Communion

[SIG]

I have a lot to say about this--but no time to say it right now....For now, I'll say I take a larger view:

It goes beyond identifying with the bread and wine at the Passover meal. Jesus said He is the bread of life; He also said He is the true vine. He is always these--not just limited to the Passover meal....

(more to come...)

[literaryjoe]

Thanks for the welcome.

Let me clarify that I was stating a "messianic" view on communion in answer to your question, not trying to disagree with any other viewpoint.

However, in your replies you said several things that puzzled me:

The author is not fully aware of all the semantics he attempts to solve..

I'm curious what you mean by this?

The transmutation teaching is what the church taught from the Apostles and agrees with the Hebrew teachings.

Agrees with the Hebrew teachings on what topic? Also, agrees with the teachings of which Hebrew sect (i.e., pharisees, beit Hillel, beit Shammai, sadducess, essenes)?

The author makes mention of the agape meal, which he feels is what the church is really doing. But this is another part of what the church does. In the Orthodox church after the eucharist, blessed bread is given to others who have not partaken of the holy communion. This would be the agape meal he refers to and not the holy communion reserved for those who have accepted Christ.

On the contrary, I believe the agape feasts he refers to are the type described by Tertullian in Apology, for example. But of much earlier origin, as in the oneg's that typically followed a Sabbath gathering at the synagogue. (or the one that was ongoing when Eutychus fell out of the window while listening to Paul-Acts 20:7-11--I wonder what Paul was waxing eloquent about when Eutychus fell asleep?)

It is to much to go into here all at once. But the Orthodox church holds to the original teachings...

Are you saying that the Orthodox church holds to the original teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles? And if so, which Orthodox church, the Syrian, Armenian, Serbian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Russian, Carpathian Russian, Greek, ....? I understand there are significant disagreements among these various branches of Orthodox churches, so which one holds to the "original teachings"?

I would not know what else to say to a person who does not take historical accounts as actual and true.

Apparently, you believe that the writings of the church fathers are to be wholesale adopted as accurate? If so, how do you reckon with the differences in their accounts? Many of the fathers lumped the Ebionites and the Nazarenes together as the same sect, yet they weren't. Who was correct, Nestorius or Cyril of Alexandria? Do you accept the Apostolic Constitutions even though the last half appears to be spurious?

In conclusion I would say if he looks he will find that the church originally kept many of the jewish traditions. They just took the form of Christ and are not formless as in the OT.

The author has actually done extensive research into the 1st Century early church and into the many judiasms of the 2nd Temple period. Although, your grasp of that time seems unilateral to me. For example, you might want to re-investigate the quartodeciman debate.
A great book for an alternative perspective on the heirs to the earliest Jerusalem church to those you're all ready familiar with might be Nazarene Jewish Christianity by Dr. Ray Pritz (Magnes Press, 1992: Hebrew University, Jerusalem. ISBN 965-223-798-1).

I leave you with a quote from a paper titled, "A Return to Orthodoxy: A History of Passover vs. Easter":

In an effort to resolve the differences between the churches in Asia Minor, and the churches in the West (led by Rome), Polycarp, a student of the Apostle John and a bishop in Smyrna traveled to Rome to confer with Anicetus the bishop in Rome. The churches of Asia were following the practices of the Apostle John and the other Apostles in celebrating the Resurrection in relationship to the 14th of Nisan. Anicetus, on the other hand was beginning a movement which sought to abandon all things that appeared “Jewish”. The meeting left the issue unresolved.

At the end of the Second Century, Victor, the bishop of Rome began to threaten other Church leaders in an attempt to get them to abandon Passover in favor of the Roman Easter celebration as a means to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus. Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, wrote to Victor his response to these threats. “We for our part keep the day [14th of Nisan] scrupulously, without addition or subtraction. For in Asia great luminaries sleep who shall rise again on the day of the Lord's advent, when He is coming with glory from heaven and shall search out all His saints – such as Philip... there is John, who lent back on the Lord's breast… there is Polycarp, bishop and martyr… All these kept the fourteenth day of the month as the beginning of the Paschal Festival, in accordance with the Gospel, not deviating in the least but following the rule of the Faith. Last of all, I too, Polycrates, the least of you all… and my family has always kept the day when the people put away the leaven [Feast of Unleavened Bread]. So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord's service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scripture, and not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: 'We must obey God rather than men'."

Oh, by the way, how did you get the greek characters to render correctly? Every time I've tried Greek or Hebrew characters in a forum they show up as gibberish.

