Dovegiven said:

I've been staying "stirred" about this thread, not really having more to say, but finally found something I think needs to be clarified. I've highlighted "dead".

Click to expand...

Dovegiven said:

The remembrance Jesus commanded was instituted while yet alive in the flesh. I don't think he meant for us to have in mind his dead body of flesh, but remember Jesus as being eternal, his body dead and buried 3 days, but made alive again for ever. He's in that body that appeared to the disciples after he rose from death. It is that death we ought to remember, dying for us. Our churches came together to honor a fallen Navy Seal, remembering the living man and what he gave to our nation. But he lives, a dynamic Christian, with the Lord, soon to have his body improved to be like that of Jesus, glorified. We'll recognize him some day there. Since then when his name is brought up we don't think of his body, but that person we watched grow up in the Lord. We "see" him as quite alive, not dead, but remember his willingness to put his life on the line.

Click to expand...

Jesus is the Word of God, is he not? He is alive. The body of scripture that perhaps all of us here read is the carcass hanging on the cross or lying in the tomb before it was resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit.





We want to consume that carcass, but we want it quickened (brought to Life) by that same Holy Spirit.





The words of John the Baptist apply, I believe, to our situation:





“He must increase, but I must decrease.” John 3:30





The “he” is Jesus in us (Col 1:27). This is the “new man”. The “old man” is the “I” of John the Baptist and of each of us. It is the “old man” of us that needs to die daily to make room for the growth of the Life (“new man”) in us.





Jesus died for us to pay the price to open up the Door (himself), the “Way”, which was blocked with man on the outside in Gen 3:24. The Word itself (flaming sword) or Jesus was blocking that “Way” and only through the Word can any man ever enter back in…





Yes, now there is a Way where there was no way because Jesus paid the price and provided all that is needed for a person to pass through. But we must pass through, each of us!

I partake of the body of Jesus in that I too died to sin and was buried with Jesus, and he raised me up with him. That's what the communion is really about, a remembrance for those already in Christ. It's a reason I dislike crosses with Jesus hanging on them. I cherish the empty cross, the one who submitted to it, then conquered death on it and in the grave. We can't touch Jesus' body yet, as he has it in heaven, being alive in it. No part of his body remains on earth, not in unleavened bread in a communion service. We can't literally have his blood sprinkled on our flesh bodies, as the Father has it in his heavenly temple that is the pattern Moses built the wilderness tabernacle by, beholding it forever. But we can remember it, and thank God he gave us his life through his body and blood shed for our sins.

Click to expand...

His body does remain for us to consume, so that we can become part of that body, the Body of Christ. Jesus is not that Body. He is the Head of that Body. We, you and me, have the opportunity to become part of that Body.

Similarly, the word of God is alive. It has never died a single moment, even while Jesus' physical body was in the tomb. The moment he resurrected would have been the moment his body was glorified, able to pass through doors, even the floor of that tomb, down through rock to the innermost parts of the earth. He was and is still the eternal word of God, without physical or spiritual bounds, above the angels.Now, to an unbeliever that living word is dead, the natural not comprehending the spiritual. Once a person is aided by the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the word, then is is seen alive by them. When a preacher preaches that word to unbelievers, those words are alive, and have power to make the dead alive, both the physically and spiritually dead among us.

Click to expand...

For the anointed words of a man to touch us, we must be available to be touched. The anointing of the preacher comes from God, but our availability is up to us. God gave us dominion over this lump of flesh and connected component parts. This is where our choice comes into play. Without our permission, God will not heal us or touch us or save us because God is Life and we are or were death. Believers have become of mixture (double minded) of Life and death, the Life being the “new man” and the “death” being the “old man”. Consider again John the Baptist’s words (John 3:30).




Jesus had Life available for men, but for men to receive they must be willing. Surprisingly or understandably, men very often choose to continue in the death in which “live”, but that “life” is not the Life, which Jesus is:






“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” John 10:10





But Jesus also said, “…Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” Matt 8:22

The hope we have is based on the dead Jesus that God made alive, conquering sin and death. His body isn't a dead one to eat like a roasted lamb, but is the spiritual manifestation of the living organism, the Church. He is the living head of this body you and I are members of. So it is that Jesus made possible the drinking of his blood (figurative) and eating of his body.

