Wow jgnat geat research :) I loved the comparative scripture post that was facinating, heres a couple of questions
From what I remember one specific difference is catholics actually think the wine and bread change into blood and body of christ am I correct?
The breaking of bread thing in the NT is interesting it looks like it was done as a recognition of new followers infomally as they sat to meals together with no time period indicated, so on thatr basis no one has it exactly right?
After researching it I finding "breaking bread" is already a scriptural term so can used not just to mean the memorial. here's an interesting site i found refering to the breaking bread problem of interpretation.
The debate over these four verses in these two chapters in the book of Acts has been waged among disciples of Christ for centuries, with one's traditional practice and preference often having an impact upon one's interpretation. For example, those who argue that the Lord's Supper must be observed every first day of the week (Sunday), and only on the first day of the week (with it being a sin to observe it any other time), will invariably denounce Acts 2:46 as a reference to the Lord's Supper. Why? Because the passage can much too easily lend itself to an argument for daily observance. Thus, these folk will never acknowledge even the possibility that "breaking bread" in that verse could be a reference to the Lord's Supper. To do so would pose a grave threat to their "pattern." That can never be allowed. The same is true of Acts 20:11, where there is some evidence to suggest the "breaking of bread" occurred the day after "the first day of the week." I can absolutely guarantee, therefore, that among the ultra-conservative, patternistic, legalistic elements of the church, the NLT will be universally and unequivocally condemned for its rendering of these four verses in Acts.
- We should probably point out here that the extremists among the patternists have taken the example of our Lord's breaking bread and have attempted to establish church LAW from it. Bro. Clovis T. Cook, in an article titled Breaking Bread, quoted Luke 22:19 and then observed, "I think it is admitted by all that Jesus broke the loaf. It should be just as freely admitted that we are commanded to do the same. What we need to find out is just how He broke it, and then we will know what we are to do" (Old Paths Advocate, July 1, 1991). Thus, if we are to get the "pattern" right, we must know exactly HOW Jesus broke that loaf, and unless we break the loaf exactly the same, we sin. Bro. Cook then goes into a complex argument as to whether Jesus broke the bread "in or near the middle," or whether He "took a loaf and broke off a piece." It is his conclusion that the latter is the acceptable "pattern," and thus each disciple "must do exactly what Jesus did." He then spoke of those factions in the church who "broke the bread after thanks, in or near the middle, which they claimed had to be done to represent the 'broken body' of Jesus" (ibid). However the bread was broken, it was nevertheless agreed that it MUST be broken before the members could eat of it. A man in Denver once said to him, "Brother Cook, I would never partake of an unbroken loaf." To this he quickly replied, "I wouldn't either!" (ibid).
- Lest one think such legalistic, patternistic extremism is a thing of the past, Bro. Mac Lynn, in his well-researched 2003 edition of Churches of Christ in the United States, points out that there are still divisions among those of this faith-heritage, primarily among the One Cup factions, over the breaking of the bread. "Although the majority of the One Cup folks use unfermented grape juice and believe each participant should break the loaf, others either break the loaf before distribution or insist on wine" (p. 14). Such foolishness is the tragic result of a patternistic mindset. The result will always be division in the family of God. Additional insight into such sectarian squabbling may be found in the following articles: Reflections #47 -- The Lord's Main Meal: Legalistic Wrangling ..... Reflections #142 -- The Wheat Grain Patternists ..... Reflections #147 -- Practicing Pared Patterns.
Breaking Bread in the Bible
"Breaking bread" was an idiomatic phrase among the people of Israel. Indeed, it is an idiomatic phrase among a great many peoples of the world, both primitive and modern, both biblical and non-biblical. It is a phrase fraught with richness of meaning, both spiritually and culturally. Yet, at the same time, we must not overlook the reality that originally, and in its most common and frequent usage, it simply referred to people eating a meal. Any deeper significance to be associated with the partaking of food would come from the depth of relationship of the participants and the motivation underlying the meal itself.
For example, at the feeding of the 4000 (Matt. 15:36; Mark 8:6) we see that Jesus "directed the multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, He gave thanks and broke them, and started giving them to His disciples to serve to them." We also see the same at the feeding of the 5000 (Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16), where "He blessed the food and broke the loaves ... and they all ate and were satisfied." At the town of Emmaus, following His resurrection, Jesus dined with a couple of disciples, and "it came about that when He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them" (Luke 24:30). Later on they came to realize that they had been dining with the Lord. They went to Jerusalem, found the eleven and some of the other disciples, and "began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread" (vs. 35).
- Most scholars regard the meal at Emmaus as being a common meal. However, some feel this was clearly an example of the Lord's Supper. After all, wasn't it referred to as "the breaking of the bread"?! Two definite articles are used in the expression, which the patternists declare is what separates a common meal ("breaking bread") from the Lord's Supper ("the breaking of THE bread"). Well, since definite articles are used here in the account of the Emmaus meal, then according to their theory this must be the Lord's Supper ... right?! Or, does the definite article in the phrase only make it the Lord's Supper sometimes? And which times would those be? When they say so?! Isn't that "pick and choose" patternism?! The Pulpit Commentary, for example, states that "this resembles too closely the great sacramental act in the upper room, when Jesus was alone with His apostles, for us to mistake its solemn sacramental character. The great teachers of the Church in different ages have generally so understood it. So Chrysostom in the Eastern, and Augustine in the Western Church; so Theophylact, and later Beza the Reformer all affirm that this meal was the sacrament. In fact, this Emmaus 'breaking of bread' has been generally recognized by the Catholic Church as the sacrament" (vol. 16).
Another incident of "breaking bread" is seen when Paul was aboard a ship that was in danger of being driven upon the rocks (Acts 27). The crew was becoming disheartened, and Paul encouraged them to eat. So, "he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of all; and he broke it and began to eat. And all of them were encouraged, and they themselves also took food" (vs. 35-36). Most regard this as a common consumption of food; nothing sacred. However, not all feel that way. Again, some believe this to be the Lord's Supper. "It would appear as if the apostle had also partaken of the Lord's Supper, together with his Christian companions, on board the ship toward the close of his fateful trip on the Adriatic" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).
All of this confusion just illustrates the problem! When exactly do we know for sure that the concept of "breaking bread" has reference to the Lord's Supper? It might surprise some disciples to discover that nowhere in the New Covenant writings is the specific phrase "breaking bread" ever directly linked to the Lord's Supper commemoration. Brother John W. Wood wrote, "There is no place in the Scripture that identifies 'breaking bread' as specifically being the Lord's Supper. It has become a tradition originating out of the minds of men as far back as the third century, and has since been accepted by all men as truth" (The Examiner, vol. 4, no. 5, September, 1989). The reality is that, at best, we are simply making an educated guess; each passage is a judgment call, and disciples have differed over those judgments for centuries. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible declares the phrase "could designate a common meal or the Eucharist" (p. 199), and this "has been vigorously debated" for well over fifteen hundred years (Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 289).
Also from what I remember there have been Jw memorials using scriptures in acts etc presumably breaking breads ones you used so they don't just keep to the main gospel ones, If i remember correctly?
.jpg)
