On Holy Communion

[larkin31]

You have a little frustration stored up in you, don’t you. If I believe in the saving Grace of Christ is contained and flowes through the most august of the sacraments, you say I am semi-pagan?

Do you remember the scripture about the tax collector and the pharasee in the temple? Who was saved? Careful how you accuse me of being pagan, remember to check for the plank in you eye.

I KNOW that I am pagan.

I KNOW that I can be wrong and so can the collections of persons who start religions and churches.

I am not the arrogant one, simply when I point out that humans have interpretive differences, make interpretive mistakes, some of them (like curvature of the earth) quite famous.

If you don’t understand or acknowledge the pagan “flavor” of ritual consumption of sacrificed animals (or persons!), then this information may sting a little. But MANY MANY theologians have discussed this before you and I do tonight. And they don’t have to resort to namecalling.

 

[larkin31]

Just have a question for the Protestants, more specifically those who reject the doctrine of the real presence in the elements of Communion.

Why do you reject it?

I’ve always considered it symbolic because it never occurred to me to believe that the Eucharist contains the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lately however I’ve begun to change my mind concerning it, thinking that maybe it is indeed truly his body and blood.

Any thoughts by anyone?

Hey, Lapey. That I am from outside your faith should be taken up, also, with the original poster who requested EXACTLY what I provided sincerely.

You can take your “arrogance” line and send it to a mod if you think you have a case. Otherwise, stop being so touchy and simply respond to the points. There is nothing new or unfamiliar being discussed here.

 

[Joshua27]

It seems to me that the attention of those false disciples had already shifted to Jesus referring to consuming flesh. He had already refuted the concept that he would give bread long before when he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven…” which he goes to clarify is his body that he will (“will” to them “has” to us) sacrifice:
*
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” *(John 6:51)

Why would he go on to say that the bread was his flesh?

Go back earlier, Fabius…when Messiah offered “bread from heaven” they stilled asked for it. [John 6:34]

He then said he was the bread of life, “he that comes to me shall never hunger, he that believes in me shall never thirst.”[John 6:35]

“And this is the will of Him that sent me, that ever one which sees the Son, and believes in him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him us at the last day.”[John 6:40]

Then they were taken aback because he had human parents, how could Jesus come from heaven (another challenge; they didn’t believe he was from Heaven)? [John 6:41-42]

“He that believes in me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life”[John 6:47-48]

“Your fathers ate mana [real bread] in the wilderness and yet still died. This bread comes from heaven, that a man may eat and not die.” [John 6:49-50]

Then comes John 6:51…

Then when he allegedly clarifies his words as being figurative, the false disciples leave. Why? They were offended by the literal reference to consuming flesh and blood, which appeared disgusting, not at Jesus not providing them bread. Their leaving was directly responding to the concept of eating flesh.

No. It was direct response to the explanation. You miss the full conversation, Fabius.

1. Their own carnal desire draws them back to Jesus (to be fed).
2. Jesus rebukes them for not understanding that the miracle was a sign.
3. They then insist to receive another food sign similar to “Moses and the mana” so they’ll believe.
4. Jesus says true food comes from heaven and that he is that food.
5. They argue, “But you haven’t come from heaven!”
6. Jesus says “I have”, and to believe in me is to have everlasting life
7. Jesus ties it back to food and says “I am the bread of life, and my flesh gives life”
8. There’s disgust…but they stay to challenge this.
9. Jesus goes a step further, adding blood…and they become confused and wondered for explanation.
10. Then Jesus explains what he means that “His Words are Spirit”; emphasis found on “they” [His words] are life that feed.
11. Then…only then…do they leave.

NOTE: They DID NOT leave upon disgust - but AFTER Jesus explained that “the words that [HE] speaks to [them] are Spirit” [John 6:63].

Why would Jesus’ teaching about flesh and blood being symbolic, and therefore Spirit and life be a difficult teaching to accept?

It wasn’t difficult…Ultimately, they left in dissapointment because they received nothing this time.

John 6:66 says “From that time [emphasis not mine] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

Note: From this verse “time” is emphasized in scripture, meaning ‘from that moment further’ AFTER explanation of his words.

The sacrifice was both physical and spiritual. We are not sufficient because we don’t carry the spiritual qualifications. Neither of us are divine, and neither of us are perfect.

