 |
| To Home Page: |
| On Communion: |
|
| To Prior Page: |
| .The following is from Email discussions, on what I believe to be a very important topic, from M & C (& G) to W - [W being the one giving the REPLIES below.] As a result, it will be a little hard to follow perhaps. It has only been slightly modified to keep this post on topic with the subject matter. W RESPONDS> FIRST: Of course, the "eucharist", as it was applied for centuries by the catholic church was in a non-Biblical understanding {transubstantiation for example was the catholic church stating exactly the opposite of what Yeshua Messiah Himself said concerning this}: John/Yochanan 6:56 Whosoever\[G1P> He that]/[R> the (one)] [R> partaking of]-eats My body, and drinks-[R> drinking of] My blood, in Me he remains/abides- [G1> is], (and)-[PR> and] I in him. 6:57 [R> Even] As the living Father [P> has] sent Me, and I 'am alive because of/[R> through]' the-[G1> My] Father, (so) he-[R> the (one)] 'that shall eat (of)/[R(lit)> partaking]' [G1> My body]/Me-[R] [P> he also]/[R> even that one] shall 'be alive/[PR> live]' 'because of/[R> through]' Me. 6:58 This/[W> He] is the Bread that came down from-[R> out of] Heaven, not as 'that which/[PR> the manna]' your fathers ate (of) and died; whosoever-[G1> he that]-[R> the one] of this Bread 'shall eat/[R> partaking]' [PR> will] 'lives forever/[R> live to the age]'. 6:59 These things said He in the-[R> a] synagogue {R> while [G1> He was]}, teaching in/at K'far-Nachum-[G1> Kaph]. 6:60 And many of His Talmidim {G1> 'when they/[P> who]' heard}-[(R)] were saying: 'Hard is this Word/[P> This is a hard speech]'; who can- [R> is able to] hear it? 6:61@ *'Now Yeshua, when He knew/[P> And Yeshua knew in Himself]' that His Talmidim [G2P]-(were)-[G1P> were] murmuring {G1> at-[R>about] this} -[P], [P> and He]-[R> Yeshua] said unto them: Does this offend/stumble you? *[R> But knowing within Himself...] 6:62 {R> But} (what) if [PR> then] you {R> shall-[P> were to]} see the Son of man 'going up/[P> ascend to]' where He was {R> from} 'of old\[P> the beginning]/[R> at first]\[W> formerly]'? 6:63 *It is the spirit that 'gives life/[R> makes alive]', {PR> or} the body-[R> flesh] 'has nothing profited\[P> profits nothing]/[R> does not profit -nothing!]'; the Words that I {G1R> Myself} 'have spoken\[P> used]/[R> speak]' with-[R> unto] you [P> they]-{R} are Ruach/Spirit and [P> they]-{R} {G1> are} life. *[W> The Spirit is the One who creates life, ...] *[G1> He is HaRuach/The-Spirit that gives life to the body, but you say, -the body nothing profits....] [V1/(G1)> "It is the Spirit that quickeneth the body; but ye say, the body profiteth nothing."] SECOND: Later then, "Substantiation" was basically an attempt to return to the understanding that Yeshua's words were RUACH/Spirit, {and not flesh - which would have then been a violation of Torah}; and so being words in RUACH - in accord with what Sha'ul says... 1 CORINTHIANS 11:21 But, one and another, proceeds to eat his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunk. 11:22 What! have you no houses in which you can eat and drink? or, despise you the Congregation of Elohim/God, and shame them who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. 11:23 @ For I have received from our Lord, that which I imparted to you; that our Lord Yeshua, on the night He was betrayed, took bread/<(matzah)>, 11:24 And blessed (with the b'rakhah), and broke [(it)], and said: {A> Take, eat}-[PR]; this is My body, which is {A> [m> given]- broken}-[PR] for your sakes: thus do you, in remembrance of Me. 11:25 So, after they had supped, He gave also the cup, and said: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood: thus/<this> do you, as often as you drink [(it)], in remembrance of Me. 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread/<matzah)>, and drink this cup, you commemorate the death of our Lord, until His advent/coming/ arrival. 11:27 He therefore, who eats of the bread/(matzah)> of the Lord, and drinks of His cup, and is not worthy of it, is guilty of [AMP]- the-{R} blood of the Lord, and of His body. 11:28 For this reason, a man should examine himself, and then eat of this bread/(matzah)>, and drink of this cup: THIRD: We further see from Acts in the timing, that this would have been a Havdolah service, at the conclusion of Shabbat {or saturday evening}. Sefardi Rabbinic writings from Spain in the 12th century even state that Shim'on Kefa {Simon Peter} himself wrote the Havdolah service! The early Didache writing shows that this practice was done by the Believers... DIDACHE {The following Messianic version is a writing by Messianic Jews to the Gentile/Goyim Congregations during the 1st Century AD/Ce period.}... 9.> But as touching the Communion thanksgiving, give you thanks thus; First, as regards the cup: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which You made known unto us through Thy Son Yeshua/Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Then, as regards the broken bread: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which You did make known unto us through Thy Son Yeshua; Thine is the glory forever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered up together became one, so may Thy Edot/Congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Yeshua Mashiach/Messiah forever and ever. But let no one eat or drink of this Communion thanksgiving, but they that have been Immersed into the Name of the L-rd; for concerning this also the L-rd has said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. 10.> And after you are satisfied, thus give you thanks: We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy Name, which You have made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You have made know unto us through Thy Son Yeshua; Thine is the glory forever and ever. You, Almighty Master, did create all things for Thy Name's sake, and did give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee; and did bestow upon us spiritual food, and drink, and eternal life through Thy Son. Before all things we give Thee thanks that You art powerful; Thine is the glory forever and ever. Remember L-rd, Thy Edot/Congregation, to deliver it from all evil, and to perfect it in Thy love; and to gather it together from the four winds - Even the Edot/Congregation which has been sanctified - into Thy kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory forever and ever. May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hoshanna to the G-d of David. If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Marana-ta, Amaine. CONCLUSION: For us as Messianic Believers - Communion is a remembrance of Yeshua Messiah's Pesach Sedar that night, not a "eucharist". =============================== C WRITES:> So why do we call it communion at all. W REPLY: Communion means "fellowship"; when we do this in rememberance of Him, we enter into fellowship with Him. [2842 koinwnia koinonia koy-nohn-ee'-ah from 2844; TDNT-3:797,447; n f AV-fellowship 12, communion 4, communication 1, distribution 1, contribution 1, to communicate 1; 20 1) fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse 1a) the share which one has in anything, participation 1b) intercourse, fellowship, intimacy 1b1) the right hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office) 