- Topic
I don't know if everyone knows about this already but for the sake of those who don't know and want clarifications, I'll explain here.
What is the Passover? Super basic question being encountered with the wmscogs. If you don't know anything about it and wmscog asks "are you celebrating the Passover?" Then you would answer No. If they would say, then you are not following God's command, you will not enter Heaven. IF you have little biblical understanding, then you would listen to their explainations and think "Oh my gosh! I am going to hell!"
Now, your thoughts would also depend on what you do believe about the Bible. Do you believe in the Old testament? or the New testament? Or Both?
For the purpose of not getting confused over the Passover and the Lord's Supper, we'll pretend that everyone that reads here believes in Both testaments.
In the Old Testament, when God (thru Moses) led the Israelites out of the land of slavery, one of His ordinances was the Passover. The people were told to take a 1 year old lamb without defect and take its blood and spread it on the side and on the top of the door. Then the people were to eat the roasted lamb, every bit of it, leaving nothing behind. God said that they do this yearly to commemorate the time when He save them from slavery. This was one of His covenants / contracts to the Israelites.
In the New Testament, Jesus told the disciples to prepare the Passover meal. DURING the Passover, he made a NEW covenant. He took the bread and wine and shared it with them and told them "Do this in remembrance of me". That's why the sharing of bread and wine is called the Lord's Supper. The bread symbolizes his body, which will be nailed on the cross and the wine symbolizes his blood which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.
The Passover and the Lord's Supper were totally different covenants. The Passover is in REMEMBRANCE OF GOD SAVING THEM FROM EGYPT and the Lord's Supper is in REMEMBRANCE OF THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS TO SAVE THE WHOLE WORLD FROM SIN.
We were the ones that were supposed to die because of our sins, but Jesus died for us so we don't have to. In other words, he became a Passover Lamb, a sacrifice so that our sins will be forgiven. When he made that ULTIMATE sacrifice, the Passover was made obsolete. You can find in Hebrews more explanations on this. But the point here is because his SACRIFICE was so complete, so ultimate, that we don't have to kill any animal to sacrifice again. We could not equal the importance of the Son of God's blood to the blood of a animal.
So the Passover is obsolete. The Lord's Supper is NOT the PASSOVER. By definition, the word NEW means it is something that has never been made before. It is different from the word RENEWED. But what word was used in the Bible? IT'S A NEW COVENANT, not a RENEWED one.
So if you are asked by wmscog members, "Then why do you not celebrate the Passover?" You can tell them, "I celebrate the Lord's Supper" (if you really do)
Or you can say "You don't celebrate it either, I don't see you spreading blood of lambs on the side and top of your doors."
MY ANSWERS ARE IN ( ) UNDERNEATH EACH LINE!
Sorry for the late reply, my Internet connection is having problems.
so you can't prove he did, so again
You still can't prove he did keep it, and yes I can't prove that he didn't keep it. Me I don't have to prove he didn't keep it because it has nothing to do with my line of reasoning. But your hangs on it. let me explain.(evidence A)
1. where is the lamb they should eat customary for the OT Passover,
Since the Passover was customary, it is not necessary to highlight anymore. But we could argue that the lamb was not necessary because Jesus was considered as the lamb.
(Actually your point is correct, The reason they did not keep it with a lamb is because he is the fulfillment of the passover, there is no need for a physical blood sacrifice. but this does not defeat my arguement because it is apart of our truth)
2.Also do you believe jesus is jew before he is God,
Let's define SIN shall we? Sin means transgression of the laws. Since Jesus as a Holy Son cannot sin, therefore He would not have transgress the laws. The passover was part of the laws.
( Let me state again the law was created for the unholy, sinners, that means you are a sinner, you are a man, Passover was made so that sinners can be cleansed, if you say he will commit a sin if he doesn't keep it, then you don't understand why the law was created, it is for sinners…not the righteous who is GOD! and I believe He is God before he is a Jew , and what we were talking about above where I marked EVIDENCE A is very important for you argument here. )
3.why would God be 'allowed' to keep the Passover?
