KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Balance particles of Lord's Table

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 01972 :  Balance particles of Lord's Table

Any scripture available towards the balance share of Bread and Wine that are used in the Worship, how to handle it, some assemblies this will eat by the Elders, Deacons and other matured believers. In some Assembplies it is treated as waste and throw away, I seek your opinions and discussion

Post by : jacob1968  View Profile    since : 19 Dec 2009


Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 20 Dec 2009 6:52:00 AM Close

Dear "jacob1968"

There is no scriptural support for the remains of bread and wine, and it is quite natural each partaker of bread and wine during  that time would have partaken in such a way that there will be no remains.

Why dont we partake in such a way that there might be no remains , a larger pinch of bread and bigger sip of wine will make no remains . And hence there wont be a question of the remains.

Any way the bread and wine which is blessed has only its prominence during the time of worship when we partake, and as a matter of regard  usually the remains are consumed by available brethren at the end of meeting .When we were young we used to consume it . But throwing is not a good way , might be stray dogs will eat the remains, then we are not respecting the food what we are eating.

 

Yours

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 3:16:51 PM Close

 

Jacob1968,
 When we truly understand what the Lord’s Supper is all about these issues would be answered by itself. It is not what or how exactly we eat, but why we eat has more importance.  The Lord Jesus Christ instituted this memorial service. He said what it is for - DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. There is nothing more to it or nothing less.
 
Having a meal as part of a memorial of a loved one, has roots going back to many centuries.  In Jer. 16:7, God pronounces a curse upon the Israel as ‘Men will not break bread in mourning for them, to comfort anyone for the dead…’  This tells how this had been a part of an ancient tradition. In most cultures even today, it is normal to have a meal after the funeral. In most cases, at least the closest people of the departed one [dead one] would gather around and share the meal and talk about the person or share the memories of the one who died.
 This was prevalent at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ’s death as well. So the Lord wanted this ‘memorial service’ to continue on until He returns. This would keep reminding the participants of who Jesus Christ is and what had He done. Also, Jesus Christ Himself made the invitation to those who would in subsequent times believe in the substitutionary death. [1 Cor 11:23] There we read ‘For as I received from the Lord that which I {Paul} also delivered to you..’
 There is no record in the Bible where Paul had received this as he claims here. Nonetheless, Paul did receive it from the Lord through special revelation or intervention. Obviously the Lord had considered it important to continue this memorial service through the centuries.  So, this simply remains as a memorial feast and nothing more; nothing less. Those who are related to Him do have the ‘right’ to partake of it. Those who know Him and trust Him as the savior have this privilege.
 
When we look at this scenario, would other things truly matter? What if it is ‘Appam’, Rice cake, Chappathi? What if it is juice, wine or lemonade? Or, would it really matter if it is a complete meal? What matters is the predominant thought which is remembering the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to remember and keep on being reminded of the purpose of the Lord’s death and the meal [Lord’s Supper] is simply a means by which we do it. More than anything it declares that we belong to Christ and He had given an invitation to be present at the memorial meal, before He died. THIS MUST NOT BE USED AS A DISCIPLINARY TOOL. Many Assemblies misuse the very purpose of this by denying participation from the Lord’s Supper thinking this is how someone should be disciplined. [I have addressed this issue before on this forum.]
 Nothing inherently happens to the bread, chappathi or whatever we share or to the drinks. They remain just as bread & chappathi. If you are in the habit of discarding the leftover bread at home, there is nothing wrong in discarding the leftover after the Lord’s Supper.  If there is someone who would be benefited by eating them, let them eat. But there is no added blessing to a ‘diabetic person’ eating too much leftover bread and gets his sugar level high!
 I would disagree with what Bro Samuel suggested. If we follow that pattern, our thoughts would be centered on how to divide this bread in such a way that it would get finished without having any leftovers. Our thoughts must be on the Lord Jesus Christ- nothing more; nothing less. The bread is just the means by which we do it. The fellowship and the remembrance are the important factors.
 Yet, if there is a ‘weaker’ brother/ sister in the congregation who does not understand this truth and feels that the bread should not be thrown away, be considerate of such a person. [1 Cor 9:22] They need to be taught correctly and until they become mature to see the truth, there is no reason to offend them. Let the mature believers discard or dispose discreetly without inviting too much attention.
 I remember reading an article in my youth, written by late Bro. K G Kurian in the mid sixties. He addressed the issue of how the person in some Assemblies who breaks the bread finally would kneel down and eat off the bread, at the front, after everyone is done. He would do the same with the cup. I am not sure if anyone ever does this anymore. In the article he mentioned that such appearance of piety is the remnant of the denominational heritage. He strongly exhorted us to learn the truth behind the Lord’s Supper and discard the unnecessary patterns surrounding the Lord’s Supper.
 
Making a big deal about what to do with the leftovers of the bread and the juice/ wine etc. shows that we are yet to grasp the truth behind this ‘memorial service! I often remember an analogy from late Bro. T K Samuel. He used to say that ‘instead of watering the Banana plant, we are watering the bamboo stick that is placed by it to support the plant from falling off.’ He was talking about misplaced priorities.
 
Tom Johns _ MI
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 3:37:39 PM Close

 Hi Tom,

I have always agreed with you when you question the legalistic approach of may KB on this forum regarding different matters. I am not really convinced on your statement here - "When we look at this scenario, would other things truly matter? What if it is ‘Appam’, Rice cake, Chappathi? What if it is juice, wine or lemonade? Or, would it really matter if it is a complete meal?"

