First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1 May 21, 2013
"And he said unto them,'With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said,'Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.' And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying,'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!'" Luke 22:15-22

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said,'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

We have a description of practice from the early church apostles. If the “Eucharist” is a rite per the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't the RCC Eucharist and its rites be in perfect keeping with the early church accounts of their practices of it?

Is the bread Jesus gives the disciples to eat broken?- "this is my body, which is broken for you".

Does He mean His literal body is broken? Yes, Jesus’ body would be broken and therefore the bread is broken in accord with the events of His death.

Does He mean the disciples are eating His literal body? No, it doesn’t.

One other question. In Luke’s recording, had Jesus died yet? No! So, He was speaking in symbolism that they might understand the mystery of God. Jesus said,“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” yet, it was still an event yet to occur. Obviously, the cup/fruit of the vine and bread “represent" something NOT actually “become” His literal Body/blood.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#2 May 21, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
"And he said unto them,'With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said,'Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.' And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying,'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!'" Luke 22:15-22
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said,'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27
We have a description of practice from the early church apostles. If the “Eucharist” is a rite per the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't the RCC Eucharist and its rites be in perfect keeping with the early church accounts of their practices of it?
Is the bread Jesus gives the disciples to eat broken?- "this is my body, which is broken for you".
Does He mean His literal body is broken? Yes, Jesus’ body would be broken and therefore the bread is broken in accord with the events of His death.
Does He mean the disciples are eating His literal body? No, it doesn’t.
One other question. In Luke’s recording, had Jesus died yet? No! So, He was speaking in symbolism that they might understand the mystery of God. Jesus said,“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” yet, it was still an event yet to occur. Obviously, the cup/fruit of the vine and bread “represent" something NOT actually “become” His literal Body/blood.
Yes, symbolism-I completely agree. Why can't you view water baptism with the same view?
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#3 May 21, 2013
There is much symbolism in baptism Bobby. I'm sure Randy understands that and agrees with you on it. I do. He and I still both feel it is a necessary part of becoming a Christian-and in ways, you do as well, for you believe it is something that every professing believer should do.

I think perhaps now the biggest difference between Bobby and Dave P/Randy is that the two of us believe that Peter gave two commands and two promises on Pentecost- repent and be baptized; we will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. I think he and I both believe that what you call "Spirit baptism" occurs at that point, and I think we both believe that perfect knowledge isn't required either.

Randy-again if I am wrong, please correct me. I know we share many similar views.

I personally can say this-I believe God keeps His promises, and if someone does as He says, God will do His work in us. Perfect knowledge is not required.

Randy, excellent post on the Lords Supper. Agree completely. I have one prayer for you-that whatever is keeping you from being baptized, God will work it out and make the way for you.

Just imagine-a day when Dave, Bobby, Randy, Barnsweb, Mike P,JC, Heath, Johnny, WIL-we can all sit and talk in the Master's presence about how much we didn't truly know, but loved every minute of it. And many others who post here, and all our brothers and sisters. Oh what a glorious day!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#4 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, symbolism-I completely agree. Why can't you view water baptism with the same view?
I do see Baptism symbolically- a symbolic act required just as repentance is required. Baptism has no magic ability to cleanse one from sin nor do we “contact” blood in baptism yet it is commanded UNTO/INTO/TOWARDS/FOR remission of sins just as repentance is UNTO/INTO/TOWARDS/FOR remission of sins. Peter ties them [repent and be baptized] together UNTO/INTO/TOWARDS/FOR remission of sins- Act 2:38.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#5 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
There is much symbolism in baptism Bobby. I'm sure Randy understands that and agrees with you on it. I do. He and I still both feel it is a necessary part of becoming a Christian-and in ways, you do as well, for you believe it is something that every professing believer should do.
I think perhaps now the biggest difference between Bobby and Dave P/Randy is that the two of us believe that Peter gave two commands and two promises on Pentecost- repent and be baptized; we will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. I think he and I both believe that what you call "Spirit baptism" occurs at that point, and I think we both believe that perfect knowledge isn't required either.
Randy-again if I am wrong, please correct me. I know we share many similar views.
I personally can say this-I believe God keeps His promises, and if someone does as He says, God will do His work in us. Perfect knowledge is not required.
Agreed
William

Birmingham, AL

#6 May 21, 2013
"Peter ties them [repent and be baptized] together UNTO/INTO/TOWARDS/FOR remission of sins- Act 2:38."

