DeoOmnisGloria.com

Perhaps those who came immediately after the Apostles should be given more authority than those who followed 1300 years later. I would still give primary authority to the Bible. After all, Catholics and Protestants both are now almost 2000 years removed from the Apostles.

Jay,

Your post had an interesting point that hit me.
Did Jesus come to start an Institution with all of its layers of buracracy?

Maybe Martin Luther had some things wrong. I know that some of his ideas and later writings were out there... But his questioning of some of the practices going on at the time may have had merrit. Was the paying of indulgences something that would have eventually gone away and would it have been dealt with if he would not have called attention to it..? I doubt it.

Would the common man have had the opportunity to study the bible? Again I highly doubt it..
I believe if the reformation had not have happened we may still be in the dark ages, going on crusades and having inquistions ??

Did the Apostles serve mass with a priest the way you do now with all of the litergy? Were their priests in the first century church? Were they called priests or were they Elders and Deacons? When did the mass start? The liturgical Mass is what I mean. I know that the last supper is part of the mass and that was what was celebrated in the first century church.

I know I have said this before but, I believe that the church after the apostles and especially during the time of Constantine became this formal Institution and a body like the Jewish Pharasees and Saducees.. Jesus held most of them in contempt because although they knew the law they added to it and instead of serving God and His people they put burdens on the people and wanted to be served by them rather than serve ...

The apostles discouraged people from bowing down to them or worshiping them. Yet we hold Bishops and the pope in this high esteem, with people seeking to kiss his ring...

I believe and I think history bears it out that the church got off track and the reformers were just tying to get it back to the church that Jesus started....

You probably will disagree but that is okay...
Since God is in control then He must have allowed the reformation for a reason ... You see it as a bad thing.. I think most protestants see it as a way to bring the church back to it's humble beginnings.. JMHO ..

Your brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,
That's exactly why I suggest you read the early Church Fathers. You'll be stunned.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Where would the best place to start? I have seen the volumous books that compose the early church father's writings. I must say that it is rather intimidating. I just don't have time to sit through them all. I did pick up Augustine's the City of God and got through about half of it and most of it is a) not understandable to me and b) needs itself to be interpreted. And I am not about to allow the Catholic Church to interpret these writings for me. That's like giving the fox the keys to the chicken coop.

I also want a writer that was alive and was taught by the Apostles, which rules out most of the early church fathers.

An interesting side note: I just learned a couple of weeks ago that one of my church's core values is seeking to look at the whole of christian thought, theology and history, and not just from the reformation on. We might not be so far away as you think. My minister just as regularly quotes from Augustine as he does from Luther.

By the way, no matter how much you disparage Luther, I don't think that other than the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, that he believed too differently from modern Catholics. So your dismissal of him as differing from the early church fathers on the vast majority of the Church's doctrines is wrong.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
First, you are incorrect about the early Church Fathers. Many of them were taught personally by the Apostles - start at the beginning, rather than with someone like Augustine (many people have trouble understanding Augustine).

Second, Luther was wrong because he decided that the Church Christ established wasn't good enough, so he started his own. Just because he didn't change every teaching of Catholicism doesn't make this event less wrong. In other words: the things he was right about were the things he didn't change. And his followers ended up changing almost all of these (Luther used to have Anabaptists killed because they taught that infant baptism was wrong). Remember, it's your church, not mine, that is founded on the principles Luther invented. It is those principles (sola scriptura, sola fides) which are wrong.

By the way, it sounds like your pastor will be joining the Catholic Church in a few years. :-)
To paraphrase: with a little depth of knowledge in history one ceases to be protestant.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I know you love to argue, but you didn't answer my first question. It was an honest one.

My minister and our staff in general has a tremendous knowledge of church history and the early church fathers, so if it hasn't happended yet, I doubt it will. He studies upwards of 30-40 hours preparing for each sermon. He is also married and there is no doubt he has been gifted and called into the ministery. Unfortunately for Catholics those two things are mutually exclusive.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
I thought I did answer it: the best place to start is in the beginning (earliest writings). Feel free to purchase a protestant version of the Fathers, if that helps. Begin with the Didache and work forward in time.

Catholics didn't invent the "mutually exclusive" nature of the priesthood, Jesus did (Matthew 19:10-12). Paul specifically noted its necessity in Corinthians (1 Cor 7:7-9, 32-33). However, protestants have chosen to ignore this passage and pretend it doesn't exist.

