What a Simple Meal teaches us about a Heavenly King

Comment by quibusdam on 2019-03-24 21:02:37

Good article.

Comment by Bernardbooks on 2019-03-25 08:56:46

Paragraph 5 said,
“he told his disciples that once a year they should remember him by means of this simple meal. (John 13:15; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)”

Did Jesus specify to his disciples that they should have this meal once a year?

I think the anonymous writer of this article assumes that the organizational tradition is what Jesus said.

1 Corinthians 11:25, 26
“Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.”

• Reply by Psalmbee on 2019-03-25 13:48:37

  That's a good question Bernard, personally I like to break bread 3 to 4 times a week with the Lord instead of just once a year. The JW's do it once a year but even at that they don't break bread. I would do it everyday but I know the Lord is busy and may not always have time for little ol me, but I'm ok with that. (Is 28:10)
  
  
  Psalmbee

• Reply by Dove on 2019-03-25 14:05:37

  From what I understand the first century Christians had this meal about once a week. And it was a full meal, with no officiating clergymen where the bread was broken and passed around. Not the solemn, painfully boring occasion the JW's make it into.

• Reply by Dove on 2019-03-25 14:06:49

  See the book Pagan Christianity for more details.

  • Reply by Alithia on 2019-03-28 05:28:00

    Have read this book and love it, it gives great insight into many matters including how the early Christians understood the Lord and his instructions regarding the celebrating of the Lords Evening Meal.

• Reply by Frankie on 2019-03-25 16:14:02

  First century Christians probably celebrate the Lord's supper (breaking bread) once a week, on the Lord's day (first day of the week - Sunday) - Acts 20:7. Or "daily” - Acts 2:46. There is no mention in the Bible that the Lord's supper must be celebrated once a year under solemn ceremonial procedure; but "whenever".

• Reply by quibusdam on 2019-03-25 18:35:14

  Tadua is reviewing a WT article. The review is limited in length. The issue about the frequency of celebrating the Lord's Supper is just one of numerous possible lengthy digressions Tadua could have made, because Christians have disagreed about many things regarding the celebration. I agree with Tadua that it should be celebrated yearly and that Christians need to partake to have the benefits of the New Covenant. But I won't try to prove these things. However, if the commenters who disagree with him want to write their own articles on this web site, they will discover their positions will get criticized.

  • Reply by Frankie on 2019-03-26 19:32:18

    Quibusdam, I also agree that the question “how often” is not crucial for this topic. Tadua, thank you for exact and useful analysis.

  • Reply by Psalmbee on 2019-03-27 11:56:35

    Hi quibusdam,
    
    I didn't notice that Tadua had said only to "celebrate the Lord's last supper only once per year as you indicated. Perhaps he may want to clarify his view with your statement.
    
    
    
    Psalmbee (Jn 18:23)

    • Reply by Bernardbooks on 2019-03-27 12:24:07

      Hello Psalmbee and quibusdam,
      
      I think I may have caused the confusion.
      
      I should clarify I meant the anonymous writer of the watchtower article in my comment above not Tadua’s review article.
      Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Comment by Dan Adams on 2019-03-25 18:44:54

If the text in John 6 about eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood is tied in with the evening meal, then I don't understand why the NWT translates "this is my body..." into "this means my body..."

On another note, I think it's also interesting to bring 1 Corinthians 10:15-22 into the discussion. Verse 17 in particular makes it clear that ALL were partaking of the one loaf. This partaking of the cup and the loaf is likened in verse 21 to partaking of the table of Jehovah. Paul lays this out in contrast to those who eat and sacrifice to idols, thus making themselves sharers with demons.

The footnote on "table of Jehovah" links to Malachi 1:12, and the context in Malachi speaks of a time when Jehovah's name will be great among the nations, when always and everywhere pure sacrifices will be offered to His name. That sounds like a lot more than just 144,000 people participating in the offerings.

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-03-26 12:23:17

Was Judas there or not ? How does WT justify its statement that Judas had left before the bread and wine were passed round. The Insight book, under Judas, attempts to explain this by citing Luke 22 28-30 and saying that Judas had definitely left by the time that Christ commended the group for having stuck with him as that would not fit Judas.
They also throw in the idea that Luke's account is evidently not in strict chronological order. Out of all the Gospel writers, I would have thought that Luke would have tried very hard to make sure he had accurately recorded events (See Luke 1:3).
Yet there is absolutely nothing to connect verses 28-30 with bread or wine being shared .
Therefore I believe Jesus is asking all his followers, as evidenced by even Judas presence mentioned at verses 19-20 to remember him by partaking of the bread and the wine. "How often ?" is a different question, which has been quite satisfactorily discussed by others this week.
Further observations will be appreciated.