I agree that the way we have evolved to just take a pinch of the bread, and a sip from the cup is wrong, and that is  what our kids understand as well. It  should not be a meal either ( we have a meal to satisfy our hunger, which the people at the church in Corinth did but Paul sends a clear message to them) - but should the bread be replaced with chappati / appam ( yes as long as its bread - Else you need to get the exact bread that the people of Israel eat and not the "Bun" form the local bakery) or the Wine with orange juice/ milk shake?

Since we have a clear direction from our Lord Jesus on what he gave his disciples, and Paul re-instates the emblems - Bread to remember his body and the "Wine" to remember his blood, I think we should stick to it.

I had brought up this discussion on a different thread - and I think the Wine should be actual grape juice (when it is in season) or actual fermented wine ( which is available all through the year) which ever is available ,and the bread should be actual bread ( wheat, corn or anything else but bread for sure!).

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 5:05:03 PM Close

 

Dear Paul Thomas,
By looking at the time when the Lord instituted the Lord’s Supper, the most common denominators of a meal were bread and wine. Bread would be available throughout the meal time and the same for wine. The Passover meal traditionally had three rounds of wine serving specifically as part of the meal.
I am seriously doubtful if there is more emphasis placed on the bread and the wine, any more than they communicate to us as the basic life sustaining food commonly available. Jesus Himself declared as the ‘living bread.’ Consuming the Lord as the living bread is the absolute must for someone to be saved in a figurative sense. When we see the Lord as the ‘living bread’ in its intended sense, we should not have too much difficulty in substituting the common bread to something comparable.  The Body, the Blood, the New Covenant – all point to one thing; the death of Jesus Christ. That death brought our redemption. What matters is the remembrance of that.
I have heard many times the ‘spiritual meanings’ of bread and wine, being shared at the Lord’s Supper. I don’t disagree with them saying ‘just as the wheat was crushed and had gone into the furnace and the grapes were crushed to squeeze out the juice’ etc. as facts. But how do we know if that is why they were picked? There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that. Such understanding [although biblically viable, may be?] is our figment of imagination.
I agree that eating a meal is different from a purposeful gathering together to break bread. When I was young we used to make ‘Appam ‘ at home and take it to the meeting and used in place of bread. Bakery bread was less available or ‘expensive.’ In place of wine, we used to soak dried grapes [raisins] in water and get some juice out. Frankly speaking, there was not much juice out of that except the mud and dust from them along with a bit of sugary taste. In Papua New Guinea, they use some coconut based cake in place of bread.  
Whether in Kerala or in New Guinea, I am sure the Lord would be pleased with what is done as a remembrance to Him. I seriously doubt if God would least be concerned what was being used at the Lord’s Supper. But for the sake of convenience and availability and a bit of consistency I am not opposed to sticking to how it was being done. But there is no reason to be dogmatic about how ‘it should be.’
 Yet, I will be happy to break the ‘coconut cake’ while I am Papua, New Guinea and I am sure the Lord would very well be pleased just as I would do with bread. If believers of Nepal would like to break a Chappathi [it is very close to the Middle Eastern bread which our Lord may have eaten] as part of the Lord’s Supper, I’d sing joyfully in my heart for that opportunity.
Tom Johns _MI
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 6:06:36 PM Close

The Lord's Table is not just a "fellowship meal". It is not another 'supper' shared among several people. There is an exclusive and unique meaning and symbolism about the two items - bread and wine - that is definitely a beautiful picture of the death of the Lord Jesus.

The significance of wheat is seen in John 12:23,24 - And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. There is no doubt that the corn of wheat He is talking about is His own body. I suppose any cereal like wheat will also match the meaning of the symbol.

The significance of the grape and wine is seen in Rev 19:15 – And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. The wrath of God is compared to a winepress and the juice of the grape fruit is compared to the blood that is shed as a result of coming under the wrath of God. Here also, there is no debate that the Lord did indeed physically came under God’s wrath (for us) and His blood was shed (for us), just as grapes are crushed under a weight of the wine press.

Broken wheat or other cereal flour is used to make bread that gives life and the wine/juice of crushed grapes is a drink of life and happiness. Therefore these items - bread from broken wheat and wine from crushed grapes - are extremely important in order to faithfully symbolize what they stand for – His broken body and His shed blood, on our behalf. In preparing the Lord’ Table, the church must take care be given to adhere as much as is physically possible to make available bread from wheat and wine from grapes. We cannot just use rice cakes and lemonade to symbolize His broken body and His shed blood. If some churches habitually use rice cakes and lemonade, they are not sinning against God – they are doing it without a full understanding of why the Lord instituted His Table. If the object of the Lord’s Table is to “shew His death”, then the best choices that the Lord used to do so are bread made from wheat flour (or perhaps barley) and wine from the grape.

A worthy participation from the Lord's Table involves giving an intellectual assent to how the symbols He picked on His own, point to His broken body and His shed blood. Further, when such intellect opens the gates of the human heart to allow thanksgiving and praise to flow out, then this simple ceremony becomes the centerpiece of Christian worship. The Father is honored by our thanksgiving and praise. The Son is glorified by our praise. The Holy Spirit is obeyed and submitted to by such worship.

On the other hand we have to acknowledge that these emblems are mere symbols. We need to understand what is significant spiritually, and what is not. In Joh 6:53, our Lord said, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. It is all about the act of eating and drinking, something so fundamental to our very existence. Consuming a food item by eating or drinking, whatever that may be, involves making that item a part and parcel or our human body. We do so to derive our life from the items consumed. When we consume from the Lord’s Table, we are making that bread and wine, a part of our body and deriving nourishment from the emblems. By consuming the bread and wine we affirm our spiritual partaking from the flesh of the Son of Man and His blood. Those who eat His flesh and drink His blood, abide in Him and He in them (Joh 6: 56).

