A discussion at another blog prompted the following response, and as the blog only allowed some 4,000 characters per comment I had to split it up into four parts. Here is my entire response in one whole piece.
The premise
I’ve been following the discussion. I didn’t have time to take a part, but I do have some time now to add my thoughts.
First, a false premise:
”That all of you ignore some or all of these [one-time held biblical precepts] undercuts your demands for case law in this issue.
Sorry, but no it doesn’t. Because the judge runs red lights and fails to give right-of-ways he undercuts his demand for case law on issues of traffic violations? That doesn’t make sense. It makes the judge a hypocrite, but it doesn’t take away from or undercut his duty to the law. And the law specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination. The fact that I occasionally eat a basket of shrimp doesn’t make it okay for other men to commit homosexual acts. Asking for chapter and verse on God’s permissibility of homosexuality is a fair question, whether or not I eat shrimp and pork. Because I do eat shrimp and pork [though not really] is not reason enough to say, “Pfft! I don’t have to answer that! Look at you! You eat shellfish and swine!”
The truth of the matter is, there is absolutely NO, no not ONE, verse of scripture that condones or allows homosexual behavior, be it in ANY relationship-- loving or else-wise. None. And to argue that such a question isn’t allowed to be asked by swine eaters is preposterous.
As for the consumption of shrimp and swine—and a host of other thou shalt not’s --these are still against the will of God. Paul did teach that many of these things were now lawful, but he also said they weren’t expedient…
”All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” 1 Corinthians 6:12-20
God’s perfect will is that you abstain from shellfish and swine [among other things, like fornication, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality], but should you consume them you reap what you sow… poor food choices to bad health and early demise.
God DOES mandate. He mandates that you [insert Ten Commandments] if you want to be Holy and acceptable in His sight, without the need of a savior [PRE Christ Jesus]. But having given us a savior, he MANDATES that we accept that gift if we wish to live forever with HIM.
Feodor said something earlier on about the true Gospel… let me look…
Okay, first his definition:
”they thought they knew exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous and whom it could not.”
But actually, a Judaizer was one who, after Paul established a church and moved on to another city, moved in and said, “yes, you are saved by grace, through faith, but now you have to get circumcised, abstain from pork, etc., burden yourself with the implacable Law of Moses[God].” But this is salvation by works. Salvation is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ-- plus nothing, minus nothing. In the sense that a new believer had to add the Law to his worship it can be said that the Judaizer thought he know exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous. But the truth of the matter is this: If you are genuinely saved, and the Spirit of God resides in you…….. you ARE righteous. Despite whatever sins you have, OR WILL commit. You are righteous, Sanctified, and Perfected over time into the image of His son Jesus. Not only that but if you are genuinely saved you are called by God to these things… called to righteousness, sanctification, and perfection. See Jude 1:1
Next:
“Still on the wrong side of the Gospel…”
So what is the Gospel? 1 Corinthians 15:1-4…
”Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…”
THAT is the Gospel. That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures. That He was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, also according to the scriptures. It’s not all that other stuff of feeding the poor and clothing the naked, etc. All THAT comes with living a genuine spirit-filled life as a follower and disciple of Christ, but it is not the Gospel.
So who is one the wrong side of the Gospel? The Gospel states both lovingly AND terribly that there is a solution to one’s sin-- including the very personal sin of homosexuality –and that solution is Jesus Christ; His death, burial and resurrection, all of which can also wash away the sin of a poor diet. Neglect the Gospel and there’ll be found no place for you at God’s table.
Is slavery, because it was regarded and given rules of governance for by God, condoned by the scriptures? Paul did say to be content in whatever station one finds himself in, but does the Old Testament law specifically state that slavery is an acceptable station for any human being? Was Slavery ever a part of God’s plan for any man? No. Just as with divorce, because of the hardness of man’s heart, rules were given by God so that no slave was mistreated.
Slavery still exists today. But that doesn’t make it right. Slavery is illegal in America, and it is good. That no one here views slavery as good and biblical is not in any way a contravention of God’s will. God’s will is that we love Him above and before all else, with every fiber of our being, and our neighbors as ourselves. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves while holding him in bondage? As property? It cannot then be righteously suggested that because one views slavery as evil that he cannot then ask chapter and verse for God’s permission of homosexuality.
Women should not speak in Churches? Yes, Paul said it, but where does he get this? He also said, speaking of his own celibacy…
”For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
Does Paul get is proscription against vocal women from the scriptures? Or from tradition? If from the former then every woman on TBN, INSP, and in Black and White churches across America, and the world which allows women a public voice is breaking God’s law. But if his proscription is from tradition, well, traditions change.
