|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2010 9:55:03 GMT -5
~~ In the Scriptures we read how and where the Gentiles and Jews believers come together to commemorate, celebrate Christ's Passover on the first day of the week which instituted by Jesus. ( Luke 22 and I Cor. 14:23-26) So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again. In the scriptures we also read of Jesus giving the example of washing the feet of the apostles. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In the scriptures we read of a woman washing Jesus' feet with her hair. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In the scriptures we read that they continued to meet in the temples and synagogues. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.We read in the scriptures that................... So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.We read in the scriptures that when they got together in the homes in Corinth they ate full meals and got drunk. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.Paul talks about how he cut all his hair off to fulfill a vow he had made. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In regard to the emblems, Jesus told us 'WHEN you do this....' he didn't specify a day or a place. So we can do it anytime we want to I think. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.Pick and choose, pick and choose.................. ;D Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2010 10:06:38 GMT -5
Gentiles and Jews believers come together to commemorate, celebrate Christ's Passover on the first day of the week which instituted by JesusAre you referring to this passage again Nathan? Do the Sunday morning meetings follow this format? 1 Corinthians 11
21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.Looks to me like they came together to partake of full meals, but it they were really hungry they should eat something at home first.... So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 10:10:26 GMT -5
If God dwells only in the temple of the heart, then that means He is present in a building when there are God-filled hearts there. Simple as that.
I think the whole point of "temples not built with hands" is quite simple. People were once under the illusion that "God lives in that special building and that special building only", and this teaching corrects that massive error. It's just teaching people that God does not live solely in a dedicated building where the only opportunity to come into His presence is to enter that building. For anyone to suggest that that passage's meaning is anti-church building is missing the whole point of it.
|
|
christopher
Senior Member
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." -Ps. 27:8
Posts: 304
|
Post by christopher on Apr 8, 2010 10:25:45 GMT -5
~~ In the Scriptures we read how and where the Gentiles and Jews believers come together to commemorate, celebrate Christ's Passover on the first day of the week which instituted by Jesus. ( Luke 22 and I Cor. 14:23-26) So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again. In the scriptures we also read of Jesus giving the example of washing the feet of the apostles. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In the scriptures we read of a woman washing Jesus' feet with her hair. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In the scriptures we read that they continued to meet in the temples and synagogues. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.We read in the scriptures that................... So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.We read in the scriptures that when they got together in the homes in Corinth they ate full meals and got drunk. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.Paul talks about how he cut all his hair off to fulfill a vow he had made. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.In regard to the emblems, Jesus told us 'WHEN you do this....' he didn't specify a day or a place. So we can do it anytime we want to I think. So it MUST be important type of worship in spirit and truth for them KEEP until Christ comes again.Pick and choose, pick and choose.................. ;D Scott With the exception of the emblems, all of the above are things that people were moved to do. With the emblems, Jesus gave us a commandment to do them when He said to do them in remembrance of Him. I choose to do the one He commanded.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 8, 2010 10:37:03 GMT -5
If God dwells only in the temple of the heart, then that means He is present in a building when there are God-filled hearts there. Simple as that. I think the whole point of "temples not built with hands" is quite simple. People were once under the illusion that "God lives in that special building and that special building only", and this teaching corrects that massive error. It's just teaching people that God does not live solely in a dedicated building where the only opportunity to come into His presence is to enter that building. For anyone to suggest that that passage's meaning is anti-church building is missing the whole point of it. Great post!! I think god is everywhere and would be wherever people are because he dwells in their hearts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 10:41:20 GMT -5