So, while the choice of the correct emblems is important for symbolic reasons, there is nothing in the actual bread or the wine that has a significance or meaning beyond what they symbolize. It is the act of consuming the broken bread and wine that has spiritual significance. When we consume it, some crumbs may fall on the floor, some wine may accidently be spilled. That is ok. What happens to the bread and wine left over is also not something we need to care about, since, in and of itself these emblems are merely symbols. It is the consumption of these emblems, that fulfills His commandment, “Do this in remembrance of Me”.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 7:59:44 PM Close

Okay..Let me see if I get this correctly. We have no problem changing the 'wine' to grape juice. In fact it is 'highly preferred' to use grape juice among many believers. This is done to fit our prohibition on alcoholic beverage. Also, we say both wine and juice are okay because the common ingredient - grapes- are crushed to signify the wrath of God. So it is better [in our estimation] to use grape juice.

Truly speaking, who gave this permission to change from 'wine' to 'grape juice?' - In our mind we feel very comfortable doing that since it fits our liking.  [I am not against the change. I think it is perfectly fine to do that. But I like to bring out another point.]

Now, when I said bread can be substituted to 'Appam' or 'Chappathi' and it might not lose the significance, some do have a problem. Let me throw in some 'spiritual significance' to Chappathi.

It usually is made of wheat [same as bread].

Wheat is very biblical [as Moses2006 mentioned]

It gets grounded [crushed as bread]

It gets baked on hot pan [same as bread]

If I spiritualize Chappathi, I can quote many 'related' portions from the Bible to make it more 'reverential.' But that would be contrary to the principles of biblical interpretations. So are, most of these allegorical fancy interpretations so often we hear.  I mentioned it as 'Chappathi' because what we eat is not significant but how it is eaten and why it is eaten are important. Remember the logic of changing wine to grape juice? Why can't we apply the same here?

There was a brother in our Assembly who usually prayed after the cup is passed around. Invariably he would pray 'since we see the leftovers from the bread and the cup on the table after we have eaten, signifying there are yet many more who are unsaved out in this world.' It is true there are many unsaved in the world. But what has that to do with the leftovers from the bread and the cup? What if one day our Assembly ran out of bread? Does that mean everyone in the world has got saved?

Often we say 'the broken body of Jesus Christ' - Actually His body was not broken. In order to break the body, the bones are to be broken. Not one of His bones is broken. Where do we see in the Bible that we 'should remember His broken body?'

How can John 12: 23-24 be read in any relation to the Lord's Supper and its significance? There the very purpose of our Savior's incarnation is portrayed in a nutshell. Everything the Lord had done must be part of our remembrance service. But giving undue significance to wheat or grapes any more than what are given in the Bible would lead to misinterpretation.  

Winepress mentioned in Rev 19:15 is a vivid imagery of Judgment. It is not 'specifically' reserved for the Lord's suffering. Here it is speaking about the judgment against the ungodly. Isa 63 speaks of winepress in relation to the Lord's suffering. In general 'winepress' stands for judgment. The 'pressing' is more important than what is being pressed. The Holy Spirit used the imagery to show the depth and magnitude of the Judgment.

When we over-emphasize something, we tend to take away the real importance. I believe these dogmatic approach and the traditional over spiritualizing, finally could give birth to a generation of people who do not really understand what this Lord's Supper is all about.

Tom Johns  _ MI

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 21 Dec 2009 8:26:58 PM Close

Hi Tom,

I agree with what you have to say on the Bread. But grape juice is also wine irrespective of how much it has been fermented. Some churches refrain from serving fermented wine ( or grape juice) for the benefit of the believers that were addicted to alcohol or in the stage of Rehab. 

Some churches serve both fermented and unfermented Wine and do mention which is which. And there are some that server actual port wine ( fermented and sweet ).

So since we have direction from our Lord and from Apostle Paul - using the word "WINE" and not "JUICE" i think it is inappropriate to replace this emblem to remember the blood,  with any other fruit juice.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 3:27:12 AM Close

Dear brethren in Christ,

 

Please limit our answers to querry of the thread. The originator of the thread had asked a question , and not the quality and nature of the resemblance we partake. Let us not deviate from what the scriptures says, though we do not apply it practically in our lives.

Sam

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 10:18:37 AM Close

 On wine vs grape juice. In all the relevant passages (Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and 1 Cor 11), there is no mention of the word WINE. What we find are the words CUP, and THE FRUIT OF THE VINE. Cup signifies the New Covenant made with Israel (Jer 31). And the contents of the cup is the "fruit of the vine" which is grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented, signifying the blood of the covenant.

The Lord indeed said, this is my body BROKEN for you (1 Cor 11:24). Body broken does not mean bones are broken.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 2:17:20 PM Close

Bro Tom said "But giving undue significance to wheat or grapes any more than what are given in the Bible would lead to misinterpretation."

We do not need to give undue importance, but we should we should give the importance that our Lord gave to His Table. Among the many food items available that passover night, He only choose 2 items to represent His Body and His shed blood - bread (probably from wheat) and fruit of the vine(juice or may be wine). This sacrament is so simple that people all over world can follow in complete obedience. I do not see any reason to deviate from what He did, by using other items in its place - chapatti or apam or lemonade or coconut cake.

Paul in 1 Cor 11:26 said "For as often as ye eat THIS bread, and drink THIS cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come". Please note that Paul pointed to the exact food items to be used to "shew the Lord's death".