I've posted this before, but maybe if considered again, the notion of eating a dead body, drinking dead blood, is not what Jesus had in mind. He spoke of himself, the living Lord Jesus.
John 6:53-65 (KJV)
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

The Passover feast had the Jews eating dead roasted lamb, painting the blood of it on the door posts, in foreshadowing Jesus. The eating and drinking of anything physical cannot be spiritual, but using a type of the spiritual. I say all this because of the high pressure of the RCC stepping up internet group insistence that salvation is through taking the elements of the communion, emphasizing the deadness of Jesus rather than the life of Christ. Death doesn't save. Eternal life from God does.

TaylorDonBarret said:

The Lord's Supper means different things to different people.

The Catholics believe it is a very mystical and powerful, supernatural ritual in which they are actually eating the literal human flesh of Jesus, and that by doing so they are given grace (basically, salvation). Catholics take "the Eucharist" (which is what they call it) at every single church service they perform and it is the primary purpose for their gathering.

Most Protestants believe that it is a symbolic gesture that helps us to realize that Jesus gave up His life for us, and the practice of eating and drinking while remembering that Jesus gave up His body and blood for us helps us to feel the gravity of the sacrifice He made. Most Protestants would generally agree that there is nothing supernatural about the Lord's Supper, it is symbolic gesture that helps to edify and honor the Lord.. nothing less, nothing more. Protestants usually take "communion" (what they call it) every month or so.

One thing that both of Catholics and Protestants have in common is that, with rare exception, both of them really only ever have The Lord's Supper in formal church services.

I am wondering how yall feel about it. Do you think there is anything more to it than symbolism? Do you think it has to be done in church? How often do you do it?

And heres the big question i want to ask:
Do you think it is something that a family could do at home every night together when they sit down to share a meal?

Click to expand...

Protestants are wrong on this one. Ironically, Luther rebuked the doctrines of Zwingli, which taught the Eucharist as symbol only, and called him a heretic. Protestants are not even protestant on this point. Not to mention the fact it wouldnt be called a sacrament if it were mere ritual. Also, the Orthodox are the most true on this subject, because the Catholic error of transubstantiation is not in thinking it mystical, but in the over-rationalization of the holy mysteries.

Aenon said:

Protestants are wrong on this one. Ironically, Luther rebuked the doctrines of Zwingli, which taught the Eucharist as symbol only, and called him a heretic. Protestants are not even protestant on this point. Not to mention the fact it wouldnt be called a sacrament if it were mere ritual. Also, the Orthodox are the most true on this subject, because the Catholic error of transubstantiation is not in thinking it mystical, but in the over-rationalization of the holy mysteries.

Click to expand...

I would take issue with these statements. You are making truth claims. Where is the proof? Just because Martin Luther believed something doesn't make it true. Just because the Orthodox believe something doesn't make it true. Our only source of assured truth is the scriptures... unless of course you put faith in the traditions of men.

TaylorDonBarret said:

I would take issue with these statements. You are making truth claims. Where is the proof? Just because Martin Luther believed something doesn't make it true. Just because the Orthodox believe something doesn't make it true. Our only source of assured truth is the scriptures... unless of course you put faith in the traditions of men.

Click to expand...

Lol... You speak as if you don't follow a tradition. Nobody reads the scriptures in a vaccuum. Everyone follows an interpretive tradition. What, do you think Christianity didn't exist prior to the creation of the New Testament canon? There is an interpretive oral tradition that was passed down from the apostles. If the early church did not teach what you believe the bible to say, then you are reading it wrong. Simple as that. Tradition is important, not as a means to "replace" scripture, but as a means to "interpret" it.

Aenon said:

Lol... You speak as if you don't follow a tradition. Nobody reads the scriptures in a vaccuum. Everyone follows an interpretive tradition. What, do you think Christianity didn't exist prior to the creation of the New Testament canon? There is an interpretive oral tradition that was passed down from the apostles. If the early church did not teach what you believe the bible to say, then you are reading it wrong. Simple as that. Tradition is important, not as a means to "replace" scripture, but as a means to "interpret" it.

Click to expand...

