What was Paul thinking?

[visionary]

When Paul said "as often as you break break bread" 1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
The ceremony of welcoming the Sabbath ought to be one of the family highlights of the week. The simple ceremony of lighting the candles, the blessing of the bread and wine (the motzi and the kiddush), and the enjoyment of the festive Sabbath meal together, ought to be a wonderful family highlight and tradition, as often as possible.

Was Paul tying the sabbath with the Lord? Was Paul seeing Yeshua as "Lord of the Sabbath".. the fit husband of the bride.?

[ContraMundum]

No, kinda sorta.

You can't have a hope of getting this right without the tradition of the Apostles and their sucessors.

[visionary]

No, kinda sorta.

You can't have a hope of getting this right without the tradition of the Apostles and their sucessors.Tradition has a habit of being wrong.

[ContraMundum]

Tradition has a habit of being wrong.

Does it?

Do you honestly think interpreting the scriptures by "every man for himself" is the way to go?

[visionary]

Does it?

Do you honestly think interpreting the scriptures by "every man for himself" is the way to go?Do you think sunday tradition is biblical?

[ContraMundum]

Do you think sunday tradition is biblical?

I don't think you are in your league here, vis. There is no such thing as "Sunday tradition" in god-fearing academic circles. It's just a patsy word new heterodox sects are using to try to make confused Christians go to Church on the Sabbath (thus filling the coffers of the unqualified teachers who made this garbage up) and reject the customs of almost 2000 years- a tradition that says the Sabbath is still the Sabbath but it's OK to meet on Sunday too. Your fantasies about the truth on this topic are well blown and really need to be put back in their place- the dustbin.

If I were to accept your definition of "Sunday tradition" then I'd be in serious denial of what I already know to be true from years of supervised study by educated, godly and annointed teachers which has been ratified in the hearts of billions by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. I've done the work, vis, and you haven't, and would refuse it anyway. This is your way, I know.

I really don't want to discuss things with you. I should have learned how much of a terrible waste of time it is already.

Sorry. Go and enjoy your new religion.

[visionary]

You are the one to bring up tradition. Let's get back to Paul and what he was thinking when he said.... 1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

[ContraMundum]

You are the one to bring up tradition. Let's get back to Paul and what he was thinking when he said....

The Christian church has known about this text since it was written, and has maintained a consistant unbroken witness as to the meaning. Break out some serious books by decent authorities and you'll get your answer. Then live by it, as we all should.

[Steve Petersen]

Paul refers back to 'the night in which he [Jesus] was betrayed' then goes on to quote Jesus words 'this cup' and 'eat this.'

The synoptics give the context of that meal as a Passover seder. No leavened bread there. Only matzah. And the cups of wine prescribed by Jewish tradition (see the Mishnah, tractate Pesachim.)

The passage in Acts continues:

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Paul uses the definite article here. Now church tradition makes these items of the Eucharist and separates them from the Seder. Correct?

This passage in Corinthians indicates that they were gathering to eat; however the context of that meal is missing and is only very general.

1 Cor 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.

Apparently they thought they were eating the Lord's Supper, but Paul goes on to demonstrate that their behavior showed otherwise. He then goes on to describe the Last Supper.

[visionary]

azymos ä'-zü-mos unleavened bread, unleavened

artos ä'r-tos bread, loaf, shewbread

When you read the greek translation of the word "bread" in 1 Cor 11:26 and its meaning it is not azymos but artos, which I find interesting.

[Steve Petersen]

azymos ä'-zü-mos unleavened bread, unleavened

artos ä'r-tos bread, loaf, shewbread

When you read the greek translation of the word "bread" in 1 Cor 11:26 and its meaning it is not azymos but artos, which I find interesting.

'Artos' in the Septuagint is the equivalent of the Hebrew 'lechem' if I am not mistaken. Even over matzah we say 'ha motzi lechem' ('who brings forth bread'.)

[stone]

No, kinda sorta.

You can't have a hope of getting this right without the tradition of the Apostles and their sucessors.

Do you know who the 1st person was to write the word Eucharist?