Coming to main topic, this thread posed a question that I believe many hearts have pondered upon. I have been to various churches and seen different ways of how the remnants on the Table were handled. In my native church in kerala, the 2 elders ate the left overs and finished any left over grape juice. In my church today, the left overs are thrown away. In a church near by, the remnants are given as a honor to visitors after church. In a church in the gulf, I saw the children eating the remnants. Given these widely varying approaches to how the remnants are handled, its safe to assume that most churches know not to give "undue significance" to the remnants and that there nothing scriptural about what happens to them, after the worship service is over.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 2:19:18 PM Close

Dear Moses Lemuelraj,

I realize KJV translates 1 Cor 11:24 as you have quoted. Hardly any other translation including the Malayalam do not translate that verse as such. And there is no reason based on the Greek texts to translate with the word 'broken.' In fact, after looking at it closely, I do not see any reason for including that word in there, except KJV translators simply chose to do it. [I am wondering if that is based on some other manuscripts.]

Tom Johns - MI

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 3:33:21 PM Close

Dear readers,

Needless to say there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the Lord's Supper. Otherwise, there would not be a discussion concerning what to do with the leftovers after the participation. Obviously people are giving 'undue significance' to the leftovers.

Bro Samuel suggested to the participants to make sure the bread is finished. I sense an 'undue significance' there. Or, would there be a suggestion such as that? Imagine the commotion that can create at 'Kumbanadu Convention!' Everyone will be concentrating on how much to eat so that the bread will be finished. Is this the purpose of the Lord's Supper? How can we simply say that there is no 'undue significance' or misunderstanding about the Lord's Supper among the Brethren? From what I know, my dear brother Samuel is born and brought up in the Assemblies with great biblical heritage. He showed  great desire to serve the Lord and from his own testimony we can tell he is a very dear and sincere brother in Christ. If a person such as Bro Samuel were to give this 'undue reverence' to the leftovers, there is no telling how widespread of a misunderstanding about the meaning of the Lord's Supper is prevalent among us.

We are asked not to partake of it 'unworthily.' Not knowing the biblical and true meaning of the Lord's Supper and continue partaking of it, is partaking 'unworthily.' Regarding this subject I wrote few years ago the following and posted somewhere on KB Net. let me quote----

'We are warned not to partake from it as a ritualistic observance. Our mind should be occupied with what it stands for. We should not go through the motions without any emotions. It should be treated with the reverence it deserves; as we are ‘breaking the bread’ of our loved one’s death. We should not think it dispenses any special grace or merit. We should not believe it will keep a person saved or as a source of salvation. We should not have bitter spirit against another believer, or come with a sin that we are unwilling to repent.

If a person comes with anything less than the loftiest thoughts of the Father, Son & the Holy Spirit and anything less than total love for his brothers and sisters in Christ, he comes unworthily. Only the participant can judge these things and no one else can.'
 
Tom Johns - MI
 
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 4:31:24 PM Close

 Brother Tom. The word broken is the reading of majority Greek manuscripts and the Strong's number of the Greek word is 2806. This is only for information, and not to deviate the discussion. Regards.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 22 Dec 2009 5:01:58 PM Close

 The question of the left overs is similar to what we read in Exo 12:10. It is very interesting to note that exact instructions are given in the OT in relation to the Passover, as to when it must be observed, where should it be observed (while in wilderness and while in the land), what exactly should be eaten, what should be done with the left overs, who should eat, who should not, etc. Can some one tell why this is not the case with the Lord's supper in the NT? Further, given that the Passover was intended to be observed "forever" (Exo 12:14),  and that it will be observed in the future kingdom (Ezek 45:21), did the apostles ever stop keeping the Passover? The Lord Himself says that He would eat the Passover in the future kingdom (Luke 22:15-16). Surprisingly, He also said the same thing in relation BOTH the cups that were there in that night (first cup - Luke 22:17-18, second cup - Mat 26:28-29; Luke 22:20).

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 23 Dec 2009 6:11:33 AM Close

Dear br.Tom in Christ,

"my dear brother Samuel is born and brought up in the Assemblies with great biblical heritage." Bro. I am just a  second generation brethren  , I don't have any thing to boast of bieng brethren unlike others in the forum, My father was a Marthoma priest, from there he knew the truth, left the denomination and in Lord's vineyard now, my mother was a Jacobite, my father-in-law was a Hindu, His sisters & relatives are still hindus. I am the least concerning the soundness in the word of God, I dont know greek or hebrew or to interpret the meaning of the scriptures as many do in the forum.

Dear brethren in Christ

What I said was just an option regarding the possibility to avoid any remains of Lord's supper. The scripture is silent regarding the remains .If any prominence was given to the remains it would have been clearly stated, And what I assume there were no reamins during that time. In an assembly or a gathering of more than 400 beleivers partaking in the bread and cup, the bread is broken and blessed and passed on and  when the remains come back and if we assemble the bread back it almost maintains the same size of the bread  as the time of breaking,  This makes us aware we are more concerned  in the pinch what we are taking , the same with the jar of wine , it is distributed to several cups after blessing, after the cups come back from partaking when it is filled back into the jar we see a very little decrease in the level of wine in the Jar. And many a time as a formality the cup just goes to the lip and passes on, might be of several reasons which believers were not concerned till recent times.

The usual pinch of bread and sip should be maintained and the gathering should arrange the bread and wine in such a way that all partakes , without being less in quantity. The things what I have stated is just practical , it is to discretion of assembly to what they prefer to do with remains.

What I prefer personally dont throw.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 23 Dec 2009 7:04:29 AM Close

Dear Sam,

You don’t have to be apologetic.

Be assured that none of the Assemblies would change their current practices; they will not refer to this Forum for deciding the manner of disposal of the left over. Assemblies will continue to do what they are doing; use what they are now using (bread / juice /wine). Leave it at that.

Some will worship the bread & wine, some will handle the plate and cup with a show of reverence; some will partake sitting in their chairs, some will sit on the floor when the bread and wine are passed, and some will be on bended d knees.  All are convinced that they are right and others are not. Let it be…

Better not to allow “Form” to acquire more importance than “Substance”. 

