Christ's body, broken for you

Brian T,
Is this a trick question?

Yours Truly,
Heidi

 

Verse 23 clearly tells us that Paul received this revelation from the Lord Himself. He was not quoting anyone else.

1Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you , That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (KJV)

Since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour much later than Matthew who was writing from the perspective of one who was actually there, we have to assume that these are the exact words that the Lord would have us use when we observe the Lord's Supper.

[ December 14, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

"broken" has more than one meaning.

His body was broken. He was exhausted. Jesus died quickly because He was exhausted from the ordeal (sleepless night, beatings, whippings, crown of thorns, etc...) that led up to his crucifixion.

Psalms 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

HankD

 

I was trying to point out the error of your assertion when you attributed this verse to being a quote from the gospels.

And in response to your question of where the "broken" quote came from. It came directly from the Lord.

I will have to check into the textual variant aspect of it.

[ December 14, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

When Jesus says that "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" in 1 Corinthians 11:24. It does not contradict the gospels. It expands on what they said. This is the same principle where Jesus says that "cock crow" in verses Matthew 26:32, Luke 22:32, and John 13:36, while in verse Mark 14:27 he says, "cock crow twice."

What Paul gives is more detail that the others did not include. Remember that God through the Holy Spirit directly moved these men to write the scriptures. There are other places the give evidence of God giving information to the writer that he would not have other wise.

 

You just answered your own question.

[ December 15, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Brian T;
What do you look for when reading God's word clearity or fault?.If you found clearity would you know what to do with it.Or if fault how would you know it was fault?.
Romanbear
Peace

 

Nope, & guess what, you did'nt either.

How do you know if he DID??

I have no problem accepting God's word as is.It's not hard try it;your argument is built on sinking sand.

 

but that begs the question. hmm, like why not accept God's word when it says, "which is for u"? why add "broken"?

 

Where in the Gospels does it say that Christ's body was "not" broken. Every account of the crucifixion in the Gospels is proof positive that our Lord's body was indeed broken.

Paul clearly tells us that this is what he received directly from the Lord. Apparently the majority of extant manuscripts contained this phrase when the Translators brought it over from the Greek.

This is why we oppose the use of marginal and foot notes to discuss textual variants. All that is accomplished is the planting of doubt in the mind of the reader as to the accuracy of the translation. This thread is a case in point.

How comforting it is to sit down and read the Word of God without having doubts or questions regarding it's authority.

 

See Psalms Chapter 22 for answer..

 

The Bible does not say, "his body was not broken." It says, "A bone of him shall not be broken." (John19:34). There is a difference between "body" and "bone." His body was ripped apart by the scourging. His beard was literally ripped off of his face (Isaiah 50:6). He was beaten and abused so badly that He no longer was recognizable (Isaiah 52:14).

The Breaking of the bread is a picture of the extreme abuse our Lord suffered for our sins. It is, therefore, my assertion that the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 11:24 would be to include the word "broken." The Lord's Supper is a memorial of his death and the brutality of it.

Please note: I do not defend the KJV because I was told it is best. I grew up with the NIV. I did extensive study on the subject. Later I will begin a thread that has some of my findings so that they may be discussed. I am presently reviewing the 20 or so books that I have on the subject (from both sides of the argument) to insure that I represent things in an accurate manner.

[ December 15, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: 2peter1_10 ]

 

But the KJV translators you so highly admire did the very thing that you think is wrong. Can you not see the inherent inconsistency of your argument on this point? If you read the preface, the translators tell why they did this, they directly refute your contention that it introduces confusion, and they leave the marginal readings. Why are you so quick to trust the KJV translators when you don't trust the KJV translators??

 

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremp- torily?"
Translators to the Reader

The marginal notes did not discuss textual variants. The translators were very clear what the marginal notes were for. If the translators had any question about the text, they put the word and/or phrase in italics.

That is quite an assumption on your part Brother Larry that I distrust the KJV Translators. On the contrary, I do not trust the men alone; I trust the God who promised to preserve His Word.

[ December 15, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Had you started just little bit earlier in your quotation, your assertion would have been proved wrong. They say,

So in the words of the KJV translators, those who limit themselves to one version with no marginal notes are unwise. Remember, those are their words not mine.

According to Scrivener, of 767 notes in the NT, 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions, 582 give alternative renderings, 112 give a more literal rendering of the Greek than the translators judged suitable for the text, and 37 give readings of different MSS. Did you note that last one??? In 37 places, the KJV translators felt constrained (by the Holy Spirit??) to admit that other manuscripts differed and may indeed be the right ones. What is clear from their own words is that modern KJV proponents have much more confidence in the translators than they had in themselves. It is a confidence that they would have decried.

This article will be helpful: web page From this page, go to DBSJ -- Volume 1, Number 2: Fall, 1996 and read the article entitled "The Preface to the KJV and the KJV Only Position." I can't load the article at present, but this link will get you to the right page.

As do I, but the KJV translators explicitly deny your assertion concernign the usefulness of marginal notes and the wisdom of using only one translation. They included marginal notes and called for the reader to use more than one translation. Why don't you join them?