[stone]

When Paul said "as often as you break break bread"
The ceremony of welcoming the Sabbath ought to be one of the family highlights of the week. The simple ceremony of lighting the candles, the blessing of the bread and wine (the motzi and the kiddush), and the enjoyment of the festive Sabbath meal together, ought to be a wonderful family highlight and tradition, as often as possible.

Was Paul tying the sabbath with the Lord? Was Paul seeing Yeshua as "Lord of the Sabbath".. the fit husband of the bride.?


Here he is writeing a letter to a congregation in Corinth right? All he is doing is speaking to them about the messiah, he's only rephrasing what he had just said earlier:

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


***

Which is broken for you...

-then you hold the matzah in your hands and break it, it then breaks into pieces, and you eat it and drink the wine, and you remember this night, rather, that night, and what was done on that night for all of us.

:thumbsup:

[stone]

Hey, did Paul just say he was at the last supper?

[stone]

I'm removing my question, don't want to derail. I'll start up another thread another time.

[GerTzedek]

Paul is referring to something completely different than Kiddush. Communion/Eucharist is not kiddush, despite their historical links. It is my understanding that early believers met often for this breaking of bread, and specifically on the Lord's Day to do so. Nothing whatsoever to do with Shabbat.

[GerTzedek]

Do you know who the 1st person was to write the word Eucharist?
As eucharist is the Greek word for thanksgiving, I'm sure Greeks were writing the word for centuries. Who knows who the first was? The gospels themselves are written in Greek, and Yeshua "gave thanks."

[GerTzedek]

Apparently they thought they were eating the Lord's Supper, but Paul goes on to demonstrate that their behavior showed otherwise. He then goes on to describe the Last Supper.I would word it the opposite way. They thought they were eating an ordinary meal when they were eating the Lord's Supper, and therefore doing so unworthily, some even becoming ill and dying, "not recognizing the body of Christ."

[visionary]

Here is an interesting passage that I think can help us. Luke 24:13-35 13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? 33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. Yeshua’s blessing over the bread must have been unique. Now keep this in mind...this breaking of bread... Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers .... 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, There is significance in this "breaking of bread" or it would not have been mentioned in the same context as apostle's doctrine. There is something special about this coming together, as we do even yet today, to celebrate our fellowship in Messiah.

“Then they break off a piece of the loaf and eat it, so that the blessing of G-d specifically for His provision of bread to eat would not have been said in vain.”

So if you say a b’rakhah you should take a piece of bread, distribute a piece to everyone around you and then eat the bread before any words are spoken. No doubt at Pesach (Passover) they offered the blessing for the matzoh instead, the unleavened bread, but most of the time they were eating leavened bread; they did not eat unleavened bread all of the time.

Consider the Mishna: Rabbi El’azar ben- ‘Azaryah (1st-2nd century C.E.) said, ‘…if there is no meal there is no (study of) Torah, and if there is no (study of) Torah there is no meal.”‘

The Mishna is followed yet today in the practice of Judaism throughout the world, and this Rabbi’s teaching from the 1st-2nd century, when Yeshua and his Jewish followers were breaking bread together, is still followed today. In other words He is teaching that whenever you eat a meal you should study the Torah, you should talk of the Torah. So when they came together and they broke bread, they talked about the Torah.

So with this in mind, how much more is the significance of breaking of bread, the bread of life?

[ContraMundum]

Here is an interesting passage that I think can help us. Yeshua’s blessing over the bread must have been unique. Now keep this in mind...this breaking of bread... There is significance in this "breaking of bread" or it would not have been mentioned in the same context as apostle's doctrine. There is something special about this coming together, as we do even yet today, to celebrate our fellowship in Messiah.

“Then they break off a piece of the loaf and eat it, so that the blessing of G-d specifically for His provision of bread to eat would not have been said in vain.”

So if you say a b’rakhah you should take a piece of bread, distribute a piece to everyone around you and then eat the bread before any words are spoken. No doubt at Pesach (Passover) they offered the blessing for the matzoh instead, the unleavened bread, but most of the time they were eating leavened bread; they did not eat unleavened bread all of the time.

