Lord's supper (was Re: TD: Benny Hinn (was Re: [CS-FSLUG] RFC: Change of Statement of Faith)

[Don Parris]

On 9/14/05, dmc <edoc7 at verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>
> 
> The bread and wine (whatever you want to speculate "wine" means,
> and that is all it is, mere speculation) are merely *symbols*.
> When we make them more than mere symbols, either by reading-in
> too much as Roman Catholic doctrine does or become rigid as
> to the form of the symbol, we at-best muddy the real point.
> 

I can speak for the wine issue.  Welch's processing hadn't been
invented yet.  So we're not talking about grape juice, as some
belivers claim (in my experience).  The wine was real.  Whether it was
"new" or "old" is moot - the people thought the disciples had gotten
drunk on new wine, iirc, on the Day of Pentecost.  I can't help but
wonder if it might correspond better to the difference between Wild
Irish Rose and a nice Chardonnay. ;-)

As for the Roman Catholics, their interpretation is actually based on
a philosopher's theory.  Could have been Plato or Aristotle - one of
the better-known guys, at any rate.  Anyhow, I always thought their
belief was based in eisegesis until I found that out.  Whether the
philosopher could have been influenced by Biblical teaching is beyond
my expertise.  I still disagree with the Catholic interpretation, but
it's not as kooky or simple as eisegesis.

> I would far prefer that one use a donut and coffee and have
> a true heart for the meaning than wine and unleavened bread
> and miss the meaning in a Jesus-forbidden obsession with
> "Endless repetition and mindless recitations."
> 

Hear! Hear!  I wouldn't mind celebrating communion with donuts and
coffee 'til the Lord returns! :-D  Leave it to me to be the clown.

Don
-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"