NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I ususally go to a Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) church, but I didn't go home this weekend. So, I went to a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) church. They had Communion today and I was surprised that they had both wine and grape juice. You came up in small groups and they offered you both, and you chose which you wanted.

I have always thought that wine should be used exclusively and I'm wondering what the rest of you think (providing you care ;) ).

Do you prefer wine, grape juice, or do you think both should be provided.

the church i used to go to offered smarties instead of those wafer things too. naturally i went for the wine and the smarties.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are PCUSA and PCA?

As to your question, the churches I went to while growing up always had wine.

If you're gonna sit through a sermon, you might as well get a buzz out of it. ;)

the church i used to go to offered smarties instead of those wafer things too. naturally i went for the wine and the smarties.

The Smarties were probably to inspire a religious epiphany, because as we all know, Only Smarties Have The Answer.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are PCUSA and PCA?

As to your question, the churches I went to while growing up always had wine.

Ahh, my fault.

PCUSA = Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. It's the most liberal Presbyterian denomination with perhaps the excpetion of the Cumberland Presbyterian church

PCA = Presbyterian Church of America. It's about in the middle of the spectrum of Presbyterian denominations. It's the largest of the conservative denominations.

My church (Catholic) gives wine.

By the way, is wine supposed to sting? When I had a sip at church it made my throat and tongue hurt.

If you're gonna sit through a sermon, you might as well get a buzz out of it. ;)

that's what the blue smarties are for *nod*.

My church (Catholic) gives wine.

By the way, is wine supposed to sting? When I had a sip at church it made my throat and tongue hurt.

I suspect the blood of Christ was left out in the holy sun too long and became sacred vinegar. Put it on your celestial chips.

The Smarties were probably to inspire a religious epiphany, because as we all know, Only Smarties Have The Answer.

but only giant smarties have the answers to the really BIG questions, and they weren't that generous :(:p

Ahh, my fault.

PCUSA = Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. It's the most liberal Presbyterian denomination with perhaps the excpetion of the Cumberland Presbyterian church

PCA = Presbyterian Church of America. It's about in the middle of the spectrum of Presbyterian denominations. It's the largest of the conservative denominations.
Thankee. :) Out of curiosity, how do you know which Presbyterian denomination a church is? Do you have to research it before attending? I've never seen it listed on the signs outside Presbyterian churches.

My church (Catholic) gives wine.

By the way, is wine supposed to sting? When I had a sip at church it made my throat and tongue hurt.
It's possible it could sting a bit if you're not used to drinking wine, although that's never happened to me. Perhaps the wine had gone off (turned to vinegar)?

I lived with a Jewish family for a while, and when we had the Shabbat meal, we would always have bread and grape juice. I don't know what the rules are for Shabbat, but it was damn good grape juice, they made it from concord grapes they grew themselves.

A drunk congregation is a happy congregation.

Thankee. :) Out of curiosity, how do you know which Presbyterian denomination a church is? Do you have to research it before attending? I've never seen it listed on the signs outside Presbyterian churches.

Some of them do, most don't.

Sometimes you can tell in the name: it's more likely that an Orthodox Presbyterian church will have the words "Orthodox Presbyterian" in its name than a church in a denomination, but not necessarily.

So, you pretty much have to research it. Most churches have websites now and they usually show the denomination right on the home page.

For purely sanitary reasons, if I'm going to sip out of the same cup as a whole church full of people, I'd definitely prefer that cup to contain alcohol. :)

For purely sanitary reasons, if I'm going to sip out of the same cup as a whole church full of people, I'd definitely prefer that cup to contain alcohol. :)

Some of them have those little cups in trays. At least all the churches I've been to have (with the exception of when we do Communion by intinction, which I've only done once).

Both, mainly because there are people who are allergic to alcohol and it makes sense to accommodate them especially for something important like Communion. I would say a similar thing might be necessary for gluten-free wafers; the church should try to accommodate as many members as possible even if it requires a little more work.

I personally prefer wine, but that would be different if I were allergic to it.

Some of them have those little cups in trays. At least all the churches I've been to have (with the exception of when we do Communion by intinction, which I've only done once).

Ah, right, you mentioned you were Presbyterian. They tend to do that.

You know, I had to fight to keep from laughing aloud the first time I attended a service with those little cups, since my first thought upon seeing them was "Holy crap - Jesus shots!" :p

I have no clue about the theological implications, but I'm not a fan of alcohol, so I voted "grape juice."

I never drink wine when I engage in Jewish religious rituals with my family; always grape juice or nothing.

Ah, right, you mentioned you were Presbyterian. They tend to do that.

Well, I've taken Communion at Luthern, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, and Baptist churches as well and they've all used the little cups.

You know, I had to fight to keep from laughing aloud the first time I attended a service with those little cups, since my first thought upon seeing them was "Holy crap - Jesus shots!" :p

Oh my...

Ah, right, you mentioned you were Presbyterian. They tend to do that.

You know, I had to fight to keep from laughing aloud the first time I attended a service with those little cups, since my first thought upon seeing them was "Holy crap - Jesus shots!" :p
LOL. I think I would have had the same reaction. I was raised Catholic, and we never had cups in trays.

I have no clue about the theological implications, but I'm not a fan of alcohol, so I voted "grape juice."

I never drink wine when I engage in Jewish religious rituals with my family; always grape juice or nothing.

But Manischewitz is so.....so....disgustingly delicious!

I have no clue about the theological implications, but I'm not a fan of alcohol, so I voted "grape juice."

I never drink wine when I engage in Jewish religious rituals with my family; always grape juice or nothing.

There aren't many theological implications, at least not for most. The question is: "When Jesus was instituting the Sacrament, how much was He instituting and how much just kinda happened to happen?"

