quote:

---

Possibly it was the Passover but perhaps not. However, the original words used when describing the Last Supper bread are those used when refering to regular bread rather than unleavened bread. This indicates that the Last Supper may have actually occurred during the days of preparation which occurs prior to the Passover meal. Whether it occured as part of a Passover meal or not however makes absolutely no difference to me.

---

you might as well all give up in trying to explain the significance of the last supper and the passover meal to petro - he clearly doesnt understand the passover well enough to see the correlation.

how bout you crack your Bible open to Luke 22:1-23 and read the Last Supper once more Petro.

quote:

---

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."
9"Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked.

10He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 12He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there."

13They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

---

the importance of the Last Supper being the Passover meal IS EVERYTHING is important about it being the Last Supper. It is the FULFILLMENT of the Passover (Jesus' words - not mine).

- The lack of the lamb in the meal, and Jesus' very words in the meal, signifies Jesus as the Pascal Lamb - the lamb who being sacrificed allows God's judgment to Pass Over us just like the original passover.

- The Jews believed that the Passover took place outside of time and space - that when they shared in the passover meal, they too were experiencing the Passover that took place in Egypt - Jesus used the same word for "remembrance" in the Last Supper that the Jews used to refer to the "remembrance" of the Passover - this is how we know that the Eucharist is our sharing at the SAME TABLE - not metaphorically, but TRULY THERE, TRULY PRESENT.

You are getting hung up in details about "what if a family couldn't afford a lamb - or what if it was stolen or it died..."

Well... if you bothered to look in your bible, Exodus tells you what they did:

quote:

---

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

---

It was done as a community, and people shared if they couldn't afford or come by one themselves.

You keep harping on this "what if they UNINTENTIONALLY used something other then a lamb" or what if they "couldn't find a sheep?"

Exodus is very clear as to what they were supposed to do. It gave pretty explicit instructions: SHARE WITH THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR!

The Jews knew what they were supposed to do, there wasn't a question of what it was supposed to be - in fact if was VERY specific: "The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats"

As for the significance of the species of the Eucharist, Jesus KNEW His disciples would understand the significance of the bread and wine - and that they would not use other species.

look just a couple of verses ahead in the Passover instructions in Exodus:

quote:

---

14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do.

17 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread."

---

PRETTY SURE that God commanded that it be Unleavened Bread... i mean... He only had Moses command it TEN TIMES in SIX verses. He even goes so far as to say that if you eat anything else - YOU'RE OUT OF ISREAL!!!!

I dunno about you... but I'm pretty sure that God didnt want His people to eat anything other than unleavened bread.

You think the Apostles got the memo? What do you think the odds are that Peter or John were thinking, "I wonder if it'd be alright if we did this with Matzah Balls instead..."

He didn't have to provide us a passage in the New Testament saying "use only unleavened bread and wine" because the Jews KNEW that it was the fulfillment of the Passover - in which they had a VERY specific menu.

Like it or not, they had not only scripture, but TRADITION, and they knew what Jesus wanted through both His direct teachings that night, and the tradition of passover - including its required menu.

Take your anti-Catholic glasses off for a moment, and actually TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE saying.

We're pointing to an even deeper meaning behind the many already significant aspects of the Christian Faith.

quote:

---

a) the ceremony is being presided over by a Apostolic priest?
b) because the host consists of unleavened bread and wine?

If either of the above is not present, does that mean that the Eucharist is not present? Why? Surely it isn't because God isn't capable of turning items into his flesh and blood without a priest's assistance or if it isn't a specific food product. So is it a matter of God not wanting to do it when those two situations aren't present?

---

Yes, a lack of either of those means that the Eucharist ISNT PRESENT.

Why?

Not because God can't make it happen without those two things... Not because He NEEDS those things to make it happen - but because those are the things that He ORDAINED NECESSARY for it to happen.

So yes, in a manner of speaking - it is "God not wanting to do it when those two aren't present."

He gave us a sacrifice and a sacrament in which to commemorate and share in that sacrifice, if we don't offer it according to the way He asked us to, then we ARE NOT sharing in it.