1c) a gift jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship] C WRITES:> It wasn't called that in any of the letters. W REPLY: Well... yes it was... 1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup <4221> of blessing <2129> which <3739> we bless <2127> (5719), is it <2076> (5748) not <3780> the communion <2842> of the blood <129> of Christ <5547>? The bread <740> which <3739> we break <2806> (5719), is it <2076> (5748) not <3780> the communion <2842> of the body <4983> of Christ <5547>? C WRITES:> When we drink wine and break challah at the beginning and ending of Shabbat, and we remember what Yahshua did for us, isn't it the same idea? W REPLY: Only if the challah and the wine are sanctified for THAT purpose, otherwise - your celebrating the Shabbat, and remembering what Yeshua did for us. No problem with that - but one doesn't equate to the other if it is not purposed and set apart to identify the mitzvah as Yeshua Messiah outlined to His Talmidim and as Sha'ul so also affirmed in Scripture. C WRITES:> We don't have to have communion at all!!!! REPLY: Taken from a Biblical understanding of the term - you're saying we don't have to have "fellowship" at all - I don't think that's what you had in mind?! However, if you mean that we don't have to enter into a "catholic eucharist" - that would be correct. {�} W REPLY: I think part of the problem, is some people see what some in the gentile "church" have wrongly added to Brit HaChadashah Biblical Mitzvot and practices {and even Yeshua Himself} - and so: have attempted to correct the problem by rejecting the Mitzvot and practices {and even Yeshua Himself} - rather than being circumspect and seeing WHAT/{WHO} was added to - and rejecting the ADDITIONS. ============================== G> W>"Communion means "fellowship"; when we do this in rememberance of Him, we enter into fellowship with Him."<W Somehow I don't see the JEWISH believers calling "fellowship" by a greek name. W REPLY: They wouldn't have spoken English either, but that would make for a low-traffic web-site if we didn't do that here:-) But the point being the Greek speaking Jewish Believers in the Diaspora would have, and the Hebrew speaking Believers would have used the Hebrew equilivant. I think some folks are so upset over the hellonization of the Judaic Covenant in Yeshua HaMashiach, that they "tend" to want to throw out everything and start over. But if you think about it, that is the same mind-set that led to the "gentile church" GENTILEizing everything in the first place! WE shouldn't be throwing out, or changing into OUR own image ANYTHING! Circumspectly: we should be returning, tshuvah: to the Biblical, Judaic, 1st century Messianic worship without our own pre-conceptions, and not take the stance that we exist simply as an anti-gentile polemic! We aren't to be defined as how much we DON'T believe as the gentiles believe, we are defined by how much we DO believe as Scripture states. If we do the former, we'll have nothing but a walk that is constantly looking at what someone is doing wrong - to try and make ourselves feel that we are doing right. My walk should not be defined in how much I can detect what others are doing wrong; that's what JW's try to do - and their religion simply becomes a self-gratification that: "you are wrong and I am right". Sometimes that comes about with someone who is not confident in their own walk, so they constantly need to reassure themselves that they are right by looking at what others are doing wrong. I'm not "afraid" of the word "communion" because it has been wrongfully used by some in the Gentile-Body of Messiah over the centuries, nor because it is a Greek word. - {If Sha'ul was writing to the Jewish Believers in Brooklyn today - he'd be writing in English, maybe Yiddish forty years ago}. I'm not going to throw out Communion, neither the word nor the practice, which is mentioned in Scripture, simply because it is a Greek word, nor because it has been dressed up at times over the centuries with egyptian clothing; - that is what ha-satan would have us do: shun the True because he has attempted to veil it with the profane; - rather I'll cast down the profane and remove the egyptian clothing in my walk and cling to the True!, - and then gently instruct those who oppose themselves and have entered into error - not in condemnation, but in love. {But the kicker is: Communion isn't even a Greek word, it's an English word that also means fellowship!, commune. :-} The Ka'arim/Kararite Jews have many things that they don't agree with the Rabbinic Jews in; should the Rabbinic Jews then throw out Torah, {insofar as the places where the Ka'arim have a correct understanding}, and start over? Maybe the Ka'arim should completely disregard where the Rabbinic Jews are correct in their understanding of Torah, and then go on and disregard Torah because they {R-Jews} don't have all their Mitzvout in a row, - simply because they are Rabbinic-Jews?! Looking at it from this perspective - it sounds ridiculous. Don't get me wrong: right is right, and wrong is wrong; but one is right because they are right, not because they figured out the other guy is wrong :-) ========================== M> I guess I am missing something . . . are we talking about fellowship (if so, why didn't the KJV translators use the word fellowship as did most other later translators) or are we talking about a "ceremony" or the "rite" of and act, specifically "communion." W REPLY: The Greek word is the same <2842> and is translated as "fellowship" by KJV when it refers more to a verb, and as communion when it refers more to a noun. COMMUNEion is English word, only slightly out of use {remember the communes of the 60's :-) - I digress...}, that basically means fellowship as well. However, that doesn't entirely hold true - as a couple of times communion is used when it is a verb [2 Cor. 6:14, 2 Cor. 13:14]. But we are talking about an "act", not as defined by the "catholic church", but by the Brit HaChadashah. We see in 1Cor. that this practice had become an "act", that it was most-probably done at the Havdolah service at the close of Shabbat by looking at Acts, and that it was Sanctified - that is set apart. Kiddush and Havdolah are a sanctification themselves, but to do remembrance as Sha'ul and Messiah Himself stated, requires that the observance itself be sanctified in addition; otherwise when the unBeliever comes into the Pesach or Havdolah, they would be partaking in something they don't believe in - and what Sha'ul states {below} would come into play, as they were then doing it in a mundane manner, and not being sanctifying themselves nor sanctifying the "act". Ask yourself.... if it wasn't an "act", then why does Sha'ul give instructions for it? - Since pretty much everyone knows how to eat and drink :-) 1Cor. 11:29 For whoever eats and drinks of it, *while he is unworthy, eats and drinks condemnation on himself, by not discerning the body {A> of the Lord}-[PR]. *[(P)R>, in an unworthy manner, ...]-{A} 11:30 For this cause, many among you are diseased and sickly, and many sleep/[Syr./alt> have died]. 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 11:32 But when we are judged by our Lord, we are really-chastised/ [Syr.