Sabbath/Passover Vs. First Day/communion

[Searching]

Peace All,

In our searching of scripture, we are often warned about the doctrines of men. The doctrine of 'communion/eucharist' and the changing of the sabbath, or even the 'whatever day', are examples of some of these doctrines.

The Misunderstanding of this comes from a lie that was created many hundred years ago, that the disciples started worshiping weekly on the First day of the Week, that is, instead of the sabbath. This misinterpretation stems from this single verse:

<center>Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.</center>

I will explore this verse and others like it to justify my claim. Please keep and open mind and weigh carefully the verses I will use for support. This is not a hard one to see when using an open mind.

By now, one might say, "I shouldn't even read this thread, Paul told me not to let anyone judge me in sabbath, New Moon, what I eat of drink, or any of the feast day!" In the end of this thread, I will tell you the same.

Acts 20:7 is used to show that the disciples were coming together to have 'communion' and worship. When one looks at this, to make this interpretation that they should do this ALSO, must say themselves..."I see what they are doing, so I must do Likewise."

This is an honest interpretation if one has been looking at this scripture for a long time. However, if we are going to interpret by example from one scripture, we interpret from example from ALL scriptures. It would only be fair correct?

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Here are the disciples on the sabbath. What are they doing? Worshipping the Father. Now we might have TWO days we have to worship if we interpret by example!!!

But pay a little close attention here. Paul was clearly speaking the Word of the Father to the people:

Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Notice a couple things here. The GENTILES wish (vs. 42) wish for Paul and Barnabas to preach to them more. Now seeing it is the sabbath, and if the disciples truely did come together on the first day of the week, what should they tell the Gentiles? Come back tomorrow? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Notice vs. 42 again. The Gentiles don't even expect a 'first day' service. What is it that they ask?

the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

They wish for Paul's words When? On the sabbath.

Next look at vs. 44. When do the Gentiles return...along WITH almost the whole community? The seventh day...not the First.

So why didn't they come back on the First day if the day of services had changed? Why didn't Paul tell them, "Hey, we have this New thing, where we preach on the First Day, why don't you get the kids and come on by?"

I already told you why...it's a false doctrine. But let us explore more. Have you carefully weighed the 'interpretation by example'?

Back to Acts 20:

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

In verse seven, we are told that the disciples came together to 'break bread'.

In this verse, what strikes you as odd? Did you notice that Paul stayed until midnight? Acctually, if you notice vs 11, Paul stayes until the break of day...that would be about 6 am on Monday morning. I will not hold anyone to 'example' interpration for that bit. If one was to interpret this verse as Acts 20:7, I would be complaining that services are too short.

But Notice again, WHEN do they break bread? Not until the Break of Day!

So, now, if this is 'communion' which I told you already it is not, the Disciples (who were the only ones there mind you) had a church service that Lasted almost 18 HOURS! But this is not a church service. Paul is preaching as many would like to point out, but you may preach any day eh? Messiah didn't wait till the sabbath to preach. So why are they gathered? Acts 20:7 holds that clue. Paul is ready to leave...to see Paul off.

Again, if we were to interpet by the 'example' (that is, example we think we see), we might be having communion every day.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Now let's try to interpret Acts 20:7 using this reasoning. Vs 42 says:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

One might say, "look, it was part of thier doctrine." But look here I say, "when is the first example?" Only 4 verses later. Vs 46 says they broke bread 'daily' and ate their MEAT with gladness. What is it then they are doing? Eating.

Apply now Vs 26 to Acts 20:7. What do you get? "They were DAILY 'breaking bread', and upon the FIRST DAY (that is, as they were DAILY 'Breaking bread') when they came together to 'break bread'..." Is it starting to look a bit less like they were at a service?

Now I have made a claim that 'breaking bread' does not mean 'communion' but eating.

Growing up in Catholic school, we were often taught about the miricale of Messiah multiplying the Fish and the Bread. One verse in particular never caught my eye, for I believed my preacher or the guy who told me without giving it an honest look. But look what is in here:

Luke 9:16 Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

Did you see that? He did exactly what is mentioned in Acts 20:7. He 'broke bread' (loaves). Only this time it is VERY CLEAR what is happening, and that is lunch.

