D
Doihavtasay
Guest
I listened to a prot sermon yesterday on the Last Supper. “His Last Meal rockvalleybiblechurch.org/Sermons/SermonsByDate.htm”
and in the sermon, the Pstr compared the present Jewish Passover Sedar to our present day Communion. Now I understand the connection and agree, but he was making the point that Communion is just symbolic based on the fact that the Passover Sader ( sadar? Sedar?) is ALL symbolic-there is no lamb sacrifice, no blood on the door posts etc…
It struck me though that present day Jews are apostate so we are comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps his anology is closer to the truth then he realizes
In the days when the Jews still had the temple, the presense of the Lord in the Ark, the priests to intervene etc… they DID use a real lamb for the Passover, correct? Even though there was some symbolism, such as the herbs and the manner it was prepared, it was still real blood, still a real sacrifice. Or am I mistaken?
If the Passover was to be celebrated with real blood and was not merely symbolic, then this would actually be more supporting evidence to the fact that the Euchrist would also be the real presense.
The Lord has always been physically present here on earth with His people. so it all makes Biblical sense.
Is this correct, or am I way off base here??
I am a re-vert and still learning so not sure I have this right.
and in the sermon, the Pstr compared the present Jewish Passover Sedar to our present day Communion. Now I understand the connection and agree, but he was making the point that Communion is just symbolic based on the fact that the Passover Sader ( sadar? Sedar?) is ALL symbolic-there is no lamb sacrifice, no blood on the door posts etc…
It struck me though that present day Jews are apostate so we are comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps his anology is closer to the truth then he realizes
In the days when the Jews still had the temple, the presense of the Lord in the Ark, the priests to intervene etc… they DID use a real lamb for the Passover, correct? Even though there was some symbolism, such as the herbs and the manner it was prepared, it was still real blood, still a real sacrifice. Or am I mistaken?
If the Passover was to be celebrated with real blood and was not merely symbolic, then this would actually be more supporting evidence to the fact that the Euchrist would also be the real presense.
The Lord has always been physically present here on earth with His people. so it all makes Biblical sense.
Is this correct, or am I way off base here??
I am a re-vert and still learning so not sure I have this right.