Roman Catholics and Lutherns must use wine because of their explanations of how Communion works, but I think those are the only groups who would have to amend anything if they switched to grape juice.

Well, I've taken Communion at Luthern, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, and Baptist churches as well and they've all used the little cups.

It seems to vary among Protestant denominations and churches, in my experience. I don't know if any of them have an official doctrine on the matter, and I honestly haven't paid close enough attention to tell you with any certainty which ones do what. I just remember more than one Presbyterian communion in which the little cups were used. :)

Oh my...

:D

My church (Catholic) gives wine.

By the way, is wine supposed to sting? When I had a sip at church it made my throat and tongue hurt.

Communion wine is always, without exception, awful. It's a Church law.

I'll take any alcohol I can get.

I'm not picky.

If you dont do wine you go to hell

it is in the hadith!

It's possible it could sting a bit if you're not used to drinking wine, although that's never happened to me. Perhaps the wine had gone off (turned to vinegar)?

I guess that might be it. The only time I've ever had anything with alcohol in it was the wine at church, and I didn't start having the wine at church until recently.

Sekt..

Sekt..

:confused:

:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekt

If you believe in a literal translation of the bible, then drinking grape juice at communion is blasphemy.

Jesus drank wine. A lot of wine. In fact, one of Jesus's greatest miracles was turning water into wine and hosting a kickass party.

Many teatotallers say that jesus drank wine because back then water was filthy and would make you sick. Bollocks. If jesus wanted to drink water he could have just turned wine into water, clean water, with ice cubes and a slice of lemon, but he didn't. Jesus liked wine, and he was not opposed to getting a little schockered every now and then so long as you didn't drive your donkey cart home drunk. At the water to wine party, he could have easily turned the water to clean water, or grape juice, or even orange soda but he didn't, he chose to get everyone drunk on free wine and the people loved him for it.

At the last supper, jesus did not say "Drink this grape juice, it is my blood, yada yada yada," he said "Drink this wine, it is my blood, yada yada yada." You see, wine is alive with yeast and so forth, and fermentation was considered to be a miracle, a gift from the gods so that, at least for a little while, life wouldn't suck quite so much.

Jesus says to drink wine, so by god, I'm gonna drink wine. I'm not going to inject my own invented, twisted, teatotaller morals into the most sacred ritual in christianity! No sir! Give me wine and pour it tall!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekt

Never heard of that before.

Never heard of that before.

You must be from the Americas.

If you believe in a literal translation of the bible, then drinking grape juice at communion is blasphemy.

Jesus drank wine. A lot of wine. In fact, one of Jesus's greatest miracles was turning water into wine and hosting a kickass party.

Many teatotallers say that jesus drank wine because back then water was filthy and would make you sick. Bollocks. If jesus wanted to drink water he could have just turned wine into water, clean water, with ice cubes and a slice of lemon, but he didn't. Jesus liked wine, and he was not opposed to getting a little schockered every now and then so long as you didn't drive your donkey cart home drunk. At the water to wine party, he could have easily turned the water to clean water, or grape juice, or even orange soda but he didn't, he chose to get everyone drunk on free wine and the people loved him for it.

At the last supper, jesus did not say "Drink this grape juice, it is my blood, yada yada yada," he said "Drink this wine, it is my blood, yada yada yada." You see, wine is alive with yeast and so forth, and fermentation was considered to be a miracle, a gift from the gods so that, at least for a little while, life wouldn't suck quite so much.

Jesus says to drink wine, so by god, I'm gonna drink wine. I'm not going to inject my own invented, twisted, teatotaller morals into the most sacred ritual in christianity! No sir! Give me wine and pour it tall!

Quite the zealot, aren't you? I agree, with the point at least. Some of your statements (Give me wine and pur it tall!") I think are a little foolish: drunkeness is a sin.

You must be from the Americas.

Ja naturlich.

Sorry, that's the closest I get to Danish.

Ja naturlich.

Sorry, that's the closest I get to Danish.

:)

Jesus says to drink wine, so by god, I'm gonna drink wine. I'm not going to inject my own invented, twisted, teatotaller morals into the most sacred ritual in christianity! No sir! Give me wine and pour it tall!

Well, there are people that can't drink alcohol due to an allergy or medical condition; I see no reason to deny them the ability to partake in Christ's Last Supper simply because their bodies cannot process or tolerate C2H5OH.

Quite the zealot, aren't you? I agree, with the point at least. Some of your statements (Give me wine and pur it tall!") I think are a little foolish: drunkeness is a sin.

Bollocks. Drunkenness is not a sin. Some of the things people do when their judgement is dulled by alcohol can certainly be sins, and abusing your body can be considered a sin, but simple drunkenness is certainly not sinful.

The way I see it, yeast is a gift from god, with a hearty endorsement from Jesus. You can't get any better than that.

Of course, it's up to you to use it responsibly, you can't just go around being drunk all the time, beating your wife and losing your job, but those things are the doing of the individual, not the alcohol.

Bollocks. Drunkenness is not a sin. Some of the things people do when their judgement is dulled by alcohol can certainly be sins, and abusing your body can be considered a sin, but simple drunkenness is certainly not sinful.

The way I see it, yeast is a gift from god, with a hearty endorsement from Jesus. You can't get any better than that.

Of course, it's up to you to use it responsibly, you can't just go around being drunk all the time, beating your wife and losing your job, but those things are the doing of the individual, not the alcohol.

Deuteronomy 21:20
Proverbs 23:20,21
Matthew 24:48-50
Luke 12:44-46
Luke 21:34
Romans 13:13
1 Corinthians 5:11
1 Corinthians 6:10
Galatians 5:19-21
1 Timothy 3:2-3
Titus 1:7
1 Peter 4:3

I really don't care, and the people that do care irk me. In fact I don't like that people care, because then they probably are all legalistic and discriminatory about the unleavened bread too.

