christians had the eucharist daily in places. That's all I meant to say.

[ContraMundum]

Acutally, Ger... you believe as you wish ;)

I've given you the basics to searching it out on your own if you're interested. Suffice it to say there is plenty of scholastic evidence that the Eucharist is directly evolved from Omophagia, but I'll let you make up your own mind, I'm not going to bother forcing you to believe ;)

But if you have specific questions or things you want to address, I'll be more than happy to answer those.

Simcha, I don't think you're understanding this correctly.

I think you're confusing the word Eucharist with various interpretations of what happens during that rite.

The Eucharist itself is straight out of the Bible, and the word "eucharist" is straight out of the accounts of the institution of that rite. It means "thanksgiving". You can read it in black and red in any Greek Bible.

Also, I'd like to take up your comments here.

There is not one single solitary reputable scholar that says the Eucharist is taken out of some other religion. It is taken directly from the NT, from the words of Jesus at a Passover Seder. Anyone can read that for themselves.

What the modern humanist scholars have tried to prove is a link between the eucharistic doctrine of transubstantiation and paganism. This is another issue altogether- and one, incidentaly, that I think is also a flawed polemic against Christians at large. A number of well versed scholars have shown that allegation to be largely false.

I could recommend a number of books to you, but they would be hard to get, out of print and I doubt they would be online. However, the old allegation that sacramental theology developed out of paganism is based on a a small few 19thC books written from poor source material. This has been well documented.

Please keep in mind that the false allegations against the Christian church on this matter are just as insulting to Christians as the blood libel issue is to us Jews.

While the "pagan origins of the Christian myth" is popular amongst atheist and anti-Catholics, and therefore rife on the net, it does not stack up in academic circles- and it even lacks support among the academic voices of other religions.

If I can find something on the net about this, I will post it.

Although I do not personally believe in transubstantiation, I do not think it is all that easily linked to paganism, and even if it was, it could still be true. God has always inplanted dreams in the minds of those far from Him. We can prove that point from a Jewish perspective too.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

By ap f do you mean church f (the early apostate ones that persecuted the true followers of Yeshua before and after 300a.d.) ?
Whoever the apostles ordained, if any, if they stayed true to Yhwh's Plan, were hunted down, persecuted and executed by the gov and religious officials by 300a.d.. and following years to the present.
"by the time" ? --- already when the apostle paul was still writing, he warned that there were "many antichrists 'among' us" and that he knew the wolves were going to tear up the flock when he departed. thus they did (and continue to today) . . .

The apostolic fathers were trained by the apostles, or trained by those trained by the apostles, the apostles trained by the Lord himself. How did it go wrong by the time of the apostolic fathers, given that the apostles only ordained those they could trust to teach properly what they were taught? Please make sure your answer is plausible.

[Ivy]

Quite frankly the bread and wine are taken at every Jewish meal and I am thinking that Yeshua meant literally not just at passover but as often as you bless your bread and wine, Remember who really sustains us.

Bananna

I like that lovely thought, Bananna :thumbsup:

[visionary]

I like that.... grateful for every morsel... knowing our bread and water are sure.

[GerTzedek]

In reponse to your original question:
The near consensus of scholars disagrees.

Has eucharist altared of the centuries? You betcha. Yes, indeed it originally formed the end rite of a love feast. Yet the litrugy of St James the Just, or Ya'akov, who was head of the church in Yerushalayim, minus the trinitarian tag-ons of later years, is THE LITURGY upon which ALL later Christian eucharistic liturgies are built.

The day will come when a portion of Messianics will claim this liturgy back as their own, and rightly so.

[GerTzedek]

By ap f do you mean church f (the early apostate ones that persecuted the true followers of Yeshua before and after 300a.d.) ?
Whoever the apostles ordained, if any, if they stayed true to Yhwh's Plan, were hunted down, persecuted and executed by the gov and religious officials by 300a.d.. and following years to the present.
"by the time" ? --- already when the apostle paul was still writing, he warned that there were "many antichrists 'among' us" and that he knew the wolves were going to tear up the flock when he departed. thus they did (and continue to today) . . .
"Church Fathers" is a broader category. "Apostolic Fathers" is a very narrow category. It means those specifically taught and ordained by an apostle and who left behind written works, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, or Clement .

