quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:


Wow, I was really taken back by your post; and not in a good way, I'm afraid. I'd like to point out some major errors in what you said. First, let's look at the "quote" you attributed to Christ at the Last Supper. You said that Jesus said, "This bread which used to represent the Passover lamb which was sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to Egypt, now represents my body which will be sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to sin." Jesus did NOT say any of that. No account from the Gospels gives that quote or anything even close to that quote. I copied and pasted it into google and found nothing but a link to your post. It is completely and totally fabricated. How can we have an open and honest discussion about the Eucharist if you are going to just make stuff up?

I stand by my statement about the New Covenant being a sacrament before it was a document, according to the document. Which leads me to addressing your second point. The early Christians were absolutely Catholic in their practices and were absolutely practicing liturgical worship. Its in the Bible, meaning that it predates the Bible. Here is a quick summary I put together.

Evidence for Liturgical Worship in Early Christianity:

1. New Testament Descriptions
Acts 2:42 says the early Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers" — indicating a recognizable and repeatable form of worship.

1 Corinthians 11 and 14 refer to structured worship gatherings, including the Lord’s Supper and orderly use of spiritual gifts, suggesting an early liturgical rhythm.


2. Jewish Roots
Early Christians were largely Jewish and continued to worship in synagogues and the Temple (Acts 3:1). Jewish worship was liturgical — including fixed prayers, psalms, and readings — and this influenced Christian worship deeply.



Spreading the Gospel is spreading the New Covenant. Not the Bible.

1) I guess it wasn’t obvious enough but I was editorializing. I figure anyone familiar with the gospels in the New Testament would know those words weren’t recorded. But to the point I am making, I would say to you read the origins of Passover Seder in the Old Testament (Exodus 12, Levitus 23:4-8; Numbers 9:1-14, 28:16, and Deuteronomy 16:1-5, 16). I would also invite you to research on the web and learn how Orthodox Jews celebrate the Passover Seder. You will see the steps that I described in their Seder without, of course, any reference to Jesus.

2) I’m not arguing that Christians don’t have liturgies. I was responding to your paragraph where you said, “Jesus left beautiful and meaningful traditions. … Early Christians were Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship.”

The book of Acts is all about the early church and the first Christians. I encourage you to read it. The early Christians were all Jews starting with the apostles, the early disciples, the disciples that were converted on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-5). There were many Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost because it is one of three festivals when Jews are commanded to go to Jerusalem.

If you read Acts, you would read that Jesus wasn’t about leaving them with “beautiful and meaningful traditions.” He left them with two traditions, if you will, baptism and communion. I’d rather think of them as commandments. Communion, we already covered. Baptism was included with His commandment to the first disciples and all disciples to follow even to this day. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commanded His disciples to “Go and make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you.”

And Acts portrays these things. And what the disciples got was persecution and martyrdom. I pointed out Christians were persecuted and killed in the Roman Colosseum of Rome and they were burned alive in the gardens of the Roman Emperor Nero. These were the early Christians long before there was St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Emperor Nero reigned from 54 to 68 AD. St. Peter’s Basilica was built in the 4th century (around 319 - 326 AD) by Emperor Constantine. These are historical facts you can verify independently.

3) I don’t know what you mean by “spreading the New Covenant.” And I also never said spreading the gospel is spreading the Bible.1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says that the gospel which means good news is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day.” And the rest of the chapter says this good news is the believe’s hope of inheriting the kingdom of God. Romans 1:26 says “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of Godfor salvation to everyone who believes.” By the way, the quotes in this post contain no editorializing. That’s what the Bible says is spreading the gospel - sharing the good news that “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


1) I guess it wasn’t obvious enough but I was editorializing. I figure anyone familiar with the gospels in the New Testament would know those words weren’t recorded. But to the point I am making, I would say to you read the origins of Passover Seder in the Old Testament (Exodus 12, Levitus 23:4-8; Numbers 9:1-14, 28:16, and Deuteronomy 16:1-5, 16). I would also invite you to research on the web and learn how Orthodox Jews celebrate the Passover Seder. You will see the steps that I described in their Seder without, of course, any reference to Jesus.

2) I’m not arguing that Christians don’t have liturgies. I was responding to your paragraph where you said, “Jesus left beautiful and meaningful traditions. … Early Christians were Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship.”

The book of Acts is all about the early church and the first Christians. I encourage you to read it. The early Christians were all Jews starting with the apostles, the early disciples, the disciples that were converted on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-5). There were many Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost because it is one of three festivals when Jews are commanded to go to Jerusalem.