Roman Catholic doctrine states that for a valid Eucharist the bread must be made from wheat. The Catholic Church has approved the use of low-gluten hosts, but even these are not gluten-free. Some Catholic coeliac sufferers have requested permission to use rice wafers; such petitions have always been denied.

The issue is more complex for priests. Although a Catholic (lay or ordained) receiving under either form is considered to have received Christ "whole and entire", the priest, who is acting in persona Christi, is required to receive under both species when offering Mass — not for the validity of his Communion, but for the fullness of the sacrifice of the Mass. On August 22, 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith apparently barred coeliacs from ordination, stating, "Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by coeliac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders." After considerable debate, the congregation softened the ruling on July 24, 2003 to "Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of a priest, one must proceed with great caution before admitting to Holy Orders those candidates unable to ingest gluten or alcohol without serious harm."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease

I really don't care, and the people that do care irk me. In fact I don't like that people care, because then they probably are all legalistic and discriminatory about the unleavened bread too.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease

Do you consider insisting on obeying the Ten Commandments legalistic?

They're just insisting on obeying what they think God requires of us in Scripture. If you can prove to them through Scripture or logic based on Scripture, go ahead. But if you can't, you can expect nothing else of them.

I hesitate to say "This person has a disease, so let's change everything for them." If ther person is truly taking the Sacrament as they ought to be taking it, then would God allow their obedience to make them sick?

Do you consider insisting on obeying the Ten Commandments legalistic?

They're just insisting on obeying what they think God requires of us in Scripture. If you can prove to them through Scripture or logic based on Scripture, go ahead. But if you can't, you can expect nothing else of them.

I hesitate to say "This person has a disease, so let's change everything for them." If ther person is truly taking the Sacrament as they ought to be taking it, then would God allow their obedience to make them sick?

there is enough gluten in a crumb of a communion wafer to do serious lasting damage to my body, I don't see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe that God wants me to die from taking communion.

Deuteronomy 21:20
Proverbs 23:20,21
Matthew 24:48-50
Luke 12:44-46
Luke 21:34
Romans 13:13
1 Corinthians 5:11
1 Corinthians 6:10
Galatians 5:19-21
1 Timothy 3:2-3
Titus 1:7
1 Peter 4:3

Thou shalt not eat shrimp!

Ahem...

When you get right down to it, the bible is a big pile of steaming garbage.

The simple fact is, Jesus saves ALL, whatever they may believe or do, everyone has a choice for salvation, and that choice is made at the pearly gates and not before. The rest of that silly book is just a bastardization of all that is good and holy, first written to govern a nomadic people who were notoriously hard to govern, then re-written so that the crumbling Roman empire could live on and maintain some control over europe, and now it is used by some people for political power and to to moralize every aspect of everyone else's lives, because they are so incredibly insecure with their own.

Just live a good life, take care of yourself, and be a genuinely decent human being. That's all. You don't need some fancy shamanic ritual or to even profess your belief in any certain theology.

But do drink wine please, or whiskey or beer, because life is far too short to not let your hair down and have a good time every once in a while. Not enjoying life because you don't think god wants you to? Now that's a sin.

We are all saved! I'll drink to that!

there is enough gluten in a crumb of a communion wafer to do serious lasting damage to my body, I don't see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe that God wants me to die from taking communion.

I never said He did. I said I find it hard to believe that He would allow you to become ill because of your obedience.

I also see no place in Scripture which requires wheat bread. I can understand requiring unleavened bread, but I disagree that it is required, just because it says "He took the bread" not "He took the unleavened bread"

But it does say "He took the wine" and that's the only thing I make a stink about.

Grape Juice=yum I R Teetotaler!

I never said He did. I said I find it hard to believe that He would allow you to become ill because of your obedience.

I also see no place in Scripture which requires wheat bread. I can understand requiring unleavened bread, but I disagree that it is required, just because it says "He took the bread" not "He took the unleavened bread"

But it does say "He took the wine" and that's the only thing I make a stink about.

the fact that you would make a stink about anything bothers me.

and yeah, I get sick whether I sin or not, so do my kids.

Meh, you're going to get the health benefits either way.

EDIT: Of the red wine/grape juice.

the fact that you would make a stink about anything bothers me.

and yeah, I get sick whether I sin or not, so do my kids.

Really? Wow, I never knew that there was random sickness! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I get very agitated when persons insist I am saying something which I'm not saying at all.

What I said was that you are required (as a Christian) to take Communion. You have this gluten allergy, is it, so you are at risk. If you truly take Communion (not just gobble up the food and swig down the wine) but truly go through the whole process, would God allow you to become ill, or would He protect you from that illness?

And there are plenty of things to make stinks about. Homosexuality? Abortion? Adultery? Beating children? All things to make stinks about and all things which God has made commands on. If God commands the use of wine, I had better make a stink about it.

Really? Wow, I never knew that there was random sickness! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I get very agitated when persons insist I am saying something which I'm not saying at all.

What I said was that you are required (as a Christian) to take Communion. You have this gluten allergy, is it, so you are at risk. If you truly take Communion (not just gobble up the food and swig down the wine) but truly go through the whole process, would God allow you to become ill, or would He protect you from that illness?

And there are plenty of things to make stinks about. Homosexuality? Abortion? Adultery? Beating children? All things to make stinks about and all things which God has made commands on. If God commands the use of wine, I had better make a stink about it.