Peter also then tells these men of Israel when their sins would be taken away, and it's not at the point where they got baptized either.

Acts 3:19-21 (KJV)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, WHEN the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

But churches (pick a name, any name) everywhere today will tell you that when you get in the water, your sins are forgiven. You have "sealed the deal" as I once heard a Pentecostal preacher loudly proclaim. You can even get any number of "bibles" today that have the text of Acts 2:38 changed from "remission of sis" to "forgiveness of sins".

They are most assuredly not the same thing.
William

Birmingham, AL

#7 May 21, 2013
"remission of SINS", not sis.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#8 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
There is much symbolism in baptism Bobby. I'm sure Randy understands that and agrees with you on it. I do. He and I still both feel it is a necessary part of becoming a Christian-and in ways, you do as well, for you believe it is something that every professing believer should do.
I think perhaps now the biggest difference between Bobby and Dave P/Randy is that the two of us believe that Peter gave two commands and two promises on Pentecost- repent and be baptized; we will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. I think he and I both believe that what you call "Spirit baptism" occurs at that point, and I think we both believe that perfect knowledge isn't required either.
Randy-again if I am wrong, please correct me. I know we share many similar views.
I personally can say this-I believe God keeps His promises, and if someone does as He says, God will do His work in us. Perfect knowledge is not required.
Randy, excellent post on the Lords Supper. Agree completely. I have one prayer for you-that whatever is keeping you from being baptized, God will work it out and make the way for you.
Just imagine-a day when Dave, Bobby, Randy, Barnsweb, Mike P,JC, Heath, Johnny, WIL-we can all sit and talk in the Master's presence about how much we didn't truly know, but loved every minute of it. And many others who post here, and all our brothers and sisters. Oh what a glorious day!
So, now we are back to unity in diversity:-) Heck, I am having trouble accepting Mike as a brother. Not sure how how far we can take this "unity in diversity" thing but Mike does declare that Jesus is Lord same as Peter did.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#9 May 21, 2013
In our discussion of communion I asked "Why can't you view water baptism with the same view?"

Where I was going with this is that we agree that communion does not change the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ but catholics do.*Transubstantiation*

However when the coc come to water baptism which is another symbolic event, the coc now believes with the catholics at least in part that it becomes efficacious. That word can be translated to mean "treatments for the disease"-in this case treatment for the disease of sin.

What do you think?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10 May 21, 2013
William wrote:
"Peter ties them [repent and be baptized] together UNTO/INTO/TOWARDS/FOR remission of sins- Act 2:38."
Peter also then tells these men of Israel when their sins would be taken away, and it's not at the point where they got baptized either.
Acts 3:19-21 (KJV)
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, WHEN the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
But churches (pick a name, any name) everywhere today will tell you that when you get in the water, your sins are forgiven. You have "sealed the deal" as I once heard a Pentecostal preacher loudly proclaim. You can even get any number of "bibles" today that have the text of Acts 2:38 changed from "remission of sis" to "forgiveness of sins".
They are most assuredly not the same thing.
John 3:16 is a good verse too. However, it speaks nothing of repentance. My point: consider every verse as a whole. If Peter taught one things in Acts 2:38, he surely did elsewhere. Again, lets not use one verse only- lets use them all as a whole. Lets put Acts 3:19 with Acts 2:38....even John 3:16. They all are true and parts of the whole.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#11 May 21, 2013
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 "How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?" On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 "door" or a Jn 15:1 "vine," nobody said, "How can this man be made of wood?" or "How can this man be a plant?" They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life." The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" They remembered God's command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 "I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." It was only after Christ's redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit's enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father's next words. Lv 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life." In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ's eternal life.

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 "This is My Body." 26:27 "This is My Blood…" Mark: 14:22 "This is My Body." 14:24 "This is My Blood…" Luke: 22:19 "This is My Body." 22:20 "This … is the New Covenant in My Blood." Jesus' next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me."

Pay close attention to the last sentences of this paragraph

Jesus is spiritually present in the wine. When the afikomen is broken and passed around for all to eat, Jews drink the third of four cups of wine, called the cup of blessing because it represents the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb. It is the cup that Jesus gave to His apostles, saying, Lk 22:20 "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood." He did not drink the fourth, the Kalah cup, explaining, Mt 26:29 "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." But later that evening at Gethsemane, Jesus prayed by moonlight, Mt 26:39 "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." After He was captured, Jesus asked Peter, Jn 18:11 "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?" Many Catholics believe that Jesus drank the last cup on the Cross, Jn 19:29 "They put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said,'It is finished'; and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit."