• Reply by Tadua on 2019-03-26 16:17:22

  “Evidently” is a term the Organization uses when they want to teach something without being questioned on it, where actually there is no evidence, but they imply that there is. Of course most Witnesses (including myself in the past) fall for that empty statement and don’t question, where is the evidence for this claim.
  I agree with you, Luke of all the Gospel writers is likely to have things in the right order.
  The real issue is that it means that more than the “anointed” should partake, if a to-be sinner like Judas was asked to partake even though Jesus knew what he was likely to do. Another issue is that the question “Will Judas get a resurrection?” leans more to the answer “Yes” as why otherwise would Jesus have allowed him to partake.
  The problems the Organization get themselves in by having an agenda and trying to interpret other scriptures around that instead of allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves.

• Reply by lazarus on 2019-03-26 17:40:13

  Hi LJ,
  
  Yes the answer to how often has been well established.
  
  I used to think, why wait once a year. Is it really scriptural or Because of past traditions that the Org. Celebrates it annually? Looking at the teachings from Jesus and the Apostles who and how often is well established in simple truths in the article and comments.
  
  It’s like saying to someone you love, let’s catch up for a meal- next year March 20th at 7pm 2020.
  
  You good with that. And by the way , I don’t drink wine or grape fruit juice or eat unleavened or any type of bread. Ok. The Exception is for a few.
  
  I’ve just come to now appreciate that I want to commune more often- but not so that it is routine or common.
  
  Because at the heart of it is love, appreciation for the Lord Jesus, who was willing to die on the stake/cross to take upon Himself our sins. To me that’s the focus.

  • Reply by Alithia on 2019-03-27 19:49:07

    Hello Lazarus, love the analogy. I think it to be most fitting to the situation.
    
    In addition like you, there are many who after having come to the proper understanding have this compelling desire to partake and share in the blood and flesh of Jesus.
    
    Like the scriptures say when one is born of Holy Spirit they cry out Abba! The spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are sons of God.
    
    Wanting to show appreciation for the sacrifice of the Lord is evidence that Gods Spirit is operating on a person.
    
    Could not having this desire or feeling compelled to do so reflect the opposite?

Comment by Bernardbooks on 2019-03-27 11:01:09

Paragraph 11 says,
“To show our heartfelt appreciation, we must loyally commemorate Jesus’ death, just as he commanded.”

Comparing the simple meal Jesus had with the organization’s setup shows to me almost no similarities at all with the exception of prayer.

•Jesus and his apostles (a small group that could fit in a room in most homes)
•Prayer
•Eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance

Compared with,

•Campaign to invite everyone in the surrounding neighborhoods to attend a large overcrowded event
•Several hundred (Kingdom Hall/Rented facility) to a thousand people (Assembly Hall) all sitting in rows facing forward to a stage with a single speaker on it (Oftentimes so crowded numerous ones have to stand)
•Listen to a 45 minute talk which includes the the instruction to not eat or drink the meal unless you absolutely know that you have a call to go and live and rule in heaven forever, sacrificing all human life and relationships
•Prayer
•Pass the bread and wine around (Vast majority do not eat or drink)
•Afterwards go to eat and drink with family and friends at a restaurant or home. (I’m not sure how common this is in other parts of the world but it is almost a tradition in itself where I live)

Comment by Psalmbee on 2019-03-27 12:52:06

According to WT:

" “Jesus introduced the Memorial of his death in the presence of his 11 faithful apostles."



The Way I got it figured is that there were 13 Apostles at the table, 12 were faithful and one a betrayer! (Lu 22:21)


How could anyone come up with a different number than 13? (Heb 3:1)




Psalmbee

Comment by quibusdam on 2019-03-27 14:44:35

I did misunderstand your comment, Bernardbooks. I misinterpreted several comments as being attacks on Tadua. I haven't read many articles on this web site for a couple of years, which accounts for some misunderstanding, since I didn't know about any past articles. If possible, ignore what I said. If I have anything to argue about, I'll save it for another article. Thanks to everybody for the article and comments.

Comment by messenger on 2019-03-28 00:27:54

If all Christians were enlightened about the same things, at the same time, then this website would serve no purpose. Christians acceptable to Christ possess different levels of understandings on biblical issues. And if obeying God’s laws given to the Jews, taught Christians that law could not lead to salvation, then no law could, none made by any group of Christians, not even a list offered by Christ. Thus Christ stated the most important part of that Jewish law was loving God with our whole hearts and minds Mark 12:30. Our minds as used in that scripture primarily includes our understandings about biblical matters concerning God, and matters concerning God revealed to us through NON-BIBLICAL MEANS.

Therefore, are we as a group of Christians to establish what it means to be acceptable to Christ based on what we believe , as compared to what others claiming to be Christians believe, even when we admit they do have some logical grounds to base their beliefs on? For instance, Isaiah 9:6 gives Christ the name Mighty God. The god of WHICH people does that scripture identify Christ as being god too? And is it our God given right to teach the ones who accept him as God are apostate Christians? Similarly, since it is a known fact that in the book of Romans God assigns our governments the job of USING THE SWORD against criminals who break their laws (citizens from other countries not excluded), and since the the first gentile converted to Christianity was an army officer, then is it our Christian right to view those who serve in the military while declaring themselves as Christian are apostates?