I'm sure the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "anti-christs among us" would not have been hand-picked by the apostles as successors. Sooner or later folks are gonna have to just deal with the reality that the apostles set up the gentile churches.

[Henaynei]

"Church Fathers" is a broader category. "Apostolic Fathers" is a very narrow category. It means those specifically taught and ordained by an apostle and who left behind written works, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, or Clement .

I'm sure the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "anti-christs among us" would not have been hand-picked by the apostles as successors. Sooner or later folks are gonna have to just deal with the reality that the apostles set up the gentile churches.of course some of them did.... B"H

but it is what the gentiles did after that causes the problem :sigh:

[GerTzedek]

What you showed me is that they "broke bread". I already addressed this (As did Henaynei). "Breaking of Bread" was a common Jewish custom also referred to as a "Love Feast". At a Love Feast the whole community would gather together and break bread, sharing equally with the poor, hungry, and rich.

It had nothing to do with the Eucharist.



Rav Shaul, in his letter to the Church at Corinth, chews them out for the disrespect, sacriledge going on during the breaking of bread. He REPEATS the words of the rite. He lists many conditions that would make a person unworthy. He speaks of those who "DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE BODY OF OUR LORD." And most importantly, he speaks of the consequences of these sacreligious goings on: that people were becoming ill, even dying.

Please, explain to me, do people become ill and die from being rude at a mere love feast? Does the disrespect of a simple symbol bring such consequences upon a person? Does it sound like he is describing Pesach, and consequences connected with it?

I'm not asking that you ultimately agree with me (seperate brains you know!). But please at least don't condescend as if I'm coming out of no where. I have reasons to say what I say.

Thanks in advance!

Shalom

[simchat_torah]

To answer your whole post with one word:
Does it sound like he is describing Pesach, and consequences connected with it?

yes.
























I'll get to CM's later though ;)

[simchat_torah]

But please at least don't condescend as if I'm coming out of no where. I would never think of such a thing. Anyone who is pursuing G-d, and is a prudent student, deserves respect... whether or not I agree with them.

[GerTzedek]

To answer your whole post with one word:

yes.I'll get to CM's later though ;)
Really? People become sick and die for partaking of a Pesach meal "unworthily"???? Please tell me more of this. Are there stories in the Talmud? I'm serious. I'm always into learning more stuff, and if there are midrashim about this, inquiring minds want to know.

[simchat_torah]

Really? People become sick and die for partaking of a Pesach meal "unworthily"???? Please tell me more of this. Are there stories in the Talmud? I'm serious. I'm always into learning more stuff, and if there are midrashim about this, inquiring minds want to know.Oh, I'm sorry... has this ever happened in documented cases of the Eucharist?

I didn't think so.


Maybe... just maybe it wasn't literal? Or was it? hmmm..
"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and have a long life." -Joshua 1:8

The promises of keeping Torah are both literal and figurative. Pesach was given in a specific way and was to be observed as such. When one follows the Torah (ie: not eating pig for example) there are literal health benefits... where one does get to enjoy a long life. There are also spiritual applications.

Considering the context was completely surrounded in Pesach terminology, why create a seperate ritual that has no founding elsewhere? Moreover, your questions to me can be asked of you as well.... (see previous post).

But in the case of following Torah (and Pesach is part of that), I can answer... yes... it does have an impact on your literal lifeline. But I think this was meant both literally and figuratively.

[muffler dragon]

Figured I would go ahead and subscribe to this thread, and urge posters to refrain from making comments such as:

The Passover Supper is created by G-d and refined by Yeshua.

Putting it lightly: this is an insensitive and incorrect comment.

[simchat_torah]

Putting it lightly: this is an insensitive and incorrect comment.
What? You don't believe that G-d got it wrong and "Yeshua" corrected His mistakes?

[GerTzedek]

Oh, I'm sorry... has this ever happened in documented cases of the Eucharist?

Documented? As in explored by the scientific teams of the Vatican? Quite frankly I have no idea. But I didn't ask you for documented cases. I asked for midrashim.