NOW to get the intpretation of 'communion' from Acts 20:7, what must one do? That's right...change the meaning of 'break bread' from eating to communion. You cannot change what is cleary defined for you in previous scriptures to fit an interpretation as 'Christianity' does. Can you see this?

Mark 8:6 And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.

Let's not forget that Paul NEVER blesses the bread, Nor is Wine EVER present.

One might say to me now..."you assume that they didn't have service on that day after the sabbath, and you assume that wine was not present."

I say it is a bigger assumption that they ARE there! That is, adding to scripture what is not mentioned.

[Searching]

the sequal...

Let's of course look at the 'whatever day' scripture:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

I would like everyone to notice first that in this ENTIRE chapter, no where does it mention the sabbath, or worshipping. So then what is Paul talking about? Fasting. Go ahead, look at the Chapter. Those who are weak in Faith eat only fruits and vegtables. Why? Those who are strong do not bear conscience to food offered to idols. This is what the chapter is about...all of it. This is not about unclean food, or the sabbath, but about food offered to idols.

So one may ask, "but what about 'do this in memory of me"? I will tell you...do THAT, in memory of him. When Messiah said this, he did not say to the disciples..."get wafers and wine, and every first day of the week eat them." Nowhere in scripture is there a command given for communion, NOR for the first day of the week. He said "DO THIS" and what he was doing was remembering the Passover. As Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven (physical), neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness (spiritual); but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul tells us here to KEEP THE FEAST, in direct reference to the Passover. Notice also Paul mentions TWO kinds of Leavening. The Phycial (old Leaven) and the Spiritual (malice and wickedness.

I hope all can see that the Disciples, and Gentiles honored the sabbath as thier day of rest and glory to the Father, and kept the Passover as commanded by the Father. Peace

Sincerely,
Searching

I may edit this...I am REALLY tired...till tommorrow

[simchat_torah]

Judaic View of Communion...

part 1:



Before I begin, I would like to share one thing.

This was the MOST DIFFICULT thing I have ever come across. Since then, I have found an uncountable number of Jewish Believers who have confided in me the same conclusion.

I was raised in a christian home. I veiwed communion as one of the most holy of all traditions. What I am about to share with you was one of the absolutely most difficult things for me to come to closure on.

Now here it is.....

“Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha’olam, hamotzi lechem, min ha aretz.”
“Blessed are You, O LORD our God, King of the Universe, Who has brought forth bread from the earth.”

At the beginning of the family meal, this blessing is said as the bread is broken. The blessing is referred to as “the breaking of bread”.
Sharing meals is a very important part of Jewish family and community life. So important, that special blessings are said at the start and end of the meal. The term “breaking bread” is mentioned several times in the New Testament writings. It is important that we take a look at what it means in Jewish life, to “break bread”.

In the days of Yeshua, a 'communal meal' was a common practice, particularly among the Jewish Sect of the Essenes. The Essenes, a community living mostly in the Judean hills, were known for their absolute community of goods. Those who came into the Community, had to give all they had: there was one purse for all, and all members had expenses, clothing, and food in common. In the second chapter of the book of ‘Acts’, many of the believers in Messiah began to follow the Essene lifestyle, selling their belongings, having all things in common and breaking bread (sharing communal meals) from house to house: “And all believers were together and had all things in common; and those who had possessions sold them and divided to each man according to his need. And they went to the Temple every day with one accord; and at home they broke bread and received food with joy and a pure heart.”

With the advent of Christianity in the fourth century CE, a “Communion” ritual was introduced as part of Christian worship. This ritual involved the reconstructing of the ‘sacrifice of Christ’, where the worshipers partook of bread and wine, which represented the body and blood of their god.

Now, within Judaism, there is no such concept as 'communion', nor has there ever been. There is no Biblical equivalent to 'Eucharist', or ‘Communion ritual’. Actual, the ‘communion’ practice caused many severe problems for the Jews, particularly in medieval times with the strange charges of ‘host desecration’. Jews were accused and executed, for allegedly profaning the communion wafer. It was imagined in Christian circles that the Jews, not content with crucifying Christ once, continued to renew the agonies of his suffering by stabbing, tormenting or burning the host. It was said that such was the intensity of their hatred, that when the host shed blood, emitted voices or took to flight, the Jews were not deterred.