Consider the Mishna: Rabbi El’azar ben- ‘Azaryah (1st-2nd century C.E.) said, ‘…if there is no meal there is no (study of) Torah, and if there is no (study of) Torah there is no meal.”‘

The Mishna is followed yet today in the practice of Judaism throughout the world, and this Rabbi’s teaching from the 1st-2nd century, when Yeshua and his Jewish followers were breaking bread together, is still followed today. In other words He is teaching that whenever you eat a meal you should study the Torah, you should talk of the Torah. So when they came together and they broke bread, they talked about the Torah.

So with this in mind, how much more is the significance of breaking of bread, the bread of life?

Funny how you will run to Jewish oral tradition to understand the NT but not to Christian oral tradition (the tradition that eventually wrote the NT for you)- which is obviously founded on Judaism anyway. Is this consistant? I don't think so. I can understand using both- I do, but I never neglect either.

[mpossoff]

Funny how you will run to Jewish oral tradition to understand the NT but not to Christian oral tradition (the tradition that eventually wrote the NT for you)- which is obviously founded on Judaism anyway. Is this consistant? I don't think so. I can understand using both- I do, but I never neglect either.

That's a good point but to me there is a big but.

It's ironic that in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that there isn't the question of the Sabbath, in fact it's not even an issue. There isn't the question when the day to assemble is, what day and where. It's not even an issue.

Why? What changed?

Marc

[visionary]

Luke 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. I can picture this moment.....because he did it before and they knew the story well. Mr 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Then their eyes were open. This is why they were into breaking bread. Luke 22:19 and 1Co 11:24 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. as Luke said Luke 24:35 And they told what things were done in The Way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

[ContraMundum]

I can picture this moment.....because he did it before and they knew the story well. Then their eyes were open. This is why they were into breaking bread. as Luke said

Right....so what is the Spirit teaching about the breaking of bread? (Which routinely happened on the first day of the week in the early church. Acts 20:7)

[stone]

Right....so what is the Spirit teaching about the breaking of bread?


It has something to do with the kingdom here on earth. I'm still working on this. I have seen that there is some importance to what you call the Eucharist, i'm still trying to figure it out, definately something to do with the Ruach HaKodesh. This breaking bread can be done on any given day, but when done on days specifically mentioned by g-d, there are better blessings found in it, and i know he likes for us to do what he tells us to do.

[Steve Petersen]

Funny how you will run to Jewish oral tradition to understand the NT but not to Christian oral tradition (the tradition that eventually wrote the NT for you)- which is obviously founded on Judaism anyway. Is this consistant? I don't think so. I can understand using both- I do, but I never neglect either.


For me the difficulty is that if the Apostles advocated breaking of the Torah, we can put them to death as false prophets (Deut. 13) and false disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:17-20.) As long as Christian oral tradition stays within the confines of the Torah I think you could make the case that they COULD have Apostolic origin, but not otherwise. :cool:

[ContraMundum]

It has something to do with the kingdom here on earth. I'm still working on this. I have seen that there is some importance to what you call the Eucharist, i'm still trying to figure it out, definately something to do with the Ruach HaKodesh. This breaking bread can be done on any given day, but when done on days specifically mentioned by g-d, there are better blessings found in it, and i know he likes for us to do what he tells us to do.

I'd love to help you along, but I can't here.

Hint: The Word of God, all powerful, cannot be disconnected from Him. Often, God connects His word by way of promise to things- like the Brazen Serpent, where His promise of healing was connected in form to the object. The Early Christians and those that have followed their way all believed that the Word of God was connected to the Bread and Wine, and also the waters of Baptism. Since God's promises and Word cannot be disconnected from Him, these outward pledges are believed to become encounters with God Himself. (There's an awful lot more to it, but this is just to give a brief overview).

Of course, you are right that the Ruach HaKodesh is involved. I'd love to share more, but I will upset people. Well, two maybe.

Hope this helps. It's difficult to explain in a couple of paragraphs.