And yes, there are stories of such things in Christianity, beginning, as I said, in Rav Shaul's letter to the church at Corinth. :angel:

Sheesh, you don't even want to start digging into the oral traditions of the Catholic church. It has stories about all sorts of stuff. especially eucharist. We would be here for 40 years trying to cover it all. ^_^

Shalom

[GerTzedek]

Figured I would go ahead and subscribe to this thread, and urge posters to refrain from making comments such as:



Putting it lightly: this is an insensitive and incorrect comment.
I also have to agree. I am not even sure how to put it into words. Often my intuition is three steps ahead of the old brain. I can only say that every bone in my body cringed at this "refined" remark, as if Pesach needed refining.

In all fairness however, it may be simply a poor choice of words, and not authentically representing Heather's thoughts.

[muffler dragon]

I also have to agree. I am not even sure how to put it into words. Often my intuition is three steps ahead of the old brain. I can only say that every bone in my body cringed at this "refined" remark, as if Pesach needed refining.

Understood.

In all fairness however, it may be simply a poor choice of words, and not authentically representing Heather's thoughts.

And, to be honest, I don't have any sort of wording going through my mind that would make her comment any less "jacked-up". Maybe she'll take the time clarify, but I have visions of another "fulfilled" type of statement.

[simchat_torah]

I asked for midrashim.Irrelevant, but yes...
There are a number of commentaries in various form (including Midrashim) concerning the seriousness of the Pesach meal. In fact, for those who have not converted are not allowed to partake in certain portions of the Pesach exists grave dangers exist. This holds true if various traditions are broken, and these are outlined in a number of midrashim. Paul's words here are highly mirrored, and virtually identical to any other Midrash concerning Pesach.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by HeatherMicaela
The Passover Supper is created by G-d and refined by Yeshua. Maybe the "refined" is a poor choice in wording, but the depth of meaning that Yeshua placed on the bread and wine, has some taking the meaning to extremes, but it did bring more light on the subject, as the disciples discovered the next day.

[Henaynei]

Every rabbi taught his students his own additional interpretation of the meaning of the Pesakh ... we still have record of this in the Haggadah where the rabbis are talking to each other about various meanings of the scriptures related to Pesakh..... Yeshua, too, explained a deeper meaning to Pesakh than of which the disciples had been previously aware, a meaning that was there all the time, but which, like much of prophesy, was hidden from "view" until G-d's time to reveal it :)

[HeatherMicaela]

Maybe the "refined" is a poor choice in wording, but the depth of meaning that Yeshua placed on the bread and wine, has some taking the meaning to extremes, but it did bring more light on the subject, as the disciples discovered the next day.
I cant figure out how to post both mine and visionary's quote but anyway:
I
I do not mean to offend those that only belive in the tehnakh but I *am* a believer in the Brit Chadeshah and therefore my belief will be differnt. I dont beleive " G-d got it wrong and "Yeshua" corrected His mistakes?" am trying to think of what a better word than "refined" :scratch: What I meant by refined is to make more clear. Like silver refined in the fire. It is precious *before* that, but the refining makes it shine.

I believe (as do other messianics) that the Holidays have both a historical reason as described in Torah and a prophetic reason. The gospel accounts of Yeshua are full of him making points about Himself and his ministry holidays. Peshach is both a celebration of HaShems deleveirng the children of Israel from Egypt AND a foreshadowing of Yeshua the Passover lamb. I believe these meaings came from G-d from the very beginning. For me it does not take away from the original celebration and meaning, but only makes it deeper.

I am not going to apologise for seeing Peshach in this way, but I do apologise for any unintended animosity my wording may have caused.

[visionary]

I cant figure out how to post both mine and visionary's quote but anyway:
I
I do not mean to offend those that only belive in the tehnakh but I *am* a believer in the Brit Chadeshah and therefore my belief will be differnt. I dont beleive " G-d got it wrong and "Yeshua" corrected His mistakes?" am trying to think of what a better word than "refined" :scratch: What I meant by refined is to make more clear. Like silver refined in the fire. It is precious *before* that, but the refining makes it shine.

I believe (as do other messianics) that the Holidays have both a historical reason as described in Torah and a prophetic reason. The gospel accounts of Yeshua are full of him making points about Himself and his ministry holidays. Peshach is both a celebration of HaShems deleveirng the children of Israel from Egypt AND a foreshadowing of Yeshua the Passover lamb. I believe these meaings came from G-d from the very beginning. For me it does not take away from the original celebration and meaning, but only makes it deeper.