> are chastised to be chastised], that we may not be condemned with the world. M> I am talking about a group of people getting together at a church, or at a "bible study" and taking "communion", that is, drinking a little wine and eating a piece of bread remembrance of the blood and flesh of Messiah. Is this something that you and {...} do since you are defending it with such rigor? W REPLY: Defending what? - What the Bible literally says? - Yes! I'm not defending the "catholic" rite of communion; I'm simply pointing out a word in the text of Scripture, and then stating what the Brit HaChadashah literally says! M> I am saying that there is not such a meaningless service or rite. W REPLY: As the catholics have defined it, true; but I'm not talking about a "catholic" definition - I'm simply talking about what the Brit HaChadashah has to say. I don't care what "veneer" ha-satan has tried to put up around Holy Biblical things, {may the profane be cast down}, but I'm not going to run from the Holy because ha-satan has tried to cloud it with the profane either! M> We as Natzrim do not "change the moedim" (Daniel 7) but seek to express our worship not in the way of the "gentile" (nations) around us but to re-program our minds to follow the mandated and traditional practices of the Hebraic fathers, or at least as we know of the practices of the 1st century believers. W REPLY: True; that's what I've said about three times now. But I'm not "scared" of the english word "communion" which simply means fellowship either simply because it has become a catholic-ritual. It's not the "act" of communion as stated in the KJV that's the problem, [fellowship is an english synonymous for that word], it is the babalyonian trappings that were added to the "act" that's outlined in the Brit HaChadashah. We shouldn't try and make it into a "non-act" simply because we are repulsed by the "act" that the catholics have made it into! My problem is: you seem to say that the Brit HaChadashah says it isn't an "act" [when it clearly defines it as such], which appears to be a knee-jerk anti-Christian response that leads you do reject to Holy simply because you are fleeing from the profane. If that's the case - then ha-satan wins a double victory. - Why? - Because the enemy clouded the Holy with profane veneer - and the gentiles are afraid to drop the profane for fear they are giving up the Holy; and "some" Messianic's are running from the Holy - because they reject the profane! Just because tares are growing in a wheat field - don't burn the field! Rather instruct them, in love, as to what Scripture says - so they can see the profane and tear it down in their walk. I [as well as almost every Believer on here!] first came to know Yeshua Messiah as Jesus Christ! - It was He that showed me the errors of the "church" over the last 2,000 {almost} years that have clouded the Judaic Scriptures, and He led/instructed me in the removal of the "egyptian clothing" I'd been wearing. It's like I'd been watching the right channel, but the contrast and color was off, but He didn't have me/[us] smash the TV! {sorry, kind of a mundane example}. M> I am saying that the term "fellowship" or "intimate community relationships" conducted around a seder, a havdallah, erev Shabbat or oneg are the traditional 1st century Hebraic expressions of "fellowship" around the concept of Messiah . . . not what we have seen and experienced in our previous indoctrinations in the anomas society of the Roman church her daughters, the Protestants, and her grandaughters, all who were birthed from "her". W REPLY: Fine, while were at it - let's run from the Rabbinic pagan additions too: calling HaShem's Holy months by the names of babalyonian deities, waving chickens over their heads, cabbalistic invocations in the baal-shem-tov of forms of the Name of HaShem to perform magic, reincarnation and mid-evil witchcraft introduced into the Zohar; etc., etc.... Am I advocating throwing out everything the Rabbi's say because they have "some" pagan practices? - NO! - but maybe now you get my point! ================================ C> I would like to respond in love. I think we all know what YOU mean. We have all come out of the "Christian" background and know what communion is and is meant to be. I think I know a little of what M means too. Of which I don't think you get it. So let me try to put it a little different. At the time of the apostles, way back in 30 40 50 and etc. when they were getting together on Motze Shabbat and having a ceremony called Havdalah, there were probably those that were treating it as a drinking and eating orgy. This "could" be what Paul was talking about. When the cup was blessed and the bread was broke, there could have been some that were not doing it in the right way. W REPLY: Yes; obviously, - in part because they were treating it mundane instead of Sanctified. But Sha'ul specifically refers to the Body and Blood of Yeshua Messiah - it was MORE than just kiddush! And yes it was done as an "act" - as we have the Didache from late 1st Century Messianic Jewish Believers giving a liturgy for it! - Way before the council of niacea {sp} and trent with the "catholic" stance. {�} C> The RITE OF COMMUNION the act that you are talking about did not exist as that act with that name until the Catholic Church CREATED it thus. W REPLY: No, it didn't exist as the "catholic church created it". I've said that besides being integrated into the Pesach Seder, it was most-probally later a part of the Havdolah service. - So where's the "Bread" in the Sefardi or Ashkanazi Havdolah service? [but as I noted it is real interesting that the Sefardi writings in the 12th century AD/Ce site Shim'on Kefa/Simon Peter has having written the Havdolah service.] It think the Peshitta uses a form of the Aramaic word for fellowship in that passage, ask S. T.; as for the "observance" - do you know of any other observance in Rabbinic Judaism that notes the Body and Blood of Yeshua Messiah?! And no it wasn't as the Catholic Church had it, I already said that! C> I am quite sure that none of the Jews or Gentiles or Natzrim of the early congregations and gatherings EVER called the act of breaking bread and blessing wine in remembrance of Yahshua as COMMUNION. W REPLY: See above. But no, - the Diaspora Jews speaking Greek would have said koinonia for that specific "act" that Sha'ul outlines - an "act" found NO WHERE ELSE in Rabbinic lit.; obviously Messianic, and obviously done by the Messianic-Brethren. C> So now then, if this makes some since, why would we do it now? We are called to be separate, so isn't the act of Erev Shabbat and Havdalah and especially the Passover service, since this is what Yahshua himself was talking about, enough of a time to come together to perform this act of remembrance over the bread and wine? Why do we have to ADD some other SPECIAL and DIFFERENT time and call it COMMUNION? W REPLY: First of all: who said some "different time"! I said "Havdolah" myself, but if someone wants to do that some other time - that is between them and HaShem I'd think. But yes "special" - rather: sanctified. Yeshua Messiah Himself spoke those words, it is re-stated by Sha'ul, unless you think the New Covenant Scriptures are in error. - However: the Shem-Tov Matthew, the DuTillet, Aramaic Evangelion Da-MePharreshe [both texts], and the Peshitta