I have an autoimmune disorder, I didn't do anything to deserve it, there is a flaw in my genome, if I eat the protein called gluten I will get sick, I will be sick for a few months, I will be at an increased risk of cancer. Those are facts. What is not a fact is that God or Jesus commanded that I drink wine or eat wheat. Jesus however did talk about getting away from legalism.

What I said was that you are required (as a Christian) to take Communion. You have this gluten allergy, is it, so you are at risk. If you truly take Communion (not just gobble up the food and swig down the wine) but truly go through the whole process, would God allow you to become ill, or would He protect you from that illness?
If you passed on this advice to anyone in your care, you deserve nothing less than being arrested. It's tantamount to abuse.

Really? Wow, I never knew that there was random sickness! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I get very agitated when persons insist I am saying something which I'm not saying at all.

What I said was that you are required (as a Christian) to take Communion. You have this gluten allergy, is it, so you are at risk. If you truly take Communion (not just gobble up the food and swig down the wine) but truly go through the whole process, would God allow you to become ill, or would He protect you from that illness?

And there are plenty of things to make stinks about. Homosexuality? Abortion? Adultery? Beating children? All things to make stinks about and all things which God has made commands on. If God commands the use of wine, I had better make a stink about it.
You're so.. ignorant.

I have an autoimmune disorder, I didn't do anything to deserve it, there is a flaw in my genome, if I eat the protein called gluten I will get sick, I will be sick for a few months, I will be at an increased risk of cancer. Those are facts. What is not a fact is that God or Jesus commanded that I drink wine or eat wheat. Jesus however did talk about getting away from legalism.

First, you're arguing with the wrong person about the wheat.

Second, you have not used Scripture to show that God does not require the use of wine.

I have Sripture to support my view:
Matthew 26:29 - He refers to the contents of the cup as "the fruit of the vine"
He says the same in Mark 14:21 and Luke 22:18

I have Scripture to back my view and you have given no Scripture to refute it except for vague mentionings of legalism, the modern definition of which has come to be a synonym for obedience.

Trust and obey, don't go with what seems right to us, because we are nothing but a sinful little dust bunnies.

If you passed on this advice to anyone in your care, you deserve nothing less than being arrested. It's tantamount to abuse.

The fault is also with the person who accpets the advice.

I have Sripture to support my view:
Matthew 26:29 - He refers to the contents of the cup as "the fruit of the vine"
He says the same in Mark 14:21 and Luke 22:18

Hang on - you've got that text, that exact text, and you're arguing that it has to be explicitly wine?

What?

EDIT: And where I said 'in your care' means it would be your fault, e.g. a gluten-alleric child of yours. Any friend who listens shares your fault entirely.

First, you're arguing with the wrong person about the wheat.

Second, you have not used Scripture to show that God does not require the use of wine.

I have Sripture to support my view:
Matthew 26:29 - He refers to the contents of the cup as "the fruit of the vine"
He says the same in Mark 14:21 and Luke 22:18

I have Scripture to back my view and you have given no Scripture to refute it except for vague mentionings of legalism, the modern definition of which has come to be a synonym for obedience.

Trust and obey, don't go with what seems right to us, because we are nothing but a sinful little dust bunnies.


grapes are "the fruit of the vine" :rolleyes: you can't prove wine, you can only prove grapes...........which btw grape juice is full of.

if of course you accept that the point of communion is the host, which I don't.

grapes are "the fruit of the vine" :rolleyes: you can't prove wine, you can only prove grapes...........which btw grape juice is full of.

if of course you accept that the point of communion is the host, which I don't.

Did they have just grape juice then? No, not really. So the fruit of the vine is wine, because they fermented all their stuff.

And the point of Communion is the host. But not how you mean it. If the host is Jesus, then yes, the point of Communion is the host. Is He dying again as the Roman Catholics believe? No, Christ died once. Christ is spiritually present; we are sharing in the death of Christ spiritually, but that's not what's usually meant by "the host" and I don't use the term.

Did they have just grape juice then? No, not really. So the fruit of the vine is wine, because they fermented all their stuff.
where did they get wine if they didn't have grape juice?

And the point of Communion is the host. But not how you mean it. If the host is Jesus, then yes, the point of Communion is the host. Is He dying again as the Roman Catholics believe? No, Christ died once. Christ is spiritually present; we are sharing in the death of Christ spiritually, but that's not what's usually meant by "the host" and I don't use the term.

the point is, that I believe that I can "take communion" with a waffle and orange juice in my kitchen floor and it will be valid because it is a spiritual experience and it doesn't matter the circumstance as long as my heart is right.

Did they have just grape juice then? No, not really. So the fruit of the vine is wine, because they fermented all their stuff.
That's your interpretation, albeit based upon social norms at the time. I thought you had a problem with people incorrectly interpreting the bible? God didn't command the explicit use of wine, if you take Matthew's direct wording. Hell, if you assume that Matthew was somehow infallible, or even present at the time and not c.70 as suggested by a majority of scholars.

where did they get wine if they didn't have grape juice?

My mistake. They had grape juice but it was not drunk as grape juice. It was fermented. And wine was used for the Passover anyway. I realize that that argument can be used in support of unleavened bread, but I think that because Jesus says "fruit of the vine" and that meant wine when referred to as a drink, there is more of a case for wine.

the point is, that I believe that I can "take communion" with a waffle and orange juice in my kitchen floor and it will be valid because it is a spiritual experience and it doesn't matter the circumstance as long as my heart is right.

That's very wrong. It cannot be alone: it must be with a body of believers. That's why it's called Communion: not only are you in Communion with God, but also with the other saints.

And the Sacraments (both Communion and Baptism) must be accomanied with preaching of the Word. I have a list of Scripture verses to support that, but I can't find it.