If God dwells only in the temple of the heart, then that means He is present in a building when there are God-filled hearts there. Simple as that. I think the whole point of "temples not built with hands" is quite simple. People were once under the illusion that "God lives in that special building and that special building only", and this teaching corrects that massive error. It's just teaching people that God does not live solely in a dedicated building where the only opportunity to come into His presence is to enter that building. For anyone to suggest that that passage's meaning is anti-church building is missing the whole point of it. Great post!! I think god is everywhere and would be wherever people are because he dwells in their hearts. Exactly snow. I think that verse was perverted after the anti-church building prejudice was established in our church. Anyone reading it without an anti-church building prejudice would read it completely differently.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 8, 2010 10:50:29 GMT -5
Paul had an agenda when he was trying to expand the Christian church. I am currently reading the book called "The evolution of god" by Robert Wright and he explains many things. I would recommend it as a great book to understand the "evolution" of religions and gods in history. Very interesting reading imo.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Apr 8, 2010 10:52:44 GMT -5
With stem-cell technology there will be a day (any time soon) when a human heart can be "made with hands." But God is very particular - He does not live in temples built with hands. A "temple" in this case could be a tent, a house or helium balloon IF it is a dedicated place of worship. A dedicated place of worship takes worship out of a home where people live, and places it where people don't live. It presumes that God can meet with people there instead of living within them. It replaces the spiritual with the symbolic. It requires an officiating clergy or priesthood. It needs taxes. It presumes to give people the sense of God's present through other means. It provides a worldly presence. It treats the command "God does not dwell in temples made with hands" as if it is simply another opinion. Its message is one of physical anchorage rather than the ethereal nature of our transit through life. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of what is written in Romans and Hebrews about the worldly tabernacle. It misunderstands Peter's mistake in calling for the building of tabernacles on the mount. etc etc etc.. Bert, I think I see where you're coming from on the objection to "purpose built buildings". However, I'd have to say this reflects an ignorance of the purpose of a church building. For example, I have heard our pastor remind the congregation many times that God does not "live" in the church building but within every one of us. God is not in the church building on a Sunday morning because it is His brick-and-mortar "home" but because His people are gathered there in His name. We all know the scripture that says "wherever two or more are gathered...". God does not hang out during the week in an empty church building waiting for His people to come visit, but He is with us all individually all the time and as we gather for fellowship and worship, then He's there because that's where we are. This is precisely the same thing you are saying about farm outbuildings or tents used for convention and homes for Sunday morning meeting: He is there because people are gathered in His name. You don't make that MORE true by having a place of gathering plainer or stinky like a barn if you're a 2x2 or more ornate like a cathedral if you're a RC.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 8, 2010 11:09:26 GMT -5
God does not hang out during the week in an empty church building waiting for His people to come visit, but He is with us all individually all the time and as we gather for fellowship and worship, then He's there because that's where we are. Because a cathedral is ornate, or not, has no bearing on whether Jesus is present there.
Before you explicitly say he isn't present in a building, you might want to read up a bit on the Real Presence. Catholics believe that Jesus is present in a very real way following the prayers of consecration of the Eucharistic hosts."Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28) God's love for us is poured out in the sacrament of the Eucharist, where Christ is truly present for us, giving us life and healing. The Roman Catholic Church has consistently held fast to the belief in the Real Presence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." - The Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 1374 So speak for other Christians, if you wish. But don't attempt to speak for Catholics if you choose to say that God isn't present and waiting for us in Catholic Churches dedicated, consecrated to Him.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2010 11:22:41 GMT -5
With the exception of the emblems, all of the above are things that people were moved to do. With the emblems, Jesus gave us a commandment to do them when He said to do them in remembrance of Him. I choose to do the one He commanded.I agree with that christopher. I knew that when I posted it. It is the same with how anyone (or church) is moved to do something. In regard to the Eucharist, he never made it a commandment, he said to do it in remembrance of him. He never specified when or where or how often. Since this is normally done in a Sunday morning service (regardless of denomination) it is seen as common practice. But when reading the actual account of when Jesus did this, it was done in the evening after they had eaten supper. If the day is considered important to follow as an example, then what about the rest of the setting that it takes place in? Personally, I think that it can be done anywhere by anyone at anytime. It is the 'in remembrance' part that is important, and that is where Jesus placed the importance with his words. The actual setting was not a 'meeting', but rather a feast. Scott