Jesus came on earth to fulfill ALL the laws in place for those who cannot fulfill it. What I meant by at the word 'allowed' Was that the Jews find no reason to protest that He participated in the Passover since He was born as a Jew. if He was not a Jew, there would have been a dispute over why He would participate in it.
(Fair enough)
4.and why would God need to keep the Passover, the passover and all other feasts are for SINNERS?
Jesus as God did not NEED to keep the Passover or all other laws, but since God the Father made the laws, the israelites are born under it. No one was able to keep all the laws perfectly, therefore Jesus fulfilled it for them and sacrifice Himself so that people can have the chance to have eternal life, what's the catch? You have to have faith that He DID save you.
( your answer to number 2 and this is contradicting You said in number 2 if he didn't keep the passover he would be commiting a sin insince he is God who is sinnless he would keep the law. now in number 4 you are saying he doesn't need to keep passover Also Jesus fufilled the law not by keeping or celebrating but by being lifted up on the cross, has nothing to do with him celebrating the feasts.)
5. then Jesus is a sinner????
I think that is a very stupid question.
(Actually if Jesus as in Evidence A didn't celebrate the passover at other years during his gospel work, then your answer in number 2 makes him one! Your reasoning can easily be made false, so something stupid to you can actually destroy your whole line of reasoning)
6. And if He is Jew and he kept Passover Because he was a Jew, then how can you make a distinction between, Jesus did this because he is a Jew, and Jesus did this because He was trying to teach us something?
A teaching is a teaching. Jesus was not teaching the Passover since it already exist even before He came on earth. The people already know how to DO the Passover and have been doing it even before Jesus came.
(So basically you are saying his actions have nothing to do for us because all of his actions are basically because he is a Jew. Jesus preached the gospel as God almighty he might of had Jew covering but he is GOD, you're an amercan? i don't know if you are but just because you sew a british flag on you shoulder does not take away the fact you're an american. )
Also elie lets focus, does the bible contain useless information? then Jesus going to the bathroom or even an apostle doing that would not be need in the bible, you're comparing pooping and God's commands! I'm speechless! Also you did call bread a meal because you said eating the bread and wine is the lords supper! So the BREAD is the SUPPER! hence LORDS SUPPER!
Also I would like to point out the fact that you guys persecute us saying we make teachings without proof, well where's your proof he kept it every year for the three years he was preaching? So if you guys gotta understand that is not a nice thing ok so now elie you have to prove it because it backs up your whole line of reasoning just saying oh just cuz it's not ther doesn't mean he didn't do it doesn't cut it.
fromtheotherside, you said you would be willing to consider another interpretation as long as it is valid.
Elie's point about Jesus celebrating the Passover every year is valid.
You said you believe He didn't keep the Passover in the other years because the Bible doesn't say that He did. By your reasoning, the disciples and early church didn't keep it every year either, because the Bible does not say they did. Maybe they only kept it the few times it is mentioned. It is not recorded every year, so therefore they didn't keep it every year. I don't think you would agree with that reasoning, but that is what you are doing in regards to Jesus and the yearly Passover.
But I'd like to point out that other Passovers are recorded with Jesus:
Luke 2–Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover. They would have taken Him when He was young.
John 2–Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover. This is when He cleared the Temple.
John 6–Another Passover, when Jesus talks about being the bread of life.
John 11-19–Jesus' last Passover.
genny said:
You said you believe He <em style=”margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: ‘Trebuchet MS’, ‘Lucida Grande’, Verdana, Tahoma, Arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);”>didn't keep the Passover in the other years because the Bible doesn't say that He did. By your reasoning, the disciples and early church didn't keep it every year either, because the Bible does not say they did. Maybe they only kept it the few times it is mentioned. It is not recorded every year, so therefore they didn't keep it every year. I don't think you would agree with that reasoning, but that is what you are doing in regards to Jesus and the yearly Passover.