[SIG]

In a different vein:

The prayer non-believing (in Messiah Y'shua) Jews say at the breaking of bread:

"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe (three names!), Who brings forth bread from the Earth (a hidden reference, I believe, to the Resurrection)."

Jesus was born in Beth-Lechem--"Home of the Bread." He was the Bread of Life before the foundation of the world. And of course long before the first Passover.

Said along with the prayer over bread is the prayer over wine:

"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who gives us the fruit of the vine." Jesus declared that He is the True Vine. (Perhaps the fruit of that Vine would be His atoning blood.)

The elements appear in Scripture long before the first Passover, in Egypt--in the dreams interpreted by Joseph in prison. They are eternal, as is the Messiah they represent. Jesus' identification with and revelation of them at the Last Supper was additional to their meaning throughout Scripture.


I don't know if Messianic Jews or which Messianic Jews observe communion--but I don't see why any believer in the Christ would not.

[Teke]

Thanks for the welcome.

Let me clarify that I was stating a "messianic" view on communion in answer to your question, not trying to disagree with any other viewpoint.

However, in your replies you said several things that puzzled me:
The author is not fully aware of all the semantics he attempts to solve..
I'm curious what you mean by this?

I understand, and thank you for the info. Especially in light of the fact that no one else had given any answer to date. I am not disagreeing with other view points either, but making a comparison. That is why I started the thread and asked the question. I wanted to compare the churches very jewish traditions and styles to what Messianics have to say on the subject. In that I am not saying they are wrong, just sharing the view. While the church may not do it exactly as the Messianics believe they should, they are doing it as close as possible without neglecting the deity of Christ and the work of the church. Which I would agree must come before and above any law or sabbath dispute.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently on semantics. The christian liturgy he makes his comparison to is a later version and is of the Latin fathers. The Greek fathers make a big difference in comparison. I believe it’s apparent to anyone who studies the fathers that the Latin fathers are quite different than the Greek. And this is where the big problem came in the west with the acceptance of the Latin father Augustines writings, some of which Augustine himself withdrew previous statements made But the western church held to them nonetheless. Hence the schism of the east and west.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
The transmutation teaching is what the church taught from the Apostles and agrees with the Hebrew teachings.

Agrees with the Hebrew teachings on what topic? Also, agrees with the teachings of which Hebrew sect (i.e., pharisees, beit Hillel, beit Shammai, sadducess, essenes)?

Teke: Here is a comment by Lightfoot from A Commentary on the New Testament
from the Talmud and Hebraica .

There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of 'eating and drinking' in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man's flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat a member of a living beast, nor touch the member of a dead man.

"Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works," i.e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite's leave, therefore, and the Romanist's too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.

II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines, but with himself too.

The whole stay of bread, Isaiah 3:1. "These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread,' Proverbs 9:5." "Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread.'"

Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.

III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. "Rabh saith, Israel shall eat the years of Messiah." [The Gloss is, "The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites."] "Rabh Joseph saith, 'True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?' We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah." Those words of Hillel are repeated, fol. 99. 1.

Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah, and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place: "Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah."

IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" That is, "When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: 'for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.'"

V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
The author makes mention of the agape meal, which he feels is what the church is really doing. But this is another part of what the church does. In the Orthodox church after the eucharist, blessed bread is given to others who have not partaken of the holy communion. This would be the agape meal he refers to and not the holy communion reserved for those who have accepted Christ.

On the contrary, I believe the agape feasts he refers to are the type described by Tertullian in Apology, for example. But of much earlier origin, as in the oneg's that typically followed a Sabbath gathering at the synagogue. (or the one that was ongoing when Eutychus fell out of the window while listening to Paul-Acts 20:7-11--I wonder what Paul was waxing eloquent about when Eutychus fell asleep?)

Tekes response: I agree with this. I’m pointing out that not only is this symbolicly done during the liturgy service, but also the fellowship with food afterwards. That which follows blessings and prayers of Psalms. And yes, it can continue as long as ppl stay. With much talk of scripture. The big feast of Pascha lasting the night, having begun at midnight. The regular communion services are done every seventh day. And are done in the same manner, but not as long as the Pascha service. Because ppl bring food to be blessed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
It is to much to go into here all at once. But the Orthodox church holds to the original teachings...

Are you saying that the Orthodox church holds to the original teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles? And if so, which Orthodox church, the Syrian, Armenian, Serbian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Russian, Carpathian Russian, Greek, ....? I understand there are significant disagreements among these various branches of Orthodox churches, so which one holds to the "original teachings"?