Traditions are valuable. The value of a tradition is determined by its accordance with scripture. When the bible says that there is one God, I do not need any tradition in order to interpret that correctly. I do not need tradition in order to interpret John 3:16. All of they key doctrines of Christianity are clearly evident and obvious from the scripture.

You talk about what the early church believed... what did the early church believe? I have done some studying concerning the early church and the development of the canon, and it appears to me that the early church was broad, diverse, of differing beliefs, and the only core doctrines were those clearly obvious through scripture. Even before the existence of new testament writings, the church relied on scriptures. I could give you many different scriptures which testify to this fact, and which give strong warnings against straying from and adding to the scriptures. But I think it is important to understand that the early church was not one church but many churches. Before I go further, I would make it known that by saying "more than one church" i do not mean more than one body. There is only one body, only one true "church", made up of all born-again, spirit filled believers regardless of denomination. But within the one body, within the one 'church', there has always been many churches with many different beliefs. Only those core doctrines remain constant between the churches.

If you look at church history, you see that the early church changed drastically over time. And we do not have much information about that early, early church that existed in the first hundred years or so. The information we do have from that period of time is mainly the scriptures, and not much else. After that first church generation died, you see the church growing and changing and becoming more diverse and dealing with more challenges from heretic off shoots like the gnostics and others. When that happened, the churches sort of came together underneath the branch of the catholic church, but not all of the churches, in order to defend the purity of doctrine. but after a short period of time that catholic church became a poilitical body and was greatly influenced by the empires of men and kings and queens and rulers and dominions. So as, from around the year 500, there is great reason to be cautious about the catholic churches teachings.

anyways....
God bless...

TaylorDonBarret said:

Traditions are valuable. The value of a tradition is determined by its accordance with scripture. When the bible says that there is one God, I do not need any tradition in order to interpret that correctly. I do not need tradition in order to interpret John 3:16. All of they key doctrines of Christianity are clearly evident and obvious from the scripture.
.

Click to expand...

No, you have it backwards. The value of scripture is determined by its accordance with the tradition of the apostles. A jehovahs witness believes in sola scriptura, yet they are heretics. Why? They use the exact same scriptures you do. Yet you must admit and agree with me that their "interpretation" is heretical. Your view of scripture does not account for heresy. My view of tradition does. People can accept your view of scripture and become heretics. Heresy is impossible with strict adherence to holy tradition. You say you don't need tradition to interpret how there is only one God...good! Now go tell the apostolic holiness anti-trinitarian pentecostals about that, and watch them use your scriptures to deny the trinity. If you tried to prove them wrong without bringing them to historical church tradition, you are insane.

No... ALL scripture is God-breathed.
Maybe you meant "writings" are only valuable when they agree with the traditions of the apostles. That would be true.

What are the traditions of the apostles? We know for certain what the scriptures say is The Word of God. But we dont know for certain anything else. The apostles themselves wrote the new testament scriptures, so we can say with certainty that the scriptures are the traditions of the apostles.

There are people who misinterpret scripture, both intentionally and unintentionally. And traditions do play a big part in our understanding of them, however, when a tradition contradicts the scriptures we can be sure it the tradition is not of God.

I could prove the trinity by using Scripture, and I can prove every key doctrine by using Scripture. Every doctrine which cannot be proven using Scripture can be dismissed as either non-essential and unimportant or just flat out wrong. If there was anything important for us to know you can be certain that God would have wrote it down. "It is written"

Aenon said:

They use the exact same scriptures you do.

Click to expand...

No they do not. Studied under for a couple of years as a teenager and even visited their publishing hours. I guess it was meant to impress

Aenon said:

A jehovahs witness believes in sola scriptura,

Click to expand...

Also, not really true. They place as much value and in certain instances greater value in their own writings.

No I'm not missing the point. Watching the exchanges with interest.

TaylorDonBarret said:

No... ALL scripture is God-breathed.
Maybe you meant "writings" are only valuable when they agree with the traditions of the apostles. That would be true.

What are the traditions of the apostles? We know for certain what the scriptures say is The Word of God. But we dont know for certain anything else. The apostles themselves wrote the new testament scriptures, so we can say with certainty that the scriptures are the traditions of the apostles.

