What to do `In Remembrance'

taijasi

Gnōthi seauton
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Location
Terra Firma
It crossed my mind ... in about these words:

What do you mean, `Do *this* in remembrance of me?'
Most Christians of course, hear this - in Sunday's Liturgy

What do we do *in remembrance* - of You?
Well, let me ask it this way: What did the Christ DO?​
 
Did he? Every Shabbat we eat the challah and share the wine...

This was SOP for jews, nothing new...it was part of their ceremony....with their prayers.

He did this as well, take this bread....it is my body (earthly material) Judas took it and Jesus sent him off to do what he must do...an implication that Judas only understood Jesus on a material level?

take this wine....it is my blood....(spiritual thought)....he gave this to the disciples on the second floor...was it for them, or for us? Did he say do this for the next millenia to come? Or do this now and every shabbot from now on you'll remember to take in the material (be in this world) and the spiritual (but not of this world)...
 
What, establish a new covenant? Yes. You think not? :confused:

Every Shabbat we eat the challah and share the wine...
OK. But that's Shabbat ... this is something entirely different.

This was SOP for jews, nothing new...it was part of their ceremony....with their prayers.
I know. But the point is, what Our Lord did was not Shabbat, it was something new.

He instituted a New Covenant, and moreover, said 'do this in remembrance of me', not in remembrance of the Creation or the Exodus, or Passover – as the traditional Shabbat requires – not the remembrance of the God who saved Israel, but, in His own words, the remembrance of 'me', so in that sense the whole thing, from a Jewish perspective, is a blasphemy, and not SOP at all. It, once again, to a Jew, was a declaration of divinity.

Not wanting to sound facetious, but this was clearly a Pesach, not a Shabbat. And in celebrating the Pesach, the Jews don't remember the sheep they killed to daub over their doors.

He did this as well, take this bread....it is my body (earthly material)...
Given up for what, though, that's the point.

Judas took it and Jesus sent him off to do what he must do...an implication that Judas only understood Jesus on a material level?
Well ... we can speculate on that ... I have my own views. But yes, I think we can say that Judas had no idea what was about to happen.

I find it interesting that, despite the Scripture accounts of Judas' fate, Papias (c125AD) says: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

There's a curio to ponder ...

... was it for them, or for us?
According to Him, for many. Them and us.

Did he say do this for the next millenia to come?
Well yes, surely?

"Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever" (John 8:51).

"Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him" (John 14:23).

"But that on the good ground, are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit in patience" (Luke 8:15).

"But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:28).

The Jews recall the Covenant and the Passover not just to remember those who were materially saved, but rather to 'bring to mind' the promise made to those who survived, but the (spiritual) salvation of those who survived, and the generations that follow.

And in the same way, His followers 'keep' the Last Supper as the centre of their Liturgy.

Or do this now and every shabbot from now on you'll remember to take in the material (be in this world) and the spiritual (but not of this world)...
No. He wasn't rewriting the Shabbat, that stands inviolate. The Shabbat is about the Covenant between God and Israel. This was not an adendum to the Shabbat, or the Pesach. It was the institution of something 'new'.

He explains the nature of this new covenant, and it's a repetition of the old. It's a covenant with Him, not with the Father. (Another claim to divinity.) That's why His followers chose the resurrection day on which to celebrate their Shabbat. If they were 'over-writing' the Shabbat, the Christian Sabbath would be on Friday?

But really, I think the emphasis is on the fact that Jesus presents Himself to the disciples as the sacrifice – His body is given up, His blood is shed – to consecrate a 'new covenant' (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:24). It's not about memory or morality ... it signifies much more than that.

+++

In every religious tradition, it's axiomatic that the invocation of the 'Divine Name' invokes the presence of the Divine, it does not simply remember the Divine at a distance.

"For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).
 
I like that you back up to quotes before the dinner as if they were said after the dinner...

Again...Passover Seder....ya break a lot of unleavened bread and sip a lotta wine, four cups ..well in the Haggadahs that have been used at Seders that I have attended...(discussion ensues as to whether it is the cup of blessings (3rd) or cup of Melchizedek (4th) that Jesus used as 'his blood".

Matthew tells us Judas was hanged, did they run him over with a cart afterwords or before?

And during the dinner...and bread...and wine...where is it he told them to go and tell others to start doing this??

We know it was being utilized by Paul in his letters to Corinthians...
 
Can we clear up the original point first. Do you accept that He did institute a new covenant?
 