I am quite sure that many who will read those two examples would like to debate those points-because I have seen so much debate about them in the past. But, that’s not why I used those examples. I referred to them only as examples that some people who claim Christianity have different biblical understandings than we do. And they have logical reasons for their beliefs. They are not teaching and believing things out of a rebellion to God. And all here acknowledge that Holy Spirit has not revealed the same biblical understandings to us, and that we are probably all wrong on different biblical matters. And yet we believe that WE are not judged because of it. So what about the others? And who decides?

All of that to say this, as it directly relates to the current article. True Christ said, if “you” do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part with me in everlasting life. Yet we recognize that celebrating his death with the wine and bread are ceremonial. They represent an acceptance of what Christ did while on Earth, and that we agree to follow him. Accepting him is more important than a ceremony that represents that acceptance. All Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they accept Christ and what he has done. The majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I believe, try to follow him. The majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ have minds that have been influenced by the Bible, by WT, and by Holy Spirit. If we say those who do not physically partake of the emblems are not Christian, because WT has convinced them they should not, and yet they drink Christ’s blood and figuratively eat his flesh by accepting what he has done, thereby following God with ALL that their whole minds' KNOW, then are we being Christian? Or, our we establishing our own law if we teach the Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not partake of the emblems could not be Christians (acceptable to Christ)? And if we are doing that latter then where does it end? The fact is that behavior of judging Christians by a list has no end. The irony of judging by “you must believe this list to be a Christian,” is that WE ALL will be one someone’s lists and off others. That’s why Christ said he is the only judge. John 5:22 and John 3:16-21

Now I believe all Christians should partake of the emblems. But I don’t believe Christ judges people because of THEIR Christian beliefs, if they believe they don’t. And I hold that belief because of knowing God and Christ without this closing point. But also, what additionally seems to support this idea of mine is that, as the article states, Christ made the statement about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to receive everlasting life at a different date, earlier to implementing a ceremony that represents that idea. I believe what he meant by that idea is encapsulated in the scriptures taught at John 3:26-21 far more than the ceremony which he established during his last pass over celebration.

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-03-28 04:59:21

  Well said, Messenger. WIth love for God and Christ comes understanding. With understanding comes acceptance. With acceptance comes tolerance. As long as we can see that the other person desires to be guided by God and Christ.
  Much of what love is about is in 1 Corinthians 13, for those that need it explained. As regards truth, Paul says that love "rejoices with the truth". Of course it does ! But we must all be responsible for the decisions we make.
  No Christian can use control techniques and call it love, because Christ never did that. Distorting the truth is only done by those who wish to control others. We might well fail to understand what some of God's word means, but to distort it and use that distortion to control is very dangerous (Rev 22 18-19), while those that do so must bear the responsibility and consequences for so doing.
  Thanks to God that we are free to express ourselves on this site.

• Reply by Chet on 2019-04-22 22:10:40

  Partaking was a big step for me. I have probably attended 55 or so Memorials at the Kingdom Hall. A few years back, I couldn't take it anymore, so I started staying home, passing bread and wine to myself, but abstaining, saying a final prayer, then when the ceremony was over, I polished off the same bread and wine.
  
  Finally, last year, I partook, in my own private Memorial. I was surprised by how unemotional the whole thing was. I ate the bread, drank some wine, then finished with a final prayer. Perhaps the most amazing thing is that I only came to the decision to do so one or two days beforehand. I shared that with an ex JW friend and both he and his wife agreed.
  
  This year was much the same, very simple, very brief and, besides the prayers, no real sense of ceremony. It took only a few minutes and it was done. Strangely, I've developed a real taste for Matzah. :)

Comment by Alithia on 2019-03-28 18:51:30

Hello all, and especially in reply to dear Messenger and others who share certain views that Messenger espouses in his last post.

Messenger you make quite a few arguments that I think are seriously flawed. You then proceed to bundle them together and present them as proof of what you posit in the first paragraph.

“If all Christians were enlightened about the same things, at the same time, then this website would serve no purpose. Christians acceptable to Christ possess different levels of understandings on
biblical issues”.

You present this as a guiding principle and as if to say true knowledge, understanding, and truth is subjective, what it is true for you, may be different to others and in the end of the day matters little and we should not judge others for having radical different understandings.

Just to keep it on topic I do not think your arguments represent what the scriptures say around the Lords Supper, how often it should be celebrated or if it is a command that we should faithfully observe often, nor do I think the proofs you present are cogent, coherent or sound so I am going to challenge these as follows;

Firstly I fail to see the connection you have made between the Mosaic Law being superseded by the New Covenant as proof that Law, even that by Jesus has any merit for salvation! You then immediately contradict yourself by quoting Mark 12:30 referenced from the Mosaic Law, in the context of Jesus very own words who re-stated this “Law”! Please see James 2:8 where this passage of scripture is referred to as the “Royal Law”.

You also mention the benefit of extrinsic evidence such as non-canonical information, please hold this thought until a later comment I wish to make on your post.

You then proceed to argue that amidst the profusion of Christian beliefs that exist today, it would be wrong to judge others as being in error as they may have “logical” reasons for doing so.
On this point I would like to point out that truth is objective, it is not subjective. Amongst all of the opposing beliefs there can only be one correct understanding. Either one is right and the other wrong. Both cannot be right. Your use of the word “logical” is in direct contradiction of this basic “logical “fact. What you refer to as logical good reasons must only then be assumptions that are untested and accepted without rigorous testing to see if they are actually sound.