I'm not trying to start a denomination battle here, but if you think that doritos and a coke can be a valid Eucharist - you are POORLY mistaken, not because God can't make it valid... but because He told us under what circumstances He will make it valid, and doritos and a coke dont qualify.

[This message has been edited by kbaum07 (edited 5/30/2008 3:27a).]

sorry about the novel length post... but there just wasnt a clear ending point.

quote:

---

Petro, You yourself are avoiding questions. You never answered about Uzziah.

---

05Ag: A few of you may not like my answers but I have very rarely ever been accused of avoiding a question. In other threads, Seamaster has proposed some of the most insane, unlikely scenarios imaginable and I still answer them. Seamaster, on the other hand, chooses not to answer those types of scenarios if he is uncomfortable with his answer.

I am not as familiar with Uzziah and had to do a little research first. But to answer your questions regarding Uzziah: I think you are comparing apples to oranges. With Uzziah, he was given specific instructions not to touch the ark and did so anyway. To do so anyway showed presumption and irreverence from Uzziah. With my Passover example however, the family isn't choosing to use something other than a lamb out of irreverance but rather out of neccessity or lack of knowledge. But even more importantly, in comparing Uzziah to the Eucharist...The purpose of the Communion is a rememberance of God's sacrifice. As long as the receiver does so with full faith and reverence, there is no offense to God and the Eucharist is valid, irregardless of the specifics of the food and drink being used.

Since Seamaster won't answer, I wonder if you will answer my scenario question 05Ag? If the family, with full faith and reverence, inadvertently and with lack of knowledge used something other than lamb's blood on the Passover, would God have struck them down? I assume I know how you will respond based on your reference to Uzziah, but I would much rather get a confirmation than to assume too much.

quote:

---

you might as well all give up in trying to explain the significance of the last supper and the passover meal to petro - he clearly doesnt understand the passover well enough to see the correlation.

---

Oh I understand the Passover AND the symbolism involving the sacrifice of Jesus as compared to the sacrifice of the lamb as protection for the people.

quote:

---

how bout you crack your Bible open to Luke 22:1-23 and read the Last Supper once more Petro.

---

How about taking a look at these passages prior to translation and you will see that it is indeed possible that this wasn't the Passover Seder. The word Passover isn't used. Apparently instead, the term translated as "First of Unleavened Bread" is used. This is not the same as saying the "First Day of the Feast" as there were two days of preparation as part of the Passover ceremony. Keep in mind also that when the term "First of Unleavened Bread" was used, the Aramic, Hebrew and Greek words for 'unleavened bread' were used. However during the last Supper, the Aramic, Hebrew and Greek words used were not the ones used to describe unleavened bread but instead were the words used to describe regular bread. Why the different useage of words? It certainly makes it appear possible that this wasn't the Seder meal but instead a meal taking a day or so prior to the Seder. That in no way minimizes the meaning or importance of the Last Supper. And keep in mind that the Last Supper isn't the end all of Christianity. It is simply a reminder of the actual sacrfice that did occur.

Now do I personally believe that the Last Supper was also the Seder? Probably so but I don't know for certain. And whether it was or not has absolutely no impact on my current relationship with God so it isn't something that I have ever spent time worrying about.

quote:

---

the importance of the Last Supper being the Passover meal IS EVERYTHING is important about it being the Last Supper.

---

So if it didn't occur as part of the Passover meal, it suddenly loses its importance and meaning? I don't think so!

quote:

---

You are getting hung up in details about "what if a family couldn't afford a lamb - or what if it was stolen or it died..."

---

Kbaum: You and Seamaster are getting hung up with the specifics of the scenario instead of considering the bigger picture and the original issue of the thread. Did I suggest that the scenario as proposed was likely to have occured? No. It was simply a way to better understand your thinking and attitude with regards to faith and its role in our worship. You don't have to believe that such a scenario actually occured in order to answer the question do you???

quote:

---

As for the significance of the species of the Eucharist, Jesus KNEW His disciples would understand the significance of the bread and wine - and that they would not use other species.

---

No. You are assuming such a case but there is no prohibition against the use of other food and drink. Again, it is the faith and reverence of the receiver of the sacrament that makes the difference.

quote:

---

I dunno about you... but I'm pretty sure that God didnt want His people to eat anything other than unleavened bread.