That's your interpretation, albeit based upon social norms at the time. I thought you had a problem with people incorrectly interpreting the bible? God didn't command the explicit use of wine, if you take Matthew's direct wording. Hell, if you assume that Matthew was somehow infallible, or even present at the time and not c.70 as suggested by a majority of scholars.

You have to interpret Scripture in light of clearer Scripture first and foremost.

Then you interpret it in light of context in culture. Who was it written to? What did the words mean to those hearing? Who was it written about? What significance did these things have to the persons involved?

That's very wrong. It cannot be alone: it must be with a body of believers. That's why it's called Communion: not only are you in Communion with God, but also with the other saints.
nope.

And the Sacraments (both Communion and Baptism) must be accomanied with preaching of the Word. I have a list of Scripture verses to support that, but I can't find it.

I think of them as ordinances not sacraments.

Niether tastes very nice, so I'd take the one with the alcohol by default. I've only ever been to a church service with communion and that was when my catholic great uncle died..

nope.

First, I just finished reading something which makes very much sense to me, and I will no longer demand the use of wine, thoug I still prefer it.

Second, Yep.
1 Corintians 11:18-20 - the Sacrament is always linked with the people coming together
When Christ instituted Communion, He has them take and divide equally between each other. You can't follow this exampl if you are alone.

The Sacrament need not be adminstered in the church building, but there must at least be two or three gathered.

I think of them as ordinances not sacraments.

In this case, the definition matters more than the word.

First, I just finished reading something which makes very much sense to me, and I will no longer demand the use of wine, thoug I still prefer it.

Second, Yep.
1 Corintians 11:18-20 - the Sacrament is always linked with the people coming together
When Christ instituted Communion, He has them take and divide equally between each other. You can't follow this exampl if you are alone.

The Sacrament need not be adminstered in the church building, but there must at least be two or three gathered.

prove it. you gleam from scripture things that are not there, because people were present doesn't mean they have to be, just like people don't have to be baptized in the Jordan river.........although I am sure you would disagree with me when I say people don't have to be baptized at all.



In this case, the definition matters more than the word.

and I get a strong feeling that our definitions greatly differ.

prove it. you gleam from scripture things that are not there, because people were present doesn't mean they have to be,

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q96: What is the Lord’s supper?
A: The Lord’s supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth*; and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakes of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace**.


Q97:What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s supper?
A: It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord’s supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body***, of their faith to feed upon him^, of their repentance^^, love^^^, and new obedience#; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment upon themselves##.

* Luke 22:19,20
** 1 Corinthians 10:16
*** 1 Corinthians 11:28
^ 2 Corinthians 13:5
^^ 1 Corinthians 11:31
^^^1 Corinthians 14:1
# 1 Corinthians 5:8
##1 Corinthians 11:27

As for the meeting together, look at every place in Scripture where it is addressed: Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26. Each time it is in connection with the people coming toogether. We, the Church, are the Body of Christ, are we not? We are all one body and we ought to all partake of one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17)

just like people don't have to be baptized in the Jordan river.........although I am sure you would disagree with me when I say people don't have to be baptized at all.

God's Law requires it and it is a sin to not be baptized when you are able. But salvation does not require it.

Q94: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost*, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benfits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's**.

Q95: To whom is baptism to be adminstered?
A: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him^; but the infants of such as are members of the visisble church are to be baptized^^.

*Matthew 28:19
**Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:4
^ Acts 8:36
^^ Acts 2:39; Genesis 17:10; Colossians 2:11,12; 1 Corinthians 7:14


and I get a strong feeling that our definitions greatly differ.

Q91: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them*, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them**.

* 1 Corinthians 3:7
** 1 Peter 3:21

Q92: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benfits of the new covenant, are represented^, sealed, and applied to believers^^.

^ 1 Corinthians 11:26
^^ Romans 4:11

Q93: What are the sacraments of the New Testament?
A: the sacraments of the New Testament are Baptism#, and the Lord's supper##.

# Matthew 28:19
## 1 Corinthians 11:23

Wine.

Claiming that Jesus drank grape juice is stupid. (not that the OP did, I've just heard that before)

Though I imagine the parents appreciate the choice, especially in the interest of the children. I'm just sayin'.

I’m an atheist, so it doesn’t matter to me.

Wine.

Claiming that Jesus drank grape juice is stupid. (not that the OP did, I've just heard that before)

Though I imagine the parents appreciate the choice, especially in the interest of the children. I'm just sayin'.

Well, a lot of persons think that alcohol itself is sinful (not that anyone here has proposed that) which is of course untrue. The abuse of alcohol is, but not alcohol itself.

Smunkee? Are you there, or do you not care to promote correct doctrine (if yours is truly correct, that is).

I really don't care, and the people that do care irk me. In fact I don't like that people care, because then they probably are all legalistic and discriminatory about the unleavened bread too.

It's hard to believe I'm agreeing with Smunkee on something religious.

Whatever is used is a symbol. What it is doesn't matter. It's what's in the mind and heart that matters.

Mat 15:11

It's hard to believe I'm agreeing with Smunkee on something religious.

Whatever is used is a symbol. What it is doesn't matter. It's what's in the mind and heart that matters.

Mat 15:11

I don't think it's fair that you should interject, Good Lifes, without identifying yourself as a follower of Bahai, a movement descended from Islamic beliefs. Islam and Bahai do not believe Jesus' blood and body are in the Eucharist nor is remission of sins from Christ himself, how could it be from baptism at all? Thus, although your opinion is worth hearing, it should not be fair for it to be confused between favoring one Christian theology over another without clarification from it’s starting position of a non-Christian theology...

Can I have mine with some cheese and maybe chicken wings instead of waffer?

