Freely.

Let me start by saying welcome to the forums.  I do not know if I had a chance to welcome you officially so I will do so now.

Good post and you are correct in that your English is very good.  And do not fret.  I have been speaking English all my life (40+ yrs) and there are still parts of it that confuse me.  While it is English, it is like any other language and it changes over time.  The Chinese spoken today, is not the same as it was spoken 400 years ago, and the same can be said of German, Spanish, or any other language.  But good job and thank you.

Dan,

Your original post was all over the place and did not provide anything to be able to rebut. 

#1 ,  in verse 26 , "  Take , eat , this is my body "  and is this the Body of Christ ??   NO !!

Very quickly looking at point 1.  You ask if this is the Body of Christ, and state No.  By Body of Christ are you referring to physical body, or the Body of Christ which is the church, or the symbolic Body, which even the passover sacrifice is symbolic?  And explain how you defined it the way you did.  Even use Scripture if there is any that are applicable to the point you are making here.

#2 , And in verse 28 , He says , "  my blood of the New Testament/Covenant/ DIATHEKE  " !!!!

Here you are simply stating what the verse says.  So nothing here to discuss, you do not pose a question, or make any specific point.

#3 , This supper is for the  Remission of Sins , is this for today

I have already shown you that the passover meal which is the supper that is taking place at this time, is NOT for the remission of sins, but to give thanks to God for saving the Hebrews from Egypt.  As to the question of "is it for today" well since your first point was shown to be invalid it goes to show that your question needs further explanation as well.  Which you have not done.  How would you say it is applicable to us today?  How do you feel others would say it is applicable to us today?  How would your rebut either of those positions to show that it is not for us today?

#4 , Then in verse Christ will drink it anew with you in My Fathers Kingdom or Millennial Kingdom , is this for us today ??

You again paraphrase what is there, and ask if it is for us today.  In what way do you think it is or is not for us today?  What do you even mean is it for us today?

#5 , The context is Jewish , is that really true ??

As I mentioned before this is an out of the blue statement that has no substance to it.  And I even stated I was not certain where you were going with this.  And you have yet to explain that.

So , where is the Lord's supper for the Body of Christ ??

Again by what do you refer to when you speak of the Body of Christ?  And in what manner are you talking about for the Lord's Supper?

See Dan, your post and questions do nothing but beg for more questions.  Questions directed at trying to figure out what it is you are actually asking.

Amen.  Good post

Not a matter of trying to hold you accountable.  But it is a matter of trying to get you to express your point in a manner that people can understand it.  This includes you explaining exactly what your point is, for example "The sky is blue".  So far you have not done even that coherently.  The second would be to explain how you came up with that, bring to the table your supporting statements.  "It is blue because the light hitting the atmosphere is split and refracted and what we happen to see is a blue color from that refractions."  I have asked you questions in an attempt to get you to expand and explain what I felt was the direction of your original post.

Your OP was "Is Matthew 26:20-29 for us today?" and you have neither explained what you felt the core of those verses were, how people may feel they are applicable today, or how you may feel they are not applicable to us today.  You have done nothing to prove your point, or disprove any contrary positions.  Your argument is basically saying "You are wrong" and not adding any substance for anyone to truly come to a conclusion that anyone is wrong.  No how, no why, no what, nothing. 

Let's start simple.
Let's start with your original point 1

#1 ,  in verse 26 , "  Take , eat , this is my body "  and is this the Body of Christ ??   NO !!

Your point apparently is that when Jesus said "this is my body" He was not referring to the Body of Christ, am I correct?
Ok if I am correct then we can continue, if not then you obviously need to explain further.  But let's assume I am correct in that.
So from here you need to explain why you said 'no' to that question.  You will need to explain what the Body of Christ is, and explain that when Christ said 'this is my body" what was He actually referring too.  Then you will need to conclude why the two are not the same.

And I would recommend using more than one sentence at a time. and pull out some verses to help explain it as well.

Hi Brother Jerry and reread post #23 .

I did and my point still stands.  Paul imitates Jesus, if we are to imitate Paul then we should imitate Jesus.  Paul is not trying to say he is any more "special" than anyone else.  Paul even explains that Christ should be the leader of every man, the head.  We should not follow Paul, but follow Jesus.
 

1 Cor 1:12-17 is a completely different interpretation , and why not explain 1 Cor 1:12-17 Huh  you can do it !!!

Again you try and say a point and do not present anything.  You say it is a completely diffeent translation and then do not say what it is supposed to be.  But here for you I will post it here.