[ContraMundum]

For me the difficulty is that if the Apostles advocated breaking of the Torah, we can put them to death as false prophets (Deut. 13) and false disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:17-20.) As long as Christian oral tradition stays within the confines of the Torah I think you could make the case that they COULD have Apostolic origin, but not otherwise. :cool:

Excellent observation.

This is why we have scripture as the rule of faith- to test all traditions. However, we are given tradition to help us understand the scriptures.

It is very easy to contrast the oral tradition of the Church with the oral tradition of the Jews and get conflicting, confusing conclusions. We need to be careful that (if you believe the NT) all traditions conform to both the Torah (and Tanach) as understood and interpreted by the unanimous ancients and the NT as interpreted by the unanimous ancients. But, we must be careful to reject the traditions that the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also rejected. They never contradict a universally accepted interpretation of Torah. Never. They might reject certain interpretive trends in the historial exegesis of the Torah, but never the consensus of their day. This is one proof of their authority.

I know the Rabbi and others will disagree with me, but it would be inconclusive in the end, because there are many competing traditions within the Jewish community especially at the time of the Second Temple, and one can easily show lack of consensus.

[Steve Petersen]

Excellent observation.

This is why we have scripture as the rule of faith- to test all traditions. However, we are given tradition to help us understand the scriptures.

It is very easy to contrast the oral tradition of the Church with the oral tradition of the Jews and get conflicting, confusing conclusions. We need to be careful that (if you believe the NT) all traditions conform to both the Torah (and Tanach) as understood and interpreted by the unanimous ancients and the NT as interpreted by the unanimous ancients. But, we must be careful to reject the traditions that the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also rejected. They never contradict a universally accepted interpretation of Torah. Never. They might reject certain interpretive trends in the historial exegesis of the Torah, but never the consensus of their day. This is one proof of their authority.

I know the Rabbi and others will disagree with me, but it would be inconclusive in the end, because there are many competing traditions within the Jewish community especially at the time of the Second Temple, and one can easily show lack of consensus.


With this in mind, how did what we call the Eucharist emerge? Was it completely new, or a development of the tradtional blessings for bread and wine? Was it derived from the Seder? The NT seems to indicate that many disciples had a problem with Jesus' bread/body, wine/blood comparison. Even if it is symbolic, (aside from the trans-substantiation problem) it could be understood in cannibalistic terms and would be highly contrary to Torah (i.e., it is hard to imagine that God would sanction in the spiritual sense that which He would prohibit in the material sense.)

[stone]

I'd love to help you along, but I can't here.

Hint: The Word of God, all powerful, cannot be disconnected from Him. Often, God connects His word by way of promise to things- like the Brazen Serpent, where His promise of healing was connected in form to the object. The Early Christians and those that have followed their way all believed that the Word of God was connected to the Bread and Wine, and also the waters of Baptism. Since God's promises and Word cannot be disconnected from Him, these outward pledges are believed to become encounters with God Himself. (There's an awful lot more to it, but this is just to give a brief overview).

Of course, you are right that the Ruach HaKodesh is involved. I'd love to share more, but I will upset people. Well, two maybe.

Hope this helps. It's difficult to explain in a couple of paragraphs.


I understand what your saying. I preffer to figure these things out myself rather than asking a priest or rabbi. I follow where i'm lead to go and i listen to what is allowed to be spoken to me and i learn from it better than i can learn from men.

I'll tell you guys what i saw in a short vision on a sunday morning, this day, i would think only because i was pressing on the l-rd for somekind of an answer. I was watching the Holy Spirit move. Then i saw it stop and form into a circle shape. When i saw it rise up, it reminded me of when a priest holds up that circular bread. I saw the Holy spirit take that form of a circle. Then i saw it go out into several directions at the same time. From there it was, i guess you can say, broken up into several pieces and each went out into a different direction.

[ContraMundum]

I'll tell you guys what i saw in a short vision on a sunday morning, this day, i would think only because i was pressing on the l-rd for somekind of an answer. I was watching the Holy Spirit move. Then i saw it stop and form into a circle shape. When i saw it rise up, it reminded me of when a priest holds up that circular bread. I saw the Holy spirit take that form of a circle. Then i saw it go out into several directions at the same time. From there it was, i guess you can say, broken up into several pieces and each went out into a different direction.