all say basically the same thing - so be careful. No, one doesn't have to say the word "communion", [though that is in the text], and I sure don't like the word: eucharist; but what I DO have a BIG problem with is when one says that there is no such "act", when it is mentioned right there in black and white in Scripture! This was added as a "remembrance", and so is not just something that happens by default. When Yeshua said when you do this do it: "in remembrance of Me", and when Sha'ul gives specific injunctions concerning it, and warns it NOT to be taken by the profain and the man unexamined, and the VERY early history shows this before the overseership even passed from Yerushalayim - then YES I have a problem saying it doesn't exist! Of course it isn't going to align with Rabbinic-liturgy - it's Messianic. Even the Afikomen isn't mentioned in Rabbinic lit. till early Talmudic times, - the speculation is that it was done by the Messianics at their Seder, and later adopted by the Rabbinic Jews post Temple-era. When is the first mention of the Afikomen then? - At Yeshua Messiah's Pesach -"the Last Supper". {�} C>You can post this if you like, =========================== M> I guess we can end this discussion, and agree to differ in whether or not to refer to the ordained moedim and feasts being called communion or not. W REPLY: I didn't say the feasts were called Communion! I said the "remembrance" that Yeshua Messiah states, Sha'ul re-states is noted in Scripture by the Greek word that mean fellowship. I said that this "remembrance" was probally done at Havdolah, and assuredly at Pesach, but not that Havdolah and Pesach were called Communion! You're just trying to be real tricky in a nice way :-) M>I take the position that we should not use the word that carries with it such pagan connotations. W REPLY: Oh, now finally someone says this! :-) - yes perhaps you're right - thought of that myself. [for example - wouldn't want a catholic to think we were doing a trans-substantiation service, read: cannibalism - a violation of Torah!], but I wasn't going to give you and C. that, as: A).I'm not scared of what ever word/practice mentioned in the New Covenant the catholic-church may have misused/perverted; and: B). There was/is a far more important mind-set here that needed/needs addressing. M> If your position remains that to use this word, please tell me on what Hebraic and Biblically ordained "gatherings" you choose to use it. W REPLY: "Remembrance" is perhaps a word I like better; but I'd say: Pesach and Havdolah. M >Also, you last comments regarding the paganism of Judaism (kind of an off subject turn around-to which I am confused) . . . W REPLY: I didn't say "Judaism", I said certain "Rabbinic" practices that are pagan. Don't get me wrong, like I said: do I think we should throw out what the Rabbi's say simply because there are certain pagan practices that have been added over the centuries - most notably in the some of the Ashkenazi Rabbinic writings from the middle-ages [Sephardi far less so]?, absolutely not - guess I'm just more gracious to the Rabbinic-Jews then you are to Gentile Believers :-) But just remember, it's the Samaritans that you really have to worry about, Talmud says that you can say Amaine during the prayer of a Gentile if it is aligned with Torah, but a Samaritan you have to wait till the end of his prayer to say Amaine :-) M> I remember that this was pointed out quite vehemently at the K., and seems like some sort of "Judeao-phobia" to me. W REPLY: Kind of like "Gentile-phobia"? Of course, I know that you would throw out any pagan additions that the Rabbi's might have added that are against the Peshat of Torah, even though they don't believe in the same New Covenant that the Messianic's do; so then why do you insist on throwing out everything that the Gentiles do, when they do believe in the same New Covenant that the Messianic's do, and not just throw out what they do that's pagan?! As far as this being "at the K." - must have been before my time, or addressed, or out of my ear-shot, haven't heard it myself. M> Of course, there are pagan reflections in Rabbinic Judaism. W REPLY: Gosh, I know: just think, - one finally stops saying "easter/ishtar", and then finds oneself start saying: I'm going to a "tamuz" Rosh Kodesh service tonight; oy gavolt! M> What I seek and teach is that there is the narrow road of truth, W REPLY: Yes; it is as if there was a Biblical Judaic river that traveled from Moshe to Messiah, - {and on for about a century}; sometimes the people moved from the river, sometimes they came back during Israel's history - but the river was always there. The Rabbi's were by the river from the time of Ezra on [which is when the schools were founded], and even the Messianic Goyim traveled that river - both as the Gar [not ger] Tzadukim and Gentile Messianic Believers - UNTIL the time of the fall of Yerushalayim in 135 AD/Ce and the passing away of the overseeership of the Messianic Edot by the Jewish Believers - then as the leadership of the Gentile Church passed unto Antioch, and later Rome - we saw [slowly at first] a mixing of the Holy and the profain - so much so that by the 4th century AD/Ce, there were only some Congregations in Africa, and a few Syriac Congregations that even kept the Shabbat! Then by the council of nicea - things got very bad; by the council of trent it was hopeless! At the fall of Yerushalayim, it's as if Messianic Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, and Gentile Believers began to break off into seperate tributaries and drift from Biblical Judaism. Why do I say "Messianic"? - Because besides the fact that they were wiped out by the 7th or 9th centuries by the arabs - even the Messianic expression from that time on was watered down by the constant influence from Rome, and capitulated on many points. M> and the ditch of Judaeo paganism on the other side. W REPLY: I define the road as Biblical-Judaism, - and the ditch on either side as gentile-Christianity and Rabbinic-Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism itself states that it was weakened - when it said the Mishnah was diminished when it was written as it was never to have been written down, and in Talmud when one Rabbi speaks in the name of another, and then another - the saying is diminished because it is removed far from the source. There are many many valuable things the Rabbi's said - especially the early Rabbi's in the Targumim, Midrashim, etc., and Rabbinic Judaism continued more or less aligned with Scripture, even somewhat in Talmudic times, - but the farther away from the head-waters of Biblical Judaism it has gotten, the more polluted. Same way with Gentile-Christianity. I believe that Messianic Judaism is Biblical Judaism, and there are a whole spectrum of traditions on both sides that are NOT in align with Scripture. Sure, one thinks that by fleeing from the Gentile expression to the Rabbinic they're safe, but not really. You know that there are MANY traditional additions that are pagan. Heck, even most Orthodox Rabbinic Jews in the world will not recognize the teaching of the Lubavitch because of the Zohar. [Course: that won't stop us Messianic's from quoting it :-) - though it's rather like picking pearls out of a cow-pie.] - And NO - that's not a