You provide 2 very good examples of this in your post, one of Jesus being God in the one and only almighty sense and early Christians serving in the armed forces. There is a mountain of scriptural, secular and non-canonical religious early writings that support the fact that Christians did not participate in the Roman political and armed forces of the time.

You state that the Lords Supper is or could be ceremonial only diminishing its importance. Do you think baptism is also ceremonial? Is getting married only ceremonial? Signing a contract for a house, affirming love for your wife by celebrating a wedding anniversary or a child’s birth?

I understand you do not have space and time to argue your points fully here, but then you must not present these as proofs either for an argument at this time without developing your points of argument.

But just on the 2 points of the Lords Supper and Baptism, these are direct and clear commands of Jesus, they are an integral part of being a Christian.

You then further contradict yourself by quoting Jesus as saying he is the only one who can judge, having stated that even a list of Laws by Jesus would not have any merit by which we could use as criteria to establish matters conclusively for salvation.

This form of argument is reminiscent of JWs who frequently condemn it, even though the Org uses your kind of post-modernist philosophy of truth being subjective all day long and into the night too. The terms evidently, new light, present truth, old truth, new understanding etc. demonstrates the point that to them truth is fluid and can be whatever they decide on any given day. And yes, try to criticize them and see what the response is! Do you share their view?
Yet they espouse at the same time how God never changes and that the truth never does either! Indeed Messenger you go as far as to say we should not criticize the Org or JWs for having the beliefs they have and we should not judge them. Then can I ask you, if as you say,” we are all at different places of understanding, and if we do not accept it, then what is the point of this site”? Then I say right back at you, what are you doing on here? Just to point out there is no concrete truth? What’s the point of the exercise? Using your “logic”, why don’t we just all go back to the K /Hall and swell the ranks of the Org?

You say having erroneous beliefs do not matter however Paul said that some served God with zeal but without knowledge. Of himself he said he served God but was in reality for a time an insolent man not deserving of the grace God extended to him because of his past beliefs! So having the truth does matter to Paul and God and it should matter to us too. Jesus said the truth shall set you free. Either we have the truth or not, we are set free or we are not! It’s as simple as that in my opinion.

Indeed Jesus is the final arbiter but let’s focus narrowly on the subject at hand which is the Lords Supper. We have Jesus own words, scripture and non-biblical evidence to go by in regards to the Lords Supper which are very clear and concise of which I will comment on.

1 Cor 10:16 Paul expresses the action of eating and drinking of the bread and wine as something we “all partake of”, and in 1 Cor 11: 24-25 he quotes Jesus as saying that his disciples must do this, it is a command by him. A law if you like.

The question of how often, when, or if at a particular time, the nature of the celebration, should we literally partake if possible or even if it is incumbent on Christians today is what many debate, so allow me to briefly point out what the scriptures say and present some non-biblical evidence of how the early Christians viewed these matters for some clarity.

Firstly Jesus the great teacher used local and current knowledge, immediate places, things and situations to teach his disciples truths. On this occasion he used the Passover celebration. The Passover to the Jews was a celebration of a mighty act of salvation that God performed on behalf of the Jews thousands of years ago in Egypt. I think we have all seen the film, “The Ten Commandments”.

Jesus used this occasion to teach them about another far greater act of salvation that God was going to perform on their behalf! And used this day of the Passover to emphasise what was about to occur shortly! And so by command to his followers he instituted what has become to be known variously as the Lords Supper, Communion etc. As far as the significance of instituting the New Covenant on this one day there is no evidence to suggest that it must only be done on this once a year day, in fact there is abundant evidence to prove otherwise.

Luke reports at Acts 2:42 and verse 46 that the disciples were “breaking bread” together frequently in each other’s homes. This was a short time after the Passover in Jerusalem. (Nissan 14)
Please note how the JWs NWT translates the term breaking bread as taking of meals and making out this was only as a social activity and not one with a sacred connection to the “breaking of bread” as exemplified by Jesus when he instituted the Lords evening meal celebration. This is an attempt by the Org to bolster their view of how often the Lords evening meal was celebrated by the early Christians! From the account in Luke obviously they are wrong! Every other translation mostly translates Acts 2: 42-46 as the breaking of bread and not as the taking of meals.

Breaking of bread was never used in a religious or secular sense at the time as signifying taking a meal together or as an invitation to do so. It only occurs with reference to Christians celebrating the Lords Supper!

