Christ was saying they werre to carry out the Lord's Supper as He did. Those in Corinth were carrying it out but abused it by trying to make a common meal out of it. If none of this really mattered then Paul had no reason to condemn those Corinthians and how they carried out the Lord's Supper.
Frout of the vine is all that I canfind in refernce to the Lord's Supper which literally means that which is naturallyborn of the vine...grape juice. If onios had been used it would help your argument. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper during sedar, no yeast in the house, no consuming yeast products of which fermented wine is a product of yeast...UNLEAVEN bread, unfemented wine.
I am curious, can you show me where in the bible where the word legalist or legalism is found?
And here we are again. You are curious about whether the word legalist or legalism is found in the bible. You and I both know that those terms are not in the bible. Can you find "lap top computer" or Gigabyte in the word of God? Of course not, they had not one clue how to manufacture a computer chip, yet we find them in a huge number of devices and appliances.
Although a term or item is NOT in the bible does not mean it has never and will never exist. So what exactly is your point? That if we do not perform the act "exactly" as they did, then it is invalid. Where in the NT is it said that we are to do exactly what Jesus did on the occasion of the last supper?
And though the word Legalist and Legalism are not found in the NT, it does not invalidate that it applies to you! Because they didn't have lap top computers does not mean that it is invalid or sinful to use them because we do have them today, or else you wouldn't be in this forum.
And if you are going to say that we should do exactly as they did, show me the songbooks that they used in the NT. Yet you do not practice foot washing as Jesus demonstrated to his disciples. Nor do you use one cup to partake of communion. So tell us all where you get the authority to perform these practices! You don't think holding a hymnal disrupts ones train of thought in worship? Hogwash!
The problem with legalism, and you are a legalist so don't deny it, is that they feel there must be a command of God in order for something to be valid and "legal". Yet you will pick and choose what you prefer to call "legal", and explain away "footwashing", and "one communion cup", and women having their "hair covered" in the assembly with fanciful arguments and rationalizations. How convenient for a legalist to be the final "authority" on what is binding and not binding.
The church of Christ is inconsistent on hundreds of issues: Can a Christian join the military or the police force? Yes or No? Can a church support an orphan's home out of the Sunday offerings? Tell us all, Yes or No? Can elders of the church receive a salary out of the Sunday offerings? Yes or No. And since you insist that it must be commanded or insinuated somewhere in the NT, please provide scriptures to support your answers. But you cannot find scriptures to specifically establish a statement condemning these issues, because THEY AREN'T THERE.
Yet these very issues divide the churches of Christ, while the rest of us look on bemused. Astonished at how you are slaves to your own creed: "Speak where the bible speaks, and be silent where the bible is silent!"
Really? Honestly? Truthfully? Because there are many things which the church of Christ does which have no scriptural authority or precedent, such as: The order of worship, Sunday school and hymnals. Yet they have no problem rationalizing the way in which they do these things, despite the fact that none of them are "declared" or "commanded" specifically in the NT.
So why does the coC do things not even mentioned in the NT, and yet refuse to do many things which ARE mentioned; such as requiring women to cover their heads in the assembly which is declared necessary by Paul..."because of the angels."?? I have not been to a coC yet that requires their women to cover their heads in the assembly.
And Paul concludes his discourse on this subject of head coverings by stating that the APOSTLES have no other practice, NOR HAVE THE CHURCHES OF GOD.
This whole head covering issue is dealt with in 1 Cor 11:1-16. And v2, part of Paul's salutation to the Corinthians says: "2. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything; and hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, JUST AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU."
He then goes into the "tradition", if you will, of head coverings in worship, taking a full 16 verses to discuss its importance.
Yet the coC, which insists on speaking where the bible speaks, teaches against this, despite the fact that Paul, in defence of this "practice" or "custom" states that "we", the APOSTLES, have no other "practice" or "custom", "NOR HAVE THE CHURCHES OF GOD." And this was spoken for the benefit of those who might be "contentious" about it.
Best coC answer: "Well this applied to those living then, and has no reference to us today."
Well how convenient, that the legalists conveniently ignore Paul's instruction over continuing this practice, or custom.
The above rebuttal is utter hogwash and fickleness concerning the scriptures. To tell everyone else that unless something is mentioned in the NT, then it is sinful to practice, yet deny practices that ARE there.
So NO, the words legalist and legalism are not in the NT, but that does mean that they should not be in today's language.
If you have trouble with the label of "legalistic", then stop being that way, and praise God for the freedom he has given you in Christ.
And even though we disagree about lots of things I still say God bless you and keep you and may His countenance shine upon you, and give you peace.