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tom_s   View Profile   Since : 23 Dec 2009 12:31:39 PM Close

Per my understanding of the scripture there is no importance to the remnants as Scripture is silent about it. In my opinion leave this to the assemblies and let them practice what they do. Just a thought, what do we do with the remnants of our usual supper? Some items we trash, some we preserve etc? Why don’t we do the same here also with the remnants? If some one like take it home, let them do it. If someone would like to eat it, let it be so and if decided to trash it let it be so.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 23 Dec 2009 1:44:38 PM Close

Dear LemuelRaj,

Brother, you raised a good question - how does the Passover compare with the Lord's Table. This is a question I have thought about numerous times. Maybe we can put our minds together to answer the question. If you believe that the question is in line with this thread topic, we can continue here..or else perhaps a new thread may be needed? You decide. Also if you could search any literature on the topic and post it, that would be good.

Some leading thoughts:

- It was necessary to kill the Passover lamb, in order to secure sufficient quantity of its blood for the doorposts and lintels (Ex 12:22). However, what is the spiritual significance of EATING the lamb roasted over fire?

- Our Lord's sacrifice fulfills the shadow of the Passover sacrifices. However, is the eating of the Passover Lamp a shadow of the eating of the Lord's Table?

- Why was no drink mentioned in the Passover?

In order to compare these two distinct sacraments, we need to fully understand how they are similar and where exactly does the similarity end. Thanks for your help with this study.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 23 Dec 2009 10:23:56 PM Close

 Brother moses2006,

This thread may not be the right place to discuss this. However, I will try to address the leading thoughts you have placed. 

- While the blood applied on the door posts was only once, the reason for the continual observance of the Passover is mentioned in Exo 12:24-27; Exo 13:8. The roasting (Deut 16:7)  is probably to signify the fact that they were spared from being roasted in the iron furnace of Egypt (Deu 4:20). Unleavened bread (the bread of affliction) signified the haste in which they came (Deut 16:3). Bitter herbs probably signified their experience in Egypt (Exo 1:14). 

- Christ is the Passover Lamb in antitype, no doubt (1 Cor 5). That does not mean OT Passover came to an end. There is absolutely no teaching given to the apostles to STOP it. On the other hand, the OT teaches that Israel must keep it forever. 

- In the original Passover institution, the cup is not mentioned. We read about at least 2 cups in Luke 22, the second one being the cup signifying the New Covenant. Paul called this cup the "cup of blessing" (1 Cor 10). Every observing Jew knows what the cup of blessing is. They have 4 cups at Passover, and the cup of blessing is the 3rd, and taken "after supper" (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). Look for "cup of blessing" at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder. Of course, none of these 4 cups are mentioned in the OT. But the Lord seems to have endorsed at least two, if not four. Because, every thing that was arranged in that night was for the purpose of the Passover. The apostles prepared the Passover, and the Lord sat with them to eat the Passover. The bread and the cups were therefore part of the Passover arrangement. This much we clearly know.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 24 Dec 2009 1:24:27 PM Close

Dear " tom_s"

"Just a thought, what do we do with the remnants of our usual supper? Some items we trash, some we preserve etc? Why don’t we do the same here also with the remnants? If some one like take it home, let them do it. If someone would like to eat it, let it be so and if decided to trash it let it be so."

What would be the possible reasons of thrashing our usual supper. And how is it related with remains of the Lord Table. 

Is it good to throw food. There are many who havent a time food . Let us prepare food in such a way that it might be enough for our consumption. Yes the possibilites are 1-if the food is stale, 2-if the food is consumed by other person and we feel it is unhygenic to keep the remains so that it might get stale overnight.

Where do we  can relate the remains of the Lord's table with the thrashing.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tom_s   View Profile   Since : 24 Dec 2009 3:17:22 PM Close

samuel.v.j

I didn’t mean to say we should make food and throw away. I know millions around the world beg for one time meal. This is a normal practice so far I have seen. Aafter supper something goes to trash, something gets preserved. Based on my plain and common reasoning, the same thing might have happened at the supper with Jesus and disciples. They had bread, wine and other food. There is nothing for me to understand or believe as they have drunk the whole wine and ate the entire bread. For me it is just a fancy reasoning. I didn’t mean to say Lord’s Supper is same as our regular supper. All I understand is the remnants has absolutely no importance and let the assemblies practice what they are comfortable rather than suggesting to do this or that. If anyone is giving undue importance to the remnants, then they may have to search the scripture to justify their actions.

Thank you!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samv   View Profile   Since : 25 Dec 2009 10:27:03 AM Close

Also is it not Biblical if believers don't drink from the same cup?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 26 Dec 2009 4:54:00 AM Close

Dear "tom_s "

Dear brother/sister , I just asked a simple query, what are the possibilities that we thrash our remaining supper.  And in my previous post I had quoted some examples  the reason for thrashing. At home we don't cook over food , mother or wife or us who ever handles the kitchen has a calculation of preparing the food for their family members and prepares to a limit. Then when we do thrash the remaining items. When we find the answer to the query we will get the answer , why some assemblies  throw the remains of the Lord's table.

But I reiterate that it is discretion of the individual assembly to follow any procedures, but my personal  opinion , don't throw any food , because the remains doesn't have any prominence , it is just as normal food after the worship.

Yours in Christ

Sam

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 4:16:41 AM Close

I have a genuine question. When I wrote that the message of the Lord's Supper is more important than the strict adherence of what is being eaten or drunk many of you have objected. I appreciate the concerns raised. To some extend I agree with many of you. 