If you read Acts, you would read that Jesus wasn’t about leaving them with “beautiful and meaningful traditions.” He left them with two traditions, if you will, baptism and communion. I’d rather think of them as commandments. Communion, we already covered. Baptism was included with His commandment to the first disciples and all disciples to follow even to this day. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commanded His disciples to “Go and make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you.”

And Acts portrays these things. And what the disciples got was persecution and martyrdom. I pointed out Christians were persecuted and killed in the Roman Colosseum of Rome and they were burned alive in the gardens of the Roman Emperor Nero. These were the early Christians long before there was St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Emperor Nero reigned from 54 to 68 AD. St. Peter’s Basilica was built in the 4th century (around 319 - 326 AD) by Emperor Constantine. These are historical facts you can verify independently.

3) I don’t know what you mean by “spreading the New Covenant.” And I also never said spreading the gospel is spreading the Bible.1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says that the gospel which means good news is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day.” And the rest of the chapter says this good news is the believe’s hope of inheriting the kingdom of God. Romans 1:26 says “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of Godfor salvation to everyone who believes.” By the way, the quotes in this post contain no editorializing. That’s what the Bible says is spreading the gospel - sharing the good news that “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

No, you weren't editorializing. You were misquoting. I knew what you were trying to do, but when you are trying to make persuasive arguments, you can't do that and expect to not get called out on it. It's dishonest. It would be like me saying that Jesus said, "You are Peter and you are the Pope in which I will found the Roman Catholic Church." He didn't say that and it wouldn't be an honest way to present my argument. When you throw in words like "symbolizes" into the Last Supper discourse, you are just spreading protestant nonsense.

I am familiar with the book of Acts. There are plenty of references to the traditions of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments in the Bible. And, yes, Jesus did leave them with traditions. Jesus did not leave a book. He did not leave a "message" per se, he left Apostles who had a mission. That mission is found in what is known as the Great Commission.
“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'"

To observe all that He taught means to celebrate the Sacraments. To celebrate the Mass. The Breaking of the Bread. You don't observe a book. You don't observe lines from the bible. You observe a Tradition, you observe Sacraments. And while all seven Sacraments are found in scripture, they don't have to be. The notion of Sola Scriptures, or Bible Alone, Christians are preposterous for several reasons. One being, as I pointed out, that the bible didn't come to be for 4 centuries. Additionally, nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can only believe things that are in the Bible. And to your point about St. Peter's basilica, what does that have to do with anything? Nobody has argued that the Catholic Church is St. Peter's basilica.

Here are some of the Biblical references to the Sacraments for those who care to see them.

1. Baptism
Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”

John 3:5 – “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins.”

Romans 6:3–4 – “We were buried… with him by baptism into death…”

2. Confirmation
Acts 8:14–17 – Apostles lay hands on baptized believers, and they receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:5–6 – Paul lays hands on them, and they receive the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 6:1–2 – Mentions “the laying on of hands” as foundational.

3. Eucharist
Matthew 26:26–28 – “This is my body… this is my blood…”

John 6:51–58 – “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood…”

1 Corinthians 10:16 – “The cup of blessing… the bread that we break…”

1 Corinthians 11:23–29 – Paul recounts the Last Supper and warns about receiving unworthily.

4. Reconciliation (Confession)
John 20:22–23 – “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven…”

James 5:16 – “Confess your sins to one another…”

2 Corinthians 5:18 – “God… gave us the ministry of reconciliation.”

5. Anointing of the Sick
James 5:14–15 – “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call the elders… anointing him with oil…”

Mark 6:13 – “They anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.”

6. Holy Orders
Luke 22:19 – “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Apostles at the Last Supper)

John 20:21–23 – Jesus sends the apostles to forgive sins.

1 Timothy 4:14 – “Do not neglect the gift… given you through prophecy with the laying on of hands.”

Acts 6:6, 13:3 – Apostles lay hands on those being set apart for ministry.

7. Matrimony
Genesis 2:24 – “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife…”

Matthew 19:5–6 – “What God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Ephesians 5:25–32 – Marriage as a symbol of Christ and the Church.


And finally, what I mean by spreading the New Covenant. The words Covenant and Testament are used interchangeably. I prefer the more ancient translation of Covenant to Testament because it shows the continuation of a covenantial bond between God and man.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I asked the Pastor of the church I attend about communion specifically. What he said surprised me, in that it is not entirely dissimilar from Catholic tradition.