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Apr 8, 2010 11:30:28 GMT -5
Sorry StAnne. Guess my point was that God is not exclusively in 2x2 places of worship just BECAUSE they're the sort of edifice they are no more than He is in a church building BECAUSE of the sort of edifice it is.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 8, 2010 11:39:56 GMT -5
Sorry StAnne. Guess my point was that God is not exclusively in 2x2 places of worship just BECAUSE they're the sort of edifice they are no more than He is in a church building BECAUSE of the sort of edifice it is. Thank you, will. Very kind of you. I posted it not to scold, but to inform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 12:36:11 GMT -5
With the exception of the emblems, all of the above are things that people were moved to do. With the emblems, Jesus gave us a commandment to do them when He said to do them in remembrance of Him. I choose to do the one He commanded.I agree with that christopher. I knew that when I posted it. It is the same with how anyone (or church) is moved to do something. In regard to the Eucharist, he never made it a commandment, he said to do it in remembrance of him. He never specified when or where or how often. Since this is normally done in a Sunday morning service (regardless of denomination) it is seen as common practice. But when reading the actual account of when Jesus did this, it was done in the evening after they had eaten supper. If the day is considered important to follow as an example, then what about the rest of the setting that it takes place in? Personally, I think that it can be done anywhere by anyone at anytime. It is the 'in remembrance' part that is important, and that is where Jesus placed the importance with his words. The actual setting was not a 'meeting', but rather a feast. Scott I'm with Christopher on the "commanded" part. However, Jesus did not command a ritual ceremony of emblematic tidbits. He just told them to remember him when partaking of the wine and bread of a meal. It amazes me that it became what it did in any church, somebody had a good imagination and off it went. As you say Scott, it was simply an integrated part of a feast(meal).
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2010 12:57:20 GMT -5
I'm with Christopher on the "commanded" part.Sorry... I meant that there was no commandment to 'do this on Sunday morning' or in any other ritualized setting. I do agree that we are commanded to be in 'remembrance' when we do it, no matter how often or the setting involved. Scott
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2010 13:55:09 GMT -5
With the exception of the emblems, all of the above are things that people were moved to do. With the emblems, Jesus gave us a commandment to do them when He said to do them in remembrance of Him. I choose to do the one He commanded.I agree with that christopher. I knew that when I posted it. It is the same with how anyone (or church) is moved to do something. In regard to the Eucharist, he never made it a commandment, he said to do it in remembrance of him. He never specified when or where or how often. Since this is normally done in a Sunday morning service (regardless of denomination) it is seen as common practice. But when reading the actual account of when Jesus did this, it was done in the evening after they had eaten supper. If the day is considered important to follow as an example, then what about the rest of the setting that it takes place in? Personally, I think that it can be done anywhere by anyone at anytime. It is the 'in remembrance' part that is important, and that is where Jesus placed the importance with his words. The actual setting was not a 'meeting', but rather a feast. Scott I'm with Christopher on the "commanded" part. However, Jesus did not command a ritual ceremony of emblematic tidbits. He just told them to remember him when partaking of the wine and bread of a meal. It amazes me that it became what it did in any church, somebody had a good imagination and off it went. As you say Scott, it was simply an integrated part of a feast(meal). Wasn't bread and wine like the last course of a meal in Jesus' day? It sure reads that way to me when it speaks about what Jesus did....it actually seems like in one accounting of that last feast He shared with His Apostles...that the bread was blessed and eaten perhaps even in a different course then the wine that He blessed and dispersed among them? The account where Jesus gave Judas the "sop", is the one where it seemed to be simultaneous...course.....
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 8, 2010 18:45:32 GMT -5
Not only did Jesus say "do this"
He said this: John 6 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Sounds like pretty strong words to me. Maybe even a command if we want to have eternal life?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 8, 2010 18:51:02 GMT -5
The very important part of the equation some of you are missing is this: graces flow to us thru the sacraments.