Jesus was divine, but if his sacrifice was purely spiritual, then he did not really die on the cross, which is a Gnostic allegation. But God needed both a spiritual and physical sacrifice to suffice. That’s why Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…So his physical sacrifice could save the world.

Exactly, Fabius, that was my point.

But you misunderstand the relationship of Spirit and Physical. Prior to becoming man, Jesus could not die because he was already Spirit, and Spirit can not die. But death is required to pay the price of sin; a “spiritual” corruptness, as it isn’t a “stain” we can physically see or touch or taste (not to be confused with curses).

There is no way for a “spirit” to die unless it is born into the “physical” world, which is what Jesus did.

but is it not also a physical death? Would Adam had physically died had he not taken the fruit? No.

Incorrect, Fabius. God said, “and lest man [who had just previously sinned] take of the tree of life and live forever”, and then God removed access to the tree of life [Gen 3:22] to cause physical dealth.

Physical death was not tied to Spiritual dealth, but an action of God to temporary fix the problem so that Spiritual death [true corruption] does not become “forever”.

Am I a better judge of scripture than they?

What if I say that I am a direct decendant from Peter, who’s words and history was exclusively passed down through my family to me? You have no choice but to believe me [or not], correct?

Again, here we see that John clearly explains…

Do you see how clearly John is explaining what Jesus meant?

Yes. But note that John explains when Jesus does not. John does not explain when Jesus has given an explanation like in John 11:14 for Lazarus.

Prior to this, Jesus Speaks of Lazarus “sleeping” in John 11:11. If Jesus left his words here (and if explanation was needed) John would’ve chimed in, but he didn’t because Jesus gave explanation himself [Lazarus is “Dead”].

 

[Lapey]

I KNOW that I am pagan.

I KNOW that I can be wrong and so can the collections of persons who start religions and churches.

I am not the arrogant one, simply when I point out that humans have interpretive differences, make interpretive mistakes, some of them (like curvature of the earth) quite famous.

If you don’t understand or acknowledge the pagan “flavor” of ritual consumption of sacrificed animals (or persons!), then this information may sting a little. But MANY MANY theologians have discussed this before you and I do tonight. And they don’t have to resort to namecalling.

There is no pagan flavor to this ritual, unless you see Jesus as a pagan. Don’t think you want to say that.

Notice your writting, you TAKE TiMe tO CaPitaLize when you WANT to ScreAm At me but when you use a pronoun, he, his, him, when you refer to the Lord you dont capitalise. I ask you, what are you motives???

I do not think they are just. You have been taught the gospel of hate. You are here to spead that, and I will call you down on it. If you think me pointing to the arogance of your words is namecalling then i guess I am resorting to namecalling in your book.

Now if you truly would like to discuss this with respect to my beliefs then you will be greeted with respect you deserve. If you wanty to continue on your attepts to “prove” me and His Church wrong, you again will recieve the respect you deserve.

 

[larkin31]

There is no pagan flavor to this ritual, unless you see Jesus as a pagan. Don’t think you want to say that.

Notice your writting, you TAKE TiMe tO CaPitaLize when you WANT to ScreAm At me but when you use a pronoun, he, his, him, when you refer to the Lord you dont capitalise. I ask you, what are you motives???

I do not think they are just. You have been taught the gospel of hate. You are here to spead that, and I will call you down on it. If you think me pointing to the arogance of your words is namecalling then i guess I am resorting to namecalling in your book.

Now if you truly would like to discuss this with respect to my beliefs then you will be greeted with respect you deserve. If you wanty to continue on your attepts to “prove” me and His Church wrong, you again will recieve the respect you deserve.

I love Catholics. I am married to one. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have no “hate” for Catholics, and your extreme response to my common objections to transubstantiation are, well, just weird.

And which “gospel of hate” do you claim I have been taught? Is that before or after John?

 

[Lapey]

Hey, Lapey. That I am from outside your faith should be taken up, also, with the original poster who requested EXACTLY what I provided sincerely.

You can take your “arrogance” line and send it to a mod if you think you have a case. Otherwise, stop being so touchy and simply respond to the points. There is nothing new or unfamiliar being discussed here.

There is a difference between a discussion and a lecture. I am not touchy; you referred to me as semi-pagan. Do you also call Jesus the same? This is His Church you persecute.