---

Of course you are talking about Passover and not the Eucharist. Yes I understand the connection between the two but that does not mean that the same rules apply as well.

quote:

---

Take your anti-Catholic glasses off for a moment, and actually TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE saying.

---

I understand perfectly what the RC Church is saying. I simply disagree with the conclusions. You OK with that?

quote:

---

Yes, a lack of either of those means that the Eucharist ISNT PRESENT... but because those are the things that He ORDAINED NECESSARY for it to happen.

---

Wrong for the reasons previously mentioned in this post and others. Neither has been ordained as necessary. But obviously you disagree with that. I have no problem with that. You take your communion in the manner that you feel most comfortable and I will do likewise. Just as an aside, we use wine and unleavened bread at our church. But at other churches, I have taken communion using regular bread and grape juice. I felt just as reverent and remindful of Christ's sacrifice in both situations.

quote:

---

but if you think that doritos and a coke can be a valid Eucharist - you are POORLY mistaken

---

Nope. The key question is whether you can take a communion of doritos and a coke and still be reverent about the meaning of such a Eucharist. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I think that would be difficult. But in a situation such as soldiers in a foxhole preparing to fight and potentially die, a Eucharist of ANY food and drink would be acceptable to God AS LONG AS the faith and revererence of the receive was in place!

quote:

---

IF a family unintentionally had used something other than lamb's blood... Do you think God would use that as a reason to strike them down regardless of their faith and intent?

---

I don't know. "Unintentional" is very different than intentionally disobeying. But, in the context of the passover lamb...it is doubtful that an Israelite family would have mistaken a chicken for a lamb or something.

Also, in the context of the Eucharist, one won't be tricked into thinking that Doritos and Dr. Pepper are actually bread a wine.

(Answered your question. Any more?)

[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 5/30/2008 9:25a).]

quote:

---

sorry about the novel length post... but there just wasnt a clear ending point.

---

No problem. We disagree on many points and topics but your posts are always welcome and appreciated because they are usually interesting and full of information.

quote:

---

(Answered your question. Any more?)

---

Thank you for answering and although I have no more at the moment, I am sure I can think of a few later!

I to agree that there is a big difference between 'unintentional' and 'disobeying'. 05Ag however seems to feel differently.

quote:

---

Also, in the context of the Eucharist, one won't be tricked into thinking that Doritos and Dr. Pepper are actually bread a wine.

---

Nope not likely. But then again, one doesn't have to believe that doritos and Dr. Pepper (or more likely regular bread and grape juice) are bread and wine in order for the communion to be valid.

quote:

---

But then again, one doesn't have to believe that doritos and Dr. Pepper (or more likely regular bread and grape juice) are bread and wine in order for the communion to be valid.

---

This is your opinion isn't it?

quote:

---

But determining what is truth IS a matter of personal opinion

---

This is so wrong. I have known people who personally really believe we never landed on the moon, but staged it all in the Arizona desert.

If my personal opinion says that Mongolia is in Europe, or Rasputin died in the 19th Century, or that Texas A&M University is in Austin, and I sincerely held those beliefs to be true, my personal opinion is still wrong.

The Truth is what it is, despite erroneous personal opinions of people "who like to think for themselves".

quote:

---

This is your opinion isn't it?

---

Of course. Just as your own beliefs represent your own opinions.

quote:

---

If my personal opinion says that Mongolia is in Europe, or Rasputin died in the 19th Century, or that Texas A&M University is in Austin, and I sincerely held those beliefs to be true, my personal opinion is still wrong.

---

Certainly. I never said differently. And if you and I disagree about some part of scripture and it's interpretation, then obviously one of us is wrong in that situation as well.

But determining what is actual truth from a document that is actually a composite of multiple documents written thousands of years ago and in multiple languags, is certainly more difficult than figuring out where Texas A&M is located. I stand by my statement.

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/30/2008 9:52a).]

quote:

---

But determining what is actual truth from a document that is actually a composite of multiple documents written thousands of years ago and in multiple languags,

---

I would agree if you were trying to personally interpret scripture yourself. However, that's why Jesus created the Pillar of Truth to interpret it for us. The Church only has 1975 years of experience in interpreting its own book.