That's why it is so important to have valid sacraments, thru actual apostolic succession, as Jesus established them thru his Apostles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 18:53:56 GMT -5
We're probably missing it because your Church made that up after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 8, 2010 18:54:31 GMT -5
This is from part of a lecture which I am posting here with permission
The Old Testament only uses "New Covenant one time. Jesus in the gospels only uses the phrase "New Covenant" one time. When? At Passover time. Where? In the Upper Room. Why? To institute the Eucharist.
The key foreshadowing of the Eucharist -- the sacrifice and food of the New Covenant -- is the bread and wine offered by the priest Melchizedek. Let's see what this means for our understanding of the Eucharist.
I'd like to call your attention to the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews, chapter 6 describes how God had made a promise to Abraham and then he changed the promise to an oath. When God swears an oath to Abraham, he makes a covenant. In Genesis 22:18, right after Abraham went to Moriah to sacrifice his firstborn through Sarah, God prevented it and then swore an oath saying, "Surely all the nations of the earth will be blessed through your seed."
The New Testament begins, "This is Jesus Christ, the seed of the son of Abraham, the Son of David." Jesus Christ is the one in and through whom God fulfills that oath he swore to Abraham. Where did he swear it?
On Moriah, where the temple was later built and where Christ, the New Temple was later destroyed and rebuilt three days afterwards. It talks about this oath and then it goes on to talk about the priesthood of Melchizedek. In chapter 7, the first ten verses, it describes how Abraham met Melchizedek. It talks about the meaning of his name. He's the king of righteousness, that's what Melchizedek means in Hebrew. He is the King of Salem, which means peace, shalom. He is the priest of God Most High and he blessed Abraham, so he was superior to Abraham.
Everything is mentioned about the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek except one thing, the bread and the wine. Now we are going to ask a question. Is that because the bread and the wine was the only thing that was unimportant about Melchizedek and Abraham meeting, or is it because the importance of the bread and the wine is so great but so obvious that it goes without saying?
Let's study the next few chapters.
For one thing we already saw back in Hebrews 5, verses 5 and 6 where God has sworn an oath to Jesus Christ. He says, "Thou art my Son. Today have I begotten thee." And he also says in another place, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
To be God's Son is like the same thing as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Remember way back in the Old Testament before the Golden Calf, fathers were high priests and firstborn sons were priests under their authority. This seemed to be the natural family pattern of Melchizedek.
This is how the ancient Jews as well as the ancient Church Fathers understood it.
Jesus Christ is not a Levite so Old Testament Jews might be tempted to say, "Well, he can't be a priest, then." But Hebrews is talking all about the wilderness generation under Moses and how they committed idolatry and rebelled against God and how God sent all these punishments. The first rebellion was the Golden Calf, and the first punishment was to take the priesthood away from the firstborn, which had been theirs for centuries, and to give it to the Levites temporarily.
What the writer of Hebrews is suggesting is that Jesus Christ, God's Son, is righteous enough to restore the original pattern of the father-son family priesthood, because this is a divine family that God, through Christ, is adopting us into through the sacrifice of Christ.
He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. The word "order" does not mean order like the Dominican Order. It means after the manner of Melchizedek's priesthood.
The writer goes on to make a big, sharp contrast between the Levitical priests who continue to offer these animals in sacrifice. They had to offer. They had to kill. They had to sacrifice millions of sheep, millions of goats and millions of cattle with millions of gallons of blood running down through the temple.
Why? It was all after and because of the Golden Calf, whereas before all of that, you had a father and a son and a clean priesthood that Melchizedek represents. "After the manner of Melchizedek" suggests that Melchizedek's manner of priestly sacrifice was bread and wine. This is how all the early Fathers understood this, as well.
Now, it says in Hebrews 7 in verse 18, "On the one hand a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God." And it was not without an oath and it talks about how God swore this oath, and the oath that has been talked about is the oath that was sworn by God on Moriah where Christ was slain. Verse 22: This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; whereas Jesus is one. There's the single priesthood, and he lives forever up in heaven. But he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues a priest forever. Consequently, he is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need like those high priests to offer sacrifices daily." In other words to kill and to have blood shed continuously. "...first for his own sins and then for those of the people. He did this once for all when he offered up himself. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests."