Should the wine be red or white? I mean, since it usually comes with rice-paper, I imagine a fruity sauvignon blanc would be the most appropriate. However, sickly sweet red seems to be in the preponderance.

I don't think it's fair that you should interject, Good Lifes, without identifying yourself as a follower of Bahai, a movement descended from Islamic beliefs. Islam and Bahai do not believe Jesus' blood and body are in the Eucharist nor is remission of sins from Christ himself, how could it be from baptism at all? Thus, although your opinion is worth hearing, it should not be fair for it to be confused between favoring one Christian theology over another without clarification from it’s starting position of a non-Christian theology...

I don't have a clue what your talking about. I grew up a Methodist. Have attended several denominations on a regular basis, including Catholic and Orthodox. Right now go to a Church of the Nazarine.

Personally, I'm not a cannibal, so I see these as symbols. If you look into the history of the Jewish celebration you will find the prayers that Jesus said over each. Jesus...ie God...is the bread...the middle loaf that is hidden 'buried" then found. The first prayer is a blessing of the middle loaf. The grain that dies in the field to bring forth new life and a new crop, new bread.

The second prayer is a blessing of the "fruit of the vine".....ie the people....Therefore, the "blood" of Jesus is the people. The blood is also the "life" (see old testament on eating blood) Therefore the life of Jesus is the group of believers. The wine is a symbol of them.

As in my Bible reference above post, it is not what is put in your mouth that counts, it's what is in your mind and heart, and leaves your mouth that counts. This is the teaching of Jesus......I don't know about the teachings of Bahai.

Smunkee? Are you there, or do you not care to promote correct doctrine (if yours is truly correct, that is).

I am here, my normal 60 hours a week working jumps up to about 90 in January though, so you may have to wait a few days........

I am here, my normal 60 hours a week working jumps up to about 90 in January though, so you may have to wait a few days........

Oh, I'm used to seeing you on quite regularly, which is why I thought that you were just avoiding the issue. My apologies.

Seeing that grapejuice would let dry alcoholics and minors partake in the Lord's Supper, I believe it's a good idea to have an alternative to wine.
We've done likewise in our church.

So, I ususally go to a Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) church, but I didn't go home this weekend. So, I went to a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) church. They had Communion today and I was surprised that they had both wine and grape juice. You came up in small groups and they offered you both, and you chose which you wanted.

I have always thought that wine should be used exclusively and I'm wondering what the rest of you think (providing you care ;) ).

Do you prefer wine, grape juice, or do you think both should be provided.
Thats just fulish.
Jesus didn't say that juice was his blood, that is highly ineffective Jesus frowns on these actions.

So, I ususally go to a Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) church, but I didn't go home this weekend. So, I went to a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) church. They had Communion today and I was surprised that they had both wine and grape juice. You came up in small groups and they offered you both, and you chose which you wanted.

I have always thought that wine should be used exclusively and I'm wondering what the rest of you think (providing you care ;) ).

Do you prefer wine, grape juice, or do you think both should be provided.

I think people place too much emphasis on symbols. It's not the symbol that is important, it's what the symbol represents. My Church uses water. As long as the symbol is taken in rememberance of the blood of Christ, it serves the intended purpose of the ceremony, which is to keep us in rememberance of Christ's sacrifice for our sakes.

My Church uses water.

Never heard of that.

Which denomination/church do you belong to?

I think water's a little to far away from what Jesus prescribed.

I think water's a little to far away from what Jesus prescribed.
Not for Jesus Himself, though! :D

Having been a presbyterian, a methodist and a catholic, my current opinion is : fuck religion

Not for Jesus Himself, though! :D

Verse quote please.

I think water's a little to far away from what Jesus prescribed.

do you think the wine is magic or something?

Never heard of that.

Which denomination/church do you belong to?

I think water's a little to far away from what Jesus prescribed.

Jesus used wine because sanitary drinking water was hard to come by in Jerusalem at busy times such as passover. Whereas grape juice (biblically they don't distinguish between grape juice and fermented grape juice, except to call the one 'new wine', and the other 'old wine') was easier to store without it getting contaminated (because the alcohol in it killed the bacteria that would befoul water), so wine was easier to come by when fresh water was in short supply. My point is that Jesus used wine because that was what was available, it was what they were drinking, and that the symbol (be it water, wine, or what have you) is not sacred in and of its self.

My church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the way.

omg.........a calvinist, a mormon and myself discussing religion, now all we need is Good Lifes and Grave_n_Idle to run through and it might be fun. :p

do you think the wine is magic or something?

No. I just think it is best that we follow Jesus' example as best we can.

Jesus used wine because sanitary drinking water was hard to come by in Jerusalem at busy times such as passover. Whereas grape juice (biblically they don't distinguish between grape juice and fermented grape juice, except to call the one 'new wine', and the other 'old wine') was easier to store without it getting contaminated (because the alcohol in it killed the bacteria that would befoul water), so wine was easier to come by when fresh water was in short supply. My point is that Jesus used wine because that was what was available, it was what they were drinking, and that the symbol (be it water, wine, or what have you) is not sacred in and of its self.

My church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the way.

Nothing is sinful in and of itself. Only perversions of it are sinful.

Alcohol is not sinful. Drunkeness is, but not alcohol.

No. I just think it is best that we follow Jesus' example as best we can.

do you live in a house? do you ride in a car? do you have electricity?

do you live in a house? do you ride in a car? do you have electricity?

Oh. This argument. First, yes, I do. Second, these have nothing to do with the implementation of a sacrement/ordinance

I have concedeed to you that Scripture does not require the use of wine. However, Jesus used wine and I think it would be better that if you are able to use wine you should. And if you are not, that you use grape juice. If you are unable to use grape juice find something else pretty close to wine.