On another occasion this time at Act 20:6-11. This is where Paul spoke till midnight and Eutychus fell soundly asleep and fell out of a window and killed himself, but was miraculously revived by Paul.
Note in Acts 20:6 Paul narrows the time of this meeting as 5 days after the celebration of the Unleavened Bread and as the first day of the week which for the Jews was a Sunday. Note verse 7 were Paul says they gathered together to break bread together, The NWT again translated this term as have a meal together. Paul discourses until midnight when Eutychis is killed by a fall. Then note after reviving him they go upstairs and begin to break bread. Here the NWT again translates as have a meal, however in the footnotes has to concede that the term literally is to break bread! A meal at midnight??? Middle East or Europe a late meal is 10 o’clock, 9 o’clock but midnight? Clearly something is going on here on a Sunday. Paul met with the disciples and as they did on a frequent basis in Jerusalem soon after the celebration of the Passover they were frequently celebrating the Lords Supper or as the term breaking bread came to mean.

Just the very fact that the Org wants to desperately bury the real term of breaking bread must raise a red flag.

Now for some non-canonical evidence that the early Christians celebrated the Lords Supper frequently and as it appears, whenever they got together, and mostly on a Sunday as a custom.
Below is a cut and paste from the early 1st Century Christian apologist Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr’s second apology to Antonius Pius for Marcus Aurelius’. Check it out fully for yourselves.

“On this day which is called Sunday, all Christians who dwell in country or town come together to the one place. The memoirs of the prophets and the Apostles are read for some time, and then the president of the meeting, when the reader has stopped makes a discourse. They all then rise and address in prayer their prayers to God. Then when the prayers are ended the president brings out the wine and the bread and distribute them, and after more prayer they all partake after which they assent and say amen to the proceedings. After which thanksgiving is made as all partake.

Well I hope a point is made around the frequency of the celebration as by the early Christians. I think they may have had a better understanding from their view than anyone’s today do you not think. They did not view it as ceremonial, they did it frequently, and they broke bread and wine, and did not restrict it to only Nissan 14.
It became an integral part of Christianity as is baptism is an essential requirement.

Love from Alithia to all. Looking forward to breaking bread with anyone in Australia who is close by.

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-03-29 05:34:55

  Hi Alithia. Well reasoned comments. I found the Justin Martyr comment well worthy of note, although, according to GraceOnlineLibrary it is from his First Apology.
  Thank you for reminding us of the importance of truth. After all, that is probably why many of us became JWs in the first place.
  Love and Greetings to you all down under, and anywhere else for that matter.

• Reply by Hoopla2 on 2019-03-29 12:01:35

  The JW response is that in Acts 2 the partakers had received Holy Spirit immediately after baptism and were considered anointed.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-03-29 13:53:26

  Hello Alithia,
  
  I write from my phone so in the future please limit your response to my comment to one or two issues, if you wish my answered return. I cannot simultaneously see all the points you raised in my small screen, or keep them all in my head. Also, when attributing thoughts to me please only attribute those that I actually state. In the comment above you attribute quite a number of thoughts to me that I never raised, nor do I believe. I don't see that the listing of those serve any purpose that is not already covered in this request.
  
  There was only one purpose for me making the comment I previously offered. So, the comments you made about how often Christians celebrate the memorial, whether we can criticize WT, and perhaps some others in your response which I have not read yet I won't address here. As to your characterization of my writing, that is inconsequential in my opinion also, so I offer no comment on that.
  
  But I do admit that I find many of the conclusions you support that are offered by commenters, yourself, or the article authors incorrect, and not logically supported, even while praise is often offered for those conclusions or to the presenters of those conclusions. I often do not refute the illogical conclusions because of the idea I raised in my previous comment, which is the first point you objected to from my previous comment:
  
  “If all Christians were enlightened about the same things, at the same time, then this website would serve no purpose. Christians acceptable to Christ possess different levels of understandings on biblical issues”.
  
  That idea is proven biblically, and logically proven. First biblically, "Romans 14:1-3 1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them."
  
  And then it is logically proven. Paul could not logically have made that statement above if all Christians were enlightened by God concerning the same issues, at the same time. Another logical proof involves you and what you think. And that is the only reason I comment here, and the reason I read your comments and articles.
  
  God requires that we understand his ideas, not simply reason out what a sentence says according to the Hebrew or Greek of 2,000 years ago, compare that with other statements in the Bible, draw conclusions, and then believe we are doing what God wants. There are truths in the Bible God wants us to follow that are far more important than other truths in the Bible. And God views us by our desire to do follow his will based on that fact. Because it goes to the heart of what we are.
  
  For instance, if you do not accept my initial premise, “If all Christians were enlightened about the same things, at the same time, then this website would serve no purpose. Christians acceptable to Christ possess different levels of understandings on biblical issues,” then logically you must view everyone who comments on this website that does not share every biblical idea as you do as unchristian. Or you must view yourself as unchristian. Can you explain to readers how the conclusion I just offered about you is erroneous? Will quoting a ton of scriptures like John 17:17 help to validate your position? Or is it you miss the point of such scriptures? And why quote a lot of scriptures if a hearer doesn't understand one?
  
  Who is our judge? Who is the judge of others? Exactly what did Christ say must be done for him to accept us? What should we teach and not teach others about following God. Those are some of the most important Bible truths. They are far more important than many of the issues you comment on.
  
  Naturally anything anyone does in rebellion to God is not approved by him. But Jehovah's Witnesses are not rebelling when they celebrate the memorial in a way you state is not biblical. Who decides if their way is acceptable, you or God? And if you, then are you God?