That is the Levitical law that was given after the Golden Calf, "...but the word of the oath which came later than the law appoints a son who has been made perfect forever."
Now the point in what we are saying is this. We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. Notice that the Lamb is the one enthroned in Revelation. The Lamb and the firstborn Son of the Passover is the priest who ministers in a sanctuary, the heavenly sanctuary.
He is a minister in a sanctuary. It isn't complete. He is ministering in the heavenly sanctuary and the true tabernacle which is set up not by man but by the Lord. "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Hence it is necessary for this priest to have something to offer."
I read that a hundred times before the obvious meaning hit me like a brick in the face. He is a priest in heaven ministering now in the sanctuary and he's got something to offer and he's continually offering it. He's just not bleeding and dying and suffering any more. He's not killing any more animals, but he's continually offering the once and for all sacrifice which is himself; but it's a continual sacrifice. It's a perpetual offering. He's not dying, but he's still offering. That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass.
In fact, we're going to be offering this sacrifice forever in and through and with Christ. Not bloody animal sacrifices but our hearts and our souls and our bodies in union with the One whose body and blood, soul and divinity are perfect and pure -- the only acceptable sacrifice which makes our otherwise unacceptable sacrifices perfectly acceptable.
"Holy and righteous," Paul says. He goes on talking about the superiority of the New Covenant that Christ established. "The days will come says the Lord when I will establish a New Covenant with the House of Israel" (Jer. 31:31). Verse 9, "Not like the covenant I made with your fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. That covenant, they broke." When? At the Golden Calf. The covenant that he made with them out of Egypt they broke at the Golden Calf.
It won't be like that covenant because this firstborn Son won't break it, and that's what makes it new. "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people." Verse 13, and in speaking of the New Covenant he treats the first as obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The Old Testament only uses "New Covenant one time. Jesus in the gospels only uses the phrase "New Covenant" one time. When? At Passover time. Where? In the Upper Room. Why? To institute the Eucharist.
And so he goes on in Hebrews 9 to talk about the superiority. Back in the Old Testament, verse 9, we read, "According to this Old Testament arrangement, gifts and sacrifices were offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper. What is the contrast implied? Back then sacrifices were offered which couldn't perfect the worshipper's conscience, implying that in the New Covenant, what? Sacrifices are offered which do perfect the conscience of the worshipper.
That's what the Eucharist does. It cleanses our soul. It wipes away all venial sin. These Old Testament sacrifices, verse 10, deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, baptismois, in the Greek, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. Do you know when the real Reformation came? Not in 1517. The real reformation came in the Upper Room when the Eucharist was instituted, when the Catholic Church was formed. The time of reformation wiped away the weak ineffective Old Testament sacrifices. To do away with all sacrifices altogether? No. To initiate a new sacrifice which has intrinsic power to cleanse our consciences.
Verse 11, now, "The one Christ appeared as a High Priest of the good things that have come. Then through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with human hands, that is not of this creation, he entered once and for all into the holy place, that is heaven, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." He took his own blood up there. He's not bleeding in the sense that he's suffering and dying, but he's up there as a Lamb looking as though he's been slain, offering his own blood. That's a Eucharistic Passover sacrifice and that's why the entire structure of Revelation is a Passover liturgy.
And it goes on to talk about the Old Testament's weakness in comparison with the New Testament's power. "For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls or with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God purify your conscience?" The body was cleansed externally in the Old Testament sacrifices, but with Christ's Passover sacrifice which he continues to administer up in the heavenly sanctuary, our consciences are cleansed as we offer and receive that down here below on earth.
