Todays wt study, a query, no oxymoron jokes !!!!!!

by jonahstourguide 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jonahstourguide

  I wonder, is this a new doctrine and when did "reason and scripture" take place.

  Page 25 paragraph 10 dec 15 2013 study wt

  10 The bread that the apostles could see and would soon partake of meant Jesus’ body. Which body? At one time, God’s servants felt that because Jesus broke the bread but none of his own bones were broken, the bread meant “the body of the Christ,” the congrega- tion of anointed ones. (Eph. 4:12; Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 12:27) In time, however, it was appreciated that both reason and Scripture indicate that the bread represents Jesus’ human body, which had been prepared for him. Jesus “suffered in the flesh,” even being im- paled. Thus, at the Lord’s Evening Meal, the bread represents that physical body in which Jesus “bore our sins.”—1 Pet. 2: 21-24; 4:1; John 19:33-36; Heb. 10:5-7.

  (italics mine)

  Thanks in advance

  jtg
• 

  A.proclaimer

  I was wondering about that too. I always assumed it meant the body of Christ, not the anointed. I don't remember ever hearing that it was suppose to be them. What's ironic is that many of the "Christendom" churches already figured that out long ago.
• 

  sparrowdown

  or maybe because literal bread is kneaded Jesus must have had a massage

  also literal bread gets baked so Jesus must have gone to the solarium

  and what if they sliced the bread what would that mean?

  Oh dear my head hurts

  BTW I was once considered a foxy moron is that classed as an oxymoron joke?
• 

  leaving_quietly

  w54 3/14 p. 174:

  It was after the passover supper and after Jesus had dismissed Judas that he “took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: ‘Take, eat. This means my body.’” (Matt. 26:26; John 13:21-30, NW) To which body was Jesus referring here? To his fleshly body? Hardly, for concerning it we read that not a bone was broken, whereas Jesus broke the loaf. (John 19:36) Rather, he was referring to his spiritual body, the Christian congregation, which in the Scriptures is termed a body or Christ’s body more than forty-five times. That this is the correct conclusion is apparent from Paul’s words: “The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.” Clearly the loaf pictures not Jesus’ fleshly body but his body members, the Christian congregation.—1 Cor. 10:16, 17, NW.
• 

  Londo111

  This probably goes back to the Mystery Doctrine where Russell taught that The Christ was not refering only to Jesus, but to Jesus and the 144000. They believed that all members of the Christ played a part in the sacrifice and atonment.
• 

  snowbird

  Soooo ...

  Sixty years ago, it clearly was the Christian congregation that the loaf pictured.

  Now, reason and Scripture dictate that is is the fleshly body of Jesus that the loaf represented.

  Why don't they just shut the front door!

  Sylvia
• 

  snowbird

  LOL @ Sparrow.

  Sylvia
• 

  Bobcat

  Leaving:

  I think you picked the last WT reference to the idea that the loaf pictures "the Christian Congregation."

  Here is the 1956 WT 1/15 p. 49 par. 18 “The Table of Demons” versus “The Table of Jehovah” ***

  • 18 His body? Yes; his own body, his whole body, head and all, that he was to give for them. Jesus meant his own body, the body with which he next associates his own blood when speaking of the cup. For thirty-three and a half years that body had held the blood that was to be poured out on the torture stake at Calvary. The life of that fleshly body was its blood. When he came to John to have that body baptized Jesus quoted Psalm 40:6-8 and applied it to himself: “Hence when he comes into the world he says: “‘You did not desire sacrifice and offering [of beasts], but you prepared a body for me. You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offering.” Then I said, “Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.”’”—Heb. 10:5-7, NW.

  (Bolding and underlining mine - Bobcat)

  So somewhere between 1954 and 1956 this change in doctrine occurred. Confirming this is a few pages later. The article differentiates 1 Cor 10:17 from the loaf at the Lord's Evening meal (w56 1/15 pp. 55-56 par. 1 “One Body” of Partakers):

  • Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking [eating] of that one loaf.” (1 Cor. 10:17, NW) To which body does Paul here refer by the words “one body”? Not to the personal, fleshly body of Jesus which is symbolized by the loaf of unleavened bread. No, but to the entire congregation of spiritual Israelites of which Jesus Christ is the spiritual Head.

  That is interesting that such a basic thing, understood by probably all of churchdom, would be only so recently figured out by the 'enlightened' WT. I guess they were so busy condemning the churches for all their 'Satanic lies' that they didn't have time to get this right.

  Oh, I couldn't pass up the language employed in the old understanding:

  • . . . To which body was Jesus referring here? To his fleshly body? Hardly, (meaning: you must be stupid if you thought this!) for concerning it we read that not a bone was broken, whereas Jesus broke the loaf. (John 19:36) Rather, he was referring to his spiritual body, the Christian congregation, (yes, its obvious, unless your one of Christendom's hardheads!) which in the Scriptures is termed a body or Christ’s body more than forty-five times. That this is the correct conclusion is apparent from Paul’s words: (I wonder why this isn't the "correct conclusion anymore?) “The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.” Clearly the loaf pictures not Jesus’ fleshly body but his body members, the Christian congregation.—1 Cor. 10:16, 17, NW.

  Take Care
• 

  jonahstourguide

  Thank you all for ya comments.

  I'm like "why include such a vague statement anyway?"

  Ok ok it proves nu lite that. as Bobcat pointed out

  everyone had already figured out.

  Bobcat, thank you for the references I checked them found the language 'interesting also.

  Sparra,,, ha ha, I dig anyone Foxy. My head is spinning so maybe I should

  have an Oxynorm, apparently good for instant pain relief.

  jtg
• 

  jonahstourguide

  Oh well,

  Just broke the O.P.'s rule/request ,,,(insert smiley face)

  jtg