• Reply by tyhik on 2019-03-31 16:19:35

  Thank you Tadua for your work! And Alithia thank you for your interesting comment.
  
  Alithia, you said:
  "Breaking of bread was never used in a religious or secular sense at the time as signifying taking a meal together or as an invitation to do so. It only occurs with reference to Christians celebrating the Lords Supper!"
  
  This is an important claim. Could you please provide some links or references to back this up.

Comment by Eleasar on 2019-03-29 07:14:13

Tadua,
As ever a good review. Thanks. I have been spending time discussing with various JWs who approach me as they want to know why I partake. I am very careful to use JW literature and found two points in Insight to the Scriptures under "Offerings" and The Lord's Evening Meal.

Under "Offerings" there is a subheading on Communion offerings (or peace offerings).
Communion offerings acceptable to Jehovah denoted peace with him. The worshiper and his household partook (in the courtyard of the tabernacle; according to tradition, booths were set up around the inside of the curtain surrounding the courtyard; in the temple, dining rooms were provided). The officiating priest received a portion, and the priests on duty, another portion. Jehovah, in effect, received the pleasing smoke of the burning fat. The blood, representing the life, was given to God as his. Therefore the priests, the worshipers, and Jehovah were as if together at the meal, signifying peaceful relationships. The person partaking while in a state of uncleanness (any of the uncleannesses mentioned in the Law) or who ate the flesh after it had been kept beyond the prescribed time (in the warm climate it would begin to putrefy) was to be cut off from his people. He defiled or desecrated the meal, because of either being unclean himself or eating that which was foul before Jehovah God, showing disrespect for sacred things.—Le 7:16-21; 19:5-8.

The Lord’s Evening Meal (Memorial or Last Supper) is a communion meal. (1Co 10:16) Those in “the new covenant by virtue of [Jesus’] blood” share with one another in faith, partaking of the emblems representing Jesus’ body and blood. They share also with Jehovah as Author of the arrangement. These are seeking Jehovah’s approval and are at peace not only with one another but also with Jehovah through Jesus Christ. In line with the requirement of cleanness for sharers in a communion meal, Paul warns that the Christian should examine himself before the Memorial meal. To treat the occasion or the emblems of wine and unleavened bread lightly or with contempt would be desecration of sacred things, meriting adverse judgment.​—1Co 11:25, 27-29; see LORD’S EVENING MEAL.

Under the Law, the Communion Offering showed that all were at Peace and all taking part had a share. I ask the question, there is Jehovah, the sacrifice, the priest and the Israelite. Who represents who at the Lord's Evening Meal and if you don't have a share there was no peace between the person and Jehovah. They are all stumped and begin to see it not good when you are not at peace with God, it means you incur his enmity.

• Reply by Dan Adams on 2019-03-29 09:07:07

  Eleasar, quite fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

Comment by Hoopla2 on 2019-03-29 12:17:35

The JW quote alluding to Matthew wasn't inaccurate. The paragraph reads "He took what was at hand from the Passover meal", indicating He used what was left to institute the communion. Be sure to stay true to the source's intent.

Comment by Eleasar on 2019-03-29 15:28:48

Please see the order of the Passover meal as given by William Barclay. Comparing notes, it is very close to Edersheim's account. This helps a person get a better understanding of what Jesus and the 12 would have been doing. Based on this we can take an educated guess at which point, Jesus institutes his Memorial.

Order of the Passover Feast
We must first set out the various steps of the Passover Feast, so that in our mind's eye we can follow what Jesus and his disciples were doing. The steps came in this order.
(i) The cup of the Kiddush. Kiddush means sanctification or separation. This was the act which, as it were, separated this meal from all other common meals. The head of the family took the cup and prayed over it, and then all drank of it.

(ii) The first hand washing. This was carried out only by the person who was to celebrate the feast. Three times he had to wash his hands in the prescribed way which we have already described when studying Mark 7:1-37 .

(iii) A piece of parsley or lettuce was then taken and dipped in the bowl of salt water and eaten. This was an appetizer to the meal, but the parsley stood for the hyssop with which the lintel had been smeared with blood, and the salt stood for the tears of Egypt and for the waters of the Red Sea through which Israel had been brought in safety.

(iv) The breaking of bread. Two blessings were used at the breaking of bread. "Blessed be thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth from the earth." Or, "Blessed art thou, our Father in heaven, who givest us to-day the bread necessary for us." On the table lay three circles of unleavened bread. The middle one was taken and broken. At this point only a little was eaten. It was to remind the Jews of the bread of affliction that they ate in Egypt and it was broken to remind them that slaves had never a whole loaf, but only broken crusts to eat. As it was broken, the head of the family said, "This is the bread of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt. Whosoever is hungry let him come and eat. Whosoever is in need let him come and keep the Passover with us." (In the modern celebration in strange lands, here is added the famous prayer, "This year we keep it here, next year in the land of Israel. This year as slaves, next year as free.")