I just don't think it's a very good idea to go around saying "I'm not required, so I'm going to use whatever I want in this important religious action." It sets a bad precedent, even if the action itself is not bad.

I have concedeed to you that Scripture does not require the use of wine. However, Jesus used wine and I think it would be better that if you are able to use wine you should. And if you are not, that you use grape juice. If you are unable to use grape juice find something else pretty close to wine.

I use chocolate and churros. I think it's close enough.

omg.........a calvinist, a mormon and myself discussing religion, now all we need is Good Lifes and Grave_n_Idle to run through and it might be fun. :p

Hey, I came in on post 71 and actually agreed with you. And you didn't even see it:headbang:

Just out of interest, in RC churches are there any constrictions on who can take communion? I've taken it a few times for shits and giggles (not literally, I was quite bored at the time and my bowel was fairly free of faeces) and I'm not baptised or anything. Do people get pissed about this kind of thing?

Just out of interest, in RC churches are there any constrictions on who can take communion? I've taken it a few times for shits and giggles (not literally, I was quite bored at the time and my bowel was fairly free of faeces) and I'm not baptised or anything. Do people get pissed about this kind of thing?

I don't know about the Roman Catholics, but depending on which denomination of Prebyterianism they either won't mention a thing or they'll ask to see your membership certificate.

Theoretically all Christian denominations say that you must profess belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and that you must be baptized to take the Lord's Supper. How strictly that's enforced is another matter.

Just out of interest, in RC churches are there any constrictions on who can take communion? I've taken it a few times for shits and giggles (not literally, I was quite bored at the time and my bowel was fairly free of faeces) and I'm not baptised or anything. Do people get pissed about this kind of thing?

God knows. He is the one who makes it taste funky and stick to the roof of your mouth.

God knows. He is the one who makes it taste funky and stick to the roof of your mouth.
Yeah. I was expecting some sort of mini-naan, or at least cut up white bread. Most tempted I've ever been to say "what the fuck do you call this?" to a priest :p

Oh. This argument. First, yes, I do. Second, these have nothing to do with the implementation of a sacrement/ordinance

I have concedeed to you that Scripture does not require the use of wine. However, Jesus used wine and I think it would be better that if you are able to use wine you should. And if you are not, that you use grape juice. If you are unable to use grape juice find something else pretty close to wine.

I just don't think it's a very good idea to go around saying "I'm not required, so I'm going to use whatever I want in this important religious action." It sets a bad precedent, even if the action itself is not bad.

if you aren't required to do something, then how does it set a "bad precedent" isn't it just preference then?

I mean hubby grew up Church of Christ, they don't do the whole instrumental music thing, in my church we do (right down to the electric guitars) it's a preference thing, I am not going to hell for rock music any more than he would for singing A cappella.

if you aren't required to do something, then how does it set a "bad precedent" isn't it just preference then?

I mean hubby grew up Church of Christ, they don't do the whole instrumental music thing, in my church we do (right down to the electric guitars) it's a preference thing, I am not going to hell for rock music any more than he would for singing A cappella.

Bad analogy: there is no question (though some would argue) that there is no Biblical commandment of what style of music is acceptable. We can argue over whether there should be music (they have some valid points) but if there is going to be music, you have no Biblical basis for one over the other.

You do have Biblical basis for prefering wine to other drinks for use in Communion.

Bad analogy: there is no question (though some would argue) that there is no Biblical commandment of what style of music is acceptable. We can argue over whether there should be music (they have some valid points) but if there is going to be music, you have no Biblical basis for one over the other.
they claim to have biblical backing (my husband's family does) in the way of "they didn't mention instruments"

You do have Biblical basis for prefering wine to other drinks for use in Communion.
not anymore than wine may be mentioned.

just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't make it a command, when Jesus commands something He usually said "command" or something similar.

they claim to have biblical backing (my husband's family does) in the way of "they didn't mention instruments"

Yes, the idea that only what God commands expressly may be used in worship. I am quite familiar with it. Presbyterians agree, though we disagree about what exactly some of the commands are.

not anymore than wine may be mentioned.

just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't make it a command, when Jesus commands something He usually said "command" or something similar.

Which is why I now say that wine is prefered, not required.

Yes, the idea that only what God commands expressly may be used in worship. I am quite familiar with it. Presbyterians agree, though we disagree about what exactly some of the commands are.
I seem to remember pointing out to them that they probably didn't use instruments because they don't use them in Jewish services because it's against "The Rules" to fix your instrument on Sabbath if it breaks. They didn't like that because they are big fans of Paul who was big on "we don't follow Jewish legalism anymore"


Which is why I now say that wine is prefered, not required.

if it's preferred it's a preference no?:confused:

I seem to remember pointing out to them that they probably didn't use instruments because they don't use them in Jewish services because it's against "The Rules" to fix your instrument on Sabbath if it breaks. They didn't like that because they are big fans of Paul who was big on "we don't follow Jewish legalism anymore"

Umm, yeah, we have no evidence (so far as I'm aware) that instuments were not used in worship in the Old Testament. In fact, some of the Psalms seem to command their use.


if it's preferred it's a preference no?:confused:

Yes, but there is a difference between preference and preference.

We prefer to use wine, because we want to follow the example in Scripture as closely as possible.

I prefer the color blue just because it's pretty.

The first has a basis. The second is baseless.