1 Corinthians 1:12-17
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

now what you may be getting out of this is that since Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel that it must have started with Paul, but in order to state that you would have to say that Christ never told anyone else to preach the Gospel, which we know is wrong.  I mean these verses seem pretty clear to me and without any problems or complex translations.  You get somethging different from that?

Hi Borother Jerry , and my Proof you have read and it is  CONTEXT >

No I have not because you have brought none to the table.  Your sentence does not even make sense.

The Body of Christ is  never mentioned ,  UNTIL  Paul mentions it , period .

ewwwww....You mean Christ never mentioned the Body of Christ?  But He did mention His body during the last supper for one....a gesture which Paul equates the body of Christ too, in 1 Corinthians 10:16.  It is Paul that explains that the body of Christ is all believers.  It is Paul who builds the imagery of partaking of the body of Christ for believers who were not around Jesus at the last supper, to be partakers of the same gesture.  Because Jesus did not mention the "Body of Christ" does not mean it did not exist until Paul said so.  If that were the case then the computer you are typing at does not exist either.  Much of what is to come was not spoken of directly by Jesus, I guess the book of Revelations is irrelevant as well?

The New Covenant was given to Israel in Heb 8:8-10 .

And this is confined to the Jews how?

My question to to you is ,  WHERE DO YOU SEE A COVENANT GIVEN TO THE BODY OF CHRIST Huh??

  Please answer this question for me to continue !!!

No.

please answer this...who did Christ shed His blood for?  was it strictly for the Jews or was it for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike?
I would say everyone.  So when Jesus was speaking in Matthew 26:28 where He said "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Then Gentile as well as Jew received the blood and the covenant.
And again Paul states later in 1 Corinthians 11:25 as he paraphrases Jesus that "This cup is THE new covenant in My blood", notice that Paul says "THE" which indicates that there is only one, not several.  And later Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that we are servants of a new covenant.  It is the same new covenant that Jesus spoke of as well.  Paul also explains in Hebrews 9 that a covenant does not go into effect unless there is blood.  If there were two covenants, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, then Jesus would have had to die twice, and we both know that did not happen. 

Hi Bother Jerry and here are  THE  main points .

 #1 ,  Matt 26 , and the Gospels are for Israel !!!

 #2 , There is only  ONE  NEW  COVENANT  , and that was given to Israel , like Jer 31;31  ,  Heb 8:8  ,  and Ezek 36:25-27  and we see the context is  ALL  Israel .

 #3 , This means that the Passover and the blood on the door posts is all Jewish and not for the Body of Christ >

 dan p

Ok so now that you have laid these claims.  Back them up.

#1 The Gospels are for Israel - By this what do you mean, and where is your evidence to suggest this statement.

#2 There is only one new Covenant and that was given to Israel - Again expand on what you are speaking of here, and what is your evidence for this.

#3 Passover is Jewish and not for the Body of Christ - And what is the point of this statement anyways, specially in reference to Matthew 26.  Who is trying to say that the Passover is something that should be celebrated by anyone other than Jews?

So once again Dan you have made claims and done nothing to support your position.  There is no meat to these statements and nothing that anyone can measure and attempt to comprehend.  Again it is liken to saying "You are wrong" and not explaining why or how. 

Dan,

Your point there does not negate what Paul says in that sentence as well.  As he imitates Christ, and that Christ is the head of everyman.  We are to follow Christ, not Paul, we are to imitate Paul, who is imitating Christ.  Paul speaks of exactly what you are attempting to say in 1 Corinthians 1

1 Corinthians 1:12-13
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

We see again that Paul explains that he is only a messenger, there is nothing special about him, nothing new with him.  Christ was crucified for the everyone and his message is the same that was Christ, or Peter's, or James, or John's.  There is no special dispensation that started with Paul, he preaches strongly against that.

Hi Brother Jerry and I agree with you that there are  NOT  2  New Covenants , but there some dispendationalists that say there are 2 , because of what is written in 1  Cor 11:25 nwhere  DIATHEKE  is used , but Eph 2:12 refutes  that argument .  dan p

Ok so then again what exactly was your original point?

I concur Duval.

Dan you are ignoring THE most important part of that verse.  "Even as I imitate Christ"  Imitation is not following.  Following means one is leading while others follow, to imitate can put people on equal footing, one is simply imitating what the other is doing.  And that is what Paul preaches, act like he does, act in accordance to Jesus, we are not to follow Paul as if he was some sort of leader to be above any other man, as a matter of fact in that same chapter in verse 3 it says "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, "  There is no exclusion of anyone in that. 