And yet multiple churches and denonimations still manage to interpret scripture differently. There are now numerous different 'Pillar's of Truth'. You believe the RC Church is 100% correct in their interpretations because you are told that is what you should believe. I and many others believe differently.

And I have always considered the Bible to be God's book rather than a book belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. Guess I missed the Copyright mark.


[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/30/2008 11:22a).]

Petro,
Yes I believe that if they used anything other than lambs blood God would have struck the first born dead as he did with anyone who didn't use lambs blood.

Reason? I'll use your reasoning with Uzziah. Your right, he was given very specific instructions and disobeyed. The children of Israel were also given very specific instructions to use lambs blood. Now you may make the argument, "Well what if they all didn't know and do they unintentionally used something else." That is the only way they could unintentionally use something else, was not to know to use lambs blood, otherwise, they would be disobeying, and if they knew they needed blood over the door post, then they also knew they needed lambs blood. If one wants to say, "well we don't know if they knew that or not!" then I could make the contention Uzziah didn't know not to touch it. The truth is, he knew, and they knew.

[This message has been edited by 05AG (edited 5/30/2008 12:44p).]

quote:

---

If one wants to say, "well we don't know if they knew that or not!" then I could make the contention Uzziah didn't know.

---

Apparently based on what happened to him, Uzziah did indeed know that he wasn't supposed to touch the arc. The truth is that neither you nor I have any way of knowing if anyone accidentally used something other than lamb's blood and if so whether they were struck down as a result. For you to claim otherwise is unsupportable.

Seamaster stated earlier that there is a big difference between 'unintentional' and 'disobeying'. Apparently you believe differently.

quote:

---

Seamaster stated earlier that there is a big difference between 'unintentional' and 'disobeying'. Apparently you believe differently.

---

Don't put words in my mouth. This doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with 05AG on this.

I believe that God provided the Lamb to any faithful household as TD intimated. No family that sought to obey was withheld due to some weird circumstance. Lamb's blood absolutely had to be used.

quote:

---

Don't put words in my mouth.

---

What words did I misquote Seamaster???

quote:

---

I believe that God provided the Lamb to any faithful household as TD intimated.

---

This is your opinion isn't it?

God would not require something that is impossible...

I remember a scence from "The 10 Commandments."

One of the Israelite men was going from door to door painting the lamb's blood on all of his neighbors doors....

Not that the movie is authoritative...but apparently I am not the only person who understands it that way.

quote:

---

One of the Israelite men was going from door to door painting the lamb's blood on all of his neighbors doors....

---

Which brings up a whole new point. If there is a family who didn't have faith and thought that Moses was full of it...but a neighbor snuck over and painted there door with lamb's blood anyway.... Would God therefore spare that family regardless of the intent within?

quote:

---

but apparently I am not the only person who understands it that way.

---

Of course not. But if you were, would that be enough reason for you to change your mind? You yourself said earlier in a previous thread that one's faith shouldn't be based on a popularity poll.

dp

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/30/2008 1:28p).]

quote:

---

there is a family who didn't have faith and thought that Moses was full of it...but a neighbor snuck over and painted there door with lamb's blood anyway.... Would God therefore spare that family regardless of the intent within?

---

If you pray for someone who has no faith, will God answer that prayer or was it a waste of time?

An excellent question, but Romans 1 indicates that we all have a "measure" of faith.

quote:

---

Nope. The key question is whether you can take a communion of doritos and a coke and still be reverent about the meaning of such a Eucharist. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I think that would be difficult. But in a situation such as soldiers in a foxhole preparing to fight and potentially die, a Eucharist of ANY food and drink would be acceptable to God AS LONG AS the faith and revererence of the receive was in place!

---

One can be (and should be) reverent about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING... that doesnt mean that it becomes the Eucharist because of that reverence. It is the Eucharist because of the Sacrifice - to which we owe reverence. Its not the Eucharist BECAUSE OF the reverence.

The Eucharist is part of God's fulfillment of the New Covenant. It is God's gift to us, in exchange for the Bread and Wine that we offer.

