Which Dress For My Christmas Party?
Shopping & Style0 min ago
communion
23 Answers
Do you think it is ever ok to take holy communion if you have not been confirmed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by toby99. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry to be a pedantic bore but the Holy Communion could not possibly have started with Jesus: such symbolism would have been anathema to a Jew.
The Lord�s Supper (its original name) was a pagan ritual which existed for centuries before Jesus� supposed time and was practised in memory of the pagan god-man whose story runs exactly parallel to the later Jesus story. It was introduced into the newly-forming Christianity by Paul in I Corinthians 11:23 who said that he �received it of the Lord�, presumably in a vision or dream � very odd considering that the disciples could have given first-hand evidence of the incident, but, of course, never did.
The original name was used for a while until the Church became uncomfortable with such a reminder of its pagan origins. So they seized on that innocent Jewish practice at the beginning of an orthodox meal whereby the host blesses the bread and the wine as a thank-you to God before passing it round. The church adopted the Greek word for this:eucharist.
I am always saddened, when in church for social reasons, to see the queue waiting for their wafer and wine, little knowing that they are about to practice a pagan ritual, such is the dishonesty of the Church in the matter.
The Lord�s Supper (its original name) was a pagan ritual which existed for centuries before Jesus� supposed time and was practised in memory of the pagan god-man whose story runs exactly parallel to the later Jesus story. It was introduced into the newly-forming Christianity by Paul in I Corinthians 11:23 who said that he �received it of the Lord�, presumably in a vision or dream � very odd considering that the disciples could have given first-hand evidence of the incident, but, of course, never did.
The original name was used for a while until the Church became uncomfortable with such a reminder of its pagan origins. So they seized on that innocent Jewish practice at the beginning of an orthodox meal whereby the host blesses the bread and the wine as a thank-you to God before passing it round. The church adopted the Greek word for this:eucharist.
I am always saddened, when in church for social reasons, to see the queue waiting for their wafer and wine, little knowing that they are about to practice a pagan ritual, such is the dishonesty of the Church in the matter.
Oh dear, the old 'you stole our party' cliche.
In the Christian church it is a commemoration of the Last Supper celebrated by Jesus.
Turning a communal feast with God/the gods (by prayers and blessings) into a rite is hardly a new idea begginning with Jesus, but in the context of the Q, this one started with the Didace and Jesus. So what.
The Romans called it lectisternium, they nicked it from the Greek theoxenia. The word Eucharist is of course of Greek origin, as are a lot of our words - even when Latin got in the way. And as you will be aware means giving thanks or thanksgiving. Next you'll tell us the Americans created it.
In the Christian church it is a commemoration of the Last Supper celebrated by Jesus.
Turning a communal feast with God/the gods (by prayers and blessings) into a rite is hardly a new idea begginning with Jesus, but in the context of the Q, this one started with the Didace and Jesus. So what.
The Romans called it lectisternium, they nicked it from the Greek theoxenia. The word Eucharist is of course of Greek origin, as are a lot of our words - even when Latin got in the way. And as you will be aware means giving thanks or thanksgiving. Next you'll tell us the Americans created it.
Octavius, wouldn�t a bit of objective analysis come in useful occasionally? Is it wise to believe something merely because someone wrote it down nearly 2000 years ago? Is there not some value in calculating probabilities? If we look critically at the story of what is now called the Eucharist how likely is it to be true?
1. We have only Paul�s word for it. (The gospels, written later, will have got the idea from him, though �John� produces a very different version.) And Paul heard about it only in a dream or vision. How much do you trust dreams? And why should Jesus go to the trouble of explaining it to Paul in a dream when there were at least 12 people (the disciples and maybe some servants) who could have given, would surely have been giving, first-hand testimony years before Paul started writing his gospels in AD55?
But they didn�t, did they? There is not one eye-witness account; no disciple ever wrote anything about anything. Doesn�t that cause doubts?
2. The following is from John 6 53 and 56:
�Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you� He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.�
Now look at this:
�He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.�
The latter is by the (fictional, of course) pagan god-man Mithras, introduced into Roman mythology about a century before Jesus had been heard of. Coincidence? I think not. It�s not difficult to see where Paul got the initial idea, bulked out later by the gospels.
I could add more, but even that is surely enough for any rational person to look very doubtfully at the tale.
1. We have only Paul�s word for it. (The gospels, written later, will have got the idea from him, though �John� produces a very different version.) And Paul heard about it only in a dream or vision. How much do you trust dreams? And why should Jesus go to the trouble of explaining it to Paul in a dream when there were at least 12 people (the disciples and maybe some servants) who could have given, would surely have been giving, first-hand testimony years before Paul started writing his gospels in AD55?
But they didn�t, did they? There is not one eye-witness account; no disciple ever wrote anything about anything. Doesn�t that cause doubts?
2. The following is from John 6 53 and 56:
�Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you� He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.�
Now look at this:
�He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.�
The latter is by the (fictional, of course) pagan god-man Mithras, introduced into Roman mythology about a century before Jesus had been heard of. Coincidence? I think not. It�s not difficult to see where Paul got the initial idea, bulked out later by the gospels.
I could add more, but even that is surely enough for any rational person to look very doubtfully at the tale.