The charge of host desecration was leveled against Jews over all the Christian world, frequently bringing large scale massacre.

So, if the concept of ‘communion’ has no Jewish root, where did the Church’s ritual originate?

In the second century CE, the Roman Church officially rejected all Jewish custom and Law, stating that Christianity had nothing in common with the Jews. In order to accommodate pagans into the new Roman Empire religion, the practices and rituals of the Mystery Religions were modified to suit Christianity. Let us take a look at the origins of the "Communion Ritual" in the Mystery Religions of Babylon and Greece:

The Ritual of Communion was a ritual called 'Omophagia'. In the Greek mysteries, Dionysus (or Bacchus - his Babylonian counterpart), was one of the main deities. His birth was celebrated on December 25. He was the god of wine. His followers, called “Bacchants” , celebrated the communion ritual of Dionysus by crushing the fruit of the vine and drinking the scarlet lifeblood pressed from its flesh. They also dismembering the animal which represented Dionysus (the bull), and worshipers would tear the bull to pieces with their hands and teeth. By practicing “Omophagia” (the dismemberment of the sacrificial victim and eating the flesh and drinking the blood), it was believed the worshiper absorbed the nature, or life of the god into his own. Thus, having consumed the flesh of the bull and the wine representing Dionysus, the worshipers took on his power and character. This was a communion in the god's own body and blood - to become like the god, they had to consume the god.

The second century Church took this concept and adapted it to ‘Jesus’. For this reason, the miracle of communion was that the symbols of ‘Jesus’, the bread and wine, were believed to literally become his flesh and blood. This is called "transubstantiation", and is a belief of Catholics to this day.

Although the Protestant Church rejected ‘transubstantiation’, they kept the communion ritual, declaring that in the bread and wine, the believer partakes spiritually in the flesh and blood of the god. There are three main doctrines of the Communion rite within Christianity:

1. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the wafer and wine of the Sacrament become the actual flesh and blood of Christ (Transubstantiation).

2. The Lutheran Church teaches that the flesh and blood of Christ are consumed in and with the bread and wine. This doctrine is called Consubstantiation.

3. The Calvinists say that the bread and wine give those who partake of them a spiritual participation of the flesh and blood of Christ.

It has been a common practice of non-Catholic denominations to simply ‘spiritualize’ Catholic doctrines. However, the belief still remains, that by either literally or spiritually partaking in the body and blood of the 'g-d', the believer receives the very life of the god.

(to be continued....)

[simchat_torah]

Judaic View of Communion...

part two:


In the Jewish faith, there is no ritual where a worshiper literally eats a symbol of G-d in order to ‘receive Him’. We are transformed only by the Ruach (Spirit of G-d) in the observance of the Commandments.

If this is the case, then what did Yeshua mean when he used the symbolism of bread and wine and flesh and blood in reference to himself? Let’s begin by taking a look at Yeshua’s words while partaking of his ‘last’ meal with his disciples, before he died:

“And he took bread and gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them and said, ‘This is my body, which is given for your sake; this do in remembrance of me” Luke 22:19.

Most of us know, that at this time Yeshua was having a Passover Seder with his disciples. What piece of bread did he take, describing it as “my body”? He took the Afikomen; not just any piece of matzah, but the piece which was broken and hidden at the start of the Seder, and compared this to his body. This was UNLEAVENED bread, signifying the sinlessness of Messiah. It is only at the Passover Seder, held on the Eve of Nissan 14, that the Afikomen is eaten. The Torah clearly states that we are to remember our redemption by eating unleavened bread at the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is the only time at which we are commanded by God to do this. Yeshua is the unleavened bread. For this reason he said, “Do this (keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread/Passover) in remembrance of me.”

The Afikomen also has many other symbollic purposes. It is broken in two, pierced with a knife, wrapped in a white cloth, and hidden from the children. At the end of the meal, the Afikomen is searched for by the children and when found it is brought to the Father of the household, who then gives the child a small reward in return. What an amazing picture of Y'shua!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most often, at a ‘Communion service’, leavened bread is used. Leaven represents sin; Messiah is 'the sinless one'. It is the anti-messiah who is called the 'man of sin'.

