by etan 4 U 36 Replies latest jw friends
# This may very well lead some to think that children and anyone else can partake of the "emblems" at the memorial. #
GOOD FIND, Corvin!!!
SOO misleading to anyone just picking up the Watchtower rag and not "knowing" that it's all a big farce and an insult to Christ a well!
This pic's a keeper.....for "show and tell" dontcha know!
hugs,
Annie
The priest alone partakes of the wine. Am I correct?
We went to a Catholic funeral one time, and only the priest drank the wine. All the Catholics lined up for the wafer though. My Catholic cousin leaned over to me and said "It's kind of a dog and pony show isn't it?"
Man, I've really jacked up posting on this thread.
For Catholics the issue of who can partake of the wine...it depends on where you live. Since Vatican II partaking of communion under both species (wine and bread) has been reinstituted. This was the original practice of the church...though it fell off...in fact there was a time the church had to make a law that you receive communion at least once a year because people had quit because they felt "unworthy."
Here in the states the wine is usually offered, though it's not mandatory to do so. I think in Italy they don't offer both.
I posted this under the topic "Need Feedback on this"...Please read both my posts there.
Ignorance is strength --- That's a good handle for one who wishes to be catholic . Couldn't help a dig here .
I had to look up all those fancy catholic words to get an idea of what you are talking about . I was at one time a catholic but not for around 30yr Have I accepted the catholic definition of christianity . First off if you have read the scripture that I posted which apparently you have , I do use the WTBTS bible, so not sure what the catholic bible says here but the apostle Paul uses the phrase , "this means my body " or "this means my blood", not suggesting that it is literally blood and body or transubstantiated. It is all done in a spiritual signifigance not that jesus literally wanted people to eat his physical body of which they probly would have if gotten the chance .lol
It's pretty clear to me in the passage that the people in the corinthian congregation were defiling the event by eating and drinking at home and then arriving at the ritual so the apostle Paul is saying that if you already ate supper then don't bother coming to a church supper also it's the way jesus did it , he did not just perform the ritual but actually had dinner with the apostles then he performed the ritual at the end . IMO
The most obscure possible meaning for the translation of the greek used in the passage is "means", the most common is..."IS." This, taken with the totality of scripture..i.e. John 6 (My flesh is real food, my blood real drink)...COR 11:29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord..." and the Witness of the Church Fathers from earliest times can only lead to the conclusion that the early Christians recognized this NOT as a symbol, but as the actual body and blood of Christ.
Greetings eby,
In response to the WT articles 1990, 1986:
the WT said: " 14 Jesus was not then discussing the emblems used in the Lord?s Evening Meal. That new celebration for Christians was not instituted until a year later, so even the apostles who heard Jesus in 32 C.E. knew nothing of it."
Just because Jesus didn't 'explain' it until a year later does not mean he didn't have it in mind when he said it. Many times he spoke things that are not, as though they were (Romans 4:17). There were many things our Lord said at present, the disciples did not understand until years later (Luke 9:48; Luke 22:26, 27; Luke 9:22; Luke 24:21). In the same way, when Jesus spoke of the eating his flesh and drinking his blood, a year later he SHOWED them that the flesh they eat is the bread (the bread of LIFE he mentioned in John 6:48) and the blood they drink is the red wine, not his physical flesh and blood (John 6:60). Thus, they understood that they were to do this in rememberance of him, and that this was the TRUE manna from heaven that he spoke of a year later. When Jesus was resurrected, they remembered that he used to say these things (John 14:26; John 15:27; John 2:22; John 12:16).
the WT said: "Only through forgiveness on the basis of Jesus? blood can we live forever."
This is true about the wine used at the Lord's evening meal. He said, "Drink out of it, all of YOU, for this is my blood of the covenant which is to be poured out in behalf of many for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Matthew 26:28) The blood that Jesus spoke of in John 6:53 that the WT admits is the blood that forgives our sins is the wine that Jesus spoke of that anyone drinking it may have "the forgiveness of sins."
The time difference of a 'year' means nothing. Jesus is "the SAME yesterday, today, and FOREVER." (Hebrews 13:8). What he says now, is fulfilled later (John 14:29). What he said a year ago (John 6:53) is fulfilled a year later (Matthew 26:26-28).
the WT said: "Here, the ?vast mixed company? that shared with the Israelites in eating the manna in the wilderness foreshadow the great crowd of Jesus? ?other sheep? who, along with the anointed remnant of ?the Israel of God,? are now eating Jesus? flesh in a figurative sense. This they do by exercising faith in his sacrifice.?Galatians 6:16; Romans 10:9, 10."
The 'vast mixed company' that shared in the eating of the manna in the wilderness also entered INTO the covenant WITH Israel at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 29:10-12). Therefore, the great crowd also "enter into the [new] covenant" WITH Israel [of God] by partaking of the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood.
Slow, y-all are very slow! Maverick
Kes152--- That's a good point . The proselytes were allowed to worship with Israel but could not take any temple priveleges and that is what the WTBTS is trying to convince it's readers of a certain class distinction . Jesus said I am making a new covenant so it appears the WTBTS is trying to put new wine in old wine skins by saying some old testament rule applies to the new arrangement of which there is no mention of in the new testament , nowhere does it say that some are to be excluded from participation in the ritual .Certainly nothing that I remember . IMO they have commited a grievous error and have denied people the right to proclaim their faith in the ransom sacrifice which would make them blood guilty .
kes, I think you are making some good points.
Just from a personal experience/feeling viewpoint, the Memorial always felt like an empty ritual because there was no one partaking (in three decades of attending I never saw anyone partake). It almost seems comical - it's built up as the most important event of the jw year, they all dress to the nines, and basically nothing happens.