(v) Next came the relating of the story of deliverance. The youngest person present had to ask what made this day different from all other days and why all this was being done. And the head of the house had thereupon to tell the whole story of the history of Israel down to the great deliverance which the Passover commemorated. The Passover could never become a ritual. It was always a commemoration of the power and the mercy of God.

(vi) Psalms 113:1-9; Psalms 114:1-8 were sung. Psalms 113:1-9; Psalms 114:1-8; Psalms 115:1-18; Psalms 116:1-19; Psalms 117:1-2; Psalms 118:1-29 are known as the Hallel (Hebrew #1984), which means the praise of God. All these psalms are praising psalms. They were part of the very earliest material which a Jewish boy had to commit to memory.

(vii) The second cup was drunk. It was called the cup of Haggadah (compare Hebrew #5046), which means the cup of explaining or proclaiming.

(viii) All those present now washed their hands in preparation for the meal.

(ix) A grace was said. "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, who bringest forth fruit from the earth. Blessed art thou, O God, who has sanctified us with thy commandment and enjoined us to eat unleavened cakes." Thereafter small pieces of the unleavened bread were distributed.

(x) Some of the bitter herbs were placed between two pieces of unleavened bread, dipped in the Charosheth and eaten. This was called the sop. It was the reminder of slavery and of the bricks that once they had been compelled to make.

(xi) Then followed the meal proper. The whole lamb must be eaten. Anything left over must be destroyed and not used for any common meal.

(xii) The hands were cleansed again.

(xiii) The remainder of the unleavened bread was eaten.

(xiv) There was a prayer of thanksgiving, containing a petition for the coming of Elijah to herald the Messiah. Then the third cup was drunk, called the cup of thanksgiving. The blessing over the cup was, "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine."

(xv) The second part of The Hallel (Hebrew #1984)--Psalms 115:1-18; Psalms 116:1-19; Psalms 117:1-2; Psalms 118:1-29 --was sung.

(xvi) The fourth cup was drunk, and Psalms 136:1-26 , known as the great Hallel (Hebrew #1984), was sung.

(xvii) Two short prayers were said:
"All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord, our God. And thy saints, the righteous, who do thy good pleasure, and all thy people, the house of Israel, with joyous song, let them praise and bless and magnify and glorify and exalt and reverence and sanctify and scribe the Kingdom to thy name, O God, our King. For it is good to praise thee, and pleasure to sing praises to thy name, for from everlasting unto everlasting thou art God."
"The breath of all that lives shall praise thy name, O Lord, our God. And the spirit of all flesh shall continually glorify and exalt thy memorial, O God, our King. For from everlasting unto everlasting thou art God, and beside thee we have no king, redeemer or saviour."

Thus ended the Passover Feast. If the feast that Jesus and his disciples sat at was the Passover it must have been items (xiii) and (xiv) that Jesus made his own, and (xvi) must have been the hymn they sang before they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Comment by messenger on 2019-03-29 21:56:15

Alithia,

I have now read most of your last post and can comment more fully on it. Two recommendations:

First don't attribute thoughts to posters you disparage that they never made the ideas you, in writing, attribute to them. My second point might help you understand how you are reach wrong conclusions about how ALL Christians MUST analyze scripture and follow it. It is easiest done through an example.

You know the statement Christ made about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood he made in a public environment, and not during his last pass over celebration. You also know that statement is metaphorical in nature.

Although knowing it to be metaphorical and thus open to interpretation, and knowing it was made in a public setting prior to the pass over, you insist that command of Christ must be interpreted one way, and only one way, and obeyed one way, and only one way if Christians are to get everlasting life.

Well, why would Christ give someone everlasting life for eating bread and drinking wine? The author's article said Judas did that and so resurrection is guaranteed to Judas. That's speculative thought, and is called over reaching in legal circles.

There is no indication Judas will receive a resurrection in any scripture. As a matter if fact Christ said it would have been better for him had he not even been born which strongly implies Judas won't be resurrected. The statement by the author is compatible to the same type of over reaching you apply, often calling it logical reasoning.

The danger I see in your behavior is that you are setting yourself up to be judged by it, for my Lord said we will be judged as we judge others, especially if judging Christians. The irony in your behavior is that is exactly one of the chief reasons you condemn WT.

• Reply by Alithia on 2019-03-30 02:17:54

  Hello Messenger, I think you conclude with the thoughts that are most central to your argument. The we should be mindful of our judgements of others.
  
  However a common misconception that many have is that we should not judge others. The simple fact is that we judge all day long. We judge food, the air we breathe, other people's speech and actions and a million other things throughout life.
  
  What Jesus actually said is that we should be careful as to how we judge. We should make good judgements, not be harsh or overly critical in our judgements as were the Pharisees. That is why Jesus spun the tale of the man who needed to take the rafter out of his own eye before he could properly extract the splinter from his brothers eye.
  
  Anyway in this context Jesus was talking about making moral judgements about people's moral worth. The Jewish religious leaders had contempt for the common peoples. Jesus was not talking about the mundane things, or differences of opinion.
  
  With regards to my comments on peoples posts I fail to see the connection with your rebuke?
  