I'll pray that your pastor finds the Truth.

God bless,
Jay

I truly think it is less (much, much less) a matter of who’s point of view about Christ is ‘better’ than it is a matter of seeking to perceive how the Spirit of G-d is alive and well in even our Protestant siblings’ churches.

Sure, temporally the Church Fathers were closer to the apostles than was Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. But you must remember/realize, that if Luther had not done what he did when he did it, someone else within the Church would have done something almost as significant – our Church was at the time, desperately in need of a reform; not a split to be sure – but reform of some kind.

I think we Catholics stand to learn an enormous “lot” from our Protestant brothers and sisters in Jesus Messiah. For instance, all of Luther’s writings are not utterly bereft of Truth. Likewise, the entirety of Calvin’s works are not “totally depraved” of the Spirit.

Indeed – and to make a big temporal jump – we’ve a lot to learn from say, Bonhoeffer, and even much more from Karl Barth (arguably the most important theologian of the 20th Century – Catholic or Protestant). Their “view of Christ” is no better or worse than the Church Fathers’ – but different. Barth’s view about Christ shone brightly at a time when the Bible (read by both Catholics and Protestants) was under attack from German Liberalism. It shined powerfully again in response to the Nazism of the German Christians (Read the Barmen Declaration – an awesome text!).

It is easy – especially in a context of apologetics – to offer extreme/simple portraits of our “opponents” (like Luther), rather than struggle to recognize that the sovereignty of G-d not only survived the Protestant Reformation, but that somehow Luther (et al) ultimately served the over-arching purposes of G-d (Rom 9:17 !!!).

Peace.

Careful Jack...it almost sounds like you are saying that it was a "good" thing for the Reformation to happen. Division, especially theological division, as that of the Protestant Reformation is not a manifestation of God's Perfect Will to be certain.

What insight did Luther, or Calvin for that matter, provide that had not already been provided by others who remained in the Church? St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, and St. Ignatius immediately come to mind. Not to mention St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Francis de Sales. All participated in bringing about reform from within. It wasn't Protestantism that forced this either. Historically speaking, the division of Protestants and Catholics only brought about war and bloodshed.

In terms of the greatest theologian of the 20th century...no one can compare with Pope John Paul II. But don't take my word for it...read his writings. After him, I would have to lean toward Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

In Christ,
Joe

Joseph! It is always good to hear from you, and to hear your perspectives.

Division is not a good thing, you are right. And the Protestant Reformation was not a manifestation of G-d’s Perfect Will; right! Nevertheless, the world with and in which the Church is a part is not a perfect world (Gen 1-3). It is within such a context that G-d, from time-to-time, raises up folks like Pharaoh. G-d didn’t raise Pharaoh up so that Pharaoh’s name might be proclaimed throughout the earth, but so that G-d’s name might be proclaimed and G-d’s power might be made manifest (Rom 9:17). G-d’s power was not manifested in Pharaoh’s obdurateness, nor was it manifested in the sending of the plagues. G-d’s power was manifested in G-d’s faithfulness to G-d’s people as it was demonstrated so clearly in G-d’s magnificent act of liberation! That is a theological interpretation of the Exodus narrative as it concerns Pharaoh. But, Paul’s point at Rom 9:17 (and nearly the entirety of Chpter 9), is simply to demonstrate that G-d is in charge, and can do what G-d wants to do regardless of what humans do or don’t do (Rom 9:11), and despite any protestations on the part of humans (Rom 9:18-19, 21).

Clearly at least, G-d demonstrated G-d’s power & wisdom through the protestations of the ana-Baptists, Luther, et al, by means of (i.e. instrumentally) the Holy Church’s theological response to the Reformation. Joe, we can always learn something from our “opponents” over-emphasis (or better, over reaction) to things needing attention. You’re right that Protestantism didn’t force the matter, but need for change certainly did. Nevertheless, the war and bloodshed that followed the split was perpetrated and nurtured, regrettably, from both sides of the fence.

You’ve no argument from me about JP II’s theological genius. (I’ve a portrait of the Pope above the desk in my office [for inspiration] – and a portrait of Barth underneath it!). It is unfortunate (in a strange sort of way) that we’ve no way to know what kind of work he might have done during the early 1900’s when German Liberalism was making its move. Nevertheless, there are very few that would disagree with the suggestion that after the advent of Der Romerbrief und Kircheliche Dogmatik, all theology – Catholic and Protestant – was and still is to a great extent, done in response to/reaction against Barth. In the end though, I suppose it is silly to try and argue “the most important” theologian, especially since such prophets are sent to us when G-d wants them here – on G-d’s terms, not ours.