Amen to that. You have plenty of confirmation of that in the last 2000 years if you wish to seek it out. But, discover it yourself, as you prefer, because that will demonstrate God's faithfulness to you.

Peace to you.

[ContraMundum]

With this in mind, how did what we call the Eucharist emerge? Was it completely new, or a development of the tradtional blessings for bread and wine? Was it derived from the Seder?

From the Seder, but it was also new, because the Covenant is New.

There are some excellent books about how the Seder is maintained in every aspect in a properly done Eucharist, but I won't publically mention them here.

The NT seems to indicate that many disciples had a problem with Jesus' bread/body, wine/blood comparison. Even if it is symbolic, (aside from the trans-substantiation problem) it could be understood in cannibalistic terms and would be highly contrary to Torah (i.e., it is hard to imagine that God would sanction in the spiritual sense that which He would prohibit in the material sense.)

OK, well the simple answer is this- those disciples who understood this in a cannibalistic sense were mistaken (this is often called Capernaism), because this cannot be cannibalism (where one human eats another- no human is being eaten here) as it is sacramental, eg. bread and wine are consumed in the earthly manner but the spiritual benefits of the broken Body and shed Blood of Yeshua are given in a spiritual manner. The outward sign is the means to the inward spiritual grace.

Again, the type is derived from the Passover. The Lamb had to be slain and eaten. One could not use anything other than a lamb and one could not do anything else with it other than eat it (and apply its blood to your house). That was the deal. Thus, Messiah reminds us that He is the Passover by completing this type (being slain, eaten and His blood given for our redemption) and fulfilling it for us whereby we keep it in a perpetual anamnesis (remembrance).

Notice one thing though, in John's account. The Disciples who found this teaching of the mystery too hard (misunderstood it) left Him. But those who accepted His word on faith alone stayed. We should ask ourselves in which of the two groups of disciples we are. Are we those who find this "a hard saying" and who leave or are we those who say "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life"

[Steve Petersen]

OK, well the simple answer is this- those disciples who understood this in a cannibalistic sense were mistaken (this is often called Capernaism), because this cannot be cannibalism (where one human eats another- no human is being eaten here) as it is sacramental, eg. bread and wine are consumed in the earthly manner but the spiritual benefits of the broken Body and shed Blood of Yeshua are given in a spiritual manner. The outward sign is the means to the inward spiritual grace.

I don't know what the Anglican view of trans-substantiation is, but as I understand the Roman Catholic concept, the host and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus. No symbolism involved. That seems like cannibalism.

Again, the type is derived from the Passover. The Lamb had to be slain and eaten. One could not use anything other than a lamb and one could not do anything else with it other than eat it (and apply its blood to your house). That was the deal. Thus, Messiah reminds us that He is the Passover by completing this type (being slain, eaten and His blood given for our redemption) and fulfilling it for us whereby we keep it in a perpetual anamnesis (remembrance).

This is the way most of us on this forum understand it, I think.

Notice one thing though, in John's account. The Disciples who found this teaching of the mystery too hard (misunderstood it) left Him. But those who accepted His word on faith alone stayed. We should ask ourselves in which of the two groups of disciples we are. Are we those who find this "a hard saying" and who leave or are we those who say "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life"

John's Last Supper also rules out it being a Seder. John has Jesus crucified before the Seder begins, sundown which begins the 15th of Nisan. The nice symmetry of Jesus and the Passover becomes a little less symmetrical.

[visionary]

It is sad to see all these people challenging Contra and his beliefs.

Let's turn our thoughts back to Paul and what was he thinking regarding the breaking of bread. He obviously held it in high regard, and it was more than just grabbing a loaf and sharing it with friends. He did not hold it so high that it only could be done in the synagogue setting. It was done from house to house and they were fellowshipping. Could it have been a special thing that they did? ... just like when we share that special moment/memory with our friends. How could anyone forget what Yeshua has done for us, and he knew, he knew that he was going to die for us, and he knew that when he said "do this in remembrance of me". It is not some priest only can dish it out sacrament, it is something friends of Yeshua share. It is in the moment and in the memory.

