Mary had a little lamb,
His fleece was white as snow
And everywhere that Mary went
The Lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school one day,
When it wasn't against the rules.
It made the children laugh and play,
To have The Lamb at school.

Then the rules, they changed one day,
And against the law it became,
To bring the Lamb of God to school
Or even speak His name.

Everyday it got worse and worse
And the days turned into years.
Instead of hearing children laugh and pray
You heard them crying tears!

What must we do to stop this crime,
That's in our schools today ...
Let the Lamb of God come back to school
And teach our kids to pray!

~Author Unknown

Why does today's culture like chains so much? The Bible says in Mark 5:3-4 (speaking of the maniac) "Who had his abiding among the graves, and no man could bind him, no not with fetters: 4Because that he was often bound with fetters and chains, he plucked the chains asunder, and brake the fetters in pieces,neither could any man tame him." Does living in the Gothic life style have anything to do with our spiritual walk? Yes, it does. It says in Mark 5:6 "And when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him," We see here that not only physically was Jesus afar off, but because of the legion of devils, he was spiritually far away. If you have ever been obsessed with the Gothic lifestyle were you seriously studying your Bible during that time? Mark 5:13 "And incontinently Jesus gave them leave. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine, and the herd ran headlong from the high bank into the sea, (and there were about two thousand swine) and were choked up in the sea." I see two things here. One is that the demons did not 'love' this man. As books like 'Twilight' project, the vampire/ demon "loved" this girl. I don't know if the demons told this man that they wanted to help him or that they loved him. But I know, from what happened, that they didn't, because they wanted to go into a herd of swine. They had about as much respect for him as they did for the pigs. Remember that when they entered the swine they ran over the cliff to their death.

FOR TODAY...
August 3

Outside My Window...
Clear and sunny.

I am thinking...
About this new site I have decided to support and about what a good idea it is!

I am thankful for...
My mom who is my good friend.

From the kitchen...
Breakfast mess that my mom just cleaned up, "Thanks mom!"

I am wearing...
Nightgown and sweater, I need to get ready. :P

I am creating...
Nothing right now.

I am going...
Hmmm, no where that I know of.

I am reading...
The Psalms and "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna. VERY good book, I highly recommend it.

I am hoping...
That I will be able to do some stuff today.

I am hearing...
KLOVE's "King of Wonders" by Matt Redman

Around the house...
Mom getting some college stuff set up for me :D, kids playing outside.

One of my favorite things...
Singing for Jesus.

A Few Plans For The Rest Of The Week:
I am attending the Heart Of The Matter conference with my mom.

Here is picture thought I am sharing...

Did Jesus ever command us to practice the well known, modern day Lord's Supper? Well, let's look at a few verses.

Matthew 26:19 "And the disciples did as Jesus had given them charge, and made ready the Passover."

They were eating the Passover feast, not just bread and juice. The Passover feast consists of many different foods. The only people that come to mind that eat crackers and juice as a meal are 3 year olds at snack time.

Matthew 26:26-28 "And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Testament that is shed for many, for the remission of sins."

Now, if Jesus really wanted them to eat his flesh and blood why didn't He just say "Here, Peter, take a bite of my arm."? No, I believe that it was a symbol. I don't think it means that we are supposed to eat crackers and juice and say it's Jesus. Catholics believe that. They believe that a cracker actually turns into the body of Jesus and the wine turns into His blood before you ingest it.

I while ago I wrote an article entitled "What is the Tree of Life?" (Click here to read it) In that article I talked about Christ being the Tree of Life that we are supposed to eat from. I believe that is what Matt. 26 is talking about. Christ is the Tree of Life and when we accept Him as our Saviour, we have eaten of that Tree. When we are truly living in Christ and Christ in us, I believe that we are eating that Last Supper.

When Jesus had the Last Supper with His disciples I think it meant that He had a close relationship with them. Just as we all have our own relationships, we also have different ways of communicating with each of our family members and friends. In Revelation 3:20 it says "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock, If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Christ is not saying that He's going to meet us at Taco Bell, He's saying that if we let Him come live in us, we will have a very close relationship with Him. Also, in John 14:23 it says "Jesus answered, and said unto him, If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and will dwell with him." I also believe that Luke 12:36-37 is a symbol of this same concept.

Luke 12:36-37 "And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh shall find waking; verily I say unto you, he will gird himself about, and make them to sit down at table, and will come forth, and serve them."

It also says in John 6:48 "I am that bread of life." Jesus is that bread of life. Also verses 49-58.

49 "Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead." When the Israelite children ate the manna in the wilderness all those years, it didn't save them. I believe Jesus is explaining to them that He is not talking about the literal bread that will save them, that He is talking about the bread of life. Re: verse 48.