He said communion is an ordinance that serves to memorialize Jesus' actions during the Last Supper.

He said that someone must be saved and thoroughly repentant in order to (properly) participate. This seems to parallel the Catholic requirement that communion participants be in a "state of grace". All of this is made clear to the congregation during the moments preceding the communion.

He referred me to 1 Corinthians 11, as a scriptural reference. This scripture in itself is more evidence that Churches were performing something akin to a Eucharistic Sacrament in the early church.

Our church performs communion roughly quarterly. I say roughly because he said he doesn't adhere to strict schedule, when it comes to communion.

He gave me the impression that he takes it quite seriously, and that is part of why he chooses to make it more infrequent than some other churches.

I look forward to my first communion as an honest believer. Though I have taken communion many times in my youth, this will be the first time that it'll come with the weight of it's intended meaning, as motivated by The Spirit now residing in me.

I remember when I had briefly fallen away from the Catholic Church and attended a Baptist Church with my wife and her family, I wondered about the "Lords Supper" tradition that they followed. I was just starting to look into Catholicism again because I heard the pastor, who was a very charismatic and popular preacher, say some things that I knew were not true about the Catholic faith in a sermon (which seemed to be a recurring theme for him).

So I asked about it and got a very lackluster and confusing answer, not dissimilar to the one you got from your pastor. Coincidentally, in the Sunday School Bible study that we attended after service we were going over the book of John. I liked it because it was very in-depth. Combing over ever verse and what it meant was great. Chapter one, beautiful. chapter two, great... And so on. Until we got to Chapter six. Let's get through chapter 6 quickly. Then back to the verse-by-verse study. It was about that time that I realized that no protestant denomination could square the Eucharist with their modern communion traditions... If they had one at all.

Then I got into the physical evidence, which I have mentioned before. Eucharistic Miracles blew me away. I tried really hard to disprove them, but I couldn't honestly do it. I could say "no way" in my head, but I couldn't come up with a real explanation.

I'll leave it with this: When you start using words like memorialize and symbolize, you are directly contradicting Christ in John 6. People walked away from Him because of what he was saying... And he let them go.

A few thoughts on the matter, in the wake of that conversation with the pastor and the reply from Cous2492:

My pastor was adamant, as he is when discussing baptism, that communion has no "saving value". This is obviously dissimilar from the Catholic belief that sacraments "impart grace" upon participants/recipients. This brings us back to whether Catholic sacraments have any meaning for individuals who are not "saved", or who don't believe. Where Eucharist is concerned, I don't know how you could be in a "state of grace" if you don't believe (in your heart) in the Triune God in the first place. This is the primary reason I find salvation-focused preaching in Baptist churches so compelling. When we concern ourselves with the foundational aspect of salvation in Christ above all else, we enable people to start their honest relationship with, and growth in, Christ.

I did have the thought that the tradition of communion and the Eucharist would be lent significance if the OT Jews ate of their sin and guilt offerings. I had to refresh my memory; they did not eat of those offerings. Jesus is the Lamb; a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Had it been customary to eat of such a sacrifice, the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood would have been highly logical. Though the OT did not have good things to say about consuming the blood of anything.

I thought that my pastor's response to my query was honest, thorough, and thoughtful; not lackluster and confusing. Neither this pastor, nor any of our church's deacons I have ever spoken with concerning Catholic/Protestant differences have ever had anything negative to say about the Catholic church. They have expressed a degree of misunderstanding and confusion, but never condemnation, and certainly not from the pulpit.

I am not an accomplished bible scholar. I am not even what I'd call "well-read" yet. I know a recurring point of contention in these discussions is how we decide which pieces we take at their literal face value, and which we deem symbolic, analogous, or metaphorical. Cous2492 takes John 6 literally, while many others obviously deem it symbolic in nature. Presumably there are verses and chapters which those who literally interpret John 6 assign symbolic value instead.

I maintain my firm stance on this quote from my previous post...

quote:

Mere belief is more without communion (The Eucharist) than communion is without belief.

We, as believers, have much to gain by this discussion. I have become very grateful for the fact that I have experienced both Catholic and Protestant belief. However, for non-believers, discussions like this likely hurt more than they help. For me personally, the Holy Spirit working in/through the Protestant (Southern Baptist) church is what led me to Christ. I don't withhold credit from my Catholic upbringing, but the Baptist way is what brought me home. I may very-well end up back in a Catholic church. If I do, I'll darn sure not forget or discount the Baptist belief that brought me to honest belief in the Triune God.

