Was Judas present when Christ instituted Communion?

Page 7 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > ... Last »
This post has 185 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 7:08 AM

Ruth did not become a Jew. The only way to be a Jew is to be born of a Jewish father.

If "Matthew" is to be believed, Jesus likewise was not a Jew.

Gentile belevers do not become Jews.

Believing Jews do not become gentiles.

The new covenant, like the Mosaic covenant, is only with Jews.

"Communion" for gentile believers is a bogus concept.

The seder is only for Jews.

It features an adult goat, not a lamb.

It features Pita breat (flat bread) not yeastless crackers.

Jewish believers, when they keep the Jewish feast, remember the broken body and spilled blood, along with the salvation of their people from Egypt (though all of the adults died in the wilderness).

The 144,000 are faithful Jews.

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 8:38 AM

Try a Harmony of the Gospel.  Here is a table from Robert Thomas's Harmony of  the Gospel found in the MacArthur Bible Handbook pg 297.  Notice he places Luke 21:21-23 before Luke 22:17-20 indicating that Judas was not there during the last part of the Meal.   

Posts 106
Kristin Dantzler | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 10:02 AM

As an minor aside within the context of this discussion - My Jewish friends would say that maternity not paternity establishes "Jewishness".

Posts 10178
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 10:14 AM

OK, WoundedEgo ... on most of your points, you're technically correct. Whenever our pastor points out that the 12 were men, I remind him the 12 were also jewish.

But what is the 'Matthew' reference (I'm assuming it's linked to your definition of jewish instead of rabbinical sources, and not linked to the point that our definition of virginity was a post-1st century concept).


Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 10:20 AM

Yes, "matrilinear" as opposed to "patrilinear", but that is not the scriptural pattern, which I believe is what would matter for this discussion, I should think.

 

Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 10:26 AM

>>>But what is the 'Matthew' reference (I'm assuming it's linked to your definition of jewish instead of rabbinical sources, and not linked to the point that our definition of virginity was a post-1st century concept).

I mean, the first gospel says that Jesus had not been conceived by Joseph but was either the product of "the father" (God) having sex with Miriam or, by some unexplained "hands off" approach.

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 11:58 AM

George Somsel:

David, you remind me of another Paul—Ron Paul—who also is off the wall about half the time.  It must run in the family.  Compare what you wrote to what Eric wrote.  You use an affected style with your ersatz name for Jesus and your spelling of torah with a double "a".  The point is that you attempt to present yourself as hebraic while Eric is the real deal though he doesn't use your affectations.

I'm disappointed that people can speak like this about others on this forum, subvert the thread topic, bait, bring up controversial subjects like politics, and even get personally offensive, and no-one says a word - just because he doesn't like how someone pronounces words. 

Posts 26531
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:36 PM

Okay guys - over a page of unsubstantiated opinion exceeds my patience for a good(?) argument.  It also exceeds the Logos forum guidelines (which of course is less important to meWink)

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 2:25 PM

Dean053:

George Somsel:

David, you remind me of another Paul—Ron Paul—who also is off the wall about half the time.  It must run in the family.  Compare what you wrote to what Eric wrote.  You use an affected style with your ersatz name for Jesus and your spelling of torah with a double "a".  The point is that you attempt to present yourself as hebraic while Eric is the real deal though he doesn't use your affectations.

I'm disappointed that people can speak like this about others on this forum, subvert the thread topic, bait, bring up controversial subjects like politics, and even get personally offensive, and no-one says a word - just because he doesn't like how someone pronounces words. 

Now, now...cut George some slack. If he couldn't be ornery, what else would he have?

I have to agree, though, his attitude regarding my transliteration scheme is an exercise in self-mockery. I use the double aa for the qaamaats (Hebrew long A sound) because it is actually pronounced for a longer period than the Hebrew short A patahh. This accomplishes two things at once: it promotes correct pronunciation and allows for those still relying on transliteration to distinguish the qaamaats from the patahh based on the English alphabet spelling, something no other transliteration scheme on the planet does (using just the common English 101 keyboard). George is unfamiliar with it, so it is therefore bad and wrong, which is pretty much par for the course. It does, however, accord with his general disposition regarding things he disdains--things such as lexicons, transliteration in general, anything that might make something like learning a language easier. George's philosophy is that learning a language should have no crutches--better yet, it should be uphill in both directions in deep snow and blazing heat.