50-51 "This is that bread, which cometh down from heaven, that he which eateth of it, should not die. I am that living bread, which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Here He explains what he means.

52 "Then the Jews strove among themselves, saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" I guess they weren't listening the first time.

53-58 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As that living Father hath sent me, so live I by the Father, and he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers have eaten Manna, and are dead. He that eateth of this bread, shall live forever." Here He is explaining to them what He meant again.

He came down from heaven. He is that bread, that Manna, that Life, in whom we have eternal salvation.

I believe that when Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him that he meant when ever we sit down to eat that we would remember what He did for us and be thankful.

Now, why does the modern day 'church' of today imitate what happened that night?

The following is quoted from the book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna.

"In the first early second centuries, the early Christians called the Lord's Supper the "love feast", or "Agape." At that time, they took the bread and cup in the context of a festive meal. but around the time of Tertullian, the bread and the cup began to be separated from the meal. By the late second century, this separation was complete.
Some scholars have argued that the Christians dropped the meal because they wanted to keep the Eucharist from becoming profaned by the participation of unbelievers. this may be partly true. But it is more likely that the growing influence of pagan religious ritual removed the Supper from the joyful, down-to-earth, nonreligious atmosphere of a meal in someone's living room. By the fourth century, the love feast was prohibited among Christians!
With the abandonment of the meal, the terms breaking of bread and Lord's Supper disappeared. The common term for the now truncated ritual (just the bread and the cup) was the Eucharist. Irenaeus was one of the first to call the bread and cup an offering. After him, it began to be called the "offering" or "sacrifice."
The altar table where the bread and cup were placed came to be seen as an altar where the victim was offered. The Supper was no longer a community event. It was rather a priestly ritual that was to be watched at a distance. Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, there was an increasing sense of awe and dread associated with the table where the sacred Eucharist was celebrated. It became a somber ritual. The joy that had once been a part of it had vanished.
The mystique associated with the Eucharist was due to the influence of the pagan mystery religions, which were clouded with superstition. with this influence, the Christians began to ascribe sacred overtones to the bread and the cup. They were viewed as holy objects in and of themselves.
Because the Lord's Supper became a sacred ritual, it required a sacred person to administer it. Enter now the priest offering the sacrifice of the Mass. He was believed to have the power to call God down from heaven and confine Him to a piece of bread.
Around the tenth century, the meaning of the word body changed in Christian literature. Previously, Christian writers used the word body to refer to one of three things: (1) the physical body of Jesus, (2) the church, or (3) the bread of the Eucharist.
The early church fathers saw the church as a faith community that identified itself by the breaking of bread. But by the tenth century, there was a shift in thinking and language. The word body was no longer used to refer to the church. It was only used to refer to the Lord's physical body or the bread of the Eucharist.
Consequently, the Lord's Supper became far removed from the idea of the church coming together to celebrate the breaking of bread. the vocabulary change reflected this practice. The Eucharist had ceased to be part of a joyful communal meal but came to be viewed as sacred on its own-- even as it sat on the table. It became shrouded in a religious mist. Viewed with awe, it was taken with glumness by the priest and completely removed from the communal nature of the ekklesia.
All of these factors gave rise to the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the fourth century, the belief that the bread and wine changed into the Lord's actual body and blood was explicit. Transubstantiation, however, was the doctrine that gave a theological explanation of how that change occurred. (This doctrine was worked out from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries.)
With the doctrine of transubstantiation, God's people approached the elements with a feeling of fear. They were reluctant even to approach them. When the words of the Eucharist were uttered, it was believed that the bread literally became God. All of this turned the Lord's Supper into a sacred ritual performed by sacred people and taken out of the hands of God's people. So deeply entrenched was the medieval idea that the bread and cup were an "offering" that even some of the Reformers held to it.
While contemporary Protestant Christians have discarded the Catholic notion that the Lord's Suppers is a sacrifice, they have continued to embrace the Catholic practice of the Supper. Observe a Lord's Supper service (often called "Holy Communion") in most Protestant churches and you will observe the following:

• The Lord's Supper is a bite-size cracker (or a small piece of bread) and a shot glass of grape juice (or wine). As in the Catholic church, it is removed from the meal.
• The mood is somber and glum, just as it is in the Catholic church.
• Congregants are told by the pastor that they must examine themselves with regard to sin before they must examine themselves with regard to sin before they partake of the elements, a practice that came from John Calvin.
• Like the Catholic priest, many pastors will sport clerical robes for the occasion. But always, the pastor administers the Supper and recites the words of institution, "This is my body," before dispensing the elements to the congregation.

With only a few minor tweaks, all of this is medieval Catholicism through and through."

So, what we've learned here is that what Jesus meant was that whenever we do gather, we should remember Him and what He did for us. I don't think He meant that we were supposed to make that fellowship meal ritualistic.

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I did researching it!