Thank you Duval.  I hope that helps Dan out. 

You two say a great deal of the same thing....not much.

Duval...if Dan missed your point....why did you not elaborate and explain how he missed your point?  Cause I can tell you right now that Dan is still wondering that himself.

i Bother Jerry , and point #2 , is the Greek word  DIATHEKE  , where many Translate it by the following English words ;
 #1 , contract
 #2 , covenant
 #3 , new testament
 #4 , agreement
 #5 arrangement
 #6 , will

 In 1 Cor 11:25 , the Greek word  DIATHEKE is also used , and does that mean the there are  2  New  Covenants ? and that is why I   ASKED  it like that !!!

But with #2 you did not ask anything.  It was a statement, there were exclamation points, not questions markes at the end of the sentence. 

And yep, Paul referred to the last supper with the Apostles in 1 Corinthians 11, which reflects that the tradition of doing the Lords Supper continued as a reflection of what happened that night.  Not certain how you get 2 covenants out of that...which seems to be typical in that you say things, but never really say your point.

And  WHOA  , here is what Matt 26:28 says "  My blood in the New Testament/New Covenant/  DIATHEKE  , which is shed for  MANY  for the  REMISSION of  SINS , and here it is !!!!

 What does Jesus mean , " which is shed for the  MANY Huh

 How many is  MANY Huh

 Maybe 12 persons , or 10,000 people or maybe 1,000,000 people Huh

And your point is?  With the shedding of Jesus blood there is a new covenant, not arguing that point, unless you were trying to make a different point earlier.  As to many....many is all who would receive it, the actual number is irrelevant, specially since "many" is a relatively subjective word itself.

Hi Bother Jerry and I will have to say that Many there are 2 New Covenants , one for Israel and one for the Body of Christ .

 But , I will have to later show that the verse 29 is yet future .

 If you read 1 Cor 11:17-32 are the standards that are set for the Body of Christ , the Lord's table !!!

There are not 2 new covenants.  There is the covenant of Christ which is a new Covenant, but it is to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. And there is the old Covenant which is to the Jews. 

As to verse 29...you do not have to show how it is future, that is a no brainer since it is speaking in future tense "I will...until" is future tense.

So again, I would ask that you take some time and formulate your points.  It is not so much that I may disagree with you, because I do not know based on what you have said, but with the way you have presented some of your points, I ask questions and attempt to elicit more information to ensure that what you are saying is clear to not only myself, but the other readers as well.

So once again Dan you seem to be trying to make a point, and say a couple of things that start to elude to something, then try and ask questions as if to drive your point home.  Let's pull out some of the verses you are talking about.  I want to pull out Matthew as well as Luke because Luke expands upon what was said more than Matthew does.

Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Luke 22:15-20
15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."
19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

now to some of your points
#1 "is this the Body of christ??"  Of course it is not.  But it is symbolic of Christ's body being broken, as He was THE sacrifice for the passover, as the lamb is slaughtered for the sacrifice, so too was Jesus body broken.

#2 "blood of the new Covenant."  Not certain your point here except to point out the obvious of what the verse states.

#3 "This supper is for the Remission of Sins."  WHOA?  WHAT?  This was the Passover Meal that they were partaking of.  Do you know what the Passover is?  The meal is NOT for the remission of sins.  The Passover is to symbolize giving thanks to God for sparing Israel at the hands of Egypt.   I have no idea where you get the notion that the meal was for the remission of sins. 

#4 "Christ says that He will not drink until the Kingdom, is this for today?" Well without you giving any basis for the question, then yes because it is simply Jesus saying that He will not partake of this until then.  It does however give us an indication that it is expected that we shall. 

#5 "The context is Jewish, is that really true?"  Again no direction here, that seems like something out of the blue.  Jesus was speaking at the Passover meal and used that as a platform.  The Passover being an instruction of the Jews in the OT...and Jesus, if you did not notice, upheld the Laws of Moses.  Again not certain where you were trying to go with this one.

(the unnumbered) "Where is the Lord's Supper for the Body of Christ?" C'mon get more specific, what are you referring too here? 

Just what it says, but just in case, let's put the whole verse here.

Ephesians 3:6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, (NASB)

So that the Gentiles through Jesus are now heirs to the kingdom of heaven, just like the Jews were before.  That the Gentiles are part of the same body of Christ, that the Jews were before, that the Gentiles were now partakers of the promise which is eternal life through Jesus Christ, just as the Jews were before.