Was Judas present when Christ instituted Communion?

David Paul said:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Actually, Constable is quoting Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum.

[:|]

David Paul said:

Fruchtenbaum is wrong about plenty.

Well, well!  At last we agree on something.  Fruchtenbaum's problem is that he went to Dallas.

EDIT:  I should note that in this case I would agree with Constable and hence with the fruit tree.

RE-EDIT:  BTW:  Fruchtenbaum is another who is the real deal—born a Jew, but a Christian by choice.

David Paul said:

Fruchtenbaum is wrong about plenty.

Why is your interpretation better than his?

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

David Paul said:

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

As every schoolboy knows, she was of the tribe of Moab.

David Paul said:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Any gate he jolly well pleases.  If you will note, in Re 7 there are TWO groups:  the twelve tribes of Israel numbering 144,000 (fictive and symbolic number) and the innumerable multitude.  One is the Jews (Israelites) and the other is the Church.  The text distinguishes the groups.

George Somsel said:

David Paul said:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Any gate he jolly well pleases.  If you will note, in Re 7 there are TWO groups:  the twelve tribes of Israel numbering 144,000 (fictive and symbolic number) and the innumerable multitude.  One is the Jews (Israelites) and the other is the Church.  The text distinguishes the groups.

Is that so? What makes you think that these two descriptions are describing two separate groups? You will say, as you essentially said above in the bold text, that it is obvious. However, it is not. I am fairly certain that it is simply two different ways of describing the same group of people. I will let you pooh-pooh that idea whiel I respond to Y'hohshu`a's comment.

David Paul said:

Is that so? What makes you think that these two descriptions are describing two separate groups? You will say, as you essentially said above in the bold text, that it is obvious. However, it is not. I am fairly certain that it is simply two different ways of describing the same group of people. I will let you pooh-pooh that idea whiel I respond to Y'hohshu`a's comment.

Whose comment?  Never heard of him. 

Why are they two separate groups of people?  One is said to consist of 144,000 specifically designated to be 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel while the other is an innumerable multitude.  I should think that even you would be able to see that they are not only descriptions of different groups but that they are incompatible in their description.  Perhaps though I am giving you too much credit. 

There is a reason why they are thus described.  The period when salvation was of the Jews is ended and their number is complete.  That is why they can be specified as 144,000.  The second group is said to be innumerable because the Church continues to grow and its number is not yet complete.  It is not to be understood, however, that the number of Jews is only 144,000.  It could be 1,440,000.  The point is that the number is complete and therefore known. 

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.

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

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.

George Somsel said:

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. 

Dean053 said:

George Somsel said:

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.

Dan Sheppard said:

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. 

WoundedEgo said:

it is not a lexicon but rather a concordance.

WoundedEgo said:

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 said:

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.)

WoundedEgo said:

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

George Somsel said:

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.

Joshua G said:

 You'd like this then:  http://www.logos.com/product/6070/across-the-spectrum-2nd-edition-understanding-issues-in-evangelical-theology

"Get a room!"

Dean053 said:

I'm a little disappointed by the labelling of the non-sacramental view as 'Baptist' in both these resources

If you are familiar with a lot of Baptists, you know you can not pigeon-hole them all int one viewpoint on hardly anything. They are so incongruent  we ought to have a book titled 14 views on "What makes for a Baptist."

Logos resource of related interest  Classic Baptist Books - Roger Williams Heritage Archive  

So which is more important to you:

* what Origen thought?

Or

* What the scriptures say?

Or

What actually happened?

>>>I'm interested in Western thought - the Latin Fathers.

Because the deader you are, the smarter you are?

If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."

She never became a Jew.

She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.

WoundedEgo said:

If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."

She never became a Jew.

She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.

Apparently you don't understand why your summation, however much it may seem to be logical to you on the surface, is utterly impossible. Her descendant was David, and he entered into the assembly, just she herself did. No Moabite is allowed to do that according to the explicit tohraah of YHWH. When she forsook her past to make covenant with YHWH and His people, she became one of them. By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew. If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.