Something That Used To Puzzle Me

by snowbird 37 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BurnTheShips

  Easy! Unleavened bread was not used every week. It was the Festival of Unfermented bread also called Passover when it was made. And it was made in two batches during Passover week. One using old grain and another using new grain on the day of preparation for the last Sabbath of Passover. So unless you have something better than such get togethers that used bread, and do not specify unleavened bread you have no evidence. During Passover as in 1 Cor. this was understood as such requirements were well know by the reader. They knew Paul was discussing Passover and the special food requirements needed for it. The cup of blessing consumed during that meal shows this clearly.

  Since the NT is scarce here, I think I will bring in some other info:

  From the Didache, during the Apostolic era:

  But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  One more josephmalik:

  Justin Martyr First Apology (c 150 AD):

  And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

  Burn
• 

  JosephMalik

  But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

  Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

  Burntheships,

  Paul went to the Synagogues for much the same reasons, because people gathered there. If things like this were required why is this not done today? Christians did something similar on the Lord’s day. This has nothing to do with the memorial meal and how often it should be observed. You do not show that only unfermented bread was involved in such gatherings. Fermented bread is not the bread our Lord broke and blessed to represent His body. Meeting together is not unusual and food distribution at such a time took place as well. It does not support anything else. We do not take the memorial food to someone not present like a deacon. They would observe it themselves in their own homes. Otherwise they would have been present. Simply nothing there to support a weekly observance of the last Passover and the sacrifice of Christ.

  Joseph
• 

  BurnTheShips

  JosephMalik.

  If there is nothing other than a communal meal here, why the necessity of confession before the meal so that the sacrifice may be pure? Why the sending of a portion to the absent unless it was a religious observance with significance in itself?

  Burn
• 

  snowbird

  My intent in starting this thread was to explore the possibility that the Lord's Supper, Evening Meal if you will, was held in conjunction with a normal meal. It may have been observed weekly, or - with added significance - on the anniversary of His death.

  The early Christian writings seem to bear this out. This would seem fitting in view of the fact that Gentile Christians would have had no knowledge of or reason to observe the Passover as precursor to this event.

  There is so much to navigate after putting aside the trappings of the WTS.

  Sylvia
• 

  Leolaia

  It isn't simply the hosakis ean in v. 25-26 (which is ambiguous and indefinite by itself), what I was referring to was the situation presumed by the rhetorical construction of the passage, i.e. how v. 23-26 builds on the situation described in v. 20-22 and how it sets up what is stated in v. 27-34. If the eucharistic observance of the Lord's supper was, in fact, an annual observance in the Corinthian church, it would imply that the church itself met together only once a year (rather unlikely in my opinion, especially since people were taking it for granted as an occasion to fill the belly). Paul starts out by making general references to the sunerkhomenón of the church in v. 18 and 20, which occur whenever they occur. The first reference does not yet introduce the theme of the meals but simply refers to the occasions on which the church meets together. The second reference mentions (after the fact) the Lord's supper as a purported feature of these sunerkhomenón -- in other words, the sunerkhomenón include meals that the practitioners regard as the Lord's supper but which Paul disqualifies as legitimate observances on account of their conduct. The way the passage is written does not present the Lord's supper as a special kind or subtype of Christian sunerkhomenoi, which occurs at a different (i.e., lower) frequency than usual Christian assemblings; it rather presents the Lord's supper as a general feature of these sunerkhomenoi. Then the same word occurs in v. 33 to indicate the occassions on which the community comes together to eat, and the verb in the following verse has eis krima as an adjunct, indicating that the Lord's supper is still in view in this verse. Had the phrase in v. 33 been the one initially used in v. 18 and 22, then the situation would have been different, but in fact that is not how the passage was written.

  BurnTheShips....The Didache and Justin Martyr are good witnesses of the weekly observance of the eucharist, although the latter seems to attest a kind of observance after which the communal meal (cf. the love feast in other texts) had been separated from the Eucharist (perhaps out of the same concerns that Paul had in 1 Corinthians), whereas Paul seems to characterize the Lord's supper has having elements of both.
• 

  JosephMalik

  If the eucharistic observance of the Lord's supper was, in fact, an annual observance in the Corinthian church, it would imply that the church itself met together only once a year (rather unlikely in my opinion, especially since people were taking it for granted as an occasion to fill the belly).

  Leolaia,

  There is no doubt that they met more often for other reasons with eating together being one of them. Chapter 14 discusses their meeting together to speak in tounges for example: 23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? So this is not an argument since there is no such implication more meetings did not occur in the letter. And meals on the Lord’s day took place for other reasons, not bound by our Lord’s commandment to "keep doing this in remembrance of me." The rest of your explanation is based on assumptions and words in texts that have nothing to do with how often the memorial observance should be observed. Trinitarians explain their views in much the same way as they also have no direct support. There were other meals, there were other observances, there were the gatherings for speaking in tounges and prophesying. There was all that but there was only one time per year when they could "keep doing this in remembrance of me." They were mostly Jews after all that dominated the faith at that time.

  Joseph
• 

  JosephMalik

  Burn,

  It was a distribution of supplies which was not uncommon at the time. James even appealed to Paul who collected such supplies for those in Jerusalem to continue doing this in spite of their disagreements. Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. It is not our job to force doctrine. If the information is not there then so be it.

  Joseph