Blessings Joe!

Try the website Biblical Evidence Catholicism - Dave Armstrong a convert. Many letters from non Catholics.

Clem:

the first apostles went house to house til which time it became impossible to do so because of how fast the churches were growing.. So meeting areas were set up.

Altho the church itself is the body of messiah/Chrsit/temple, yet the fortress or citadel of the temple, which protected the temple is what we term today, the church, (buildings, meeting grounds)....

The synagogue for instance, was not commanded by in any of scripture.. it was a fabrication of the pharisees who created it. yet, without bible command, they did it. Chrsit attended Hanuchah, the feast of dedication as it was the custom of the jews. customs were traditions, outside sola scriptura, so wsa the synagogue, no command prior to the new testament do we see God sayiing, build me synagogues.. rathe, we see this custom alreayd in place in the new, without command or objection....

The mass itself is taken from the evening and morning oblations, (remember the lamb slain as a continual offering, the fires had to be lit constantly in the temple and they had watch to make sure it was..) These oblations included the sacrifice of the lamb, prayers and readings, to which, the first apostles themn went door to door sharing the bread of presence or communion.... Tus, altho there is a passover lamb, slain once a year, God still required a continual sacrifice twice a day.. IF Chrsitr fulfilled the type as lassover lamb by dying on the cross, how is the continual sacrifice of the evening and morning oblation satisfied? Thru the mass.. Later, in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple, all sacrifices ceased and a form was taken that more closely resembles the mass of today. IN fact, in teh catacombs, they used to say mass over an altar which layed the dead body of a christian martyr.. (representing the blood of the martyrs unde the altar) The assyrian nestorian church of the east also celebrates a type of mass.. it is believed that the jerusalem church fled to Assyria and the first 6 bishops of that church were all jewish. They have something called "qurbana" which is their name for communion...

Carmine,

It is my understanding that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and that He died once for all. He is the high priest on the order of Malchieadek (Spelling ?). Those morning and evening sacrifices were temporary. The sacrifice Jesus made is eternal... Didn't HE fulfill God's
requirement? Didn't He pay the price?

He said to Eat the Bread and the Wine in Remembrance of Him. Did He say this was an actual sacrifice or did it represent the sacrifice HE was about to make ???

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,
He said, "If you do not chew my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." Sounds literal to me. Oh, and the apostles "dedicated themselves to the breaking of bread." This is meaningless under your interpretation.

By the way, Paul said his sufferings "make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ." That doesn't seem to fit with your interpretation, Clem.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

He also said If your Eye causes you to sin pluck it out and if your hand causes you to sin Cut it off. Sounds pretty literal to me !!

I don't see very many one eyed or no eyed AND HANDLESS Christians... If He did not mean this
literally then MAYBE He wasn't talking literally about the bread and the wine.. ??

He also told Nichodemus that he had to be born
again, but he clarified it later on in the chapter. Look at John 6:63. Just as He told Nichodemus that the being born again was being born of the Spirit. In verse 6:63 Jesus is saying that the food that they are eating is Spiritual and Not Literal food...

It's not that off the wall. It's just that you choose to accept the RCC interpretation as correct. To me it makes perfect sense that Jesus is taking Spiritually and not Physically or literally ..

Of course I know that you will not accept my answer as plausable..

Peace,

Clem

How do you explain Clem, the FACT that tyhe apostles went to the temple services and attended the morning oblations EACH CDAY as recorded in ACTS?

Just a hint regarding the eucharist:

1. the body of messiah or Chrsit had two forms in one. It was all human, all divine. Christ totally stripped of all divinity, came to earth as a man, (the word was made flesh), he was overshadowed/anointed by the spirit at age 30.... Thus we have man and divinity under the form of human flesh alone... (altho he is fully divine, all his miracles were wrought by the spirit in Him since he had emptied himself of all divinity when he was born of woman)

When we are born again, as the body of Chrsit, the flesh is overshadowed by the spirit, two in one..

Christ's body, the church is represented by who you are on the outside, (form of flesh) and who you are on the inside, the spirit dwelling in you.