What's funny is that in his full steam locomotive effort to minimalize and marginalize me and my translit scheme in the same breath with Strong's lexicon, he has left his fanny bare and shows that even poor, pitiful Strong's concordance actually knows more Hebrew than he does. [The Horror!] I write the Hebrew word for "law / instruction / teaching" as tohraah. Because he doesn't like my opinions and he is unfamiliar with my choice of spelling, he allows himself to mock my practice. What George seems too livid to recognize (though he surely ought to know it), is that my spelling is a MUCH MORE ACCURATE method of spelling this Hebrew word for two inherently important reasons. The first is that George's preferred English spelling of "torah" (which I acknowledge is used almost exclusively in our language) just as invariably induces English speakers to mispronounce this Hebrew word. The word is not pronounced "tor-uh" in Hebrew, even though the common, George-approved spelling virtually enforces that mistake. The correct Hebrew pronunciation is "toe-raah", with the emphasis on the second syllable, not the first.

The irony in George's "like clockwork" condemnation of Strong's Lexicon is that EVEN STRONG'S IS AWARE OF HOW THE WORD IS PRONOUNCED, but George insists on rebuking and rejecting Strong's Lex out-of-hand and chooses to accept a flagrantly mistaken spelling/pronunciation purely because he is familiar with it, even though it is demonstrably wrong and false. As the much-maligned-by-George lexicon called Strong's shows:

8451 תֹּורָה [towrah, torah /to·raw/]

...we see MY transliteration and spelling is superior in every possibly way to the unfortunately common and plain WRONG "torah". In other words, I'm just too right to be acceptable to George. The other funny thing is that George impugnes even my willingness to spell Hebrew with English-letter transliteration. He insists that if I want to use the word I should use תֹּורָה. But even if George chooses to use this Hebrew alphabet spelling, HE IS STILL GOING TO PRONOUNCE IT WRONG BY CALLING IT TOR-UH!! We can know this for certain because if he actually pronounced the word correctly, he would NEVER attempt to degrade my spelling which promotes proper pronunciation.

Oh, well, what can one do with a crotchety man? Let him gripe...it seems to put some fire in those old bones.

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 2:40 PM

David Paul:
The first is that George's preferred English spelling of "torah" (which I acknowledge is used almost exclusively in our language) just as invariably induces English speakers to mispronounce this Hebrew word. The word is not pronounced "tor-uh" in Hebrew, even though the common, George-approved spelling virtually enforces that mistake.

No, it does not encourage a pronunciation of "tor-uh."  One might make the mistake of putting the accent on the first syllable, but it would not encourage pronouncing it with a -uh ending.  It would clearly be to-rah with an "a" sound.  And where do you get -raw?  That is certainly not correct.

David Paul:
Because he doesn't like my opinions and he is unfamiliar with my choice of spelling, he allows himself to mock my practice.

Whether I am or am not familiar with your practice is immaterial.  The fact is that your transliteration (if it can be called such) takes no more than about 2 sec to figure out.  The problem with your method is that it is totally idiosyncratic and is apparently used to signal that you think you know more about the language than others.  You don't. I would say you know less.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 2:48 PM

Dan Sheppard:
If you're truly interested in the Lutheran position on close communion (close as opposed to far), I suggest you peruse this brief pdf file: www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=411

NOTE: The LCMS does not (cannot) speak on behalf of all Lutheran positions just like the ELCA does not (cannot) speak on behalf of all Lutheran positions just like WELS does not (cannot) speak on behalf of all Lutheran positions. 

Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 3:02 PM

>>>As the much-maligned-by-George lexicon called Strong's shows:

Tangential, but... the reason Strongs' usage **as a lexicon** is rightly maligned is that it is not a lexicon but rather a concordance. All it aspires to do is to show you how the *KJV* translators translated the word in the KJV. It was, IMHO, an extremely valuable tool before the day of software programs that can do the same thing for any word instantly, but they still use the Strong's numbering system! When people use the glosses given in the concordance as an authoritative reference for the available Koine usages, (and not considering things like the case of the word, idioms, etc) they are using a **legitimate reference tool** in an inappropriate and non-authoritative way, often with disasterous results (I speak from experience).

I hope these comments will be of help to someone.

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 3:34 PM

WoundedEgo:
it is not a lexicon but rather a concordance.
 
WoundedEgo:
It was, IMHO, an extremely valuable tool before the day of software programs that can do the same thing for any word instantly, but they still use the Strong's numbering system!
 
WoundedEgo:
I hope these comments will be of help to someone.

Your comments are indeed helpful. It is reassuring to see my own thought processes on Strongs usefulness is not totally without merit. 

I will try to pay forward your good post by sharing these Logos resource with everyone. There are quite a few writings that address different perspective on communion. This thread is a worthy subject that does not have to boil down to a final decision on which view on communion (or language reference ) is the right one.

The Lord's Supper: Five Views

Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper   included in  Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (14 vols.)

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 3:47 PM

Thanks. I'm a fan of books that give the different viewpoints the opp to present their "best shot" rather than being mischaracterized by their foes.

 

Posts 1497
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 3:51 PM

WoundedEgo:

Thanks. I'm a fan of books that give the different viewpoints the opp to present their "best shot" rather than being mischaracterized by their foes.

You'd like this then:

http://www.logos.com/product/6070/across-the-spectrum-2nd-edition-understanding-issues-in-evangelical-theology

Posts 67
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:03 PM

Ha! Yes! I'll be ordering that... Thanks!

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:14 PM

George Somsel:

Whether I am or am not familiar with your practice is immaterial.  The fact is that your transliteration (if it can be called such) takes no more than about 2 sec to figure out.  The problem with your method is that it is totally idiosyncratic and is apparently used to signal that you think you know more about the language than others.  You don't. I would say you know less.

LOL, George. Do you READ when you're in the midst of concocting a reaction? I said very clearly WHY I developed my translit scheme. It provides the only one-to-one, essentially letter for letter transliteration method for those who (using just a 101 keyboard) would like to go from Hebrew to English or English to Hebrew, while at that same time promoting proper pronunciation.

Anyone who bothers to notice ought to realize that most attempts to transliterate Hebrew are based upon the concept of creating the simplest spelling possible in English, not providing a means for those unfamiliar with Hebrew to properly pronounce its words. Saying my method is "totally idiosyncratic" is to be almost purposefully blind to the fact that the current reality of Hebrew transliteration is nothing if not wholly idiosyncratic. One needs only look at the absurd number of spellings for Hanukkah/Chanukah to confirm this. My method does one thing--it starts with the Hebrew, and then applies the scheme. Therefore the word...

 automatically comes out Hh:anuukhkaah. This is obviously longer than most spellings, but it is 1) spelled in such a way that one can go from H-to-E or E-to-H automatically, and 2) can be used without reliance on arcane symbols used by linguists which only linguists understand. If one desires, he can leave out the colon that depicts the reduced patahh and get simply Hhanuukhkaah. This purposeful translit method is the most literal, most deliberate, most accurate, and most friendly with regard to promoting proper pronunciation. You can ridicule me and it if you like, George. But you are actually ridiculing yourself and your crabby attitude.

Posts 4763
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:14 PM

deleted double post

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:20 PM

Joshua G:
 Thanks Joshua. I had forgotten that one.

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:24 PM

WoundedEgo:
 Thanks. I'm a fan of books that give the different viewpoints the opp to present their "best shot" rather than being mischaracterized by their foes.  

I have been SHOCKED  Indifferent   to discover how some detractors will mis-characterize or even lie about the opposition's views.  Sometimes it is all in the semantics.

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Page 7 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > ... Last » | RSS