My reply:
The four gospels Mat mark luke and John tell of the events of Jesus during the three years he was here, Acts documents just after jesus left and also about apostle paul, it's not a history of the whole time the apostles did the gospel so there would not be any documentation of them keeping the passover every year. and all the rest of the nt is letters and teachings from paul and other apostles. So you can't compare the two.
Also because it's going against the words of the bible, the law was created for the unholy the godless the lawlessness, that means for sinners those who are already sinners! Jesus does not have to keep it, and if he broke it, it wouldn't matter he would be commiting a sin because he is GOD.To say that if he broke he would be sinning is just not biblical.
Also Jesus said he waited eagerly to celebrate the passover, and on that night they broke bread gave thanks and said this is my body and after the supper ( this is bread and it can be bread because even you said the bread was called the Lords SUPPER!) he gave the wine and gave thanks and handed it to them saying this is my blood! So the lords supper is the Passover, If you want to call it the lords supper I have nothing against that even the apostle said that then hey i'm no better then him to go against it, but he is refering to the Passover of the new covenant!
So it is the Passover.
Jesus Christ is our example (1 Pet. 2:21). There was not one thing He did that we should not do today.
The notion that Jesus’ life represented the “tail end” of Judaism and was not a example for us to follow rejects the clear Bible passages that state we should follow in His steps (1 Pet. 2:21, 1 John 2:6, 1 Cor. 11:1). Also, the argument that Christ was “under the law” (Gal. 4:4) and therefore obedient to te tenets of Judaism is erroneous because Christ did not offer single sacrifice. Christ was “under the law” in the sense that He was subject to the law of death like any other human being. As God in the flesh, He paid the penalty for our sins and died in our stead.
I'm going to lend a truce, right now one point is did jesus keep the passover every year after his baptism and until the cross, I believe he didn't but I have no proof, I confess so I maybe wrong but I believe so. So now elie you can admit that also but if you admit it then it does show holes in your argument… or if you push this fact you must show proof. You would say the same thing at any wmscog teaching correct? I know all of you would scream out PROOF SHOW PROOF!, if you don't live up to the standards that you put others under then you are no better a person and your words are worthless. or take my truce and I respect your "interpretation of it being the lords supper" and you respect wmscog interpretation of "Church of God is the only church to celebrate passover!" and we will never deny or ever again speak against those teachings? deal??? or do you want to show proof and prove its not passover but Lords supper? I will wait for your reply or your proof.
did you not see Genny post two other times Jesus kept Passover?
Thanks, Simon.
You guys can stop arguing about whether the Bible's silence on if Jesus did or did not keep the Passover in those other years because the Bible is not silent about it. It does record Jesus keeping other Passovers. I'll put them here again so you don't have to scroll up to find it:
Luke 2–Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover. They would have taken Him when He was young.
John 2–Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover. This is when He cleared the Temple.
John 6–Another Passover, when Jesus talks about being the bread of life.
John 11-19–Jesus' last Passover.
fromtheotherside wrote:
genny said:
You said you believe He didn't keep the Passover in the other years because the Bible doesn't say that He did. By your reasoning, the disciples and early church didn't keep it every year either, because the Bible does not say they did. Maybe they only kept it the few times it is mentioned. It is not recorded every year, so therefore they didn't keep it every year. I don't think you would agree with that reasoning, but that is what you are doing in regards to Jesus and the yearly Passover.
My reply:
The four gospels Mat mark luke and John tell of the events of Jesus during the three years he was here, Acts documents just after jesus left and also about apostle paul, it's not a history of the whole time the apostles did the gospel so there would not be any documentation of them keeping the passover every year. and all the rest of the nt is letters and teachings from paul and other apostles. So you can't compare the two.