I am not going to apologise for seeing Peshach in this way, but I do apologise for any unintended animosity my wording may have caused.Don't worry ... I got your drift.:thumbsup: ;)

[stranger]

Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the passover prophecy as the passover Lamb sacrifice of God , and made the ANNUAL passover into His remebrance day of him FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORTHY [saints of Israel's two Houses] ... it is a mercy of God then that almost none of the world nderstands that time-keeping was changed when men went over to 'local time' under 4 centuries ago , so nether modern Judaism ,nor christianity is even permitted to pollute the memory of the death of the holy messiah by siners keeping the true passover memorial by the timing set by god [long before men changed it DIFFERENTLY [!] by 'authority' of numerous DIFFERENT religious groups in Christianity and Judaism...

The humbling of these who claim 'authority', above God, to do such things is in fact rather inevitable , obviously ?

[A_Pioneer]

Oh Gee and I always believed G-d!
So now we can do whatever is right in our own eyes?
Sorry stranger, you hold the honor of a false prophet according to Re'eh!
Shalom

[HadassahSukkot]

but we can keep the feast as it is commanded. Just watch the calendar and keep in mind the harvest - and it comes typically at the right time!

Some keep the feast one day before, two days in a row.. etc....

I keep it on the night of, as it says in Exodus. If that means I keep it as my family that night, and go to a teaching/learning seder the next.. is it really that big a deal? I think not...

The times haven't changed in that way.

[stranger]

The times haven't changed in that way.

The keeping of the times has been changed in many ways... the count has been lost by almost all folks because of authorities of men changing the time- and day-keeping according as they think suits their beliefs ... the scripture is there to reprove them all, and indeed shows the mistakes , which are recorded in history [together with the confusion they caused at the time counts were lost by LAW OF MEN] one cannot keep that which is holy without undoing the cahnges mde by men [under Satan ] :-

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

It is foolish then to ignore Daniel and continue as though what is now international traditions were true...

[visionary]

If we go by the moon we can trust it as God gave it for seasons.. and occassions such as this.

[muffler dragon]

Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the passover prophecy as the passover Lamb sacrifice of God,

1) Passover ISN'T a prophesy.
2) The Passover wasn't a sin offering; therefore, what is there to "fulfill"?

and made the ANNUAL passover into His remebrance day of him FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORTHY [saints of Israel's two Houses] ... it is a mercy of God then that almost none of the world nderstands that time-keeping was changed when men went over to 'local time' under 4 centuries ago , so nether modern Judaism ,nor christianity is even permitted to pollute the memory of the death of the holy messiah by siners keeping the true passover memorial by the timing set by god [long before men changed it DIFFERENTLY [!] by 'authority' of numerous DIFFERENT religious groups in Christianity and Judaism...

The humbling of these who claim 'authority', above God, to do such things is in fact rather inevitable , obviously ?

Talk about not understanding. :doh:

[visionary]

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil-an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma-and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. (Lev. 23:9-14)You do not see that as prophectic.... or any of the other feasts as prophectic?

[muffler dragon]

You do not see that as prophectic.... or any of the other feasts as prophectic?

If you're asking me; then, "No, I don't find the Passover to be prophetic". To me, that is eisegesis and nothing more.

[GerTzedek]

You do not see that as prophectic.... or any of the other feasts as prophectic?
What other feasts do you thing are "prophecy," and what is your basis for this? This idea is strange to me. I totally accept reference to the feasts on a figurative level, i.e. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits..." But I don't confuse figurative with prophetic.

[visionary]

What other feasts do you thing are "prophecy," and what is your basis for this? This idea is strange to me. I totally accept reference to the feasts on a figurative level, i.e. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits..." But I don't confuse figurative with prophetic.Yeshua fulfilled and that is not figurative.. that is prophectic fulfillment. Yeshua will continue to do so for the fall feasts also.

[HeatherMicaela]

Didnt Paul say somewhere that they were a shadow of things to come?

[stranger]

Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

[stranger]

What other feasts do you thing are "prophecy," and what is your basis for this? This idea is strange to me. I totally accept reference to the feasts on a figurative level, i.e. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits..." But I don't confuse figurative with prophetic.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

[stranger]

bump!