One more thing, concerning the Eucharist: When it comes to transubstantiation, why on earth would Christ not have transubstantiated the bread and wine during the last supper?

I appreciate the ongoing conversation. I am not attempting to undermine anyone's belief in anything. I am not firmly planted in any one place, other than my foundational stance, which is represented by my self-quote. That stance applies to everything; not just communion.

Christ did not say “This bread is representative of my flesh.”

Nor did he say “This wine is representative of my blood.”

I don't think belief in the Eucharist is wrong. I don't even disagree with transubstantiation; the evidence in eucharistic miracles and Aglifter's point above offer enough on their own to make disputing it pretty darn difficult.

I suppose I do take issue with the implication that participation in the specifically Catholic sacrament is necessary for me to be a "proper" Christian. But even that is not a hill I would die on at this point in time.

My research and, I hope, the discussion are ongoing.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

No, you weren't editorializing. You were misquoting. I knew what you were trying to do, but when you are trying to make persuasive arguments, you can't do that and expect to not get called out on it. It's dishonest.

I am familiar with the book of Acts. There are plenty of references to the traditions of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments in the Bible. And, yes, Jesus did leave them with traditions.

And finally, what I mean by spreading the New Covenant. The words Covenant and Testament are used interchangeably. I prefer the more ancient translation of Covenant to Testament because it shows the continuation of a covenantial bond between God and man.

I already said what I did. Are you saying I was deliberately misleading you? That would be a deception as in a sin, yes? But how can I mislead you on what Jesus actually said when anyone can actually check what the records say?

And, if you look at what I said:

quote:

So Jesus took that bread and was saying, "This bread which used to represent the Passover lamb...

I didn't say, "SO Jesus took that bread and said,"

I'll just let LLM explain my position.

With the early Christians being Jews, are you still believing the early Christians were Roman Catholic Christians?

As for according to you, spreading the Gospel is spreading the New Covenant, not the Bible. I find it somewhat humorous that you explain that the words Covenant and Testament are used interchangeably. Because following the rule of interchangeability that you mention, you originally said, "Spreading the Gospel is spreading the New Covenant. Not the Bible." Substituting Testament for Covenant, the equivalent of what you said is, "Spreading the Gospel is spreading the New Testament. Not the Bible."

I'm sure you see the irony in that the New Testament is what we call the second half of the Bible. But I'm sure you mean something totally else and much more profound.

We can just agree to disagree because there's no point in you continuing to discuss with someone who intentionally misquotes something that Jesus is recorded to have said in order to mislead you, right?

Cous2492,

Why were you temporarily attending a Baptist church? What caused your "falling away"?

Also, have you had a "salvation experience"? As in an identifiable point in time that was transformative for you, in which you acknowledged the truth of your salvation in Christ?

To Rey, I don't really think it's productive to get into what you claim was editorializing vs misquoting. My point is that when you put a line in quotes and attribute it to Jesus, it is not an honest representation. To someone who is not well versed in the Gospel, you could very well mislead them and sway them into error. Whether it was a misquote or some type of editorialization, it's irresponsible. Either way, it's not even a fair editorialization. Jesus didn't mean it was a representation or a symbol.

To KSGM,

I fell away after high school as so many do in those years. It was a "I know better than everyone else" moment, probably definable as agnostic. About 5 years or so, I'd guess. My "Salvation" moment was very unmemorable, being gifted to me by my parents as a baby. It continued through my formative years, but got lost on me in High School. Thankfully, the spark remained with me, despite my best (really worst) efforts to lose it. So I don't have a salvation moment to reminisce about, but I do have a Prodigal Son moment. I came home after being away for years, and was accepted by a loving and merciful Father. I don't look at salvation as a moment, although it could be. For many, it's a journey. Full of ups and downs, both swimming in grace and drowning in sin (and boy am I thankful for the sacrament of confession... I need it WAY more than I should). I keep my eyes on Christ, strengthened by the Eucharist, encouraged by the Saints, and accepting of God's mercy.