But how would you feel if you happened to participate in a Lord's Supper where white wine was passed around? Should the type of grape or the color matter? If you prefer the red wine [I have never seen any place where white wine or white grape juice was used at Lord's Supper] what is your biblical reasoning for that preference? Is that just the color? This is a hypothetical question, but an off-shoot of what I wrote earlier.  

Tom Johns_ MI

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kbr   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 5:36:23 AM Close

A side line to the above:

Once an evangelist from a north eastern state in India told me, in their place wine is not available, so they use home made dosa and black coffee and term it as 'bread' and 'cup' and not as wine. I understand several such pioneer workers would have tried it in the same way.

Does it make any difference? I hope the intention and purpose are more important rather than the procedure.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 6:20:57 AM Close

Dear brethren Christ,

The cup resembles the blood, and everyone knows the colour of blood

Mathew :26 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom

1st Corinthians 1125After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

I dont know much about the spiritual interpretation by the scholars , but to me the contents of the cup of  supper was vine which was red in colour which resembles blood shed for us.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 8:02:10 AM Close

 

With due respect, may I ask...

"And, what was the color of the bread? What color the bread shall be to resemble the body?"

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 11:50:40 AM Close

with due respect , the reply is when we purchase or bake the bread and when we start to consume it , pause for a moment , just view the colour outside and after breaking  the bread view the colour inside, and think for a moment the process which took for a wheat or barley grain to be in  that form of a bread in our hand. So we will not only get the color but the nature & process  by which the bread was formed.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : believer.bible   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 1:03:29 PM Close

Somehow the bread on sunday always tasty....so after the meeting I just go and eat it before the kids get it.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 1:57:20 PM Close

Dear Tom,

I am not sure why there should be any concern with white wine. White wine and red wine are both products made from the 'fruit of the vine' (Matt 26:29). Similarly simple grape juice is also a good (probably better) option. Since we have at least one warning against getting drunk at the Lord's Table in 1 Co 11, I personally feel that grape juice is a better choice (than either wines) for the purpose of declaring our Lord's death, without needlessly introducing alcohol into the sacrament. I am more comfortable at the thought of minors (under 18) drinking grape juice over wine at the Lord' Table.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 3:06:16 PM Close

Dear Samuel V J & Others,

I have made reference earlier regarding the 'Lord's Supper speeches'  where people expound how the bread is made [ground, beaten, gone into oven, heat] and the cup [crushed, mutilated, squeezed.] You [Samuel] also made the same suggestion above. Yes - it is good to think that way! That is all true. But where in the Bible do you see that is what we need to consider while taking part of the emblems [bread & cup?]

When the Lord instituted this the disciples wouldn't even fully grasp what it would have it meant to 'proclaim the death.' The symbolism of crushing is widely popular among some Christians, particularly among the KB. Unless it is revealed elsewhere or there itself  [in the Bible] such 'symbolism teachings' remain as a figment of our imagination. No matter how well it 'fits' in our mind and can even bring out emotional empathy to what had happened at the cross, such expositions have no biblical grounds. Some people even claim that such teachings are indeed the 'meat of the word.' To any serious Bible student such interpretations should remain at best as 'tolerable' when heard from others; but he/ she should stay away from such emotional appeals based on interpretations not based on the Bible.

Such interpretations would eventually divert the real focus of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is established 'to proclaim the death.' I do not believe it is to declare the process of crucifixion as many people like to do. This is established to proclaim the result of the death, which is redemption. If there is one major theme at the Lord's Supper it must be the redemption. This redemption is achieved through the death of Jesus Christ [the perfect sacrifice.] But the Bible does not require us to mimic the crucifixion /burial scene at the Lord's Supper. 

When we sing 'redeemed by the blood.. redeemed, redeemed by the blood,' we should be singing what that blood accomplished. REDEMPTION. The 'blood' is synonymous to everything our Savior had done and who He was. The blood stands for His life and the life that He imparted to us. We should not be overemphasizing the literal blood and its color and all. Yet, it is true, the redemption was achieved by what had happened on the cross. That death satisfied God's demand for justice.

Any form of death by our Savior would have satisfied God; wouldn't be so? Why did the Lord was beaten and His flesh was ripped out, His hair was pulled out or had to wear a crown of thorns that pierced His head?  Why didn't He get killed by the sword / knife just like any other animal that was sacrificed before the alter?  Wouldn't it be more dramatic, if the Lord had gone to the Temple or the alter and let loose those Passover animals that were being slained and lay on the alter in their place and a sword from heaven came down and cut Him to be killed? Wouldn't that have satisfied the justice God demanded?

It probably would have! But God chose this form of death for the God incarnate; may be as an object lesson to us to see the gruesomeness of our sins. It could be an object lesson to the unbelievers what the outcome would be to them on the judgment day! Even then, the Bible does not require us to contemplate the 'death' itself, but the 'proclamation of the death;' which turns out to be the REDEMPTION.

When we realize these truths, many questions about the 'bread, dosa, chappathi, red wine, white wine, red juice, white juice etc' would become soooooooooo soooooooo insignificant.

Tom Johns - MI

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 3:22:15 PM Close

Hi Tom,

I believe you are from Michigan. I have been to Brethren churches in US where both red and white wine is served. There are other churches that serve both fermented and non-fermented wine and they specifically mention that before passing the same.

Whether white wine can be used? I don't see a problem. It is the fruit of the vine. I am not sure if everyone knows - White wine and red wine are made from grapes with red skin. ( there are some white wines made from green grapes as well) .The "red" color is from the skin of the grape fruit which is normally added to the white wine to make it "red". 

If you take red grapes and crush it ( not in an electric blender ) - the juice is white and not red.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 3:34:09 PM Close

 Dear Tom,

Mathew :26 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom

I think its very clear wine has to be used and not any kind of juice. With all due respect could you give me a reason why we should think otherwise when there is a clear direction given by our Lord?