[GerTzedek]

vis, I think its a wild goose chase. I don't think Yeshua did the brachot any differently. The difference was not what he did, but how he did it because of the unique person he was. It's like, I've heard a million children sing "Six little ducks that I once knew," but not one of them sings it like my daughter.:pink: I'm sure no one prayed quite like Yeshua.

[ContraMundum]

I don't know what the Anglican view of trans-substantiation is, but as I understand the Roman Catholic concept, the host and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus. No symbolism involved. That seems like cannibalism.

Firstly, there is no "Anglican" view, because there are a number of acceptable views within that tradition. My view is always "pious silence", meaning that as long as we do our bit God will do His. "Whatever He doth make it, I just eat and take it"

This is the way most of us on this forum understand it, I think.

One would hope so. :)

John's Last Supper also rules out it being a Seder. John has Jesus crucified before the Seder begins, sundown which begins the 15th of Nisan. The nice symmetry of Jesus and the Passover becomes a little less symmetrical.

I can't agree here my friend.

John doesn't have a last supper account, and his Gospel is not synoptic anyway. But, having said that, the Gospels can still be harmonized with confidence. It's easy to get confounded by John's words in 19:31, but it doesn't matter, because the idea of Christ as our Passover is taught in the other Gospels as well as within the Epistles. Also, it is always best to interpret an unclear passage in the light of a clear one.

This is why many say (including my opinion) that the preparation day mentioned in 19:31 is the Preparation Day of the Sabbath, therefore making it easily harmonize with the other Gospels. I think the context speaks for itself and supports that. This would mean an elucidation on Jn 19:14 making it the time just before they were about to kill the Passover lamb eg. as often as the Passover fell on a Friday it was both the preparation of the Sabbath and the Passover.

[Steve Petersen]

As to the OP: there are days when I believe Paul didn't actually 'think' rather he just 'blurted.' :D

[Bananna]

Right....so what is the Spirit teaching about the breaking of bread? (Which routinely happened on the first day of the week in the early church. Acts 20:7)

Correction
It usually happed
"The first of the week" As was a traditions of Jews of that day after sabbath to meet and break bread at sundown Saturday.

[visionary]

As to the OP: there are days when I believe Paul didn't actually 'think' rather he just 'blurted.' :DSpontaneous inspiration?? maybe;)

[ContraMundum]

Correction
It usually happed
"The first of the week" As was a traditions of Jews of that day after sabbath to meet and break bread at sundown Saturday.

Same diff.

[Steve Petersen]

Same diff.

When do you sleep? I am on with you in the AM (US Central time), then I go to work, come home watch an hour or two of the telie and go to bed. About that time you are posting again! What is your time zone? Grenwich +0?

Mensch, you must have a cast iron constitution. Us old folks need our rest.:sleep:

[ContraMundum]

When do you sleep? I am on with you in the AM (US Central time), then I go to work, come home watch an hour or two of the telie and go to bed. About that time you are posting again! What is your time zone? Grenwich +0?

Mensch, you must have a cast iron constitution. Us old folks need our rest.:sleep:
When you sleep I'm at work...when you wake up I'm at home working on essays, articles and other stuff, and when I'm done, I check out the Circus. When I'm asleep you're at work. Easy.

[Bananna]

Same diff.
First day is daylight hours

First of week is dark hours. It did not replace Sabbathkeeping. It was also not restricted to sabbath only study of scriptures. During Sabbath they still were meeting in the synagogue and they went down to the water when they could not meet at the synagogue - on Sabbath.

Bananna

[mpossoff]

Contra with all due respect I can understand that it's church tradition.

But how that tradition came about doesn't sit according to scripture.

Does the observance of Sunday as a Christian institution have its origin in that 'mystery of lawlessness' , 2Thessalonians 2:7 which, even in Paul's day, had begun its work? This is in referance to Sunday replacing the Sabbath. Did the believers meet and commune on Sunday? Maybe so but it's evident in scripture not as a means to replace the Sabbath.