I have read the entire thread and commented on how ell the op described the truth, even though he is not Catholic.

If you disagree then discuss, don’t tell and lecture. You have to be aware you are not in your cozy little environment here. Your misinterpretations of scripture and tradition will be refuted and met with the appropriate energy in return.

What is there to discuss if you take the exact scripture I use to say the exact opposite what I believe. But none of the earliest traditions or father’s writings matter. Ignatius of Antioch was brought up and all you and Joshua see is how dissenters were squashed.

Thanks God the dissenters were squashed because the Church has protected the truth over all of these centuries for me and everyone, you too if you could get past what you have been taught in Protestant churches.

Just take the time to find out why I believe what I believe instead of telling me I am a pagan for believing what I believe.

 

[larkin31]

There is a difference between a discussion and a lecture. I am not touchy; you referred to me as semi-pagan. Do you also call Jesus the same? This is His Church you persecute.

I have read the entire thread and commented on how ell the op described the truth, even though he is not Catholic.

If you disagree then discuss, don’t tell and lecture. You have to be aware you are not in your cozy little environment here. Your misinterpretations of scripture and tradition will be refuted and met with the appropriate energy in return.

What is there to discuss if you take the exact scripture I use to say the exact opposite what I believe. But none of the earliest traditions or father’s writings matter. Ignatius of Antioch was brought up and all you and Joshua see is how dissenters were squashed.

Thanks God the dissenters were squashed because the Church has protected the truth over all of these centuries for me and everyone, you too if you could get past what you have been taught in Protestant churches.

Just take the time to find out why I believe what I believe instead of telling me I am a pagan for believing what I believe.

I did not “call you a pagan.” I challenge you to quote me saying any such thing. This is how you are showing how touchy you are on a thread that asks for reasons “to reject” transubstantiation. I suggest you find another thread if you are not going to handle these “rejections” without calling people “arrogant” or followers “of the gospel of hate”—this one is a scurrilous lie, and I resent it.

 

[Lapey]

He did not in at least one. There is no reason to think that because he did 5 times, that he would HAVE to also a sixth. Particularly not when he is offering his “body” and “blood” to be eaten and drunk as a ritual of transferral of life giving “Spirit”.

Unless you want the act to appear to be semi-pagan.

So if I believe in the real body and blood is truly Christ, I am semi-pagan? Is this good enough to show you where you were in error?

If i’m not mistaken, you used it again. I’ll find it it could have been in another thread in which you participated.

 

[SteveVH]

I love Catholics. I am married to one. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have no “hate” for Catholics, and your extreme response to my common objections to transubstantiation are, well, just weird.

And which “gospel of hate” do you claim I have been taught? Is that before or after John?

What I don’t understand is that being an agnostic means you can’t even make up your own mind as to whether or not God even exists? Why should we give any validity to your arguments concerning what God did when he walked the earth in the person of Jesus. I can see discussing the existence of God with you, but to get into specifics such as the Eucharist seems a little pointless.

Just to lighten things up a little: (No offense intended)

Question: What does an agnostic, dislexic (sp), insomniac ponder as he lays in bed waiting to fall asleep?

Answer: Whether or not there really is a DOG.

 

[larkin31]

So if I believe in the real body and blood is truly Christ, I am semi-pagan? Is this good enough to show you where you were in error?

If i’m not mistaken, you used it again. I’ll find it it could have been in another thread in which you participated.

The ACT appears SEMI-PAGAN

If you want to say this is the same as calling YOU PAGAN, then I can’t help you. I then confess (without intermediary) the suggestion that you participate in a in an act with a “flavor” “semi-pagan”.

If that is “arrogant” and evidence of “a gospel of hate”, then AGAIN I can’t help you. Find another thread where your sensibilities will suffer no bruising. They sure will be in a thread that calls for reasons to reject transubstantiation.

 

[Joshua27]

Princeton’s definition of the word "communion" = Sharing [as in thoughts and feelings].

Princeton’s definition of the word “holy” = belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power; sacred.

Holy Communion - Sharing from The Divine (concerning salvation).

We are charged to hold Holy Communion as often as we can in rememberance of the Messiah’s act of salvation, so I’d like to offer communion to all who’d like to truly understand Yahshua Messiah’s act of love.