The Eucharist is really the key to making it all make sense. If Christ is God, and if God can become a man (which Christians already affirm in the Incarnation), then God can certainly become present under the appearance of bread and wine. The idea is no more absurd than the Incarnation itself. Jesus says, “This is my body… This is my blood.” If He is God, then His words do not merely describe reality—they create it. As someone once put it: Jesus doesn’t give us a metaphor; He gives us Himself. Would a mere symbol satisfy Christ’s command in John 6: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”? If He meant it only symbolically, why did so many disciples walk away—and why didn’t He correct them?

No other denomination has the Eucharist the way the Catholic Church has the Eucharist. No other Church even claims to have the same thing. The Lords Supper isn't the same. The Lutheran Communion isn't the same. Not only do they not even claim to have the real presence, they don't have the apostolic authority to consecrate.

You may end up back in the Catholic Church. If you do, the best parts of your Baptist journey will not be lost—they’ll be fulfilled. As a friend said of conversion: "I did not become a Catholic to stop being an Evangelical. I became a Catholic to become a more complete Evangelical."

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
To Rey, I don't really think it's productive to get into what you claim was editorializing vs misquoting. My point is that when you put a line in quotes and attribute it to Jesus, it is not an honest representation. To someone who is not well versed in the Gospel, you could very well mislead them and sway them into error. Whether it was a misquote or some type of editorialization, it's irresponsible. Either way, it's not even a fair editorialization. Jesus didn't mean it was a representation or a symbol.

But you did accuse me of misquoting. I understand where you’re coming from; I said previously I was born and raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school. I was growing up when they switched the mass from Latin and the priest doing the mass with his back to the people to English with the priest facing the table.

You say it’s not a fair editorialization because Jesus didn’t mean it was a representation or a symbol.

But that is what is at issue between us. I am saying that Jesus replaced the symbolism of two of the elements in the Passover meal and your position is that Jesus literally turned the bread and the wine into his body and his blood, either during the meal itself or sometime afterwards did he gave the power to transubstantiate the elements. When you have a disagreement on whether something is A or B, you can’t logically prove the other side is wrong because it disagrees with your position.

And you being a practicing Roman Catholic, I know I won’t dissuade you because it will be the beginning of you not being a practicing Roman Catholic.

But from my point of view, I know we can agree it was the Passover Seder where Jesus took the bread and wine in question. We know this from Mark 14:12 “ On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?”” We also know this from Matthew 26:18, Luke 22:8-11, and John 13. That’s a given.

The thing that is missing is you having an understanding of the Passover Seder that was commanded to be kept ever since that first Passover. If you would study it yourself, you would see the tradition of the order of the meal and all the elements of the Passover meal passed down from generation to generation is full of symbolism from a Jewish point of view but those very elements are easily relatable from a Christian perspective. Just any one element would strike a chord with any Christian contemplating it, let alone the complete meal. You can fact check me on this regarding the Passover Seder. It is but one of many points connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
To Rey, I don't really think it's productive to get into what you claim was editorializing vs misquoting. My point is that when you put a line in quotes and attribute it to Jesus, it is not an honest representation. To someone who is not well versed in the Gospel, you could very well mislead them and sway them into error. Whether it was a misquote or some type of editorialization, it's irresponsible. Either way, it's not even a fair editorialization. Jesus didn't mean it was a representation or a symbol.

But you did accuse me of misquoting. I understand where you’re coming from; I said previously I was born and raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school. I was growing up when they switched the mass from Latin and the priest doing the mass with his back to the people to English with the priest facing the table.

You say it’s not a fair editorialization because Jesus didn’t mean it was a representation or a symbol.

But that is what is at issue between us. I am saying that Jesus replaced the symbolism of two of the elements in the Passover meal and your position is that Jesus literally turned the bread and the wine into his body and his blood, either during the meal itself or sometime afterwards did he gave the power to transubstantiate the elements. When you have a disagreement on whether something is A or B, you can’t logically prove the other side is wrong because it disagrees with your position.

And you being a practicing Roman Catholic, I know I won’t dissuade you because it will be the beginning of you not being a practicing Roman Catholic.

But from my point of view, I know we can agree it was the Passover Seder where Jesus took the bread and wine in question. We know this from Mark 14:12 “ On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?”” We also know this from Matthew 26:18, Luke 22:8-11, and John 13. That’s a given.

The thing that is missing is you having an understanding of the Passover Seder that was commanded to be kept ever since that first Passover. If you would study it yourself, you would see the tradition of the order of the meal and all the elements of the Passover meal passed down from generation to generation is full of symbolism from a Jewish point of view but those very elements are easily relatable from a Christian perspective. Just any one element would strike a chord with any Christian contemplating it, let alone the complete meal. You can fact check me on this regarding the Passover Seder. It is but one of many points connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament.