So yes it's been a tradition but how and why that tradition was instituted is the issue.

I have no issue with communing on Sunday but there is a difference between the Sabbath and Sunday in referance to Sunday replacing the Sabbath.

So we need to find how and why Sunday replaced Sabbath.

Marc

[ContraMundum]

As usual, no one gets where I'm coming from.

PM me if you're actually interested.

[ContraMundum]

First day is daylight hours

First of week is dark hours. It did not replace Sabbathkeeping. It was also not restricted to sabbath only study of scriptures. During Sabbath they still were meeting in the synagogue and they went down to the water when they could not meet at the synagogue - on Sabbath.

Bananna


Wrong verse.

[Wags]

duplicate post

[Wags]

As usual, no one gets where I'm coming from.


I think we all get that you are approaching this topic as a man who preaches in a church every Sunday. So it is not a big surprise that you are defending the tradition of meeting on Sunday as a substitution for meeting on Shabbat.

[ContraMundum]

I think we all get that you are approaching this topic as a man who preaches in a church every Sunday. So it is not a big surprise that you are defending the tradition of meeting on Sunday as a substitution for meeting on Shabbat.

By that statement it's clear you don't still understand my position either- after all this time. Try not to make the mistake that another recently made by accusing me of things I don't actually believe because of a preconceived prejudice against/anger towards people like myself.

If you really wanted to know, you'd ask and actually listen to my answers. You don't have to agree, but you are obligated to understand before you comment about it. What you've said about me is exactly what I don't believe. Please try not to make false witness about me.

[stone]

So we need to find how and why Sunday replaced Sabbath.

Marc


the same reason the word judaism was voted out of our forum name, maybe

[GerTzedek]

I think we all get that you are approaching this topic as a man who preaches in a church every Sunday. So it is not a big surprise that you are defending the tradition of meeting on Sunday as a substitution for meeting on Shabbat.
Well, I'm not attending any church on Sunday, and I'm siding with Contra on this one. Saying "oh you are just seeing it that way because you go to a church," is just as fallacious as saying "Oh you just see it that way because you go to shul on Saturday." All of the documentation for an early addition of Sunday breaking of bread is on Contra's side. I've posted quotes dating even to 90 AD. I provided ample evidence that The Lord's Day is NOT considered the same as the Jewish sabbath. And its not just Contra and I: this position is standard for the overwhelming number of historians.

Nor is your position normative for MJ. There are a few who interpret as you do. But your views are more typical of sabbatarian groups than MJ. My synagogue does not allow these ideas to be spread -- the moment anyone says a disparaging word about the gentile churches, including their habit of assembling on Sunday, they get a talking-to from the Rabbi.

Contra... you go right on celebrating Holy Communion on Sunday!!!!!

[visionary]

Before I get up on my soap box on where this posting trail is going and my understanding , I am going to ask that it stops right here.

Back to OP please.....

If you wish to debate the subject I will be more than happy to. I will take the last few posts and I will create a debate thread. Remember there is just as much evidence one way as there is the other, and it is a matter of interpretation.

The bottom line is would God approve of the position supported? We each need to ask God in humble prayers and willingness to surrender all powers, principles and controlling factor of this world to allow God to answer without prejudicial mindset to interfere with the answer.

For this thread, please let's get back to the OP. Was Paul thinking that while there is the aspect of the Seder, last supper, that is so poignant, that when fellowshipping door to door, they do it in remembrance of Him?

[Wags]

Ger you may not curently attend church on Sunday - but you came from that and are still steeped in that just like the rest of the MJAA crowd. So afraid of offending sunday keeping christians (where the money to run MJAA comes from) that you ignore scripture.

[debi b]

When Paul said "as often as you break break bread"
The ceremony of welcoming the Sabbath ought to be one of the family highlights of the week. The simple ceremony of lighting the candles, the blessing of the bread and wine (the motzi and the kiddush), and the enjoyment of the festive Sabbath meal together, ought to be a wonderful family highlight and tradition, as often as possible.