By the way, you have not yet responded to post #66 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12185678&postcount=66)

Just out of interest, in RC churches are there any constrictions on who can take communion? I've taken it a few times for shits and giggles (not literally, I was quite bored at the time and my bowel was fairly free of faeces) and I'm not baptised or anything. Do people get pissed about this kind of thing?
Technically? IIRC from catechism (and I might not, it's been ages), there are several things required of a recipient of communion. At a very basic level, you must be human, living and baptised. Beyond that, you have to be in a "state of grace" (i.e. not have committed any mortal sins), gone to confession if you have committed a mortal sin, not be censured by the church, and believe in transubstantiation. I think there might be a couple other things, but I'm not sure.

All that is only technically though. It's not like they ask you if you've been baptised, or gone to confession since the last time you killed someone, before they administer communion. It would be frowned upon for you to have received communion, I'm sure, but all but the most devout Catholics I know wouldn't really care that much.

EDIT: Aha, found it! You're also supposed to have observed a eucharistic fast before taking communion. No food or drink for an hour beforehand.

if you aren't required to do something, then how does it set a "bad precedent" isn't it just preference then?

I mean hubby grew up Church of Christ, they don't do the whole instrumental music thing, in my church we do (right down to the electric guitars) it's a preference thing, I am not going to hell for rock music any more than he would for singing A cappella.

Hold It! Rock music? Who are you and what did you do with the real Smunkee?

Hold It! Rock music? Who are you and what did you do with the real Smunkee?

I am the real Smunkee, and I don't know if you know or not (thought it was common knowledge) that my girls and I have a band and we "tour" around the local area playing rock music, I was in an actual all girl punk band (not a cover band like I am in with my daughters) but we broke up just after hubby and I started dating..........curiously the record deal we had fell out too.....might have been that I was more important to the band than my band mates thought *is still semi-bitter*, although I am way too nice to go down to the local coffee shop and tell them, unless of course we get another gig there. :D

My church (Catholic) gives wine.

By the way, is wine supposed to sting? When I had a sip at church it made my throat and tongue hurt.

They spiked it with fire water!

Christ's blood was whiskey? He really is God!

I am the real Smunkee, and I don't know if you know or not (thought it was common knowledge) that my girls and I have a band and we "tour" around the local area playing rock music, I was in an actual all girl punk band (not a cover band like I am in with my daughters) but we broke up just after hubby and I started dating..........curiously the record deal we had fell out too.....might have been that I was more important to the band than my band mates thought *is still semi-bitter*, although I am way too nice to go down to the local coffee shop and tell them, unless of course we get another gig there. :D

Just let me hear some of that rock and roll music
Any old way you choose it
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it,
Any old time you use it
It's gotta be rock roll music
If you wanna dance with me
If you wanna dance with me

I don't have a clue what your talking about. I grew up a Methodist. Have attended several denominations on a regular basis, including Catholic and Orthodox. Right now go to a Church of the Nazarine.

Personally, I'm not a cannibal, so I see these as symbols. If you look into the history of the Jewish celebration you will find the prayers that Jesus said over each. Jesus...ie God...is the bread...the middle loaf that is hidden 'buried" then found. The first prayer is a blessing of the middle loaf. The grain that dies in the field to bring forth new life and a new crop, new bread.

The second prayer is a blessing of the "fruit of the vine".....ie the people....Therefore, the "blood" of Jesus is the people. The blood is also the "life" (see old testament on eating blood) Therefore the life of Jesus is the group of believers. The wine is a symbol of them.

As in my Bible reference above post, it is not what is put in your mouth that counts, it's what is in your mind and heart, and leaves your mouth that counts. This is the teaching of Jesus......I don't know about the teachings of Bahai.

I apologize most profusely. I'm terribly sorry, I have you mixed up with someone else but for whatever reason I can't think of who else it is that I am thinking of. Again though, my genuine apologies, I am at fault.

EDIT: As to the cannibal comment... does the bread and wine in a Christian service actually become the body and blood of Christ? Paul most certainly understands that question, since he wrote that those taking the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner" were "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27-30)

27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

As to the cannibal comment... does the bread and wine in a Christian service actually become the body and blood of Christ? Paul most certainly understands that question, since he wrote that those taking the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner" were "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27-30)

27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

In some denominations it does change to blood and flesh, although I don't know how truly those taking it think of themselves as cannibals, or if in their mind they are really eating flesh and blood. But according too the theology, when Jesus said "this is my body", "this is my blood"---they take it literally.

I have never believed this theology. I have always seen it as symbolic. I have taken communion at a single church, and at different churches, several different ways. All of them were acceptable to me. I see a lot of symbolism in the Bible. I think those who think literally miss the point when reading most of the Bible.

As I said above, if people would study Jewish feasts they would have a far better understanding of what was happening. During the feast a middle piece of bread is hidden (buried) then is retrieved. Jesus said "this is my body". He would be hidden then retrieved. With the cup Jesus said "this is my blood" the fruit of the vine. Throughout the teachings the people were the "fruit" of the true vine. So the cup is a blessing of the people. The "blood" in the Bible is described as the "life". So the people are the life of the church and are blessed. It's interesting that the Bible says Jesus said a prayer over each. Every little Jewish child knows what those prayers were but very few Christians have a clue.

Off the subject, but a study of the holidays would place the crucifiction on Wednesday. And a study of the comings and goings of Jesus that last week brings us to Wednesday. John says he was buried before a "special" Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath. Killed with the passover lamb, buried with the unleavened bread, then rose with the "first fruits". Remember the women bought and prepared spices. When did they do that under the traditional schedule? Not Saturday. If he were killed with the Passover lambs on Wednesday, then buried before a special Sabbath on Thursday, the women could do their work on Friday, then rest on the weekly Sabbath, then deliver the spices on Sunday. That would mean Jesus was buried at sundown on Wednesday (Jewish Thursday), be dead for three nights and three days, then arise on Saturday sundown (Jewish Sunday). Remember he was gone and so were the guards by Sunday sunrise.