The bread of presence in the temple was called such for a reason. It was not only symbolic of the 12 tribes but it revealed soemthing more. If it is represented by the 12 tribes, we see that the priests would place the bread in the temple and God's presence would overshadow the bread and it would become the brfead of presence, the table included wine also, thus it ws the table of presence. NO OTHER thing in the holy place was called "of the presence" , only the bread and wine. REpresenting the 12 tribes, it also taught that the tribes, as human, wewe also of two natures, they were sealed of the spirit, (overshadowed)... This is the same bread and wine offered by Melkisidek...

If yo uare to be HONEST scripturally Clem, you can't play games with types and not be consisstent. IF in fact the body of Chrsit, (HIMSELF) wsa flesh and divinity/anointed spirit within his flesh, if we, as the body are also flesh with the indwelt spirit of Chrsit in us, then any suggestion of the body of messiah is really a revealing of messiah in that form, whether it is bread and wine witht he spirit that overshadowed or us, the church, or Chrsit himself, theya re all different forms of the same thing...

Paul speaks of the body of messiah, the early church fathers all speak of the transformation....

Chrsit sid this is my body... that means waht it says simply.

NOW, do this in memory of me.... HOWEVER, do aht in his memory or remembrance of me? Take the bread and break it in his memory? The lamb of passover wsa done as a memorial, why didn't Chrsit take the lamb and say I am this lamb, do this in my memory since it was obvious the lamb wsa a memorial, but he didn't. He took BREAD, he brought bck the priesthood of Melkisidek where all would share in the bread of presence that had preveiously, only been available to the priests of the temple.....

HE said this is my body... AND whenevver you partake of this holy moment, you are in fact, commemorating me til I come again (in the flesh, in glory).....

The same spriit that overshadowed Chrsit, that overshadowed the bread of presence in the temple, that overshadowed you at your conversion is the same spirit that overshadows the bread and wine.
Now, if Christ is in you and that is fine to say Clem, we see Clem, not Chrsit, the form is still under flesh.. so too, the bread, it is under the form of bread but hsa been blessed and overshadowed by the sme spirit that overshadowed yo. Just as Chrsit is in you, it is now, in the bread, (that same spirit, anointing)

it is the spirit that heals, right, can you buy that?

When hankerchiefs were prayed over by anointed men, those hankerchiefs would become anointed, holy, the presence of the spirit ws present.. When the sick person received this hankerchief in faith, they were healed of their ailments because they were receiving the spirit that wsa in Chrsit, thru the relic.....

When you , in faith, discern the body of messiah in the bread and wine, you receive this spirit once again, it's presence is the presence of the spirit of Chrsit once again, under the form of bread and wine. When you are received by non-believers, it is as if they are receiving the Christ in you also. it is all inter related.. People wold get sick when they didn't discern it properly. Paul taks about the body of messiah in his writings.. HE didn't say the symbol of our messiah, he said the body of messiah.. in context, he wasn't playing symbolisms here Clem.... Paul said:

1 Corinthians 10
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

many kernels of wheat had to be thrashed with a (tribulatum.. instrument of threashing), ground up, added oil and water and cooked with heat (fire) and made into bread..... AGain, we see how the many who are the body of Chrsit are many kernels of wheat, having gone thru tribulation and tested by fire, to emerge pure and holy, oveshadowed by the spirit of God and sanctified, set apart, holy... The beread and wine are the same thing. you cn't pick and choose how much fof a pattern you want to transfer.... and use, you either undestand the pattern as being exactly alike and the same or you don't....

Clem, can i say you are not the body of Chrsit? Lets look"

1 Corinthians 12
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

See, this is only symboic. you aren't really part opf the body of Chrsit, you are just symbolically spoken of in taht way, just to teach about unity, but in reality, youa re but an empty shell. Does that at all make any sense to you?

NO..

and why not? BEcause yo know, by the passage, that you are the body of messiah, why? BEcause the spirit in you is the seal that you are a member of the body, (not just a member of a club) the spirit in you makes you partaker of the "body of Christ"

What makes yo uthink you are not just the body as in a body of water ofr a body or group of people with like interest? BEcause it is more than that. Body is not used symbolically... Christ's presence goes with you, not symbolically, but actually....

This is the mystery of God.. Christ in you....

When we partake of communion, it is partaking of the bread of presence.

The passover lamb was one lamb a year, the morning and evening oblations were two times a day, every day... Christ fulfilled the passover lamb with his death on thecross, communion is likened to the morning and evening oblations.. What did those oblations do? Keep the sacrifice and blood ever present, continually covering.