---

1. Take a basin - or anything that can hold a good amount of liquid - and fill it with water.

All throughout Messiah’s ministry, “water” has always represented “life”.

WATER is used in baptism.
WATER is used to drink.
WATER is used to wash.

The [Holy] “Spirit” also represents “life”, as in “living water”, from scripture.

We are baptised in the HOLY SPIRIT
We are told to drink [be filled with] the HOLY SPIRIT
We are washed [made pure] with the HOLY SPIRIT

2. Have you and your family - with cupped hands - collect (each one of you) your portion of water from the basin.

---

RULE 1: You can’t refill your cupped hands with water from the basin.
RULE 2: You can’t let your cup empty, for an empty cup represents no life (death).​

THIS IS YOUR LIFE which has been given to you [don’t let it spill].

Each of us has a portion of life we are given by God and our parents…but notice how hard it is to keep your life in your own hands.

Slowly, but surely, your life seeps away - as your water seeps through the cracks - until one day, it is gone.

Many of us hold so tightly onto our lives…so selfish we are (but not for selfishness sake), but for fear of losing what “life” we have…And yet, imagine what would happen if each of you held your water any tighter in your hands…

What if you clasped onto your water too tightly?

John 12:25
“Those who love their life in this world will lose it, while those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity.”

3. Now, pour your water into the rest of your family’s emptying hands.

Now to all those who’s water now seeps through their hands - you offer to share your water with them; to pour a portion of your water into each of their hands so that their cups may remain filled.

Likewise, the Messiah said of his cup “this is my life” as blood = life, which is then shared with each of his disciples.

I, even I give each of you - as many who’ll accept it - a portion of my water so that your cup does not empty…I give my water freely to as many who’ll accept it until my cup is empty.

John 12:25
“Those who love their life in this world will lose it, while those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity.”

4. Finally - and this is the most important step - the rest of your family is to follow your example and share their water with each other and you.

We are to do this - as often as we can - in rememberance of Him; to pour our water/life into each other’s hands…and ultimately, how can we possibly discern which water was ours and which was another’s, ultimately becoming “one” as the Messiah’s hoped and prayed for each of us to become, as He and His Father are one.

---

To share your life with as many as you possible can; this is what The Messiah did. It is not about eating carnal (real) flesh and blood, but Sharing the Divine Holy Spirit of God *…and it’s (definitely) not about only receiving - as many do every sunday or passorver feast - but about giving to as many people as possible who do not have this life.

This is Holy Communion

The Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the Power/DNA/life-blood of the Father [Life itself], which is why we become adopted sons and daughters of God when we receive the Holy Spirit in us. THIS is what connects Us to Jesus to God, as a child is connected to their parent through the umbilical chord as a baby, and as genes as an adult; and we to each other as bretheren.

Let all those who have eyes see what the Spirit says to the church.*

 

[Lapey]

I did not “call you a pagan.” I challenge you to quote me saying any such thing. This is how you are showing how touchy you are on a thread that asks for reasons “to reject” transubstantiation. I suggest you find another thread if you are not going to handle these “rejections” without calling people “arrogant” or followers “of the gospel of hate”—this one is a scurrilous lie, and I resent it.

Yes you did, and all who believe that they walk up to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ like me. The ritualistic form of liturgy we celebrate at the mass comes from the Jewish roots of the Christian Church.

It is a part of the Heavenly worship described in Revelation. Christ stands at the altar and we pray with Him to the Father in praise and thanksgiving as He instructed that we do, do this in remembrance of Me.

Look up Exodus 12; see what the Jews were taught about the Passover. The meal they ate was not just a meal; it was a ritual and remains that way to this day in the Jewish faith.

If these people, the Jews in captivity, would have done everything prescribed by the teachings of Moses but they were not hungry, they could have gone to bed with the blood on the doorposts and been safe right? No brother, they would have perished just as Moses told them, all first born will be taken.

THEY HAD TO EAT THE LAMB!!! Had they not eaten the lamb, they would have died.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Pasqual Lamb, the Passover, without blemish and no bones broken, He is real!

He lived for us, He died for us, He was resurrected for us, and He appears to us as the Lamb that has been slain, to offer the sacrifice once and for all, the eternal sacrifice, at the celebration of the Eucharist.

He invites us to join Him in this sacrifice at every mass.