There are people who misinterpret scripture, both intentionally and unintentionally. And traditions do play a big part in our understanding of them, however, when a tradition contradicts the scriptures we can be sure it the tradition is not of God.

I could prove the trinity by using Scripture, and I can prove every key doctrine by using Scripture. Every doctrine which cannot be proven using Scripture can be dismissed as either non-essential and unimportant or just flat out wrong. If there was anything important for us to know you can be certain that God would have wrote it down. "It is written"

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Let me try to rephrase. If you gave 5 scriptures to prove the trinity, and a oneness Pentecostal returned with 5 scriptures that say "God is one," and both of you are using the same version of the bible, yet one believes the trinity and the other does not. Who is right? And on what authority do you declare who is correct? You cant say "the bible," because you are BOTH quoting from it, and like I said, scripture is NOT self-interpretive.

Aenon said:

You are missing the point. Let me try to rephrase. If you gave 5 scriptures to prove the trinity, and a oneness Pentecostal returned with 5 scriptures that say "God is one," and both of you are using the same version of the bible, yet one believes the trinity and the other does not. Who is right? And on what authority do you declare who is correct? You cant say "the bible," because you are BOTH quoting from it, and like I said, scripture is NOT self-interpretive.

Click to expand...

Well, God is one. So, as long as the oneness person believes the one God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit... then there really isnt a big deal.

In the big picture, oneness vs. trinity is not a big deal. how do i know that? because it was not explicitly spelled out in the scripture.

but all things which are important are explicitly spelled out in scripture. all those key doctrines which concern God, Jesus, salvation, and holiness are explicitly spelled out and without room for reasonable interpretation.

now you may say that it is possible for someone to misinterpret the bible and believe certain heresy's such as universalism or gnosticism, or deny the resurrection or deny the crucifixion, and there is truth to that. there are also people who claim that 1+1 can equal something other than 2.

traditions do play a role in helping us to correctly understand the scriptures. however, we cannot accept any tradition which seems to contradict the plain meaning of scripture.

TaylorDonBarret said:

Well, God is one. So, as long as the oneness person believes the one God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit... then there really isnt a big deal.

Click to expand...

Yeah no biggie, not like the trinity was Christian dogma for two thousand years or anything.

traditions do play a role in helping us to correctly understand the scriptures. however, we cannot accept any tradition which seems to contradict the plain meaning of scripture.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Please tell me the plain meaning of this text.

Aenon said:

Yeah no biggie, not like the trinity was Christian dogma for two thousand years or anything.



Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Please tell me the plain meaning of this text.

Click to expand...

God is in control of, and the ultimate cause of, everything. God is sovereign.

TaylorDonBarret said:

God is in control of, and the ultimate cause of, everything. God is sovereign.

Click to expand...

My wife was mugged three years ago. Are you saying God did it?

Aenon said:

My wife was mugged three years ago. Are you saying God did it?

Click to expand...

"The devil meant it for evil, God meant it for good"

I would direct you to the book of Job. God allowed Satan to complete destroy Job's life, kill all of his family, take all of his belongings, and give him a terrible illness. Job blamed God for what had happened to Him, and God did not deny that it was His own doing.

There is not a thing that happens outside of God's authority.

Communion is also known as the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

It is the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46) and a time to give thanks (Luke 22:17, 19).

It was originally instituted by Jesus (Matt. 26:26-29) on the night of the Passover meal which was an annual occurrence celebrating the "passing over" of the angel of death that claimed the firstborn of every house in Egypt (Exodus 12).

The Lord's Supper, or communion, replaces the Passover meal with the "body and blood" (Mark 14:22-24) of Jesus.

It is to be taken only by believers (1 Cor. 11:23-28).

above snippet from carm.org

TaylorDonBarret said:

The Lord's Supper means different things to different people.

The Catholics believe it is a very mystical and powerful, supernatural ritual in which they are actually eating the literal human flesh of Jesus, and that by doing so they are given grace (basically, salvation). Catholics take "the Eucharist" (which is what they call it) at every single church service they perform and it is the primary purpose for their gathering.