anti-Rabbinic statement - you know full well the paganism that is in the Zohar and certain cabbalistic traditions that have been "tacked on" to ancient Biblical based traditions that originally had NOTHING to do with these middle-ages insertions. Gosh - some of these additions would make the pope blush :-) {�} M> I say it is time to wake up to reality and do all that we can to shake the paganism of our pasts from our souls. W REPLY: Yes, but not just for the last 2000 years, try the last 6,000 years. {�} M> We must find the place of Truth . . that place where our path becomes brighter and brighter as we approach the Ohr of the Holy one of Israel. I remain, however, more quickly to run to the way of Rabbinic Judaism as opposed to Christianity whenever we are unclear as to the truth. It's kind of like the old proverb . . you say tomaato I say tomayto. W REPLY: I run into the River of Biblical-Judaism myself. For where the Rabbi's are right - they're right; where they are wrong, they're wrong. Where the Gentile Believers are right, they're right; where they are wrong, they're wrong. But it is not they're error that defines me in my walk! It is standing in the River of the Word/Davar of YHVH Elohim in Yeshua HaMashiach. For when the people stand on a hill, and fire of Judgement comes, it will not be those who hold up the Talmud, nor the Zohar, nor the writs-of-niacea, nor the catholic-edicts-of-trent that will be spared - it will be those in Yeshua Messiah that hold up the entire Word of Elohim YHVH in their heart that will see the fires of Judgement parted from around them like the Red-Sea. {�} =========================== M> So then how do you feel if, for example, a group of talmidim or in this case, Messianic students, were gathered together at someones home, say on a non-significant night (ordained moedim) having a "Torah study" or "Cell group" and at the end of the meeting someone suggests that they break some bread and pour some wine and have a "communion" service. Do you support this activity? If so, then we are at ground zero again. W REPLY: The koinonia-fellowship/remembrance that Sha'ul talks of when he speaks of Yeshua Messiah's Words during the Pesach Seder was probably done during Havdolah by the time of the Book of Acts by all indications. - Doing it then during Havdolah itself was an expansion of the "remembering" during the Pesach Seder. In a prior post - you gave the times for such a "remembrance" as: Pesach Seder, Havdalah, Erev Shabbat or oneg - which would be an even further expansion. The remembrance was to be a "sanctification", to be set apart, to whereas Sha'ul had to address those who were themselves not sanctified yet partaking of it. It is the "remembrance" that I believe Yeshua talked about, and he didn't say specifically to do it on Havdolah - simply: "...as oft as ye...". So we see that the early M'shacheeym were permitted halachah to expand this to the Havdolah service. - To which I concur, and to which you even seem to have made allowances for by expanding it to other moedim. While I believe the Biblical examples are only shown during Pesach and Havdolah - I believe that it is the Word that sanctifies, - and so if someone wants to remember, in gratitude in their heart, and sanctify - Kiddush - their remembrance on any day that HaShem created - then I think that is between them and HaShem, and is fine. But I somehow don't think that is the real reason you and C. are arguing here is as to what is the "proper time". It appears that you can't get it out of your head of a priest in a robe, putting a little-wafer on the tongue of people kneeling at at the front of a cathedral, and drinking from a common-cup, and believing [contrary to Torah and Yeshua's own words {the Words ... are Spirit}] that they are partaking of the ACTUAL PHYSICAL Body and Blood of Messiah. So maybe really you don't think it should be remembered at all, {other than some vague acknowledgement during regular-Kiddush on Moedim}, as some of your posts basically seem to be saying there wasn't even any "act" given/shown regarding our "remembrance" {forgetting what the Brit HaChadashah actually says}; and instead argue about: a Greek word, which Holy Day, or do you call Shabbat or Pesach "communion" or something -[which no one said btw...]. I understand your repulsion at the catholic perversion of not only this, - but of anything mentioned in the New Covenant that has been misused or perverted. - However if the prior observation isn't true, then your motivations on requiring a halachah ruling from the Messianic community on when it is "proper" doesn't quite ring true. Especially since even your suggested times appear to go beyond the times shown in the New Covenant. Whatever you do is between you and HaShem, fine - but please don't judge those who want both to flee the pagan-Christian additions, - yet desire to keep something as outlined in the New Covenant in a literal observance seeking after the very Words of the Scripture Text Itself as much as they prayerfully can.. M> Also, I presume that the terminology New Covenant your are referring to the "New Testament" or the Brit Chadisha. We have decided to refer to these writings as the Apostolic Writings, since the more accurate word for the "New Covenant" would be the "Renewed Covenant" . . as you well know, many unfulfilled prophecies remain in order for the "New Covenant" to be fully realized and the usage of the term "New Covenant" implies a replacement or ending of what these same people call the "Old" Covenant, meaning the shamar of Torah. W REPLY: Not really, the Noahadic Covenant was new to the Adamic, the Abrahamic was new to the Nohadic, etc..., they didn't replace those Covenants - but they were "New". And yes, It [N.T.] is progressive into the Reign of Mashiach Ben-David; but here we go again! - New Covenant/Testament is mentioned twice in Tanakh, and 8 times in the New Covenant Itself to refer to Itself. I don't have a problem with "New" Covenant, [but I do with "Old" Covenant - "OLDER" Covenant would be more accurate.] Don't tell me you're scared of yet another term that catholics have used/mis-used that is in the New Covenant text Itself! If it bothers you, say: Brit HaChadashah then. Gosh M., don't just define who you are by who you are not buddy :-) M> But you believe that Pesach or Havodalah could be referred to as a "communion" service? W REPLY: No M.. How many times do I have to say this! You can have: remembrance/fellowship-communion-koinonia [whatever you call it] ON THOSE days/observances; but why would you then refer to those days/observances themselves as a "communion-service"? Even the Kiddush on those days is NOT a "remembering" in and of itself, -UNLESS the Kiddush itself is sanctified for that purpose. Are you trying to say we should be calling these Holy-Days/observances "communion-services"? M> �W>Gosh, I know: just think, - one finally stops saying "easter/ishtar", and then finds oneself start saying: I'm going to a "tamuz" Rosh Kodesh service tonight; oy gavolt!<W� Rosh Chodesh is an ordained mitzvot that we are to observe . . . W REPLY: Of course M.! The point was a Rosh Kodesh service for the month of "TAMUZ"?! - I'd think HaShem would hate hearing us say that word as much as "ishtar". M> �W> so then why do you insist on throwing out everything that the Gentiles do, when they do believe in the same New Covenant that the Messianic's do, and not just throw out what they do that's pagan?!