I am going to post a short study on this Clem , it will probaly help aloto f catholics also in being stronger in their beliefs and why..
NExt post is the study...

CArmine

This is a cut and paste of sections of a larger study, written by a "messianic" and many hidden things are revealed thru word studies from the old testament also..

REgarding the eucharist and it's representation...

You must set the Bread of Presenceon the table before Me always -Exodus 25:30.

…You have left your first love feast (protos agape – above all in primacy). Remember from what you have fallen away and repent. Do the FirstWorks – (the first act established was communion) or else I will come quickly and remove your lampstand, except you repent -Revelation 2:1: 4 &5.

Bread is always used to establish a covenant. It is impossible to function as a Priest without bread and wine. This is the pattern set up by Jahwah and given to Moses on the Mount.

The loaves of showbread symbolize the covenant between Jahwah and His people Israel. Your being born again is represented by the spirit in YOU, that seal symbolizes your covenant with God. Are you symbolically sealed? NO, but that seal represents/symbolizes yoru covenant with God, it is your guarentee....

Leviticus 24:5-9: Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two—tenths of an ephah (2 pounds) for each loaf. Set them in two rows (two means COVENANT), six in each row, on the table of pure gold BEFORE JAHWAH. Next to each row of shewbread, you must set pure frankincense to be sent up by fire in place of the shewbread as an offering to Me. (Incense must be burnt during the partaking of communion, as it is an offering for Jahwah, instead of the lechem.)

(note: in the old mass in latin, incense was always burnt during service/mass in following this type)

Every Sabbath (Sabbath after Sabbath) the priest MUST set/PUT THE SHEWBREAD IN ORDER before Jahwah continually/for all time to come, on behalf of the children of Israel, as an OLAM/hidden/properly concealed/ ANCIENT TIME/ PERMANENT COVENANT. The bread belongs to Aaron and his children, who must eat it only in the HOLY PLACE, because it is the MOST HOLY PART of Jahwah’s offerings by fire. It is an OLAM/HIDDEN/PROPERLY CONCEALED/PERMANENT SET-TIME ORDINANCE

The showbread in Hebrew was called Paneh Lechem, Bread of the Face because through the partaking thereof, man attains the WISDOM and PRESENCE of Jahwah. The bread is also called THE BREAD ARRANGED IN ORDER, the Bread of Ordering, the Bread which is in the presence of Jahwah, or the arranged bread. This is the place Jahwah teaches and puts us in proper order on a daily basis. This is our Daily Bread.

The Table of Bread was called the Table of the Face, because it was set forth before the face or in the presence of Jahwah in His holy place.1 Once the Bread of the Presence enters the sanctuary, its nearness to Jahwah renders it holy. The three rites performed in the Holy Place are the burning of the lamps, the burning of incense, and the bread of presence. Of the three rites, only the Bread of the Presence is continual for the lamp burns only at night and the incense burns only a short period of time after it has been lit. Jahshuwah, the Bread of Life, was born in Bethlehem, the House of Bread. We receive life and intercourse with Jahwah through the partaking of the Bread of Life.

There is one requirement for coming to Jahwah’s Table and that is one of circumcision: Exodus 12:43-45: Jahwah said unto Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner/alien/stranger shall eat of it. Any servant you have bought may eat of it after you have CIRCUMCISED HIM, But a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. Without Communion, we are BLIND. If the showbread is removed, the PRESENCE of Jahwah has been removed. Joel 1:9-13: The MEAL OFFERING and the DRINK OFFERING have been CUT OFF FROM THE HOUSE OF JAHWAH (this is the period between the first and second loaves of raised bread); the priests, Jahwah’s ministers, mourn.

There is one requirement for coming to Jahwah’s Table and that is one of circumcision:

Exodus 12:43-45: Jahwah said unto Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner/alien/stranger shall eat of it. Any servant you have bought may eat of it after you have CIRCUMCISED HIM, But a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. Without Communion, we are BLIND. If the showbread is removed, the PRESENCE of Jahwah has been removed.

Joel 1:9-13: The MEAL OFFERING and the DRINK OFFERING have been CUT OFF FROM THE HOUSE OF JAHWAH (this is the period between the first and second loaves of raised bread); the priests, Jahwah’s ministers, mourn.