This much is true. God does use women in service and ministry. He used Deborah. He used Esther. He used Anna the prophetess. Did God break His own law by using these three women?
Boils, Blood, Dead Bodies? All of these things are still unclean. The only thing different about the times of Leviticus and today is sanitation; soaps, disinfectants, etc. Some today still live as filthy [by choice] as those in Old Testament times [as a matter of course]. Germs and disease are always unclean. But the very fact that hygiene is greatly improved [for those who choose to employ its methods], and that every child knows about germs when every adult in Jesus’ time did not, only shows that we are different today only in terms of knowledge and the lengths to which our knowledge has driven us in terms of avoiding Uncleanness.
Shrimp and Lobster are unlawful because of what they are; scavengers feeding off refuse and effluvium. Swine as well. You are what you eat, it is truthfully said. Eat clean foods and your body remains clean. Eat unclean foods and you invite disease into your members. God wants us healthy and clean, to better serve Him, hence his dietary laws.
The fact that the church in Jerusalem held all things in common was not the model for the church age. And nowhere does Paul teach that Christians should live communally. Even the story of Ananias and Sapphira is misunderstood here. This man and wife were not killed by God because they desired to keep a portion of the money they received from the sale of property, but rather they died because they lied about how much they received, so as to appear to be giving everything, while holding back a hidden portion for themselves. In short, they lied to God. Were they saved? It would appear so, but they still lied, and God used their deaths as an example.
But nowhere, and I mean NO WHERE does God condone homosexuality, in any form, be it in a loving relationship or a degrading one. Paul affirmed its status as “Abomination” in Romans chapter one. Unequivocally so.
Does a homosexual wish to serve God and follow Jesus? Let him abandon his wicked ways and rely on the blood of the Lamb of God for his salvation, and the strength to live a new life in Christ. Can a saved man fall back into his sin? Of course. Has he lost the gift of salvation? Of course not. But what characterizes a man or woman saved from their sin, from those who continue to live in it? A man or woman genuinely saved will not remain in their backslidden state for long. They will repent, having been convicted and chastened by the Spirit of God within him or her. They have ceased to be “Homosexual” despite any relapse. They turn from their sin and ask God’s forgiveness through the shed blood of Christ. Homosexuality is a sin every bit as much as fornication. And just as no fornicator can find justification for his or her sin in God’s eyes, neither can the homosexual. Homosexuals living in their sin without any guilt in the face of God? I have to wonder if they are saved at all. And I have to ask if the congregation has enabled them to live a lie. Not that God’s loves them, He does. But that God has saved them from and in spite of their sin, and has allowed them to remain what they were. Abominations; affronts to God. God changes people. If he has saved these homosexuals they should have abandoned their sin.
I think the reason you don’t want to get into a discussion of chapter and verse with regard to homosexuality is because you know you can’t prove your case. God only needs to say it once for it to be good or evil. I can count numerous verses that speak of the evilness of homosexuality and its just punishments, but you can’t point to a single verse where it is condoned.
So again, if you feel homosexuality is condoned by God, please give us chapter and verse. But please, let’s leave all of the rhetorical jujitsu and strawmen out of the discussion.
This seems a crucial apologetic to me. If you have an uncompromising deity, dictating a book of religion without human interference or error. Why isn't slavery condemned anywhere in the Bible?
If the Bible is as they say "straight from the horse's mouth" Then there's no reason for verses telling slaves to obey their masters, or masters to treat their slaves faithfully.
Slavery, the owning of one person by another is wrong. It was wrong 4,000 years ago and it is wrong today. The fact that the bible doesn't clearly and unambiguously state this is to me a clear sign that it was written with an ear for it's intended audience.
The bible also doesn't condemn war. The aggression of one society or country against another. Next time you spend 2,000 words lauding the perfection of your doctrine, maybe try explaining that.
I have to say, EL, that, despite the abhorrent bile of your authored posts, I have always admired how you engage in biblical discussion with a rigor of thought and a clear possession of your own positions.
I think of you as tough old Jew from Willamsburg, believing in the power of the order of the law to shape a worthy life, even though for you it takes a secondary "good housekeeping" role under Christ.
I also want to say, as I respond to your essays, that I often argue from within your point of view of a literal reading of an inerrant writ. This move often goes above the heads of Marshall, Tug, Bubba, and certainly Mark. But I do so in order to show how such a strict reading, when followed through consistently and in passages that cause problems, reach contradictory ends that call out for the additional and sometimes contorted logic of such a reader in order to make it make sense and keep a literal reading intact.