I am, admittedly, not an expert on the Jewish customs of the Passover Meal. I have read that there are differences between the original Exodus meal, the Passover meal celebrated by Jews in Jesus' time, and the modern Seder. The ins and outs and particulars are kind of confusing, especially considering the changes that were made about 30 years after Jesus. I know that the description you gave of the Seder several posts ago sound more like the modern Seder than the less formal/structured Passover meal celebrated by Jews in Jesus' time. Like I said, I am not sure on the particulars because the Passover meal is no longer relevant. The Passover meal foreshadowed the Eucharist.

Scott Hahn has an excellent book called "The Fourth Cup" in which he explains that the Crucifixion was a continuation of the Last Supper, and that they were not two separate events. This would match perfectly with the Catholic tradition. The basic premise being that when Jesus said that He would not drink the fruit of the vine until that day when He drinks it in the Kingdom, it tied the Last Supper to the Cross, when Jesus is given the sour wine on the sponge and says, "It is finished." Hahn shows that the New Covenant Jesus instituted at the Last Supper wasn’t just symbolic—it was sealed in His blood on the Cross.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

I am, admittedly, not an expert on the Jewish customs of the Passover Meal. I have read that there are differences between the original Exodus meal, the Passover meal celebrated by Jews in Jesus' time, and the modern Seder. The ins and outs and particulars are kind of confusing, especially considering the changes that were made about 30 years after Jesus. I know that the description you gave of the Seder several posts ago sound more like the modern Seder than the less formal/structured Passover meal celebrated by Jews in Jesus' time. Like I said, I am not sure on the particulars because the Passover meal is no longer relevant. The Passover meal foreshadowed the Eucharist.

Scott Hahn has an excellent book called "The Fourth Cup" in which he explains that the Crucifixion was a continuation of the Last Supper, and that they were not two separate events. This would match perfectly with the Catholic tradition. The basic premise being that when Jesus said that He would not drink the fruit of the vine until that day when He drinks it in the Kingdom, it tied the Last Supper to the Cross, when Jesus is given the sour wine on the sponge and says, "It is finished." Hahn shows that the New Covenant Jesus instituted at the Last Supper wasn’t just symbolic—it was sealed in His blood on the Cross.

Please allow me to share some of what I've come across. I'm not trying to debate or convince you or anyone else; I just enjoy geeking over Passover from a Christian perspective as much as I do over Excel spreadsheets. Think of it as just shooting the breeze and I'm simply aiming to provide a bit infotainment.

You're correct that there were distinct changes in the observance of Passover. It's reasonable to assume that there wasn't any formal tradition or ceremony during the original Passover. The first Passover occurred during the tenth plague that struck Egypt, as part of the process of the Israelites being freed from slavery.

Although the previous nine plagues were equally miraculous and significant, they failed to persuade Pharaoh to release the Jews. In fact, the recitation of the ten plagues is now included in the Passover Seder, as part of the main section - the Telling.

According to the instructions for the first Passover meal, the Israelites were told to eat the Passover lamb with their garments belted, sandals on their feet, and staff in hand. They were to eat it hurriedly, because after the final plague -- which killed every first born in Egypt except in the homes marked with the lamb's blood on the lintel, threshold, and two door posts -- they would finally be freed from slavery (Exodus 12:1-13).

The Passovers after that first no longer required participants to be dressed for travel and eat in haste -- they were already free. It evolved into a more relaxed, festive, and thankful celebration. Part of the Passover Seder involves participants leaning to the left or reclining symbolizing the freedom to dine leisurely -- something only free people do.

The first Passover, on the eve of the Israelites' exodus from slavery, is traditionally dated to around 1446 BCE. The next major change didn't occur until 957 BCE when the First Temple was built (1 Kings 6-8; 2 Chronicles 3-7). With the temple in place, the Passover lambs had to be sacrificed there, in accordance with the command in Deuteronomy 16:5-6 "You are not allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your towns which the Lord your God is giving you; but only at the place where the Lord your God chooses to establish His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover in the evening at sunset, at the time that you came out of Egypt."

The next significant shift in the observance of Passover came with the destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian exile around 586 BCE, as described in 2 Kings 25. Without the temple, the Passover lamb could no longer be sacrificed, and the Seder had to be adapted accordingly.

