...

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:21:10 +0100

As you might have noted, I didn\'t write the article and it is actually part of a mailing list which the kind folk at Uplook.org have let me put up. I don\'t think the folk at Uplook would say that the new institution was opposed to the Passover but they would say that it is a new institution. One would wonder why Jesus would say \"This is the new covenant in my blood\" instead of \"This is an extension of the Passover as seen in the Old Covenant with Animal\'s blood\" if the Lord\'s Supper was not giving new meaning to something afore practiced. As for Acts 27, I\'m fairly sure you\'re not saying that we\'re to take the Lord\'s Supper only once a year.

Also, what defines a \"church service\"?

God bless you, brother. - Rey

...

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:25:33 +0100

Are you saying that this was a new institution as opposed to the Passover that was being observed (John 6)? Also evident when Shu\'al is arrested at Passover in Acts 12.

Another question is about breaking bread as a sign of church service... how do we doctrinally make that leap? My assumption is one would have to believe that the last supper was a new institution when in fact it was Passover. To clear up this reading into text, we need only look at Acts 27 where bread is broken and given thanks on a ship after not eating for 14 days on a ship. Yet we do not fast for 14 days and then gather on a ship for church.

\"And having said this, he took bread and gave thanks to Elohim in the presence of them all. And when he had broken it he began to eat. \"

Breaking bread was the custom of eating together in that culture, fellowshipping. It\'s how meals were started. Breaking bread and giving thanks to the one \"who brings forth bread from the earth\".

What\'s odd, is examples of breaking bread, we must read into something that is not mentioned. In other words, a church service is never mentioned. However clear examples are disreguarded:

Uplook Fridays:1 Corinthians 11:24

...

...