My approach is, of course, altogether different, though no less based in scripture from the first and principally.
______________
When I said, "ignore," I did not mean in the sense of being a "small law" breaker, but in the sense that by practice, they reveal that they think the law has passed away. Additionally, I mean that they also ignore some directives found in Chapter and Verse in the NT for reasons, seemingly, of assumed benign historical change: juice instead of wine. I don't know how a literal reader of the plain sense of scripture cannot see Jesus' institution of Communion as just that, an institution, just like baptism, of what we are to do.
Now, if they behave as if some laws have passed away without the direct affirmation of "Chapter and Verse," and as if some "Chapter and Verse" directives can be conditioned by time and style, then they are approaching scripture just like lazy liberals and thus, to demand Chapter and Verse is hypocrisy from the start and cannot be respected.
As I have stipulated, there is not explicit verse lifting the lid on homosexuality. But it is not misdirection to say that there is no verse lifting the lid off slavery, extreme universal patriarchy of the age still seen in third world countries and some developing nations; no verse lifting the lid on divorced and/or childless men serving as elders, much less women as bishops; no verse disestablishing communion "as often as you gather"; no verse instituting monogamy, no verse disestablishing polygamy, and no third verse re-instituting monogamy again; no verse lifting the lid on being baptised for the already dead so that, by proxy, the dead will be grandfathered in according to Paul; no verse lifting the lid off caring for all widows and orphans.
Now, again, these are not "problems" for the whole sweep of historic, sacramental Christianity of which I am a part, since, by Christ who lives and reigns, we have been set free to be free (Galatians 5:1) and no longer "slaves to the law," but now, having Christ living in us, we can rise to make meatier judgments of mature Christians (Hebrews 5,6), thereby actually being co-participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1).
But this state of affairs is so pervasively destructive of any Christian trying to live by Chapter and Verse that one can hardly take seriously your sectioning out one or two verses laying out the Mosaic order for ancient Israel as somehow more central to God's wrath. You live in a biblical context far more brittle than an innocent sneaking into Long John Silvers.
But within the quote of Paul that you give us from 1 Corinthians lies an unread phrase giving you away: "For I delivered unto you first of all..."
So, what was second? And third? What you quote is only what he says he delivered as the first things. Apparently the Gospel has more to give than you think. It's at least interesting to me that after Chapter 15, a part dissertation on the importance of the Resurrection (what was first delivered), and which ends with "therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord...", Paul starts right off with that work in Chapter 16:1, "Now concerning the collection for the saints..."
EL, you're partitioning of the Gospel from "all that other stuff of feeding the poor and clothing the naked, etc." is artificial here in 1 Corinthians 15 and 16. It comes from a reading that doesn't read closely enough and then stops short.
And your emphasis on "according to the scriptures" is curious and making something out of Paul that he does not intend. I'm not sure what all you read there, but I do know Paul wrote this:
"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it..."
Nothing according to scripture there, EL.
In fact, as regards law and gospel, I'd suggest you give a good, long, and careful reading to Galatians.
I think you like Hagar too much.
5:1,2: For freedom, Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery.
______________
On a separate note, and one that does not make any sense in your literalist, inerrant world, would that Paul knew more and could have applied that to the physical reality of slavery. Two thousand years of history would have been different.
No one gets sick from eating pork and lobster or mixing beef with chesse (why don't you mention this one?). Its the man-made chemicals one should be aware of in pork and seafood.
I could eat lobster every day except that now studies are beginning to prove that they do indeed feel pain. Lobster, for me, may go the way of veal since I first saw those ads in my college cafeteria about abusive methods of penning them up from all movement. Though some are telling me things have changed now.
Perhaps you'd be better off building your back formation thinking on the prohibition of eating crustaceans because they are more evolved than fish and have receptors for pain.
Your diet is your diet, not Christ's or Paul's.
"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These indeed have the appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence. So if you have been raise with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God."
So, perhaps, just as you suggest Paul's address to the churches in Corinth and Colossia regarding women are situation specific, so is his address to the churches in Romans, you think?
You have led me out of a literalist, inerrant reading to one that takes socio-culture context into view and makes adjustments to interpret scripture for our own time. Since, as you say, "traditions change," maybe juice is okay and a church is alright even though it does not celebrate the Eucharist every time it gathers as the church; maybe divorced or childless men can be good leaders; maybe women, too, are created in the image and likeness of God and so can server in ministry and full leadership; maybe menstruation and boils no longer matter because of hygiene; maybe Paul, if he had know, would have re-written his passages on slaves.