I agree with what you have to say about the bread and the symbolism about crushing and so on which is incorrect.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 4:21:15 PM Close

This is just a suggestion. The question "Where does it say that in the Bible?" can be asked by any person - for example a secular investigator or even an atheist can pose this question. To answer the question, all one has to do is do a word search, with many kids of searches available on numerous websites. Any secular or godless person can pose and answer the WHERE question. But that is not how we should interpret the Bible.

Someone who has the Word in his heart as the enabler of his FAITH, should more properly ask "WHAT does the Bible say about this issue?" or even better, "WHY does the Bible say this or that?" When a heart of faith poses such a question, the Holy Spirit is given the opportunity needed to give a proper answer to the WHAT and the WHY. Word/Phrase searches and multiple languages cannot give the answer, that the Holy Spirit impresses in the heart. The Spirit (of truth) was given to us, so He can guide us into "all truth" (Joh 16:13)

We have a tradition in this forum of challenging each other with this question - "Where does it say that in the Bible?". Some very good Bible teachers use this to defend and attack others. My appeal is that we ask each other better questions, that anticipate a Spirit guided response - one that leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work in us. Some people are given the gift of wisdom to understand the mysteries of the Word of God. May the Spirit help us to recognize such people and give them our ears.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 5:24:08 PM Close

Dear Moses2006,

Unless it is written in the Bible and interpreted correctly 'the gift of wisdom to understand mysteries of the Word of God' can mislead many. Such 'mystery' interpretations have lead to terrible misinterpretations.

Dear Paul Thomas,

I will post my answer to your question later on.

Tom Johns _ MI

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 9:01:12 PM Close

 I will go with Tom J on what he said above. I have come to understand that all the 9 spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 are not in operation today. They all belong to the Pentecostal dispensation (term coined by Sir Robert Anderson) which has come to end when God ended His dealings with Israel in Acts 28. Ignoring the role of Israel in the book of Acts is the greatest blunder every single denomination (including the Brethren) have made. And the result is that the book of Acts has become a "pattern" for today's Christian practice, and every denomination claims they are correct, and they all base their reasonings on the book of Acts. Most of the book of Acts is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 9:40:08 PM Close

Dear Tom,

Quote, "Unless it is written in the Bible and interpreted correctly 'the gift of wisdom to understand mysteries of the Word of God' can mislead many."

Are you saying that the Spirit gift of wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor 12:8) is non-existent? Or are you saying that anyone with a Bible commentary and search engine has this gift? Please clarify.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 9:49:18 PM Close

Dear Lemuelraj

Brother, you statement regarding the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor 12 is somewhat shocking!! The gifts of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12 have nothing to do with Israel. In fact in v2, Paul begins chapter 12 with the acknowledgement that his audience were mostly Gentiles. Not all have the same gifts and not all ages have had the same gifts. This is taught in v30. These days we see a different set of gifts by the same Spirit, than the ones which were seen in the church at Corinth.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 6 Jan 2010 10:03:13 PM Close

 Dear moses2006,

The status of Gentiles during the Pentecostal dispensation is that of a wild branch grafted to an already existing Olive Tree (Israel). The status of today's saints, both Jews and Gentiles is within the One New Man (Eph 2). 

Regards

Moses

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 2:11:05 AM Close

Dear Moses2006,

Regarding 1 Cor 12:8 - It is speaking about teachers who are able to explain the word of God faithfully; with proper understanding of the text, context, individual words and phrases and of related passages, thereby help provide understanding for others. They do not bring anything new, but explain correctly what had been already revealed. The Holy Spirit empowers them but they themselves are willing to suffer the pain of diligent study just as a Surgeon studies thoroughly the anatomy of human body with all its complexities before becoming a useful and efficient Surgeon. Without the help of the Holy Spirit no one can truly understand the word of God. But that does not mean without proper study one can 'miraculously' become a great teacher.

Tom Johns_MI

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 3:41:26 AM Close

Dear Br.Tom ,

As I usually write , you have  the language ,scriptural knowledge and also biblical heritage which you always speaks about, therefore I am no one to challenge your writings. To what I understand from the scriptures as a layman when I read, it is an ordinance to take part in the Lord's Supper till our Savior comes back again, and only those who are redeemed by the Saviors precious blood are to remember the vicarious sacrifice , and  when we partake from the bread and wine the resemblances  should remind us of what we were and what are we now, and what made it possible for our present state.  

" No matter how well it 'fits' in our mind and can even bring out emotional empathy to what had happened at the cross, such expositions have no biblical grounds" 

It is not an emotional empathy as you say always, when saints gather together for Lord's table on the first day of the week or any other day of the week, the gathering and individual  give praises and thanks from the core of our heart for that great sacrifice which was done on the cross and the resemblances reminds us of our lowly state and the present state and what made it possible,  and it is sure when we give praises and thanks  the thoughts of my Savior's sacrifice and the way he was bruised and bled for me and the entire mankind passes through our minds and thoughts.

What I said in my previous posts were my personal opinions , in each place and according to each culture and gathering , the Lords supper is conducted . Some due to it as a remembrance , some due to a formality ,  some do it as a tradition and some do it due to fear.

I am not against your words or writings, the resemblances on the tables has its own significance, Jesus Christ could have taken a piece of  meat on the table and the normal water and said this is body which was broken and this is the blood which was shed, instead he had choosen bread and vine , which represents the body which was broken for us and blood which was shed which together becomes the life which was sacrificed for the redemption for we mankind. We humans have a tendency to forget and the command stands to remember him till he comes through this resemblances.

I know there will be many more answers from your side, as a layman from the scriptures this is  what I understand .