He doesn't exchange His True Presence for just anything, but rather has a ordered sacrifice that we commemorate and partake in every time we receive communion.

It becomes very easy for you to say its ok to offer God doritos and coke, or Mr. Pibb and Red Vines as a eucharisitic sacrifice once you lack the belief in the real presence. If all it is to you is a special meal in which you remember a meal that happened long ago, and make it entirely about the communion of people, rather then the sacrificial gift of Christ as the Lamb, truly present in the Bread and Wine - then it makes complete sense why you don't see the importance of following God's ordinances for the Sacrament.

quote:

---

The Eucharist is part of God's fulfillment of the New Covenant. It is God's gift to us, in exchange for the Bread and Wine that we offer.

---

Nope. The Eucharist symbolizes the true gift that God gave to us and that is the sacrifice of his son.

quote:

---

...once you lack the belief in the real presence....then it makes complete sense why you don't see the importance of following God's ordinances for the Sacrament.

---

BINGO! And that is where a division occurs both between the RC Church and the Protestants but also within the RC Church membership itself. But I would also argue that scripturally, there is no such ordinance for the sacrament as you suggest other than the instruction to eat and drink in rememberance of Christ.

This verse may not fit in the context of this conversation however it keeps popping in my head as I read all of this.

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Colossians 2:16-17

quote:

---

no such ordinance for the sacrament as you suggest other than the instruction to eat and drink in rememberance of Christ

---

The Eucharist is much more than a remembrance....It's also a sacrificial meal that forgives sins....

Matthew 26:[26] 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.(sacrificial meal)"
[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant,(sacrificial meal)"which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins A meal that forgives sins.

As I recall my history, there was never any question as to what constituted a valid Eucharistic elements until all this new age hogwash crept into Christianity in the last 70 years or so.
To many folks lead astray by feel good theology.

It has been and always will be bread and wine.

Orthodoxy dictates that it is only valid within the rightly ordained priesthood of the Eastern and Western Churches who have maintained valid Holy Orders, but that is a whole book in and of itself.

quote:

---

It's also a sacrificial meal that forgives sins.... (sacrificial meal)...A meal that forgives sins.

---

Wrong. I double checked scripture and just didn't see the 'sacrificial meal' references. Texasag73: You can't add your own words to a scripture in order to try and justify an argument....

Luke 22:19 19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

The Eucharist isn't simply something that you participate in for selfish reasons because you think it removes demerits from God's scoreboard of life. That isn't what it is about. It is about being a method of providing us a 'reminder' of the sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifice that Christ made didn't occur at the last supper. It occured on a cross.

quote:

---

As I recall my history, there was never any question as to what constituted a valid Eucharistic elements until all this new age hogwash crept into Christianity in the last 70 years or so. To many folks lead astray by feel good theology.

---

OceanState: The same argument could be used against conducting Mass in English instead of Latin. The same could be said about women attending Mass with their heads uncovered. The same could be said about fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays, and many holy days. How many of these things took place more than 70 years ago?


[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 6/2/2008 8:55a).]

Petro...

What is a sacrifice?

Do you consider Christ's death on the cross a sacrifice?

Ergo...in the context of saying "THIS IS MY BODY GIVEN UP FOR YOU..." That is clearly sacrificial language being used to describe the meal. The Passover, which the Lord's Supper reveals in its fullness, was also a sacrificial meal.

quote:

---

Do you consider Christ's death on the cross a sacrifice?

---

Yes. Don't you?

quote:

---

"THIS IS MY BODY GIVEN UP FOR YOU..." That is clearly sacrificial language being used to describe the meal.

---

Nope. It is metaphorical language signifying the impending sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Hence the reminder to 'Do this in the rememberance of me.'

quote:

---

Nope.

---

Oh, OK. You must be right...again.

quote:

---

It is metaphorical language signifying the impending sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

---

So you agree that the language IS sacfificial? I mean, regardless of whether or not you think it literal.

quote:

---

Oh, OK. You must be right...again.

---

Well I wouldn't be debating you if I didn't think I was right. How often do YOU take a position that you think is wrong???

quote:

---

So you agree that the language IS sacfificial?

---

In that it is referencing the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sins? Certainly.