[Lulav]

Oh, I'm sorry... has this ever happened in documented cases of the Eucharist?

I didn't think so.


Maybe... just maybe it wasn't literal? Or was it? hmmm..
"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and have a long life." -Joshua 1:8

The promises of keeping Torah are both literal and figurative. Pesach was given in a specific way and was to be observed as such. When one follows the Torah (ie: not eating pig for example) there are literal health benefits... where one does get to enjoy a long life. There are also spiritual applications.

Considering the context was completely surrounded in Pesach terminology, why create a seperate ritual that has no founding elsewhere? Moreover, your questions to me can be asked of you as well.... (see previous post).

But in the case of following Torah (and Pesach is part of that), I can answer... yes... it does have an impact on your literal lifeline. But I think this was meant both literally and figuratively.I have to agree with Simchat so far, I don't think this is what was meant, just because it is Christian tradition which many Christians before the internet age, never even heard of the L-RD's supper having any relation to Passover, it was just as separate for them as Hanukkah was from Christmas. ( I've heard someone say something very similar).

If you do something over and over and you don't even agree within your own religion when you are supposed to do it, once a week, once a day, many times a day, once a month , every few months, etc, where does this point to any one thing for anyone but confusion?

Simchat I agree with you so far, too bad you had to go and say something like this:

What? You don't believe that G-d got it wrong and "Yeshua" corrected His mistakes?

Yeshua brought the true meaning to full, why it was memorialized for thousands of years. HaShem saved us out of bondage (of sin) washed us in the great mikvah of the Red Sea ( baptism) and made a covenant with us to take us as his people ( Yeshuas covenant in his own blood, not the blood of oxen that was sprinkled on the altar and covenant and the people). This was the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31.

I also agree with what Henaynei said. :)

[Lulav]

HOW OFTEN? (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-often-should-christian-passover-lord-supper-be-taken.html)

Here is some reasoning to chew on.

The First Observance
It is written that Jesus set us an example that we should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21). A person who looks to and follows the way of Jesus Christ is called a Christian - one who follows Christ. It is written that Jesus now comes and lives His life over again WITHIN the Christian (Gal.2:20) - by the faith OF Christ, not just faith IN Christ. The same practices and customs Jesus observed nearly 2,000 years ago, He will still practice and observe today as He lives in the Christian. Let us examine the passage showing the institution of the New Testament Passover service and symbols - commonly called by many "The Lord's Supper."
Luke 22:14, 19-20 says:
"And when the HOUR was COME, He (Jesus) sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him.....And He took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you. THIS DO in REMEMBRANCE of me.....Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Notice, Jesus introduced the bread and wine (fruit of the vine - cup) "when the hour was come." There was a DEFINITE TIME - when He held this supper, setting us the perfect example. He commanded them to observe it, "THIS DO....." And why? "In remembrance of me," He said. It was a MEMORIAL - in memory of His death. Jesus instituted this ordinance on the night, the eve of His death. We are to observe this ceremony of Christ's death, as He Himself said,
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jesus knew that upon this day - the day He was instituting the symbols of bread and wine for His broken body and shed blood - He would die. And Jesus further said, "You are my friends IF you DO whatsoever I command you....." (John 15:13-14). In Matthew 26:26 we read:
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread." It was "as they were eating" that He introduced this ordinance of the New Testament. But eating what? Eating the PASSOVER! See verse 17 and Luke 22:15. Notice Mat. 26:2 :
"You know that after two days is the Feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified." Jesus knew His time to be slain had come. He knew the Passover lamb represented HIM - the true lamb of God (John 1:29).
The apostle Paul understood that the real Passover lamb was Christ, when he wrote:
".....even Christ OUR PASSOVER is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor.5:7). Jesus was eating the Passover,
"Now the first of the unleavens (The word "unleavens" is in the original Greek. The Jews had by the time of Christ acquired the custom of putting leaven out of their homes on the 14th day of Nisan, and by late morning ate no more leavened bread, at least those who followed the Pharisees practiced this tradition), and the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?" (Mat.26:7). At EVEN Jesus sat down (when the hour was come) with His twelve disciples in an upper room (Mat.26:20; Mark 14:15).
And as they were eating the Passover supper (Mat.26:26):
"Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink you all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the remission of sins."