Don't have to be Catholic. The Orthodox Patriarchies, Lutherans, the Reformation denominations, Anglicans, even The World Council of Churches accepts the text:

"For this is my blood of the new testament ..." Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25

... to mean that Christ instituted the Eucharist. How they interpret the Eucharist differs theologically, but they do assert that Christ established the 'new testament' at the Supper.

If you don't celebrate the Lord's Supper, can I ask why celebrate Shabbat?
 
clarification. are you using testament and covenant to mean the same thing?

I do not believe the wine literally becomes the blood, nor the bread literally becomes his body.

Why do I celebrate the sabbath? A time of rest, of prayer, of feasting? Because I feel it beneficial....

Do I celebrate the Lord's supper? A time of communion with friends, with like minded people? A time of contemplation regarding things to come. Sure.

Not being Catholic, I am not allowed to take communion in your churches (or so I was instructed in my youth by Catholics) ...and so every wedding, funeral, christening, confirmation...I sat...along with all the others that weren't worthy.

When in other churches they had communion....I sat as well. Until a preacher defined it as community coming together, a celebration of like minded folks, following a tradition... And then I saw communion not as blood and body of Christ but representing the spirit of Christ, and his earthly body Jesus... Honoring the spirit that travels within our earthly vehicle, this meat suit we identify as us.
 
Actually, ignore that last question.

You don't believe in the Last Supper established a new testament in Christ, OK.

But the Last Supper was not a Seder.

The parallels? They are too general to be decisive. What the text says is that Our Lord ate a meal with his disciples. During the meal the disciples reclined, ate both bread and wine, and sang a hymn. That is characteristic of practically any Jewish meal.

The Early Church celebration of the Eucharist on a daily or weekly basis (Acts 2:46–47) underscores the fact that it was not viewed in the context of a Seder by a community still largely Jewish and still attending Synagogue.

In chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, the eucharistic prayers are Christian, but modelled on the Jewish 'Grace After Meals' (Birkat ha-Mazon) recited at any meal at which bread was eaten. Not the Shabbat prayers, nor the Peseach prayers recited at Passover.

It is true that Our Lord speaks of Himself as the Paschal sacrifice. What matters here is the words spoken over the bread and wine, not the bread and wine ... and the words are most decidedly not part of any Jewish tradition. Such a comment would outrage a Jew.

The Jewish blessings follow a "thank you Lord for giving us bread/wine" while the Christian blessings follow "this is my body/blood which was given for you". In this sense – the only one that matters – the Eucharist is rooted in the teaching of Our Lord with regard to Himself, and not at all in Shabbat.

Likewise the connection to Passover doesn't derive from the Last Supper putatively having been a Seder, but from Our Lord explicitly drawing the connection between himself and the Paschal lamb.

The Early Church kept Shabbat on the traditional day. The Eucharist was celebrated separately, on a different day – it was something else entirely. There were, of course, the elements common to a meal, but they viewed it as the Lord's Supper, an Agape Meal, and not as a shabbat.

To say it's 'just' a Shabbat is simply to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
 
clarification. are you using testament and covenant to mean the same thing?
Yes. The word is diatheke:
Outline of Biblical Usage:
1: a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2: a compact, a covenant, a testament
3: God's covenant with Noah, etc. (Strong's 1242)

I do not believe the wine literally becomes the blood, nor the bread literally becomes his body.
Wouldn't expect you to. But that's not the point. You're denying the covenant altogether, we haven't touched on its significance.

Why do I celebrate the sabbath? A time of rest, of prayer, of feasting? Because I feel it beneficial....
Well people meditate because it's beneficial, but that's not Buddhism. Nor is a meal Jewish or Christian because it's a meal. I think you don't really get 'Shabbat' any more than 'Communion'.

Do I celebrate the Lord's supper? A time of communion with friends, with like minded people? A time of contemplation regarding things to come. Sure.
That can be said of any supper. Celebration of the self by surrounding oneself with the 'like minded'. Doesn't make it Shabbat or Communion.

My point is, I fail to see any adequate reason to infer that you're celebrating the Jewish Shabbat, or the Christian Communion. The outward correspondence is superficial, the inward correspondence is entirely absent.

I's just a supper. The Lord's supper OK.
Well obviously not. That's frankly illogical. Or totally superficial. Tonight I'll be eating supper with my family. The bloke over the road will probably be doing the same with his. But I'm not celebrating his supper, and he's not celebrating mine. You're just celebrating 'supper', not any supper in particular.