After the return from exile and the construction of the Second Temple around 516 BCE (described in Ezra 1-6), the proper place for the sacrifice was restored. This practice continued through the time of Jesus until the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, an event Jesus had prophesied in Matthew 24:1-2. Once again, without the Temple, the Passover lamb cannot be sacrificed and in its place, a lamb shank bone is traditionally placed on the Seder plate to represent the Passover lamb.

While the Passover Seder has been shaped by centuries of Jewish tradition and historical developments -- and while different Jewish communities have added their own customs and interpretations -- there is as little variation as there is in the gospel narratives. Though the four Gospels contain distinct differences, the core truths are consistent and the variations can be harmonized. Similarly, although the Passover Seder may differ across time, regions, and communities, its main components remain intact.

It's also notable that the Israelites have been meticulous in safeguarding the transmission and accuracy of the Old Testament from its beginnings to today. These are the same people who carefully cataloged the 613 commandments contained in the first five books of the Bible known as the Torah. In addition, ancient Jewish scribes followed extremely strict protocols when copying Scripture by hand—counting every letter and word to ensure precision, and discarding entire scrolls if even a single error was found. This rigorous approach reflects their deep reverence for the text and their dedication to preserving it exactly as received.

To say that the Passover meal is no longer relevant is essentially saying the Old Testament is no longer relevant. Yet there are still aspects of both the Passover meal and the Old Testament that remain unfulfilled - the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of His kingdom. The Old Testament contains details about the Second Coming and the last days that are not covered or repeated in the New Testament.

As for relevance, consider the four cups of wine used during the Passover meal. This first link is from a strictly Jewish perspective -- a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish site. What is the significance of the four cups of wine. The second link is from a Christian ministry, offering a perspective on the Passover and the Four Cups. It came up in my search today and reflects the views of many Christians who have studied the topic. My perspective is not unique, but part of a broader conversation among those who see deep meaning in the tradition.

Both sources mention that the four cups of wine in the Passover Seder are derived from the four promises of God in Exodus 6:6-7:

1. I will bring you out.

2. I will rescue you.

3. I will redeem you.

4. I will take you.

Regarding the fourth cup of wine, you are correct that most scholars believe this is the cup Jesus referred to when He said , "Truly I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again, until that day when I drink it, new, in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25)."

Interestingly, some Jewish communities abstain from drinking the fourth cup, viewing it as a symbol of messianic redemption yet to be fulfilled. This cup is typically filled after the Cup of Elijah, which is reserved specifically for the prophet Elijah. Once it is filled, the door of the home is opened to symbolically invite Elijah in, as it is believed he will announce the coming of Messiah. This tradition stems from the prophesy in Malachi 4:5-6: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD and he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

By abstaining from consuming the fourth cup, those who do so are symbolically expressing their faith and hope in the future fulfillment of the fourth promise: I will take you.

In light of all this, Passover has significance and enduring relevance -- not only for the Jews who observe it, but also as a continuing witness for Christians. It's a living tradition passed down through thousands of years, looking back to the history of God's faithfulness in delivering His people while also pointing forward to the ultimate fulfillment of His promise of complete deliverance. God has proven Himself faithful in the past and we can trust Him to remain faithful today, tomorrow, and forever. Whether viewed through a Jewish or Christian lens, Passover stands as both a remembrance of what has been and an anticipation of what is yet to come.

The Passover Seder no longer being relevant may have been a poor choice of words on my part. The Passover is not irrelevant — it's essential for understanding the meaning of the Eucharist. But in Catholic theology, it has been transcended by something greater: the real, sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which brings about the eternal redemption that the Passover only anticipated.

A thought of mine:

It could happen anywhere, of course; to you alone, or any assembly of people. We'll say it happens at church...

The Triune God makes himself manifest to the congregation, flanked by viewing windows into both the sweetness of heaven, and the fires of hell.

What effect would this have on you? Would you be compelled to drop every sinful aspect of your life as you know it? Would you be emboldened to witness and spread the good news? Would you worship with intensity for the rest of your worldly life?

What you've just witnessed is nothing more than what you already profess to believe. What does that mean about your belief, that you'd potentially act different in the wake of such an event, even though you know it to be true already?

The (fortunate) tribulation population.

Compared to the population as we know it now, the folks who are (un)lucky enough to be alive during the tribulation will be overwhelmingly achieving their eternity in heaven. They'll witness first-hand the power of God while being ministered-to by an elite team of evangelists. It'll take a hard heart indeed, to maintain a position of unbelief in those circumstances.