>W" Oh, but their interpretation of it differs greatly (hopefully) than does the understanding of the Messianics. For example: {...} The list could be very lenghty, but you get the point, why should be be concerned in the slightest way as to how these "nations (gentiles) worship their god?" W REPLY: That is EXACTLY the reason we should and my point! Aren't you and D. and C. glad that when you believed in God through "Jesus Christ" that both He and someone who followed Torah gently instructed you in those things you were in error in? Sure, we are to hate and run from pagan things. But aren't we to love and instruct those who oppose themselves? There is an agadah in Talmud that talks about two different approaches to this issue: everyone is on a ladder who seeks HaShem; and those higher on the ladder notice those struggling and in error, - one kicks him away and says [basically - I'm paraphrasing] your wrong, and I have more knowledge than you - get off the ladder, and he falls off. The other says: you're struggling, here, let me show you what your doing wrong and help you. [probably a reference to the attitudes of the House of Shammai & Hillel, but the illustration works here I think.] Israel was/is to be a "light to the Nations/Goyim", when someone of the Goyim call out to HaShem by the side of the road, and they are bleeding and wounded by their error - but they cry out to HaShem because they have read His Holy Word and desire to please Him, but they mix their prayer with pagan chants - should we teach them how to pray? - or kick them in the mouth! M> Of course, there are pagan reflections in Rabbinic Judaism. W REPLY: And then there are reflections that are not pagan. There is VERY VERY much in Rabbinic Judaism that is both helpful and in accord with Biblical-Judaism, and then there is that which is not. Which Rabbi's words do we follow... 1.) Those of the Reform, who's women Rabbi's go on TV with their pink-Tallit and Pink-Kippah? 2.) Maybe those of the Conservative, who's Rabbi's have decided that you can eat cheese made with PIG-rennet because it is less than the size of an olive? 3.) Or those of the South African Rabbi's, who have decided that the lobster is Kosher because it has shell-plates and flippers on it's stomach in lieu of scales and fins: because it is a major nation product of South Africa and everyone likes to eat it? 4.) Or the Lubavitch Rabbi's that declared Schneerson "the messiah" before he died, and caused such a stink in Israel with their posters, it's a wonder the rest of the Orthodox didn't stone them? 5.) Or maybe some of the Jews for Judaism Rabbi's, who HATE all Messianics regardless? What the Gentiles say that is wrong, it is wrong; what the Rabbi's say that is wrong, it is wrong. What they say that is right, it is right. But we are not to define ourselves by a walk that is at all defined by the words of men. - For we are to be who YHVH desires us to be and who He says we are. Let YHVH be true and every man a liar. Scripture tells us some of the teachers and prophets in the House of Israel in Tanakh didn't always walk/talk in accord with YHVH's Word, on those occasions where they were wrong, they were judged - and those who listened to them were brought into judgment as well. And it is the same today. It is the same with the Gentiles also; after the fall of the Yerushalayim Talmidim overseer-ship, the Gentile Congregations moved more and more into pagan practice, and so into dung; but they didn't start out that way. W REPLY CONTINUED: But following is the last I have to say on these things.... We should then as Biblically-Judaic Messianic Believers in YHVH love and cherish ALL of His Holy Word: The Torah as strands of gold that glue our broken clay-vessel back together, and that are woven into the very fabric of the universe. The Ketuvim as music that flows from the Tabernacle of David that had fallen and then been lifted-up; The Netuvim as the resounding of the sound of the Shofar from Heaven that both cuts and heals; Brit HaChadashah as the Shamash that lit the Menorah of the universe and sheds Light on all men. And then let the Ruach HaKodesh of YHVH Elohim lead & constrain & restrain us by His Word in the way we should go. Only then will we be able to discern the words of ALL men, - whether they are words as the moon which reflect the Light of the Word of YHVH Elohim and gives Him glory, - or are words empty as leaky vessels and dry as a river-bed in a drought. ============================= W RESPONSE> I hope you please read this carefully, as my last post was going to be my last on this subject; but that was to M., and this then is my last post to you on this subject.... First of all, I didn't say we should be calling the Moedim koinonia! I already said that in my last post and in the post before it. Pesach is Pesach, not koinonia. But when the Kiddish [DURING THE PESACH SERVICE} with the afikomen is sanctified by the Word - that is the "ACT". {However, you'll note that M. had asked me about the "act" as well - hence my additional comments.} If you'll look, in the prior post I also said that it might be a good idea to not call "the act" "communion" as that might lead some folks to think we were doing a "catholic trans-substation" service. That having been said, the things that you seem to still be upset about were already addressed - so your still being upset suggests to me - either you missed me saying those things, or there is still something more unspoken you're offended with surrounding this "act" perhaps. Regardless, the above having been said, based upon your stance - what you would still be upset about perhaps are my comments that: I'm not going to allow myself to be brought into condemnation by using a "word" {for example: telling a Gentile-Believer about "the act" from a Messianic perspective and using "communion" so he knows what I'm talking about} - and why am I not going to allow myself to be brought into condemnation for that? - because the word "koinonia" is used in conjunction with the "act" in the Greek Scriptures, whether or not the catholic church has misused it [and they have] or not. Since "koinonia" means "fellowship" as well, and to avoid confusion, saying a fellowship-Kiddish-remembrance might be not only more accurate, but avoid the trappings that were tacked on by the catholic-church, so people would not equate what we were doing with what the catholic-church is doing. When Sha'ul says: "...is it not the communion...", of course he is talking with a verb - not a noun. - as in: "... is it not the fellowship..."; and so the "Church" took the "verb" and used it to identify the "act". Had the KJV translators chosen "fellowship" in english instead of "communion" - then we'd be arguing about the word "fellowship" now! But my contention is: that we should not be dictated to by what the catholic church misused! Let me clarify: Even some of the earlier english translations of Rabbinic writings use "Christian" terms at times: I seem to recall the use of the word "reverend" and several others - now I'm not going to condemn them for using these, but it sure is strange to be reading Rabbinic commentary