Was Paul tying the sabbath with the Lord? Was Paul seeing Yeshua as "Lord of the Sabbath".. the fit husband of the bride.?


I think the context supports the connection to be made with Passover.

1 Cor 11
23 For I received from our Lord that which I also delivered to you: that our Lord Yeshua on the night in which he was betrayed took bread...

He mentions this for a reason. In the next verse we have a "therefore". I love therefores, it points us to something:

1 Cor 11
28 ...let a man examine himself

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Now here is what I find truly interesting - these folks already knew Yeshua died on the cross, they were (according to Paul) sanctified in Messiah, called saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Yeshua Messiah our Lord - and he warns them:

1 Cor 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of Elohim? Do not be decieved.

[ChazakEmunah]

As to the OP: there are days when I believe Paul didn't actually 'think' rather he just 'blurted.' :D
Dude that is just too funny... ^_^

[visionary]

Just in those short passages of scripture, the word "this" is used six times. It occurred to me to ask: was this really what he was doing? What is the "this" that he was referring to? Bread and wine are historically common elements of every meal. What was so unique that he would say this bread and this cup?

[visionary]

Daily... think upon this... Acts 2:42,47:
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers…So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…

[visionary]

I Corinthians 10:15-17. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 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? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. In a Passover meal, there are four cups of wine. The third cup is the Kos B'rakhah, the Cup of Blessing (also called the Cup of Redemption), which we drink as we conclude the Birkat Hamazon, the Grace After Meals.

Luke 22:20 He also took the cup after supper.. Literally, the "after-supper cup".

[visionary]

This article seems to support the daily breaking of bread in remembrance of Yeshua and his sacrifice for us....in Rabbinic literature, and some material from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in order to gain an understanding of the practice in its cultural and historical context. It is found that the term "Breaking of Bread" refers in the Jewish culture of the Second Temple period and following it into the Mishnaic period to the act of breaking off a piece or pieces of a loaf of bread as the consummation of the blessings recited over the food at the beginning of the supper, each of the participants at the table receiving a piece of the same loaf that is broken by the one pronouncing the blessing. The term, "Breaking of Bread" came to be the name of the fellowship meeting practiced by the early Jewish believers and followed by Gentile believers in lands outside of the land of Israel. In the Breaking of Bread meeting believers came together in private and secluded accommodations (generally a home) in order to share a common meal around the table and in accordance with the command of the Lor'd Yeshua the Messiah, to remember Him with joy and to worship the Lor'd. This Breaking of Bread meeting was regarded as the foundation of fellowship in the communities of the first believers. http://www.netivyah.org.il/English%20Web/MidrashaArticles/breaking_bread.html

[torahgrandma]

Tradition has a habit of being wrong.

That is why I disregard the talmud ;)

[stone]

That is why I disregard the talmud ;)


every culture has a tradition

[Ivy]

Tradition is valuable for self-discipline, too.......a lack of self-discipline is pretty much always wrong, in my view.

[visionary]

Tradition is like neutral, for moments when moving spiritual forward or backwards isn't what we want to do.

[Ivy]

Actually, I find that it can help me move forward, particularly in prayer.

[visionary]

every culture has a traditionMost people like traditions because they can expect them, they know what is going to happen, they know the story that they can follow, and they know what is expected of them.

[Henaynei]

Tradition is like neutral, for moments when moving spiritual forward or backwards isn't what we want to do. :cry: I couldn't disagree more :(

[visionary]

Anyone with tradition experience with God?
Does God answer with tradition?
Would you like to be spoken to in litergy? Would communicating with other people in litergy be honorable?

[Texasbluebonnet]

Do you think sunday tradition is biblical?

Do you mean going to church on Sunday? If so, then...probably not. It's probably not biblical. My thoughts anyway.

[Henaynei]

Anyone with tradition experience with God?
Does God answer with tradition?
Would you like to be spoken to in litergy? Would communicating with other people in litergy be honorable?:D the entire business world communicates by "litergy" (a set format for communication when not face to face), language and idioms are "liturgy"

and yes G-d has answered me within traditions :) Her often uses the symbology of various traditions to communicate to us .... if we listen