Most Protestants believe that it is a symbolic gesture that helps us to realize that Jesus gave up His life for us, and the practice of eating and drinking while remembering that Jesus gave up His body and blood for us helps us to feel the gravity of the sacrifice He made. Most Protestants would generally agree that there is nothing supernatural about the Lord's Supper, it is symbolic gesture that helps to edify and honor the Lord.. nothing less, nothing more. Protestants usually take "communion" (what they call it) every month or so.

One thing that both of Catholics and Protestants have in common is that, with rare exception, both of them really only ever have The Lord's Supper in formal church services.

I am wondering how yall feel about it. Do you think there is anything more to it than symbolism? Do you think it has to be done in church? How often do you do it?

And heres the big question i want to ask:
Do you think it is something that a family could do at home every night together when they sit down to share a meal?

Click to expand...

Praise God Brother TaylorDonBarret,
Taking a meal or the Lords supper is something very special and more important then most understand. For to many years I was one of those who only did this one sunday a month at church. No one had ever brought revelation knowledge of this to me. Then a few months back I was feeding on His word via a dvd and they began to speak about this. It hit me right between the eys.

This is something so powerful and pleasing to the Father. It is not just in remembrance of Him but an act of Trust and Fatih and Love and Belief and HONOR in the Covenant we have with God the Father through Christ Jesus our Lord. When things are bad or you need wisdom. Find the scriptures that cover you situation, meditate on them, speak them and pray them and take a meal with the Father with these promises of His and seal it. Stay in Faith and watch our Heavenly Father move mountains if need be to fix your situation or move on your behalf..........

How about over your tithe,..................Praise God. We tithe on every single penny, gift card what have you. God has always provided our needs. Then again as I gained revelation knowledge over this and the tithe we began to do the same. When we are ready to offer Him our tithe and or seed we pray His word over it, we speak His word and thank Him for the tithe and we are always watering with our words ( of His words ) over the tithe....BUT we take a meal over the tithe....Since we started doing this, well it seems as if God the Father is pleased and I know He honors His word...This might sound odd but it seems as if He is in our giving of the tithe MUCH MORE now then before.....

Bottom line...........Take a meal with the Lord evevery single day if you will. Remember....Take His word with you. It iwll change your life.......
Blessings and love
Jim

Wired 4 Fishen said:

Praise God Brother TaylorDonBarret,
Taking a meal or the Lords supper is something very special and more important then most understand. For to many years I was one of those who only did this one sunday a month at church. No one had ever brought revelation knowledge of this to me. Then a few months back I was feeding on His word via a dvd and they began to speak about this. It hit me right between the eys.

This is something so powerful and pleasing to the Father. It is not just in remembrance of Him but an act of Trust and Fatih and Love and Belief and HONOR in the Covenant we have with God the Father through Christ Jesus our Lord. When things are bad or you need wisdom. Find the scriptures that cover you situation, meditate on them, speak them and pray them and take a meal with the Father with these promises of His and seal it. Stay in Faith and watch our Heavenly Father move mountains if need be to fix your situation or move on your behalf..........

How about over your tithe,..................Praise God. We tithe on every single penny, gift card what have you. God has always provided our needs. Then again as I gained revelation knowledge over this and the tithe we began to do the same. When we are ready to offer Him our tithe and or seed we pray His word over it, we speak His word and thank Him for the tithe and we are always watering with our words ( of His words ) over the tithe....BUT we take a meal over the tithe....Since we started doing this, well it seems as if God the Father is pleased and I know He honors His word...This might sound odd but it seems as if He is in our giving of the tithe MUCH MORE now then before.....

Bottom line...........Take a meal with the Lord evevery single day if you will. Remember....Take His word with you. It iwll change your life.......
Blessings and love
Jim

Click to expand...

thank you for sharing.
could you explain what it is that you do exactly?
do you have eat some food while prayin and thinking about the body and blood of Jesus?

TaylorDonBarret said:

thank you for sharing.
could you explain what it is that you do exactly?
do you have eat some food while prayin and thinking about the body and blood of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Glory to God !!
I was referring to taking communion as taking a meal.
Sorry for the confussion
Jim

Wired 4 Fishen said:

Glory to God !!
I was referring to taking communion as taking a meal.
Sorry for the confussion
Jim

Click to expand...

So how exactly do you take communion so often?
would you mind detailing your ceremony?