Then he said unto them: How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? Then beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in the scriptures all the things concerning himself. As they approached the village to which they were going, Jahshuwah acted as if he were going farther. They urged him, saying: Stay with us, for it is almost evening, and the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. They had spent MOST OF THE DAY with Jahshuwah discussing the past events, and yet STILL DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. Now take special notice at the event that took place, which at last reveals to them the identity of the Messiah

And when he was seated with them at table, he took the ARTOS/bread, and blessed, and broke it and gave it to them. THEN THEIR EYES WERE IMMEDIATELY OPENED and they clearly RECOGNIZED HIM; he then vanished out of their sight.

---> note: he broke and blessed the bread, and gave it to them, then he disappeared. How much more symbolism do we need here? He disappeared becasue he wsa now present in the bread, in fact, he had really not disappeared at all, he wsa still there in another form. 9the spirit that overshadowed the blessed bread)

And they said to one another: Were not our hearts greatly moved and burning within us while he was talking with us on the road and as He opened and explained to us the sense of the Scriptures? And rising up that very hour, they went back to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven apostles and those who were with them, gathered together, saying: The Master has indeed risen and has appeared to Simon Peter! Then the two began describing their experiences on the road, and how HE WAS MADE KNOWN TO THEM IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD

The Apostles’ Doctrine is brought forth in Acts 2:42. So just what was this doctrine? The apostolic assembly took communion twice daily at the times of the evening and morning sacrifices, but due to the false translations, it has been erased from the Word.

CLEM and others, please read this sincerely and in depth, there is snoehting we have to understand that is lst in translation:

Acts 2:42, when translated correctly, brings forth this beautiful Truth.

The King James Bible translates it as: Act 2:42:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Now lets look at some of the words and their definitions:

Continue Stedfastly: to persevere, be constantly diligent, or (in a place) to attend assiduously all the exercises, or (to a person)

TO ADHERE CLOSELY TO (as a servitor); to continue all the time in a place, to persevere and not to faint, to give unremitting care to a thing.

Doctrine: INSTRUCTION, teaching. And: is kai in Greek, but it also means BOTH in English.

Fellowship: COMMUNION, INTERCOURSE, COMMUNICATION, intimacy, the right hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship in fulfilling the apostolic office. Bread: bread or a loaf: - (shew-) bread, loaf. (The bread used at the love-feasts and at the Messiah’s Table.

Prayer: Hebrew = 6419 – Palal – to judge; by extension to intercede, pray, intreat, make prayer, make supplication, WORSHIP.

--->>> Now for translating the verse, keeping in mind the definitions above.

Act 2:42-46:

And they continued stedfastly/ADHERED CLOSELY TO the apostles' doctrine/INSTRUCTION FOR COMMUNION/INTERCOURSE both in BREAKING OF SHOWBREAD/RAISED BREAD/LOAF OF BREAD, and WORSHIP.

Now take special notice to the very next verse –

communion was taken, then many miracles were performed. Then many MIRACLES and SIGNS were done by the messengers/apostles and FEAR came upon every soul. Then all the believers WERE in ONE ACCORD/UNITED, and began to hold all things in common (were all of ONE MIND). They then sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as every one

Every day they continued to meet as a group in the temple, but broke bread/TOOK COMMUNION IN THEIR HOMES. They received their portion with EXTREME JOY and sincerity/SINGLENESS OF HEART (a heart undivided). Acts 20:7: At/On the first of the Sabbath, when the disciples were gathered together to take communion/break bread, intending to depart on the next day, but Paul continued his message way past midnight.

Communion in Greek is koinonia, and means fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, and intercourse. Partaking of communion is the partaking of the same bread, Jahshuwah, which unites us in ONE ACCORD,

The communion of holy bread is the Bread of Life:

John 6:35, 48-66:

And Jahshuwah said unto them: I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will never hunger, and he that believes on me will never thirst… I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna (not raised bread) in the wilderness, and are dead. This is BREAD (artos), which comes down from heaven, so a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the LIVING BREAD, which came down from heaven. If any man eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I will give is MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world.

(thisis a study done by a messianic mind you so there is another level of undersanding we enter into when studying the patterns and wrod studies in the original languages....)

Revelation 2:1-5:

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands; I know everything you have done, including your hard work and how you have endured. I know you won't put up with anyone who is evil. When some people pretended to be apostles, you tested them and found out that they were liars. I know you are enduring patiently and are bearing up for My name's sake, and you have not fainted or become exhausted or grown weary. However, I do have this against you: You have ABANDONED THE LOVEFEAST YOU DID AT FIRST. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent, and do as you did at first by keeping the lovefeast/communion. If you don’t turn back, I will come quickly and remove your lampstand out of his house.