This is a Christian writing but I tend to agree with it.

[stranger]

A person who looks to and follows the way of Jesus Christ is called a Christian - one who follows Christ.Better to use the scripture's definition of what following sin-less Jesus means :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The foundation is the congregation of God and it is sealed in baptism of the spirit to know all truth before death and become perfect in love, depating from all iniquity, they are all siants then, no sinners, by the time of their death or by jesus' return , whichever is sooner...

Thus Jesus says that he NEVER knew anyone who is not a saint by then :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

the wise virgins are saints then, the foolish virgins are sinners who call themselves christians ...

[visionary]

I believe that the Lord's Supper is the Passover Seder.

[stranger]

I believe that the Lord's Supper is the Passover Seder.
It is clear why the Messiah went to Jerusalem and what he ate , from scripture, no need then to imagine about what it was because the scripture tells us :-

Luke 22:13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.There is no doubt then what Yeshua ate because he says ... what is interesting is that he said that he would be killed on the feast day , the sabbath after passover night ... which shows that many Jews were keeping the wrong day at that time , the Jewish hierarchy thought taht day was the day of preparation of the lamb , not the feast day after the passover night ...

Yashua thus ate the true passover , but the Lamb of God was slaughterd on the false preparation day of the Jewish hierarchy, in fact it was God's annual sabbath

Now the Messiah fulfilled te day , as the sacrifice of the 'Lamb' of God, so it would have ended then but for the fact that Yeshua then set it as his day of remembrance, one a year , but note that it is the dat before many Jews keep passover, it is the true scriptural passover day set by God in the Torah , not the one kept by tradition of men:-

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[Messiah]

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

[pekin1980]

If you study the Jews of Jesus' day, you will see that many practiced some form of table fellowship. For the Pharisees, this was their response to the Sadducees controlling the temple service. It was meant as a way of showing worship to God, and many rabbis would teach their disciples their form of table fellowship. Is it possible that was what Jesus was doing on that night and also what the issue in Matthew's house centered on?

[Lulav]

Better to use the scripture's definition of what following sin-less Jesus means :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The foundation is the congregation of God and it is sealed in baptism of the spirit to know all truth before death and become perfect in love, depating from all iniquity, they are all siants then, no sinners, by the time of their death or by jesus' return , whichever is sooner...

Thus Jesus says that he NEVER knew anyone who is not a saint by then :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

the wise virgins are saints then, the foolish virgins are sinners who call themselves christians ... I didn't write that article, they were giving an analogy about the topic at hand and I thought it was usable in what I belief regarding the 'Last Supper'. . I also don't consider myself a Christian.

[Lulav]

It is clear why the Messiah went to Jerusalem and what he ate , from scripture, no need then to imagine about what it was because the scripture tells us :-

There is no doubt then what Yeshua ate because he says ... what is interesting is that he said that he would be killed on the feast day , the sabbath after passover night ... which shows that many Jews were keeping the wrong day at that time , the Jewish hierarchy thought taht day was the day of preparation of the lamb , not the feast day after the passover night ...

Yashua thus ate the true passover , but the Lamb of God was slaughterd on the false preparation day of the Jewish hierarchy, in fact it was God's annual sabbath

Now the Messiah fulfilled te day , as the sacrifice of the 'Lamb' of God, so it would have ended then but for the fact that Yeshua then set it as his day of remembrance, one a year , but note that it is the dat before many Jews keep passover, it is the true scriptural passover day set by God in the Torah , not the one kept by tradition of men:-Passover is the 14th of Nisan or Aviv.

[visionary]

Almost all folks keep the wrong day ... following tradition of men, not God... It could be that God was honoring both.

[stranger]

I didn't write that article, they were giving an analogy about the topic at hand and I thought it was usable in what I belief regarding the 'Last Supper'. . I also don't consider myself a Christian.