There are cultural differences, but the basic doctrines are all the same. I am speaking specifically of the Russian Orthodox since that is what I am familiar with. My churches liturgy is of St John Chrysostom to be specific.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
I would not know what else to say to a person who does not take historical accounts as actual and true.

Apparently, you believe that the writings of the church fathers are to be wholesale adopted as accurate? If so, how do you reckon with the differences in their accounts? Many of the fathers lumped the Ebionites and the Nazarenes together as the same sect, yet they weren't. Who was correct, Nestorius or Cyril of Alexandria? Do you accept the Apostolic Constitutions even though the last half appears to be spurious?

Teke : On the contrary, I have already noted one difference to be found between the Greek and Latin fathers. Any difference or discrepancy is noted by the Orthodox church. I can not say the same for the Roman catholic, but that is a later story.

On the Ebionites and Nazarenes, which I might add is a subject also of interest to Muslims, for those reading along.

The main Christian sources that have data relevant to, and close enough to, the issue of Nazarenes are: Justin Martyr , Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius (315-402 ad), Jerome (b. 342)and Filaster (d.397).

To begin with we must notice that the Nazarenes are NOT mentioned in the Patristic writings before Epiphanius (writing late 4th century) and Jerome, so the data will be very indirect, as Pritz notes [NT:NJC:19]:

"In setting the literary background for the notices of Epiphanius and Jerome by determining earlier patristic knowledge of the Nazarene sect, we must first note that no source mentions the Nazarenes by name as a distinct group. Necessarily, then, any evidence will be derived or inferred and not obtained from direct testimony."

Our only approach to this--given this rather severe limitation--is to find references in pre-Epiphanius writings to un-named Jewish sects and then compare their teachings to what we can learn about the Nazarenes from Epiphanius and Jerome.

I will quote one here, Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr.

"But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved? "he inquired of me." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 46:1)

"And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved? "....I said, "In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men,-I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so" (Dialogue, 47.1)

The above passages show that some Jews accepted Jesus as the Christ, and yet observed the Mosaic institutions. These were equal brethren, according to Justin, and differed in custom, not Christology. But there might have been another, smaller group who accepted Christ publicly but apparently tried to make others obey the Law--to be saved (notice how this belief is held by the "Christian Pharisees" in Acts 15,5).

But did this first group of Law-keeping (but not Pharisaical) Jews 'deify' Christ? They were obviously believers, and Justin is explicit in saying that they recognized "Him to be the Christ of God". But what did that phrase "Christ of God" mean to Justin? If it meant 'accepting the deity of Jesus', then these Jews DID 'deify' Jesus. On the other hand, if 'Christ of God' merely meant 'an annointed man' or 'the best prophet' then we would be unwarranted in saying these Jews believed in the deity of Christ.

Fortunately, we only have to go a couple of paragraphs later in the Dialogue for a full explication of what Justin meant by the phrase. He first puts the words in Trypho the Jew's mouth and then gives it himself in more detail.

"And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

"And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued," [the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, (Dialogue, 48)

A simple inspection of the passage above reveals a 'high Christology' for Justin, relative to the phrase 'Christ of God'. Listed above is deity, divine Sonship, pre-existent before time, and not 'simply human'. Since this complex of beliefs was held by Law-keeping Jews (above), it would be quite safe to say that such Jews DEFINITELY "deified" Jesus. Justin does mention at the end of the citation that some people (it is not clear whether the 'our race' refers to Jews or Gentiles) DO hold Christ to be a mere man, but Justin is very intolerant of this view (as opposed to his attitude toward the Jews who were Law-keepers). [These 'mere man' and 'Law-absolutely' views will show up in the later Ebionites, which are sometimes confused in the Fathers with the Nazarenes. So Pritz [NT:NJC:9]:

"To the student of early Christianity one thing becomes quickly apparent: in the early centuries there were many offshoot sects having some connection both to New Testament and to Jewish thought...Even in the writings of some of the Church Fathers from the third and fourth centuries and later, this proliferation of 'Jewish Christian' sects led to confusion and to the confounding of different sects under the name 'Ebionite.' So convenient (and subtle) was this that it has caused not a few modern scholars to make the mistake of thinking that if we can box in the phenomenon known as Ebionism we will have defined Jewish Christianity. But Ebionism was not the direct heir of the Jewish apostolic church; it was at best only third generation, and to reconcile its doctrines with those of the New Testament requires no small amount of mental gymnastics."