Once you understand the Mass, you understand that the Mass is the lifting of the veil of Heaven. When you sing, you are singing with the saints. When you participate in the Mass on Earth, you are participating in the Heavenly Liturgy, worshiping in unity with all of the Angels and Saints. So I feel like I have experienced a glimpse into Heaven when attending Mass.

That being said, even Peter struggled. Peter had the beatific vision on the mountain with Christ at the Transfiguration. Not only did he seem to not get what was happening, but he went on to deny Christ three times. So I don't feel hopeless when I screw up and deny Him or sin. Peter got back up and rose to Sainthood.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The (fortunate) tribulation population.

Compared to the population as we know it now, the folks who are (un)lucky enough to be alive during the tribulation will be overwhelmingly achieving their eternity in heaven. They'll witness first-hand the power of God while being ministered-to by an elite team of evangelists. It'll take a hard heart indeed, to maintain a position of unbelief in those circumstances.

Biblically speaking, isn't the tribulation population those that were alive in the 1st century AD (Rev 1:9)?

Well, I suppose it involves everyone ever, in some way or other. Though the saved are exempt from the seven year tribulation on earth, they'll presumably be involved by way of heavenly prayer for the souls in contention.

A study Bible that I am currently borrowing says that the "tribulation" John is referring to is what he currently experiencing as a disciple of Christ; not THE tribulation he sees in his impending vision.

In reading the remainder of the book, there is nothing that implies the tribulation is only for a certain people from a certain time. There would be more specific wording, if that were the case.

Well said, Cous2492.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

A study Bible that I am currently borrowing says that the "tribulation" John is referring to is what he currently experiencing as a disciple of Christ; not THE tribulation he sees in his impending vision.

In reading the remainder of the book, there is nothing that implies the tribulation is only for a certain people from a certain time. There would be more specific wording, if that were the case.

You wouldn't say that there are timing indicators at the beginning and end of the book of Revelation? Rev 1:1, Rev 1:3, Rev 1:9, Rev 22:6-7, Rev 22:10, etc. I would also disagree with the editor of your study bible who says that John distinguishes between the tribulation and THE tribulation as the reader would not draw that conclusion from the text, especially the original intended audience of the text.

I agree that John himself doesn't specifically distinguish between his current suffering than the tribulation of his vision.

I am admittedly not thoroughly studied. You are engaging me in the midst of my study. I have read the book, but this is my fist attempt at a more thorough understanding using various resources.

That said, if I seem authoritative about anything, it is only because that's my current understanding. It's all subject to change, of course.

1:1 "which must shortly come to pass"
"Shortly", or any other vague notion of a measurement of time is, IMO, not to be taken the way we might consider it. God's perception of time is, of course, much different than our own. "Shortly" could very-well mean "Millenia".

1:3 "time is at hand"
I would absolutely apply the same logic I described above. Not to mention the fact that God knows this is a book for the ages, and is meant to keep all of us motivated, disciplined, and "on our toes". If it were for only the first century, the book would have little relevance for anyone else.

Also, such extreme events would likely be evidenced in and documented in archeological discoveries, had it already occurred.

To imply that the millennial reign has come and gone is to imply that we're currently either in the New Jerusalem (impossible) or at some point in the post-millennium reign of Satan, which is more possible, though I don't know if any followers of Christ even exist in that world.

1:9 We touched on it, and an argument can be made both ways.

22:6-7 These are at the mercy of the same grand scale of God's temporal position. And verse 7 can certainly be interpreted as a description of the swiftness of the event's initiation, as opposed to it's distance from John's receipt of the vision on the timeline.

22:10 This verse is subject to the same interpretation of the grand scale of God's perception of time.

None of these jumped out at me the way you presented them, because of my understanding of the temporal position of God. That's not to say that my understanding is iron-clad correct; but it is MY understanding.

Also, neither the Baptist pastor at the Church I attend, nor a Catholic priest I have communicated with regarding the matter have implied that the tribulation has already occurred. So that undoubtedly shapes my perception as well.

I appreciate your contributions on this, as they are very relevant to my current effort. Thank you.

It's worth mentioning that I am only on chapter ten of my more thorough study. It's funny; I actually pray that God might make me less interested in things like this. I can hyper-fixate on things, and it can serve to detract from my engagement in the arguably more meaningful broader stroke of the New Covenant: the love directive. I pray that He'll help me balance stuff properly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,