The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist?

[onefaith2]

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

[Digging4Truth]

Of course... he also said...

Wolfgang Simson wrote, "If we cannot make revival happen, we can at least stop hindering it!" (Houses that Change the World, page 104)


It is a great book.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Of course... he also said...

Wolfgang Simson wrote, "If we cannot make revival happen, we can at least stop hindering it!" (Houses that Change the World, page 104)


It is a great book.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, it sounds like we are in full agreement. To me... this is very serious. As in the Christmas thread, I see much of the Christmas celebration as cultural and not necessarily "biblical", nor is it a part of my worship. However, the Lord's Supper is biblical, and something that should be done biblically.

P.S.
We've done the same in my home. In addition, I'm part of a house church network (primarily baptists lol) at this time.

Jesus gave very few commandments... 'Do This' definitely sounds like more than a suggestion. I think in the desire to break away from Catholicism the reformers missed the boat with communion. They reduced the frequency but did not change the practice. I am more inclined to believe it just the opposite, which is that the frequency was right (every time we meet) and it was the practice (cracker) that was left in error.

I do not think a full meal is excluded but am not sure that it must always be included as in ministering to the traveler, the sick or dying. I am sure even a bite of bread and a sip of wine could suffice.

I also wonder about the communal cup. Drinking after many other people takes an act of faith for most of us. To know that those in our fellowship of believers care for their temples and are free of social diseases... or as an act of faith or obedience that overcomes the gross out factor... or maybe we are just so much more delicate than people of old

And before you start the blitz I know that it's kinda out there but my mind loves to wonder at how God decides what is good for us compared at how we decide what is good for ourselves.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

I believe that Paul's point is that those who were well off were overindulging and contributing nothing to or even leaving anything for the poor thereby leaving them not only hungry but also embarrassed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I was thinking of how you could implement this in a larger congregation.

You could replace the "Christmas Banquet" some churches have and make it a communion banquet instead.

True. Some churches actually do this.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. Some churches actually do this.

What an awesome idea... now getting 'ministry' to do it... that is another story.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

I believe that Paul's point is that those who were well off were overindulging and contributing nothing to or even leaving anything for the poor thereby leaving them not only hungry but also embarrassed.

That was one point yes but he said you have houses to eat in.. not to indulge yourself in

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

Bro... the Last Supper was a Passover Seder:



I've yet to find a NT scholar who didn't agree with the fact that the first church not only gathered in homes for Christian worship for nearly 200 years... or the fact that these gatherings were around the Lord's Supper served as a large meal, a "love feast", with the bread being broken and the wine being passed at the end of the meal as with the Last Supper.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

Context is everything. Yes, the Corinthians were practicing the Lords Supper like it was an ordinary meal, without any reverence. They were showing up, eating everything and getting drunk... leaving the less fortunate brethren who arrived later with nearly nothing to feast upon. They were being inconsiderate pigs. Paul was essentially telling them that if they are that hungry and want to just get drunk... they should just stay home and do that.

[Aquila]

While the sacramentalists who value Catholid tradition over Scripture don't want to accept it... the Lord's Supper was performed by Jesus Himself like this:

Matthew 26:26-28
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Full meal. This was also the practice of the early church....

Acts 2:41-47
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

All of these are references to the love feasts that the early church would have that included the breaking of the loaf and the passing of the cup.

It's the "Lord's Supper"... not the "Lord's SNACK".