When the term “breaking bread” is used in the New Testament writings, it is either in context of the Passover Seder, or the weekly community meal. We already addressed the “communal meal” in Acts 2, now let us take a look at the following passages:

In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, there are two issues which Paul addresses:

1. The sanctity of the Passover as being a meal for 'the redeemed' (the Body).

2. The prohibition of partaking in ‘pagan meals'.

It seems that the Corinthians were attending the Passover Seder and then attending the pagan festivals as well. Paul says it is an offense to G-d to mix the two. Verse 21: “You cannot drink the cup of our Lord and the cup of devils; you cannot be partakers of the table of our Lord and of the table of devils.” This is a common problem among Gentile believers, and Jewish ‘Messianics’, even to this day. Many like to attend the Biblical Festivals, but also continue in the pagan ones as well. Paul stresses the importance of the “community” of G-d as being a “set apart” body: v17, “For just as the loaf of bread is one, so we are all one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” There can be no mixture.

The whole of I Corinthians 5 is about the Passover Seder. Paul says that those deliberately engaged in sin are not to partake of the Passover. The Passover is the only Festival of HaShem where only the observant can attend. The Corinthians were allowing just anyone to attend and the ‘leaven’ (sin) among them was not being removed. Paul stresses that those who continued in their sin were not to participate in the Seder. The Seder is to be celebrated without 'leaven' (sin) v7,8. It is Torah law that the ‘body’ is to be judged correctly. Paul says that we are not to keep non-believers out at all times, but only in the context of the Seder: verse 10, “I do not mean that you should separate completely from all the immoral people of the world..... verse 11 “but with such a person, you must not break bread.”

Again in 1 Corinthians 11:26-31, Paul reinforces the Torah command that "no uncircumcised person may eat of the Passover". It seems that this command was not being taken seriously and non observant people were partaking. For this reason, as the Torah also warns, they were dying or becoming sick. This is what the Torah calls the punishment of 'Kareth' - when God executes punishment on a person who violates the Commandment in a hidden manner.

The above passages bear no relevance to a “Communion service” The term “breaking of bread” is purely a reference to either the Passover Seder, or just having a meal. Any other ritual, is simply not “breaking bread” in the Jewish context.

Having said this, what was Yeshua referring to when he said, "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have not life within you?”

Yeshua’s very words are found in Jewish Kabbalistic writings. Keeping in mind that Yeshua is the LIVING TORAH, let us read the following excerpt in that context:

“... The Torah is clothed in the soul and intellect of a person, and is absorbed in them, and is called 'bread' and 'food' of the soul. For just as physical bread nourishes the body as it is absorbed internally, in his very inner self, where it is transformed into blood and flesh of his flesh, whereby he lives and exists - so too, it is with the knowledge of the Torah and its comprehension by the souls of the person who studies it well, with a concentration of his intellect, until the Torah is absorbed by his intellect and is united with it and they become one. This becomes nourishment for the soul, and its inner life from the Giver of Life, the blessed Ein Sof (the Eternal G-d). This is the meaning of the verse, 'Yea, Thy Torah is within my inward parts.”

In John 6: 47-57 Yeshua said the following, referring to himself as Torah: (parenthesis mine)

"I am the living bread (Torah) that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread (Torah), he will live forever. This bread is my flesh (Yeshua is Torah in the flesh), which I will give for the life of the world.... v53: Yeshua said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you can eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood (Yeshua is fully consumed Torah), you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh (Torah) is real food and my blood (Torah) is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me (Torah) will live because of me."

Yeshua is the fullness of wisdom, knowledge and understanding. He is the full COMPREHENSION (fulfillment) of Torah. If we fully absorb Torah, so that it becomes to us as flesh and blood, we will have eternal life. As the Sages say, “The scrolls of the Torah may be destroyed, but its spirit is immortal and indestructible.

He is TORAH in the Flesh.

Shalom,
J.

p.s. the above is borrowed largely from a paper written by Luana Fabri, called "Breaking of Bread- the Jewish Understanding".

[Valid Name]

Flesh and Body

Greetings Japheth,

Thank you for those thoughts.