Well I don't consider myself yet a christion in the sense the bible uses it of the saints of Israel ... only saints can follow Jesus [in thiw orld and in the new earth], so it is a matter of when , not if , one is a christian :-

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Thus the modern obsession with labelling people 'in' or 'out' of arbitrary packages of belief , all different, is absurd to me and to scripture, it is only for religious dogmatists and those who cannot free their minds fro traditions of men to follow what the scripture actually says ... even |Jesus does not reject all sinners until his retrn and no-one much can say who will be baptised into all truth before then who are 'unbelievers at this time...

the argumnets between sinner Jew and sinner 'christisn' are all thus empty to God ... He makes saints of both visible israel [the 'Jews'] and the lost House of Israel , living as gentiles amongst the gentiles for millenia , never accepting Judaism !

But at Jesus' return, those on the 'lef5t' following Satan, the sinners are rejected, he says so...

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Where then will be all the arguments of sinners that they will be raptured away from the consequences of their life of sin ....... tis' God alone who frees men from sin, either by grace to the few who find the strait narroiw way of sainthood in THIS life, or the many who go through destruction at the end of this earth and find righteoiusness in the new earth , after the second resurrection and before judgment day , following Jesus then, not now :-

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

[stranger]

It could be that God was honoring both.

If he were then He would say so ... the way of the many sinners of this world is not to honour in this world though, but to dishonour ... equally in God's service, but to be humbled through dishonour for following sinners, not saints, not His word ... the many who are to die in dsihonour , not to live through grace, in this world , theys till work for God , just to show that their way fails, it is the complement to the way of Love working, the work of satan to show that other way when tried fail....

The many are still saved , just afterward in the new earth they are perfected in love, follow Jesus then in his way, not now ...

2 Timothy 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

If every creature eventually accepts Jesus as Lord as this says, then clearly it matters not that God redeems creation progressively , not all at once as sinners claim ... in fact it is obviosly eminently sensible to use the first, Jesus, to bring in the next few , the 144,000., and then all Israel, to show that God CAN prophesy and get it right ... and then only do the billions of all nations accept Him ...but by then He has freed them from sin by death, they do not even need His grace but are judged by works :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[stranger]

Passover is the 14th of Nisan or Aviv.

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’S passover
6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

Numbers 9:12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

Yes Passover is the whole day [starting at evening] before the day of the Feast ...the Israelites did not escape in the night and did not feast until they had escaped some way from Egypt ... the 15th is the sabbath and day of the Feast

It apperas that the Jews took it to mean the end of the day was the passover, not the beginning at even, but the evening toward the end of the 14th ...

Thus Jesus kept the passover on the 14th, but they crucified him on the day the Jewish rabbis kept as the day of preparation of the lamb .. they killed him on the same day as their alraedy wrong ritual , which Jesus confirmed was actually the sabbath, the day of the Feast ..

Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

This was then truly the 14th and the real day for preparation of the passover lamb and meal ...!

The Jewish rabbis at the time held that the day of preparation was the next day :-

Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Matthew 26:5 But they [Rabbis] said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Compare this then with the true day of preparation kept by the disciples preparng the 'last supper', the last passover for Jesus before death... clearly again, this is the day before, teh 14th, not the Jewish rabbi's prepartion day , they would not do this if they knew it was a high sabbath :-

Matthew 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

the irony is then that the Jews had their own Messiah killed on the wrong day because of their beliefs already being wrong ... they thought that what was actually the 15th was the day of preparation of the Passover,and ate the high sabbath Feast the following day, hasted to get the crucifiction over before their false sabbath , actually crucifying him on he true Feast day

[Tkjjc]

What if what Jesus celebrated isn't quite what most think it is. It says in the Bible that He blessed bread and wine in the middle of the dinner,,"while they were eating" the Passover. He also states in John that He cannot drink of the wine until His return (marriage supper of the Lamb?). After which He prays the High Priest Prayer, in John 17.

I cannot help but think this supper had more to do with Genesis chapter 14, and Abram's meal with the High Priest who was a King, than with Moses and the feasts. Since Jesus fulfilled the OC of the Jews, the older Covenant with Abraham and his seed (the world) is now,,'in play' so to speak. Hebrews chapters 5-8 speak of this in detail.

Then when we get to the gentile dilemma on how they should behave as far as Torah goes, James and Peter send a letter stating that Noah's Laws are now good enough for them. Acts 15:23-29

It almost seems the Bible is running in reverse sometimes as I study it, and the closer we get to the "Eden" of God.

Any thoughts on this?

[visionary]

Evening.... Lord's supper....by noon sacrificed... all on the same day.