In fact, he kind of did in Galatians. "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female.... For freedom Christ has set us free."
Paul never knew a gay Christian. Just like he never knew a Chinese Catholic.
When he talked about pagans, he had their religious practices in mind, and the horrible kind of morals and ethics that precipitated from them.
You misread him and misapply him in your austere, Batenburgian way.
Your own rehash is duly noted. Thanks for the input.
I think your problem is focussing on the wrong thing. God isn't concerned with man's inventions, such as slavery, as He is with how we behave regarding His Will and Intention. Consider slavery just another tough hand dealt in the poker game of life. Another could be simply poverty. Does God mandate against poverty or does He concern Himself with how we behave while impoverished? I think it's the latter and His concerns regarding slavery lean more toward how a slave behaves and how a master of slaves behaves.
Here's something else that goes over my head: That Feodor would offer the drinking of wine at Communion to be a mandate of some kind on the order "Thou shalt not..." when it doesn't even appear to be a mandate at all. The only mandate of the Last Supper is that when we take bread that we do so in memory of Him. Indeed, where the story is related, it doesn't even say that it is wine in the cup, though of course, it's so likely as to not be worth the time to debate it. But Jesus refers only to never more drinking of the fruit of the vine until... but not demanding that there be some ritual by which only wine must be drunk. In fact, I don't see that He is beginning a Christian ritual at all, but merely saying we should remember Him when we break bread. Grape juice is also a drink of the fruit of the vine.
Indeed, none of Feodor's counters compare to a "Thou Shalt Not..." of Leviticus, which the poor boy is unable to understand.
"Paul never knew a gay Christian."
Speculation at best. Certainly Scripture doesn't say anything like this. Of course, there are no "gay Christians" now, only homosexual people who have ignored plainly revealed Scripture in order to pose as Bible-believing Christians, some purposely and other falsely led by the likes of people like Feodor.
Paul spent plenty of time in Greece and Rome and for him to not be exposed to those who pretend their homosex relationship is just like heterosex couples is a mighty big stretch. And to insist that only those "forced by their gods" to engage in homosex practices is the only manifestation to which Paul referred is also a stretch, especially considering that other sinful practices are being discussed as well.
Many think the same of Leviticus, that because of verse 3 of chapter 18, only those forced by their pagan rituals are prohibited. But that silliness means that if one is engaged in an incestuous relationshihp, or even bothering animals, it's OK as long as no pagan ritual is part of it. I don't think even Feodor would go that far, though, I won't take bets.
It helps when one reads the passage in all three synoptic Gospels because, despite you boys' crowing, they indicate different things.
So it is with Luke, who answers Marshall's doubt about whether Jesus is instituting the ritual and what it means in light of his imminent departure from them ("do this in remembrance of me") and the fact that it would be wine (since the Passover necessitates wine):
Luke 22
"When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God." After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
And then there is Paul's testimony, which Marshall may perhaps remember now:
1 Corinthians 11
"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Pardon me, Marshall, but it seems pretty important to Paul.
My point was, however, that you swear by Chapter and Verse but do not live by it.
You ignore what you want to ignore, gloss what you want to gloss, fixate on some Elizabethan phrase for wine as if Jesus were a pal of Shakespeare's.
Regardless, it is still your contradictory, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants biblical reasoning that cannot hold water, though you want so much to bottle God's lightening and use it like a pagan wrath to condemn.
Your Chapter and Verse approach is a sham.
In addition, you continually say crap like the following,
"My point was, however, that you swear by Chapter and Verse but do not live by it."
Without ever showing where I have not lived by Scripture. I know you'd like to THINK that I'm failing somewhere, so that you can use it to denigrate me and hold high your heretical belief that God no longer finds homosexual behavior to be the abomination He said it is, but not once have you shown where I've ignored or like you, overturned for my own benefit a plainly revealed Law of God. Would you like to try, or do you prefer simply, as Dan says, "bearing false witness" and "slandering"?
And one more thing, "priest", it is not I, nor Eric nor anyone else who condemns sinners like homosexuals, but themselves. We only wish to show them how and why so that they might come to the Truth that we all seek, except for, perhaps, yourself.
This is not really a problem for one who does not hold to the clear, inerrant character of Holy Scripture as delivered hermetically by God, unencumbered by the social settings of its composition, and that addresses everything of importance in today's world.
But that's not you guys, is it?
For you guys, any isolated, sole inconsistency is fatal. All it takes is one.
Consider yourself "self condemned," Marshall, and it is not me who told you so.