I must say that this decision for me was the EASIEST I ever ran across. I was also one of the first things that I delt with.

I grew up in a Catholic School, attended for eight years, and partook of 'communion' two to three times a week. Around my freshman year of high school, I had pretty much denounced the bible, and even went as far as trying to prove it false.

The sabbath was the first idea that was taught to me that I had found true. My friends here at the Tzaddikim were observing sabbath for as long as I had known them. A bunch of 'freaks' they seemed to be. So when the question of religion came to my mind, guess who I went to first?

I am going to read this a few more times, and hopefully find some more verses about this idea. I am very interested in the 'eat blood and flesh of Messiah' as the way to have written it. I believe this has troubled our assembly for a while (we are VERY small by the way), for how can Torah say not to eat flesh and drink blood, yet Messiah says you Must? 'Chr-stianity' doesn't have this problem, because they NEVER seem to have problems.

I must say, you have been a blessing to us here (already).

Peace,
Valid Name

[simchat_torah]

LOL... I do what i can... jk

Anywho...

I wasn't one for traditions.
I first grew up in a christian home, then secular (where I was physically and sexually abused), then pagan, then charasmatic christian. Born with Jewish blood, but never saw a day of "jewish-ness" till I began searching on my own. Had demons cast out when i came out of the occult 10 years ago. It's a long story. Maybe someday I'll write a book? Then again, why scare people? he he he...

But, as I was stating, I was not one for traditions. However, to me, before I encountered the Judaic viewpoint, viewed communion as the one holy tradition, considering out of all the traditions this was the one started in scripture... HA!

Well, it wasn't too hard as I had already encountered many false doctrines that had upset me by that point, but after the communion thing, nothing seemed to phase me.

I'm probably just blabbing so I'll shuddap now.

shalom,
Japheth.

[Midge]

Acts 20:7

Searching, Here is something that may help with the Acts 20 delima. The word that has been translated as first day is the Greek word Sabbaton and it means Sabbath. Here is a very literal translation of this verse.
Acts 20:7 within then the one the Sabbath (the Greek word is Sabbaton and means Sabbath) gather us break bread the Paulus discuss self will certainly take place depart the following day prolong likewise the speech until midnight.
Hope this helps.
Midge

[simchat_torah]

Actually Midge, this is understood in christian theology that this was a reference to the sabbath. Yet under Jewish interpretation, after sunset we have entered a new day. Thus when Sha'ul (paul) preached until midnight it became the "first day" which would have been Sunday. The translators have taken great liberty in presenting the verse as "the first day" yet they are within the boundaries of Jewish theology. Ironically, this is one of the few times that christianity decides to follow Jewish theology. Funny how they are so selective of when to apply Jewish thought and when to apply their own thinking.

I agree a literal translation would best fit this verse, however, literal or a liberal translation would make no difference upon theology from this single verse. Simply because Sha'ul chose to speak until midnight does not negate Sabbath worship. No where is any authoritative statement made concerning the changing of sabbath to the first day, but merely the statement that he continued to speak until midnight.

Acutally, this was a common practice of the end of Shabbat. Rejoicive services often went until midnight... a very festive time at the end of Shabbat. It was commanded, and popularly understood, in the first century to have a "party" at the going down of Shabbat. This was done so that one would look eagearly upon the return of Shabbat.

Shalom!
Japheth.

[Midge]

Japheth, I think you have misunderstood my intent. I was not in any way trying to support the First day sabbath. I was trying to show how the Church mistranslated scripture in support of their First day doctrine.
Also if you will read Acts 20 carifully you will find that Paul wasn't preaching. He was having a discussion with his deciples about the journey he was going on the following day, which is why they stayed up all night, preparing for the departure of Paul the next day.
I think this verse is to be translated as such:
Acts 20:7: on the first Sabbath we gathered the broken bread. Paul then discussed what would take place the following day when he departed prolonging his descussion until midnight.

I am in agreement with what you have written. After the Sabbath meal it was/is customary for a group to sit and discuse the upcoming week and the plained activites for that week.

Midge

[simchat_torah]

Oh, I know what you meant midge! I was merely addressing the inconsistencies of translation by typical christian scholars.



-J.