I’ll repeat a plea that I put on an earlier thread, read “The Lambs Supper” by Dr. Scott Hahn. Take the book and a bible and sit at your desk and flip back and forth as he sites scripture. You will see why I get excited to talk of the Eucharist, the great gift Jesus gave His Church.

 

[larkin31]

What I don’t understand is that being an agnostic means you can’t even make up your own mind as to whether or not God even exists? Why should we give any validity to your arguments concerning what God did when he walked the earth in the person of Jesus. I can see discussing the existence of God with you, but to get into specifics such as the Eucharist seems a little pointless.

Just to lighten things up a little: (No offense intended)

Question: What does an agnostic, dislexic (sp), insomniac ponder as he lays in bed waiting to fall asleep?

Answer: Whether or not there really is a DOG.

Then ignore me! My feelings won’t be hurt!

HAHAHA

 

[Lapey]

Then ignore me! My feelings won’t be hurt!

HAHAHA

It’s no fun what so ever to ignore you!!!

BTW, I am not offended or insulted, more along the lines of challenged. I enjoy talking with people of pasion, even though they differ in beliefs.

I often have JW’s come to my house and my wife thinks I am nuts because I invite them in to “discuss” things. Many people are as passionate of their faith as you and me, and that good.

I know i sometimes come accross strong, but i will never back out of a discussion because I don’t want to be offended. I was not offended by your remarks, taken back maybe, but not offended.

I have never had some one refer to this as “semi-pagan”.

You have to admit the “gospel of hate” threw you off your game.

Did you read my post about Exodus?

 

[SteveVH]

To share your life with as many as you possible can; this is what The Messiah did. It is not about eating carnal (real) flesh and blood, but Sharing the Divine Holy Spirit of God …and it’s (definitely) not about only receiving - as many do every sunday or passorver feast - but about giving to as many people as possible who do not have this life.

This is Holy Communion

Cute analogy. Only one problem. You cannot give eternal life. Only God can do that. If you give your life to another person they will still die. Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there is no greater gift than to lay one’s life down for another. But that act will not give them eternal life (it may result in eternal life for you).
Joshua27;6299546:

The Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the Power/DNA/life-blood of the Father [Life itself], which is why we become adopted sons

and daughters of God when we receive the Holy Spirit in us. THIS is what connects Us to Jesus to God, as a child is connected to their parent through the umbilical chord as a baby, and as genes as an adult; and we to each other as bretheren.

Let all those who have eyes see what the Spirit says to the church.

So you don’t believe in the Trinity. Sorry, I think I’ll take the opinion of a Church who was there when Christ walked the earth and understood Him in His native language and who has pondered these things for over 2000 years. What you are saying has already been condemned by the Church as heresy.

As to your last comment, I would suggest that you be the first to open your eyes before you start preaching to the rest of us.

 

[larkin31]

Did you read my post about Exodus?

I certainly did. It smacks of semi-pagan symbolic language and the letting of blood from animal sacrifice. This is an age-old practice and an apt metaphor for the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of others. I have no objection to the Exodus passage.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.
In the garden, our Lord prayed to the father to let this cup be passed from Him, if it was the Father’s will. Matthew 22:44 tells us that Christ prayed this 3 times. What cup was Christ praying be passed from Him? Was it the 4th cup that closed the Passover meal, which was fulfilled with the Lord’s Supper?

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

 

[larkin31]

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.
In the garden, our Lord prayed to the father to let this cup be passed from Him, if it was the Father’s will. Matthew 22:44 tells us that Christ prayed this 3 times. What cup was Christ praying be passed from Him? Was it the 4th cup that closed the Passover meal, which was fulfilled with the Lord’s Supper?

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

So? Why did you post this here?

 

[Lapey]

I certainly did. It smacks of semi-pagan symbolic language and the letting of blood from animal sacrifice. This is an age-old practice and an apt metaphor for the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of others. I have no objection to the Exodus passage.

not sure about you!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So? Why did you post this here?

We are discussing communion, which is the Lord’s Supper. It distinctly shows the fulfillment of the old covenant with the new and everlasting covenant. When you compare the two covenants, it should be easier for people to realize the importance of the Eucharist and how it follows the example of the Passover, and should be celebrated perpetually. It should also aid anyone from thinking of it as a ‘pagan’ ritual.

Why do you find it objectionable enough to question why it’s on this thread?