So, the data from Justin indicates (155-160 A.D.) that there were two types of self-called Christians of the Jewish race, which he distinguishes on the basis of Christology. The smaller group holds to a 'mere man' and 'Law-absolutely' view (which will look like the later Ebionite view) and is rejected by Justin as being non-Christian. The other group of Jewish believers looks just like Justin, with a high Christology , yet with the practice of keeping the Law (without pushing it on others as being necessary for salvation).

As to your last question on what I accept of writings, I accept those the church has decided are legitimate.

continued in next post......

[Teke]

Originally Posted by Teke
In conclusion I would say if he looks he will find that the church originally kept many of the jewish traditions. They just took the form of Christ and are not formless as in the OT.

The author has actually done extensive research into the 1st Century early church and into the many judiasms of the 2nd Temple period. Although, your grasp of that time seems unilateral to me. For example, you might want to re-investigate the quartodeciman debate.
A great book for an alternative perspective on the heirs to the earliest Jerusalem church to those you're all ready familiar with might be Nazarene Jewish Christianity by Dr. Ray Pritz (Magnes Press, 1992: Hebrew University, Jerusalem. ISBN 965-223-798-1).

Teke: I realize the author has done extensive research. And I am aware of the quartodeciman debate. I posted on it a bit in my last post, with Polycarps stand on the matter and the churches.

I also gave my impression as to the matter. It seems apparent that it became a matter to the church of Christs deity. Which from the churches point of view is more important than any festival or day. As you can see from Justin Martyrs comments above, it was also of more importance than law or sabbath.

So I would have to side with the church, as they seeing this to be a problem, which may or may not have arisen with the Nazarenes and Ebionites. And we know even presently that the Muslims use this argument against christianity. That argument being the deity of Christ.

Oh, by the way, how did you get the greek characters to render correctly? Every time I've tried Greek or Hebrew characters in a forum they show up as gibberish.

Teke: It depends on the format of the letters. I can’t recall what that format is called right now. Someone here in Shorashim might know tho. They have dealt with the problem a few times. The ones in the esword program always come up right, but sometimes not as clear. Many sites on the internet use the format in html and the come up correct.

Thank you for the insightful dialect. The topic you brought up of the Nazarenes and Ebionites is one still brought by the Muslims. Perhaps it warrants further thought, perhaps another thread on the subject is in order. If someone such as yourself with knowledge of the subject would like to explore it further. It could be given as the jewish perspective and the muslim perspective to clarify more in another thread here.
It would surely be a lively conversation.

[literaryjoe]

Teke,

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, I'm not sure) I am completely unaware of the Muslim issue in regard to the Ebionites and Nazarenes. So it will have to be someone else who explores that comparison further...perhaps yourself, and I could read along to find out more about what the Muslim's say on a lite level. =)

You replied in a very thorough manner, but the one thing I still don't understand is the reasoning for the following comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
I would not know what else to say to a person who does not take historical accounts as actual and true.

[Teke]

Teke,

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, I'm not sure) I am completely unaware of the Muslim issue in regard to the Ebionites and Nazarenes. So it will have to be someone else who explores that comparison further...perhaps yourself, and I could read along to find out more about what the Muslim's say on a lite level. =)

You replied in a very thorough manner, but the one thing I still don't understand is the reasoning for the following comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teke
I would not know what else to say to a person who does not take historical accounts as actual and true.

Fortunately for us the church was not unaware of the implications that have come to fruitation and are seen in the Muslim view of Christs deity. But this is where they lay claim and blame also, in the Nazarene and Ebionite perspective. They, the Muslims, claim they are the true faith from the Nazarene and Ebionites.

My comment was to the authors skepticism of writings. Had he said he recognized or did not recognize by authority of the church, that would be a different story. But that he said he felt they were tampered with, put in my mind the impression that he miight not accept other writings on the same assumptions.

He actually didn't say he accepts the whole NT given by the church. And it leaves me wondering if he does or not, since he felt some writings were tampered with, but didn't site why he thought this or a time period which might have indicated why.

I just found it peculiar since he was thorough on other parts.

If it had been me, I would have stated why. Not leaving the reader in douubt to them. That's all.

[literaryjoe]

ok, now I'm with you, and I think I even recognized which statement in his paper you were referring to specifically. Knowing the author well, I blew right by that, but I can see why it gave you pause.

Incidentally, the author does accept the authority and inspiration of the NT writings, and is vocal in his opposition to those within the quasi-messianic movement who do not.

[Ta-An]

I asked them, and this is what they say....

As for the messianic view of communion, Messianic Jews realize that this was in the context of the Passover and some messianic congregations only observe it during Passover while others observe it three or four times per year.

