Shouldn't the "Other Sheep" be partaking of the bread at the memorial?

by Island Man 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Island Man

  A thought came to me today: Since it was only the cup of wine that Jesus said represented the new covenant by virtue of his blood, could a case be made that members of the "Other Sheep" who aren't in the new covenant can and should partake of the bread? It was only the cup that Jesus associated with the new covenant, right? In all the gospel accounts the cup is associated with the new covenant but the bread isn't. The bread just represents his body given in behalf of all. So maybe all should partake of the bread?

  Of course I'm only thinking from a JW standpoint here.
• 

  Finkelstein

  I think to most practicing Christians both classes or segmented followers of Christ partaking would makes logical sense.

  Unless Christ commanded only the anointed ones one will reside in heaven should only partake of the emblems.

  .......any bible scholars ????
• 

  myelaine

  The new convenant was made with cultural jews (Jeremiah 31:31, romans 1:16) the other sheep (gentiles) are grafted in to the "olive tree". There is no biblical motivation to break the other sheep (gentiles) into two groups...one that partakes and one that doesn't. Both Jews AND gentiles have to receive the new convenant. That being signified by partaking of both the wine and the bread.

  love michelle
• 

  designs

  michelle- You say it "signifies" what of those who think it is communion with mysticism of God or those who claim it is actual transubstantiation.
• 

  prologos

  The new covenant is with all Israelites, the one flock. all should partake. Jesus passed the wine&bread to members of the so-called wt 'other sheep class', because the 11/12 were not 'anointed'

  Wt writers confuse the NEW covenant with the KINGDOM covenant.

  The Law covenant should not be confused with the Davidic or Levitic covenant either.

  All disciples, all 500 of them must have had bread, wine, stewed lamb with bitter herbs on that day, in their own passover settings.

  no excluded observers there or here.
• 

  myelaine

  dear designs...

  people that want to find something nefarious or untoward in the method Jesus instituted for inclusion in the new covenant can take it up with God.

  love michelle
• 

  prologos

  In Jesus' presence and at his urging, all present with an earthly hope partook. He was the only one with the heavenly hope, and abstained.

  nefarious are the deviations from that ceremony's story.

  of course he abstained because according to legend, he did not need "forgiveness of sins", and he already had his "father's law in his heart". the legend that started with the talking snake.

  "" the only two terms of the new covenant.
• 

  designs

  michelle- So what is nefarious and untoward about the Greek Orthodox position and the Catholic Church's position. (They preceeded Protestanism's view by centuries).
• 

  myelaine

  dear designs...

  no doubt you are well versed in the theological argument and clearly desire to talk about it so, go ahead...

  love michelle
• 

  designs

  Well it seems the newer understanding of communion is that of the Protestants who hold it is as you say "signified", it has no substance, nothing changes in the mouth, or inside a person.

  So here we have Protestants banging on JWs for coming up with a "New" communion yet they are just as relatively new when compared to the "original" christian sects.