and see "Christian" terms. - Now you don't see that much anymore in later english translations and commentaries, but this is point one. Point two: I mainly don't use the word "disciple" [for example] but use the word: talmid, [for the same reasons/concerns you state] - and while I don't then use "disciple" as a matter of course, on occasion I may - for example: let's say we have a few families over for Erev Shabbat - and a couple of those families are new to Messianic-Biblical Judaism, now - if I'm talking to them and substitute every single word their familiar with into a Hebrew or Judaic expression - the conversation would go nowhere, because they'd have no idea what I was even referring to. [Would be kind of like a Christian trying to witness to a Jew and speaking in Christian terms or: "Greekeese" wouldn't it.] - so on these occasions, I'd bring up first to them that: I say Yeshua instead of Jesus as that was His given Name, and then I'd go on and probably use the word "disciple" if it came up in the course of our discussion. But would I condemn myself in this - NO, just because perhaps the catholic-church may have misunderstood/misused the english word translated "disciple", I'm NOT duty bound NOT to use it; though it is better I think to use: talmid. Now the above two examples are words that are in the Greek Scriptures; then we have another issue - words that aren't even found in Scripture. Such as "eucharist", or: "penance" [which carries with it the idea of the "suffering" for your sins, rather than the turning/returning - as in teshuvah - turning around]. These things I don't say at all. But it's another thing to use an english word that is in the KJV to clarify to someone what practices surrounding that "word" that they are in error in. Finally: an attitude I'm finding more and more in Messianic Judaism, is that some folks are doing or not doing something simply because the catholics, or other "Gentiles" ARE doing something. That's ok the majority of the time, but not always a safe course; and is rather lazy - for it is easier to define oneself as who they are NOT [as in looking outward] than to be in circumspection and see who they ARE [as in looking inward]. Rather it is WE that should be doing something Scripture based, THEN telling them where they are in error [but lovingly]. We want to show them where they are in error, not just conclude that they are 'stupid goyim'. [Not saying necessarily that that is your stance, but I overstate the case to make the point]. And then I see those who appear to be "playing Jewish", kind of like the hippies in the 60's liked to "dress up indian style"/{words to an old asylum choir song by Leon Russell}; and then another group that is so "amazed" by discovering that the Bible is Judaic, they hate themselves for how they were born as a Gentile - for example: I met one woman in a Messianic Congregation here {�}, who hated herself because she was born German [not even during the war] and simply could not get over it, almost a neuroses; but doesn't Scripture say that ...all the Nations/Goyim will bring their glory and honor.... And finally, some Messianics who seem to be so repulsed when they see the pagan additions in Christianity, that they embrace Rabbinic Judaism as the cure. - That helps somewhat - since they then see the Judaism they've been missing that was cut out of Christianity centuries ago and unto this very day, but if they embrace Rabbinic-Judaism with the same lack of circumspection they had just before embraced in Gentile-Christianity - then they are no better off really. - How can I say this? - Because not all that is in Rabbinic-Judaism is in accord with Biblical-Judaism. But how can that be one might say? - weren't they given the Sanhedrin and the Seat-of-Moshe? - Yes; but likewise the sages had that same position during all the later centuries of Tanakh - even during those many generations in Israel that did NOT follow YHVH, but went their own ways, taught in error, and spoke and followed their own words rather than the Word of YHVH Elohim. - And so exchanged the Truth of YHVH Elohim for a lie. This being true, should we now conclude then that all the words of the Rabbi's since the fall of the Temple are to be accorded a "sanction" that they are without error? - Isn't that what the catholic-church says of the words of the pope - that they are infallible? The Mishnah was to have been a fence, not the house; and the extra-Biblical writings of the sages must not be elevated to the level of Heavenly Scripture, no matter how "inspirational" they MAY be. Then the only answer I believe is this {below} that I concluded this discussion with to M..... We should then as Biblically-Judaic Messianic Believers in YHVH love and cherish ALL of His Holy Word: The Torah as strands of gold that glue our broken clay-vessel back together, and that are woven into the very fabric of the universe. The Ketuvim as music that flows from the Tabernacle of David that had fallen and then been lifted-up; The Netuvim as the resounding of the sound of the Shofar from Heaven that both cuts and heals; Brit HaChadashah as the Shamash that lit the Menorah of the universe and sheds Light on all men. And then let Ruach HaKodesh of YHVH Elohim lead & constrain & restrain us by His Word in the way we should go. Only then will we be able to discern the words of ALL men, - whether they are words that are as the moon which reflect the Light of the Word of YHVH Elohim and gives Him glory, - or are words empty as leaky vessels and dry as a river-bed in a drought. =========================== W WRITES: THE FOLLOWING TWO POSTS FROM ME ON THIS SUBJECT WERE TO HAVE BEEN MY LAST ON THIS, BUT I'LL COMMENT BRIEFLY ON YOUR LAST MESSAGE BELOW.... M> I understand that the discussions on the word "communion", as viewed by the church and noted in the apostolic writings has "ended". I would like to submit a final view of the Hebraic meanings of this word, as used in Torah. Exodus 33:8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise, and each person would stand near his own tent, gazing at Moses until he would come to his tent. Vehayah ketset Moshe el-ha'ohel yakumu kol-ha'am venitsvu ish petach aholo vehibitu acharey Moshe ad-bo'o ha'ohelah. 33:9 When Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the tent's entrance, and [God] would speak to Moses there. Vehayah kevo Moshe ha'ohelah yered amud he'anan ve'amad petach ha'ohel vediber im-Moshe. 30:16 You will take this atonement money from the Israelites and use it for making the Communion Tent. It will thus be a remembrance for the Israelites before God to atone for your lives. Velakachta et-kesef hakipurim me'et beney Yisra'el venatata oto al-avodat Ohel Mo'ed vehayah livney Yisra'el lezikaron lifney Adonay lechaper al-nafshoteychem. 30:36 Grind it very finely, and place it before the [Ark of] Testimony in the Communion Tent where I commune with you. It shall be holy of holies to you. The word is first used and translated as "communion" in Exodus 30:16. In Hebrew, it is zakron, a memorial, taken from the word zachor, to remember (which is what we are told to remind ourselves of - amalek - during the time of Purim).. Next, in 30:36 the word commune is taken from ya'ad. In both definitions, it refers to a set, appointed, assigned and agreed to times. {...