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#12 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
In our discussion of communion I asked "Why can't you view water baptism with the same view?"
Where I was going with this is that we agree that communion does not change the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ but catholics do.*Transubstantiation*
However when the coc come to water baptism which is another symbolic event, the coc now believes with the catholics at least in part that it becomes efficacious. That word can be translated to mean "treatments for the disease"-in this case treatment for the disease of sin.
What do you think?
I don’t know any coc preacher who teaches that baptism is efficacious. However, its taken that way by people who believe baptism is mere symbolism. When the Leper dipped 7 times for healing, was it efficacious? His dipping 7 times did cause or make him clean- God was at work.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#13 May 21, 2013
*"didnt" cause or make him clean
William

Columbus, GA

#14 May 21, 2013
We should never use just one verse, but many hang their hat on verses with the word baptism in it and call it a day.

But Acts 3:19-21 explains Acts 2:38-39, as far as when those Jews at Pentecost would have their sins taken away. And it wasn't when they came up out of the water, as churches today teach about "obeying" Acts 2:38.
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#15 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
In our discussion of communion I asked "Why can't you view water baptism with the same view?"
Where I was going with this is that we agree that communion does not change the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ but catholics do.*Transubstantiation*
However when the coc come to water baptism which is another symbolic event, the coc now believes with the catholics at least in part that it becomes efficacious. That word can be translated to mean "treatments for the disease"-in this case treatment for the disease of sin.
What do you think?
As I said earlier, Peter gave two commands and two promises. We do what has been commanded, God does what He has promised to do. Both the Lords Supper and baptism, having symbolism, still have real effects and benefits for the Christian. There are more than symbolic benefits to both. Would you agree?
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#16 May 21, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know any coc preacher who teaches that baptism is efficacious. However, its taken that way by people who believe baptism is mere symbolism. When the Leper dipped 7 times for healing, was it efficacious? His dipping 7 times did cause or make him clean- God was at work.
Agree. Better explanation than mine.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#17 May 21, 2013
William wrote:
We should never use just one verse, but many hang their hat on verses with the word baptism in it and call it a day.
But Acts 3:19-21 explains Acts 2:38-39, as far as when those Jews at Pentecost would have their sins taken away. And it wasn't when they came up out of the water, as churches today teach about "obeying" Acts 2:38.
Maybe Acts 2:38-39 explains Acts 3:19-21 :-)

Why not view them as part of the whole?
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#18 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now we are back to unity in diversity:-) Heck, I am having trouble accepting Mike as a brother. Not sure how how far we can take this "unity in diversity" thing but Mike does declare that Jesus is Lord same as Peter did.
I've been there for a little while now. Feels pretty good to be honest. Mike declares Jesus as Lord. Perhaps he's repented and been baptized too. He definitely holds doctrine I absolutely disagree with, and you won't catch me in a catholic church anytime soon.

Not sure how far we can take this unity in diversity thing? Bobby you're evangelical-you guys should be the experts at it. That is one of the things that still makes me wonder, how can so many be in fellowship with many differing ideas.

Besides, maybe we forget. Mike is in Mississippi, Bobby is in Texas, Randy is in Virginia, Dave is in Kentucky, etc. We aren't "having fellowship"- if we do have fellowship, it's because we are in Christ.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#19 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said earlier, Peter gave two commands and two promises. We do what has been commanded, God does what He has promised to do. Both the Lords Supper and baptism, having symbolism, still have real effects and benefits for the Christian. There are more than symbolic benefits to both. Would you agree?
Where in the Bible does it say the Eucharist is a Symbol?
William

Columbus, GA

#20 May 21, 2013
How does Acts 2:38-39 "explain" what Peter said in Acts 3:19-21?

Their sins will not be taken away until the second coming of Christ. That's the explanation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 3 hr Bobby 1,143
VA VA Property Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disab... (Oct '10) Tue gwsbadass 1,360
How can i get a copy of my background check? (Nov '13) Mon Louis Hawkins 3
Indictments issued Sep 26 shannonsmith 1
hottest girl (Jan '14) Sep 26 me fartwhistle 3
Why are ... Sep 25 satoshi 1
Sola fide? Sep 24 William 77
Bassett Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Bassett Jobs

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]