(here the study is refering to the first love they did as having been what? the one thing Chrsit told us to do often.....)

We enter the Holy of Holies by his blood, i.e. when we drink the cup at communion. Hebrews 10:19 & 20: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Most Holy Place BY THE BLOOD OF JAHSHUWAH (by drinking the cup of communion), by a new (the cup is the new covenant) and living (the bread is living bread) way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.

We are heirs of Abraham through Jahshuwah, therefore we are served communion by Melchizedek.

Galatians 3:5–18:

Does Jahwah give you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEARD? Consider Abraham: He believed Jahwah, and it was credited to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS. Understand, then, that those who believe are CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM.

The Scripture foresaw that Jahwah would JUSTIFY the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All nations will be blessed through you. So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith…

Verse 14: He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Messiah Jahshuwah, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Ruwach ha’ qodesh.

In the same letter, to the Corinthians, Paul condemns the ecclesia for getting drunk on the
Communion wine and for eating the Communion bread as a meal. Again, this is another Scripture that is grossly misunderstood by most.

1 Corinthians 11:17-34:
Now that I am on the subject of instructions, I cannot congratulate you on the meetings you hold, they do more harm than good… When you meet together, IT REALLY ISN’T TO EAT JAHSHUWAH’S SUPPER, For when the time comes to partake, everyone tries to grab his communion/feast before anyone else, with the result that one goes without and another has too much, i.e. becomes drunk. Haven’t you houses of your own in which to have your meals, or are you so contemptuous of Jahwah’s ecclesia that you humiliate its poorer members who have no other home?4 What do you expect for me to say? Shall I commend you in this? Certainly not… So then, whoever eats this raised bread or drinks the cup of Jahshuwah in a CARELESS MANNER (anaxios - in an unworthy manner by gorging or getting drunk), in a way that dishonors him, will be guilty of profaning and sinning against the body and blood of Jahshuwah.

How do you sin against the BODY AND the blood of Chrsit unless it is teh bread and wine at that supper? If you are the body of Chrsit, no where do we see us called the blood of Chrsit.. you profane the body and blood when you do not discern it's form under bread and wine and eat it without reverence for what it is....

So then, everyone should examine himself first, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discriminating and recognizing with due appreciation THAT IT IS CHRIST'S BODY, eats and drinks a sentence (a verdict of judgment) upon himself. Or, He that eats and drinks carelessly is eating and drinking a condemnation on himself, for he is blind to the presence of the Body. It is this careless participation, which is the reason for the many feeble and sickly Christians in your ecclesia, and the explanation of the fact that many of you are spiritually asleep.5 If we were closely to examine ourselves beforehand, we should avoid the judgment of Jahwah. But when Jahwah does judge us, He disciplines us as His own sons, that we may not be condemned along with the world

Hebrews 10:19 & 20:
Therefore, brethren, have the boldness to enter into the HOLIEST by the BLOOD OF JAHSHUWAH, By a NEW and LIVING WAY, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.

The cup is associated with that which is NEW:

Luke 22:20: …This cup is the NEW COVENANT in my blood, which is shed for you. The Living Way is the LIVING BREAD:

John 6:51: I am the LIVING raised bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this RAISED BREAD, he will live ETERNALLY, because the raised bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the LIFE of the world. It is through partaking of daily communion that we are released from the burden of sin in our daily lives.6

A word to the ecclesia, not the unsaved:

Revelation 3:19 & 20:

As many as I love, I rebuke/tell you your faults and TRAIN UP AS A CHILD/chasten, therefore be zealous, and REPENT/CHANGE YOUR WAY OF THINKING. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock. If any man hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will DINE WITH HIM, and he with me.

There is a common misconception that verse 20 is talking about salvation, but John is writing to the ecclesias, therefore he is speaking of something else.

The word dine concerns partaking of a MEAL, i.e. Koinonia meal.

I think this is enough for now to offer enough insights for the truly searching brethren to follow up on "as bereans" if they want the challenge....

A true berean checks on these things, they don't just glaze over and continue in their wrong beliefs.. they at least, look into it to see if it is true, that means leaving pre-disposed thinking at the door.

God Bless

CArmine

Post a comment