} W REPLY: HOWEVER, THE WORD THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING AS TRANSLATED BY THE KJV FOLKS WAS THE ENGLISH WORD USED FOR THE GREEK WORD: "FELLOWSHIP" {GR.2842-KOINONIA}; NOT THE ENGLISH WORD THEY CHOOSE TO USE FOR THE HEBREW WORD: "REMEMBRANCE/MEMORIAL" {HEB.02142-ZIKROWN}. IN ORDER TO BE RELATIVE TO THE DISCUSSION, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE GREEK WORD: {GR.364-ANAMNESIS} WHICH IS TRANSLATED BY THE KJV FOLKS AS: REMEMBRANCE; HOWEVER THAT ISN'T USED THERE FOR THE ENGLISH WORD "COMMUNION" AND DOESN'T MEAN "MEMORIAL" IN GREEK, AS IT ISN'T THE GREEK WORD WHICH DOES MEAN: "MEMORIAL" {GR.3422-MNEMOSUNON} - WHICH HOWEVER ALSO ISN'T USED IN RELATION TO THE PASSAGES IN DISCUSSION. THAT BEING SAID... YOUR COMMENTS COULD BE INSTRUCTIVE THEN IN ADDRESSING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVING CHANGED PESACH/PASSOVER TO GOOD FRIDAY; BUT THEY ARE NOT RELATIVE TO THE "ACT" OF REMEMBRANCE AS GIVEN BY YESHUA MESSIAH AS A FURTHER SANCTIFICATION, BY THE WORD AND BY PRAYER, OF THE KIDDUSH. WHY? - BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES YESHUA TELLS US CONCERNING IT: "AS OFTEN AS" {GR.3740-302}; BUT WE SEE THAT IN BRIT HACHADASHAH, AND IN THE DIDACHE, THAT THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY HALACHAH FROM THE MESSIANIC-SANHEDRIN IN YERUSHALAYIM TO ALLOW IT ON HAVDALAH INSTEAD OF JUST ON PESACH. - AND EVEN YOU BY YOUR PRIOR POSTS MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR IT EVEN ON SEVERAL MOEDIM. THEREFORE: IT IS AN "ACT" SANCTIFIED BY THE-WORD AND BY PRAYER, THAT IS A "REMEMBRANCE" THAT CAN BE OFFERED TO YHVH AT ANY-TIME! - EVEN AS IN TORAH WE SEE THAT A "FREEWILL OFFERING", NEDABAH, WAS TO BE OFFERED IN THANKSGIVING IN THE TEMPLE BY THOSE WHO'D BRING IT IN REMEMBRANCE "FREELY", -WHICH FURTHER MAKES SENSE, SINCE: - IF IT WAS "SET" AND "UNMOVABLE", - THEN NOT ONLY WOULD SHA'ULs COMMENTS MAKE NO SENSE THAT A MAN FIRST EXAMINE HIMSELF {FOR IF IT WAS "SET AND UNMOVABLE" - THEN THE VERY ACT OF "NOT" DOING IT WOULD IN ITSELF BE A WRONG MOTIVE!}, IT WOULD ALSO THEN BE CONSTRAINED. - BUT SINCE IT IS "FREEWILL" - IT REQUIRES THAT A MAN FIRST EXAMINE HIMSELF IN PRESENTING HIMSELF. A FREEWILL OFFERING WAS NOT CONSTRAINED, - THAT FACT IN ITSELF SHOULD SPEAK, TO THOSE WHO CAN HEAR IT, OF THE LIBERTY THAT WE HAVE IN THIS IN YESHUA MESSIAH. {�} M> I choose to observe the set times, (set by YHVH) and choose to deny that something was added or changed by the Ruakh in the apostolic writings. W REPLY: Then you chose wrongly! Even Torah and Tanakh Itself shows that YHVH can add to His Word: Wasn't Pesach added to the worship of YHVH as done prior by Avraham and his descendents; wasn't Shavout added to Moshe and the children of Israel in the wilderness? Did Purim appear as an "addition" simply by the hand of man - or was it sanctified by YHVH when spoken of to the Children of Israel in Tanakh. Did the Scribe Ezra in the Prophets add to the Word of HaShem when now the children of the father were cast out, but formerly the children of the father of a woman of another nation taken in battle were allowed in Torah? - Did the name and heritage now pass through the mother or the father? - Didn't HaShem allow this in His Holy Word. But you will say the very HaRuach of YHVH cannot add more Mitzvout unto His Holy Mitzvout in His Word? Even the Rabbi's go beyond this and say that when Messiah comes He will have a new Heavenly Torah: "The Torah which a man learns in this world is but vanity compared with the Torah of Messiah" Midrash Qohelet on Eccl. 11:8." But basically what you're saying is: YHVH by Moshe can add to His Word with observances and revelations that weren't given to Avraham; - and YHVH can add to His Word by the mouth of the Prophets; but Yeshua Messiah Himself - The Living Davar/Memra/Word of YHVH Elohim - can't Himself add to The Word of YHVH Elohim?! M> I also reject that one can arbitrarily serve Him correctly in whatever manner he decides. W REPLY: No one said this; I'm not the one saying "arbitrarily" at all. As there were rules for the "freewill" offering, so were there rules for the "remembrance", {or as the Gentile's have chosen to call it via KJV: "Communion"}; - not rules of the catholic-church mind you, - but of The Word and Injunctions in the New Covenant Itself. Rather it would seem to be you who follow a "arbitrary" observance - when you say that a vague acknowledgement of any Kiddush on a Holy Day is by default the Sanctified "Act" as prescribed during the Pesach by Yeshua Messiah Himself. - A act which is a Kodesh-Kodeshim if you will, or a Sanctifying of the Sanctified, - a further setting-apart of the Kiddush, - both by The Word and by Prayer/Blessing. For if any Kiddush on a Holy Day is this "Act of Remembrance" - then it is an observance by constraint - in that those days are ordained as being required to be observed - rather than "freewill" by the heart of those who partake freely. And if the Kiddush is this "Act", without it being Sanctified as such, - then no man would need examine himself as Sha'ul enjoins - as all are constrained and are required to partake of the Mitzvout of the Moedim; and if Kiddush is this "Act" by default, without the Sanctification: - then we defraud those who are not in right standing with Elohim, or are outside of the Body of Messiah, - as they then have no opportunity to examine themselves as Sha'ul says they must, and if so not partake. For further example: please tell us where is the Afikomen spoken of ANYWHERE in Rabbinic Lit. - {except outside of the New Covenant} - before late-Talmudic times! - Do you think something as important as part of the Pesach Seder would have been overlooked by the Sages - unless is WAS first begun by Yeshua Messiah Himself?! Seems to me then that Messiah is not only able to "add" to His Word, - but to even allow the Rabbi's to adopt certain Messianic practice{s} - even though they didn't/don't receive it in the same Light as were Its origins. M> "Let us make up phoney feasts, and meaningless ceremonies" W REPLY: I think here is the heart of your problem; you are looking at things that come out of the New Covenant Scriptures as 'phoney and meaningless' if they were ever applied or practiced, {albeit wrongly}, by the catholic's/gentile-Christians. Let's just forget the fact that I keep quoting the Words of Yeshua Messiah and Sha'ul in the New Covenant then; or that of writings by the Talmidim before the close of the 1st century AD/Ce regarding this matter; or that I'm talking about a literal application based upon Scripture - and NOT about the edicts of trent - as you can't seem to separate. Now folks - I've tried not to be negligent in discussing this matter; and I believe that if anyone reads over the last 10 or so posts I've given on this important subject, they can both see my heart on the matter - and discern based upon the Word of YHVH Elohim whether these things I've said are in line with Scripture or not. However - I'm not going to post on this subject anymore. Don't construe my silence as acknowledgement of anyone's argument; - but I believe this discussion will digress into endless debate and not edify the Body of Messiah should it be allowed to continue in this way. |
|
| To Home Page: |
|
| To Prior Page: |
|