And what would you say is unworthy exactly in the manner in which I receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? (This should be interesting.)
God, Marshall, how schizophrenic do you intend to be, here? Or should I say, how blind to what you wrote one comment earlier?
Apparently you just think it's, what, a cute thing to do?
Where did I say that? I've said nothing whatsoever regarding Him offering Himself to us. Another example of you seeing what doesn't exist. That's not surprising considering your usual hallucinations. All I've said is that He wasn't instituting a ritual for anyone to follow beyond remembering Him when we break bread. Partaking of the Eucharist in a religious communal ritualistic setting is a manmade invention, not an edict or mandate from God.
"the Eucharist... is a manmade invention..."
What do you think the Eucharist is?
Are we not breaking bread in memory of him? Is it not his flesh?
And do we not partake of the wine? Is it not the blood of his convenant?
All that education...
If you want to play the fool, now, that's on you. You pay the price of losing all credibility and honor.
And BTW, priest, quoting me in the following manner,
"the Eucharist... is a manmade invention..."
makes you a liar, since you didn't quote me accurately and in doing so, you purposely give a false impression of my position. You must be a Democrat as well as a false priest.
I don't play the fool, though you try to take me for one. Your consistent failure to succeed in this endeavor makes a fool of yourself. You wear it well.
Jesus is reinterpreting the covenant with Israel.
Just like baptism in his name changes Jewish baptism, communion with his body and blood changes the Passover into a Christian sacrament.
If you want to talk about rituals you can talk about the five other sacraments, but baptism and the Eucharist were instituted by Christ.
Matt 26:17-19
Luke 22:7-13
All indicate a Passover meal for which they prepared and in which they had partaken. Yet nowhere do I see Jesus saying, "Create for yourselves a Christian ritual where you will recreate this meal." He merely says, "Do this in memory of me."
More later. The priest is unschooled.
It's as though Jesus gave honor to the old Passover, but first instituted a new. He allowed them the old (as they has seen every year their entire lives), but showed them the NEW covenant writ in His blood, His body first.
What makes Communion different from Passover, however, is frequency. Passover comes but once a year [and, according to scripture, is an everlasting feast... not to be done away with. Meaning, it is perfectly fine for Christians to observe this feast. In fact, there's nothing wrong with observing ALL the Jewish feasts; it will certainly give the Christian deeper insight into the roots of their faith. So long as Christians don't substitute "feasts" for proper worship of our Savior and God, there is nothing wrong with enjoying these feasts for what they are, in terms of scripture and their significance], but Communion isn't even given a rule as to how often it should be performed-- no mandatory "do this as often as you gather together..." but only "Do this in remembrance of Me".
For clarity's sake, Jesus, according to Luke did not take part in the passover (Luke 22:15-16), but it is clear from the other Gospels that a feast was had. After all, Jesus dipped a portion of bread into some "sop" and handed it to Judas Iscariot. In Luke 22:10-12 shows that the meal WAS planned for AND prepared (verse 13).
Judging strictly from what I see there, it appears the Passover feast was prepared and the disciples partook of it, but it is also clear that Jesus FIRST performed the rite we now call "Communion" or in the protestant vernacular "The Lord's Supper".
As their rabbi, Jesus would have performed as lead in the Passover feast, leading prayer and numerous recitations, but it seems clear that this was never done because he had just given them the NEW model for Passover (which is filled with symbolism) that would soon be fulfilled by Jesus Himself.
-----
*You say "Communion" I say "The Lord's Supper". I don't buy into the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Having spent time in a Catholic school, this is what I think of when I hear the word "Communion".
..::No time to check for typos or misspells::..
What is fundamentally wrong with this suggestion?
Good summation. However, I don't think any of the tracts I offered suggest a chronology of events during the meal. I could be wrong as I wasn't looking or thinking of that. A minor point in any case, at least as related to the supposed mandate to engage in any ritual later.
To put it another way, there's nothing there that a reasonable, non-heretic would say is comparable to "Thou shalt not..." as a definitive commandment regarding a behavior. If one were to put ANY stock into Feodor's lame reasoning, one would have to say that the mandate is to "Do that in memory of Him" only while partaking of a Passover meal. His attempts to entrap us with "chapter and verse" (which doesn't even support the lame premise he hopes to establish) are laughable and typical, but sadly a waste of time. Very much like Feodor himself.
"but it is also clear that Jesus FIRST performed the rite we now call 'Communion'."
Your just too immature to say, "uncle."
Talk about a sham.
Too much time locked up in the cabin -- which, by the way, is what I consider to be perfect place for you to be hours on end.