Not being Catholic, I am not allowed to take communion in your churches (or so I was instructed in my youth by Catholics)
Well that's not the case today. But we still ask that those who come forward don't treat it as lightly as you do. Don't regard it as nothing much at all.

When in other churches they had communion....I sat as well. Until a preacher defined it as community coming together, a celebration of like minded folks, following a tradition... And then I saw communion not as blood and body of Christ but representing the spirit of Christ, and his earthly body Jesus... Honoring the spirit that travels within our earthly vehicle, this meat suit we identify as us.
What do you mean by 'the spirit of Christ'? All I can see is 'the spirit of self'?
 
too funny thomas..... I celebrate every meal....every rest....

It is all of G!d...nature is awesome...life is to be celebrated as it is...

You see superficial, I see incredible. Sitting communally having dinner with friends, breaking bread, drinking wine, enjoying the moment for what it is.... if it isn't a spiritual experience for you, that is alright. I feel a little sad that it isn't....but that is fine...it is for me.

You wish to break everything down to the nth degree, point out my every mistake in my belief and understanding....whatever floats your boat...my boat floats on air....take a deep breath....get baptized by all that is right now...

I thank you for the goosebumps and bliss this contemplation just provided...
 
Oh dear, you're resorting to 'the old one-two' – pseudo-spiritual non-sequitors, laced with ad hominems...
too funny thomas... You see superficial, I see incredible ...if it isn't a spiritual experience for you, that is alright. I feel a little sad that it isn't...
I don't play these 'if only you were as illumined as I' games.

I thank you for the goosebumps and bliss this contemplation just provided...
Don't thank me, old thing, that's all your own manufacture!
 
lol.....don't get your panties in a bunch mate....

your church is your church....mine is mine.

I go to the synagogue because I enjoy it. I enjoy turning the pages 'backwards' enjoy reading the phonetic Hebrew and looking at the actual letters, I enjoy their spoken and sung prayers. I go to my church to indoctrinate young minds, teach them to think, compassion and love. I go to Hindu and Buddhist Temples and Mosques all for the same reason... I commune and dance with the Sufi's for world peace. I participate in couch surfing when traveling....to sit in conversation with locals....and I participate here to learn and share...

Illumined? Enlightened.....Not even close...we discussed just yesterday or the day before how far from that I believe I am...and how the material still has a very big grip on me...

But does that mean I can't enjoy the moment, can't cry at touching ceremonies, can't hug friends like it will be our last, can't savor the taste of fresh corn, or the smell of cookies in the oven, or enjoy the birds singing?

You do it your way my brother, I'll do it mine. I can't grok the blood and body stuff....Hence I am not a Catholic....get over it. This is your domain, your method of praying, contemplating, celebrating, remembering....and I am positive it is glorious for you.... Don't give me crap for my way....enjoy yours.
 
Hi Andrew —

Thinking about 'remembrance', and leaving the esoteric and liturgical aspect of that term on one side for a moment, one thing that often impresses itself upon me is from the catechetical lectures of St Augustine:
... For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint]

So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.

So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27]

If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith.

When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. (Sermon 272 my emphasis)
 
lol.....don't get your panties in a bunch mate....
:D No problem there, old son. I rather think it's you.

... we discussed just yesterday or the day before how far from that I believe I am...and how the material still has a very big grip on me...
So, if you wanna break the grip ... think differently! :)

But does that mean I can't enjoy the moment, can't cry at touching ceremonies, can't hug friends like it will be our last, can't savor the taste of fresh corn, or the smell of cookies in the oven, or enjoy the birds singing?
No, You can do all that stuff, I do. But there's more to life than that. Don't confuse sentimentality with spirituality, that's all I'm saying.

You do it your way my brother, I'll do it mine. I can't grok the blood and body stuff....Hence I am not a Catholic....get over it.
Calm down, Wil ... no-one's attacking you ... nor would I expect a full-on conversion! ;)

Look at what's going on here:
I said Christ instituted the Eucharist.
You questioned that.
I answered.
No response to that, you rock on to your next objection.

You said it was a Seder
I countered that.
No response to that, you rock on to your next objection.

This is a classic pattern.

Maybe, when your arguments don't stand up, rather than just rock on to the next, you should take time out to contemplate what it might mean ... maybe that's the turning moment, when you're faced with the choice to open up to another possibility...