A key word in the Passover observance is the word “remember.” In fact, there is one ritual after another ritual throughout the Passover and each ritual is to remember what happened in the past. Therefore, Jesus used that key Passover word, remember, and in the partaking of the bread we remember His body and in the partaking of the cup we remember His blood.



However, Messianic Jews do not believe that the wine becomes blood or that the bread becomes the body or contains the body or the blood.



Yours for the salvation of Israel,

[perlo]

Thank you ACCM

[Teke]

I find it quite amazing that the teaching seems to be lost on His body and blood and how that relates to creation. Bread and wine is of His body and blood, because it is of His creation.

So I think it is a matter of how one sees this, when someone says His literal body and blood. It is not meant as a human flesh and blood, but that of creation which God gave us, just as He gave us His Son.

I'll have to explain better in another post, don't have time to compose one now. But even the reformers Calvin and Luther understood this and wrote of it. Because they understood how this connected the church and made it all divine.

From the understanding I've seen on this subject, most came to believe as Zwingli (don't know if I spelled that right) proposed.

Anyway, I'm struck by how this teaching is being lost by the church, especially in Protestantism. And now it would seem by Messianics as well.

[Scruffy Kid]

Great post, Sig!

"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe (three names!), Who brings forth bread from the Earth (a hidden reference, I believe, to the Resurrection)."

A wonderful thought and new to me!

Jesus was born in Beth-Lechem--"Home of the Bread." He was the Bread of Life before the foundation of the world. And of course long before the first Passover.

A very important fact, IMO. Moreover, he was laid in a feeding trough ("manger", Luke 2:7, 12, 16) which the Angel presents as a "sign".

The elements appear in Scripture long before the first Passover, in Egypt--in the dreams interpreted by Joseph in prison. They are eternal, as is the Messiah they represent. Jesus' identification with and revelation of them at the Last Supper was additional to their meaning throughout Scripture.

Again, true. Also, earlier, Melchisedec, a type of Christ, as indicated in Ps. 110 and by Hebrews 7

These Eucharistic references are supplemented by the feeding of the 5000. In Mark the feedings of 5000 (Mark 6:41) and 4000 (Mark 8:6) are given in about the same words as the words at the last supper (took, blessed, broke, gave, Mark 14:22) which -- as Dom G. Dix pointed out -- are the fundamental actions in celebration of the Eucharist from the beginning and through the ages, and which Paul gives as the words of institution of the Eucharist in I Cor 11:20-34, following up I Cor 10:16-17. In John the feeding of the 5000 is associated with Jesus' teaching (6:33-51) of his flesh given for the life of the world, and the need for us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. As Sig rightly says,

I don't see why any believer in the Christ would not[observe communion].

[Ta-An]

In a different vein:

The prayer non-believing (in Messiah Y'shua) Jews say at the breaking of bread:

"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe (three names!), Who brings forth bread from the Earth (a hidden reference, I believe, to the Resurrection)."

Jesus was born in Beth-Lechem--"Home of the Bread." He was the Bread of Life before the foundation of the world. And of course long before the first Passover.

Said along with the prayer over bread is the prayer over wine:

"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who gives us the fruit of the vine." Jesus declared that He is the True Vine. (Perhaps the fruit of that Vine would be His atoning blood.)

The elements appear in Scripture long before the first Passover, in Egypt--in the dreams interpreted by Joseph in prison. They are eternal, as is the Messiah they represent. Jesus' identification with and revelation of them at the Last Supper was additional to their meaning throughout Scripture.


I don't know if Messianic Jews or which Messianic Jews observe communion--but I don't see why any believer in the Christ would not.

YES YES YES!!!Excellent !!Thank you SIG

[perlo]

Hi all!

You might enjoy "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus" should you be able to find a copy. Printed in German as Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (1964). By one of my favorite authors; Joachim Jeremias. Translated into English in 1966.

I generally do not join in wordy exchanges, but I'm sure you would all like this book whether you agree or not. Good food for thought here.

[BHS]

Recently my husband and I visited an Episcopalian church and I was surprised at how Catholic it seemed. We thought of taking communion, but decided not to when we read in the Order of Service –

“We invite all baptized persons believing in the Real Presence of Christ in Bread & Wine to receive communion and share this sacred meal with us.”

Though we were told after the service by the member who had invited us – they really do not believe the bread and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of Christ – the ringing of the bells was done after each blessing, which to us indicated the transformation.

Teke, perhaps you can explain what this means.

Blessings,

BHS