Yours in Christ

Sam

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 4:44:49 AM Close

Dear Sam,

“The cup resembles the blood, and everyone knows the colour of blood

I dont know much about the spiritual interpretation by the scholars , but to me the contents of the cup of  supper was vine which was red in colour which resembles blood shed for us.”
Given in blue above is taken from your posting on 6 Jan 2010 06:20:57.
 
What I understood from your posting is that you prefer “RED WINE” over white wine as it resembles the color of blood. Color preference shall not be for Wine alone, it must be for “Bread” also.
 
Now the question is: “What color the bread shall be to resemble the Body?”.
 
You appeared to imply that you don’t have an answer, but said something on the food making or baking process which is irrelevant for the issue under consideration.
 
By observing the bread broken one will know “What color the bread is”; this was not my question.
 
“What color the bread must be?”to resemble the Body is the question.
 
Thanks,
PTV

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 5:40:38 AM Close

Dear Br.Thomas Varghese,

The cup mentioned in the scriptures  is specifically compared  to the fruit of the vine , which resembles the blood that has been shed . The next part is the bread, the texture of the bread is immaterial , but the way through which a grain had obtained the form bread , which symbolically represents the broken body 1st Corinthians 11-

 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

And what do we remember in the broken body is my Savior who was fairest among ten thousand , who did no sin , has been humiliated , brutally beaten up , disfigured, despised and rejected by men, bruised , just for me and your sins, we praise and glorify and give thanks when we partake form these resemblances, As I said in my previous post to Br.Tom, why it couldnt have been a piece of meat or normal water when Jesus Christ instituted this ordinance, it is natural it was symobilzed for some particular reason, which any layman can understand while reading the scriptures, but those who are scripturally and theologically much more gifted can find out many more meaning and interpretation in this regard.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 6:00:07 AM Close

Dear Sam,

My question was not about the thoughts crossing your mind or anybody’s mind while partaking from the Bread and Wine. The thoughts you tried to express are good. I appreciate it.

 

But, those sentiments do not answer the question and it is evident that you don’t have an answer.  You also imply that color of bread is immaterial whereas color of wine is material. Either be totally rational and consistent or be totally inconsistent and irrational. Don’t have to answer me anymore on this.

 

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 10:26:10 AM Close

Dear Br Thomas Varghese,

You had triggerred a querry from one of my post, and I had given a reply in the next post itself , "when we start to consume it , pause for a moment , just view the colour outside and after breaking  the bread view the colour inside" I hope you also have bread as a part of your diet. If not next time try it and see the colour and just think what made it happen to be of  that colour.  About the contents of the  cup it is mentioned the product with which it was made and the colour of that product is a matter of discussion in our threads nowadays because many colours and nature of that product have come into existence due to scientific methods.

Any way my answers will not be the expected reply you might be having in your mind , and this is what I know and as I said I havent any answers because I have a very much limited knowledge about the scriptures, If you know what is the correct answer please do post it for the edification of the forum members.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 7 Jan 2010 3:07:05 PM Close

Deal Samuel,

I don't understand your point - "when we start to consume it , pause for a moment , just view the colour outside and after breaking  the bread view the colour inside"

I am not trying to point out any scientific process that changes the color of the bread or wine. In fact there aren't any. I am not sure which type of bread are you referring here nor the color that you have in your mind.

Dear Brother - Color has no importance like you are trying to point out here. You believe Wine to be red in color because you think that it is so. In fact without any scientific or external process, the juice of grape is White and not Red.

We have no evidence of the type of bread used - Wheat/corn/rice or the color of the bread once it came out of the oven. Then why are we just concluding these things based out of our perceptions??

I totally agree that Wine should not be replaced with anything else as an emblem of our Lord's blood - Since this is the example set by our Lord himself. Nor should Bread (irrespective of the kind of bread) be replaced with anything else.

But color has nothing to do with the emblems.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 9 Jan 2010 3:21:44 AM Close

Dear Br." paul_thomas" in Christ,

As I said before in all the posts of this thread , I am not to argue with any brethren in this forum , because I am not a gifted Theologian. As a layman I have written what I have understood. When Jesus Christ instituted this ordinance he had went for the Passover, and it is a feast, naturally not only bread and wine but other items like meat, and other drink or water would have been possibly there, why was Jesus Christ particularly holding this emblems to do in remembrance of his sacrifice. When Jesus  Christ commanded this to do in remembrance of me , he knows that we humans have a tendency to forget , in the garden of Gethsamane  , Jesus Christ prays to Heavenly Father to protect the believers from the world and adversary. A white wine or water physically looks the same , though taste and smell differs.

Brother I expect your reply and If am satisfied with your reply, I will end up with a word AMEN, or I shall come up with some more querries if you dont mind.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paul_thomas   View Profile   Since : 9 Jan 2010 2:23:48 PM Close

Dear Samuel,

Like I said before, I do agree with what you have to say on the emblems. We should not replace it with anything else. I am not a theologian - and understand the Bible as a layman as you do. I only disagreed with you since you were hung up with the color of the bread and wine, while there is no reference to the same anywhere in the Bible, nor do we know what the color of the bread was nor the wine. Hence we should not insist that only wine in red color could be used an an emblem.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : samuel.v.j   View Profile   Since : 10 Jan 2010 12:27:00 PM Close

 

Dear "paul_thomas" in Christ,

Brother one more simple querry, how would we differentiate between normal water and white wine when we participate in the Lord's table ? 

 Why I insist that the contents of the cup would  be red in colour and a fruit of the vine is because the word of God in  Mathew :26 27he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, the contents of the cup which is the fruit of the vine is resembled with blood which was shed for many.

 

Yours in Christ

Sam

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top