This is your domain ... Don't give me crap for my way....enjoy yours.
I'm not giving you crap, I'm suggesting there might be more to this mundane world than you allow. ;)
 
Is this instruction for remembrance limited to what has become the "eucharist," in Christian tradition?

As I read the whole of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim teachings, there is nothing in Creation that is separate from the "body" and "blood" of Yahushua, who is the Projection/Son of Yah made visible in the earthly walk of Y'shua.

I distinguish Y'shua from Yahushua on the basis of the saying, "If you had seen me, you had seen the Father, also," understanding that the audience was looking right at the man who said he came not in his own name, but in the Father's name.

Y'shua's real name was probably Yahuchannan/John, the Essene teacher of righteousness, who predated the time period attributed to the gospels. This understanding goes far to explain the teaching in the epistles, "We preach the Anointed in a mystery: as liars, but true."

If all Creation is as the body and blood of HaShem as projected by Yah, then I read the instruction as saying, whatever we do in any context, we ought to do in guileless remembrance of HaShem's projection into the material world.

Seeing the eucharist in this context would absolutely clean up our acts, and would satisfy the disciples' qualms about god-eating or man-eating, however one views the feast.
b.
 
Hi b.finton –
Is this instruction for remembrance limited to what has become the "eucharist," in Christian tradition?
Not at all, but the focus of remembrance is the Son, in whom the Father is, as is the Holy Spirit. In the Eucharist we receive the Son, or as I would prefer to say we are incorporated into the Son. So in that sense it is central to our every act of remembrance, as it is a complete act of remembrance, engaging the whole being – spiritual, human, fauna, flora and mineral, in a very real way.

As I read the whole of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim teachings, there is nothing in Creation that is separate from the "body" and "blood" of Yahushua, who is the Projection/Son of Yah made visible in the earthly walk of Y'shua.
And I would endorse that reading. I would qualify my reading by saying whilst there is nothing separate from God, no 'thing' is God. God transcends all things, absolutely. God, to me, infers a category of its own. A category beyond categorisation.

I distinguish Y'shua from Yahushua on the basis of the saying, "If you had seen me, you had seen the Father, also," understanding that the audience was looking right at the man who said he came not in his own name, but in the Father's name.
Not only in name, but in presence. The prophets, priests and kings spoke in the Father's name, and declared the Father's presence, but not in themselves, but through themselves. We see Our Lord as the Incarnation of the Father-in-the-Son rather than the 'projection', but I might be splitting theological hairs here.

Y'shua's real name was probably Yahuchannan/John, the Essene teacher of righteousness, who predated the time period attributed to the gospels. This understanding goes far to explain the teaching in the epistles, "We preach the Anointed in a mystery: as liars, but true."
I don't think that one flies. The Teacher of Righteousness spoke for an extreme separatist sect who observed strict rules of ritual purity. Our Lord broke all those rules and contended with those who observed the letter rather than the spirit of the law. The consensus among scholars is, I think, He was more likely a Pharisee.

If all Creation is as the body and blood of HaShem as projected by Yah, then I read the instruction as saying, whatever we do in any context, we ought to do in guileless remembrance of HaShem's projection into the material world.
Well it's his creation entrusted to us, so I think we're basically on the same page.

Seeing the eucharist in this context would absolutely clean up our acts, and would satisfy the disciples' qualms about god-eating or man-eating, however one views the feast.
It ought to ... but speaking from experience ... :eek:
 
Look at what's going on here:
I said Christ instituted the Eucharist.
You questioned that.
I answered.
No response to that, you rock on to your next objection.

You said it was a Seder
I countered that.
No response to that, you rock on to your next objection.

This is a classic pattern.

I'm not giving you crap, I'm suggesting there might be more to this mundane world than you allow. ;)
LOL...and there is is.... I deny that the world is mundane....far from it.

I think our difference is...I don't see anything as supernatural...it is all natural...and all G!d.

It was a seder....you know that...prepare the room for the feast...the only question is was it the third cup of wine or the fourth?

We know what man said Jesus said...that is not in question. What is in question is what was meant by it...and that is open to interpretation....hence the thousands of Christian denominations.

What is funny is I simply ask questions and state what I believe. What you believe is upto you.

You have issues with my beliefs....I don't care. I don't need to step on your beliefs to prop up mine. I do appreciate your knowledge of your beliefs and scripture...and love that it supports and enforces my understandings.

Can't wait for Andrew to return....we are in for a three page reply that will take me days to absorb.
 
Back
Top