  I have not broken anyone's bones, spilled any blood or impugned anyones moral character!
  
  I do however take exception to some argumentation being presented as being flawed and in need of addressing.
  
  And if anyone takes offense at this then I am sorry, but what's the point of posting ideas if you do not want anyone to challenge them?
  
  I thought the very purpose of this site is to present ideas and have them challenged and looked at in the light of "many counselors".
  
  I am not interested in any personal one upmanship, I do not know most people on this site from a bar of soap or in a personal way. I love the people who come here to exchange ideas and who try to determine the truth about certain bible teachings.
  
  And with all due respect Messenger, the irony of your rebuttal is that you are making moral judgements about my motives and moral character.
  
  Let's do a deal and why don't we just play the ball and not the man? Let's stick to the topic on hand , present our best arguments and evaluate the responses from others as I have from you, and see if we can learn anything. I know I have learned heaps from this site and made some very good friends out of it too.
  
  Again I apologise if I have offended you or anyone else , however I do see the need to continue to challenge what I perceive as poor arguments with scripture if I think it is warranted.
  
  Regards Alithia.

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-03-30 03:00:28

    Hello Alithia,
    
    Someone getting offended was not my point. My point is that in your rebuttal you attributed ideas to me that I didn't make, thus building a false argument.
    
    Yes we judge all the time true, that goes without saying. That wasn't my point, and my point had nothing to do with people acting harshly, or even judging unfairly. My second point is that it is dangerous to assume the seat Christ has, and assume we can judge Christians as being Christian or apostate based solely on doctrinal beliefs.
    
    Maybe God has not revealed a belief to someone who doesn't believe exactly like me yet, or maybe God has not revealed something to me, but God intends to in the future. How am I to know? if we take the position Christians must believe everything we do for Christ to accept them, then where does that position logically end? I see the logical conclusion would be everyone will have a group of one. That is believing no one else is a Christian, thus no Christian connection to others at all.
    
    That's the extreme example, but it illustrates that we have to be very careful where we draw the line. Is where we draw the line ONLY where the Bible tells us to?
    
    And don't worry that you offended me, you didn't. And no apology is necessary. I have had people curse me in online Bible debates before, or make fun of me on the site. Every act offers a teachable moment. And that's how I viewed those acts.
    
    Here I, like yourself, was offering points with the intentional hope those points can benefit others. Please know that everything I write, including comments that claim to be directed to you as an individual are actually not, but instead for that broader purpose I mentioned. We all express ourselves differently.
    
    Take care Alithia

• Reply by Jag on 2019-03-30 09:48:22

  In John 6:66, many of his disciples left Jesus after her told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. If he meant it metaphoricalmy, wouldn't he have call them back to explain that he did not mean it literally?
  
  Also eating his body and drinking his blood does not guarantee eternal life. You need to do it in a worthy manner see 1 Cor 11:27-29.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-03-30 12:43:52

    Jesus often said things in such as way as to test people's true motivation. By not explaining what he meant, he winnowed down the flock. True believers would be humble enough to wait on an explanation, while others would sieze on it as an excuse to go back to their former ways.

Comment by Alithia on 2019-04-12 01:15:16

Under inspiration Paul said the following;

Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." Romans 14:5, ESV: "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

Paul went to great pains to explain how festival and other celebration days from the old Law Covenant were now of no real consequence, although if individuals felt that they were still important to them then it would be fine for them to continue to view them as such as long as they did not look down on others for not doing so.

My point; this would have been the opportunity for Paul to make an exception for the Passover day on which Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant. However he did not, as he would have made a self defeating argument.

So I think this lends support to the idea of celebrating the Lord's evening meal only on this day is not scripturally supported. In fact clinging to this idea could in fact be contrary to what Paul was encouraging here in Romans.

I have made other posts here on this subject that also support the idea that early Christians celebrated the Lord's Evening meal on frequent occasions, weekly in fact.

The Catholic Church that stretches back to the earliest Centuries got this one right at least. They were witness to the customs of the early Christians who celebrated weekly or whenever was possible and certainly not just on Passover day Nissan 14. There is no historical evidence that suggests they did so.

Love to all Alithia.

Comment by Chet on 2019-04-22 22:27:06

As to frequency, the scriptures do not say. We can look at early Christian examples, such as mentioned in Althia's comment and conclude that it was fairly frequent, but the bible doesn't seem to specify an interval. My personal opinion is that what matter most is the fact that we do partake, as Jesus commanded, whether it be yearly or annually.

A friend whom has researched early Christian beliefs has suggested that it was very often and a new convert was given communion immediately, in part because the Roman persecution was so bad that there may not have been many opportunities.

A thought that I have, again, merely an opinion, is that early Christians may well have observed communion whenever they got together, such as a casual visit or a shared meal. Much like today, when in some places it is customary to offer guests coffee, early Christians may have offered fellow Christians the communion emblems as a kindness and a way of showing unity with one another, almost an affirmation, if you will. I don't claim to know; I'm old, but not that old. :)

• Reply by Chet on 2019-04-22 22:28:22

  I meant to say, whether it be yearly or WEEKLY.