"Therefore," verse 15 says, "he is the mediator of a New Covenant." He only said that word covenant one time. "This cup is the blood of the New Covenant," when he instituted the Eucharist. That fulfilled Jeremiah 31. That's when he offered what appeared to be bread and wine. That's when he became a new Melchizedek, feeding the new children of Abraham so that through Abraham's seed, Jesus, all the nations of the world, all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Something which God had sworn but had not performed until Christ, the son of Abraham, was sacrificed on Moriah on the peak called Calvary.
And he began it in the Upper Room when he instituted the Eucharist which goes on and on and on here on earth and in heaven above forever and ever. He is the mediator of this new, everlasting covenant so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance which goes back to the promise that God gave to Abraham. Verse 24, "For Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Apr 8, 2010 20:49:42 GMT -5
But God is very particular - He does not live in temples built with hands. A "temple" in this case could be a tent, a house or helium balloon IF it is a dedicated place of worship. i.e. purpose built convention buildings used once a year for dedicated worshipping....(of the workers and the 'way' but sometimes God)
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 8, 2010 23:34:50 GMT -5
This is how I read 1 Cor. 11.. It is NOT a meal time:
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. ...
But they were taking the emblems of remembrance:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 8, 2010 23:37:38 GMT -5
How I see it:
We worship in spirit and in truth every time we spend time with God. Our gatherings are for the purpose of spiritual fellowship through sharing what God gives us, instruction, and remembering Christ's life and death.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 8, 2010 23:44:44 GMT -5
How I see it: We worship in spirit and in truth every time we spend time with God. Our gatherings are for the purpose of spiritual fellowship through sharing what God gives us, instruction, and remembering Christ's life and death. Yup. fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2010 3:13:42 GMT -5
This is how I read 1 Cor. 11.. It is NOT a meal time: 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. ...But they were taking the emblems of remembrance: 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Personally I think all the verses relating to the Lord's supper in that chapter need to be considered, not just a selective few. Paul is dealing with disagreements and divisions as well as a bit of party revelling including gluttony and drunkenness. The spirit of the Lord's Supper was being lost. This was the unworthiness that Paul was speaking about. Some in the church were allowing the Lord's Supper to become a feast event for enjoyment etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2010 7:59:43 GMT -5
Exactly ram. Verses can't be plucked out and applied to support a theory, the whole story must be understood.
Further to the problems you mentioned, some people weren't sharing their Supper with others less fortunate so Paul canceled the whole supper thing, including the B&W because they weren't being consumed "worthily", ie in remembrance of Christ.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Apr 9, 2010 8:10:21 GMT -5
If Bert disallows any purpose-built place of worship, he is not going to be happy with more and more convention grounds. They're churches in a machine shed disguise.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 9, 2010 23:17:00 GMT -5
Paul did not teach the Eucharist was just a meal.
Paul not only did not teach that Eucharist was a meal; he made a definitive defense that it is soooo much more in his letter to the Corinthians.
1Cor.11 Verses 23 to 29
[23] "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself".
One can not eat and drink simple meal bread and wine and "profane the Lord" and even bring damnation unto themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE. Paul knew and taught the truth!
Many historians claim that this Epistle was the first written book of the NT, written perhaps 30 years after the death of Christ. It is comforting to know that from the earliest days of the Church, Paul taught and thought the PRECISE practice and understanding of the Eucharist that the Church still teaches 2000 years later.
As far as the agape feasts--
We know that in the beginning—in Corinth at least—the agape was celebrated in conjunction with the Eucharist (1 Cor 11). It is probable that the context of a full agape meal is a direct inheritance from the Jewish chaburah, and that this arrangement was a peculiarity churches with a large number of Jewish converts.
It is obvious that the idea of a solemn feast did not translate well into other cultures, thus bringing on St. Paul’s censure of the Corinthians’ behavior (Jude 11). Perhaps for this reason, the agape was separated from the Eucahrist very early on, probably by the end of the first century (if we go by historical writings from the 2nd and 3rd century).
My Church continues the agape custom of sharing a meal for physical nourishment, we do it every Friday during Lent, as well as a few other times throughout the year, and I know other Catholic Churches that do the same.
|
|