Acts is a historical book documenting about 30 years of the early church, and it only mentions Passover twice. Yes, I think you can compare the two. You should use the same reasoning for both.
genny wrote:
Luke 2–Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover. They would have taken Him when He was young.
John 2–Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover. This is when He cleared the Temple.
John 6–Another Passover, when Jesus talks about being the bread of life.
John 11-19–Jesus' last Passover.
Luke 2 is before Jesus started his ministry as a saviour so this is before he was baptized we're talking about after.
John 2 says he was present at the feast doing miracles, being present does not mean he offered up the blood sacrifice to God. It does not even give a hint that Jesus offered any sacrifice, that is why it doesn't even say he kept it. As opposed to Mat 26 luke 22 where it say he "kept" the passover with bread and wine.
John 6 it says the passover was near. No words Jesus Kept the feast with offerings of lambs to God.
John 11 is the passover from Mat 26 and luke 22
/So we are in agreement that there is no more need for blood sacrifice therefore lambs are not needed anymore. Since blood and lambs are one of the main points of the Passover, can we say that we can call the NEW covenant in another name? Since you have to admit, what they do in the Passover is not exactly the same with the Lord's supper. So why focus on a name?/
Who is that up to? Jesus kept the passover with bread and wine, he did not say let's make this the lords supper the new covenant. If he did you can but he didn't. Why focus on a name? Well great then why don't we call it halloween then? That's fine right? You truly believe you have any right to change even a name to one of God's laws? what gives you that right?
Ok, so since it didn't specifically say that Jesus "kept" the Passover in John 2 and 6, then you believe He didn't.
Then my point still stands about the apostles and early church. You didn't respond to that part. Acts is a historical book covering about 30 years, yet the Passover is only mentioned twice, and neither time does it day that the disciples actually "kept" it. Therefore, by your reasoning, the early church didn't keep the Passover for the first 30 years.
actually Genny it is documented fact by third parties that the early church did keep it. Historically they did. Also if you go that route they your denying Elies views upon the Lords supper also, then if that's right then we are both wrong.
No, I believe, with Elie, that Jesus kept the Passover, and all the Law. I also believe that (many) Jewish believers in the early church also kept the Passover because it was part of their culture, but things were different with Gentile believers, and God accepted them even without their keeping any of those laws.
It's your reasoning I object to, saying that because it isn't specified in the Bible then it didn't happen.
Doesn't matter if you don't want to accept it, it doesn't matter on what you believe, your argument still denyed elies view point! Saying NO, doesn't make you right, and you still didn't make any valid proof to your argument, what you believe doesn't matter it's proof that counts, both you and elie has unsuccessfully backed up your views, and both reasonings go both ways the only reason your objecting is because I'm challenging your belief and that's the ONLY reason your objecting cuz you don't want to be proved wrong, if it's not in the bible it didn't happen is valid and also saying just cuz it's not in there doesn't mean it didn't happen is valid too, see I can agree with different view points, but which ever one is correct depends on other biblical proof to the underlining argument. But to say Jesus didn't celebrate the Passover with bread and wine calling it the new covenant thats where the conflict lies. You and Elie want to point out that the passover is Jewish and the lords supper is christian, that is the argument, Apostle paul refered to the passover as the Lords supper, but Jesus who is God said I want to keep the passover and instituted the use of Bread and wine and said this is the new covenant, He didn't say lets now call this the Lords supper, to dismiss this by saying Jesus is a Jew so he kept the jewish feast is absurd. He didn't have tokeep any law in order to fulfill it, he fulfilled all the laws by becoming the perfect sacrifice on the cross. to say that if he didn't keep the law he would sin is absurd I don't know if elie is so bent on proving her view she doesn't want to listen but I will say it again Jesus is not a sinner he is righteous no matter what he does, even if he were to not keep the laws, he is above the law no matter in the flesh or in spirit. He is blameless not because he keeps Jewish laws but because he is God who is righteous not matter what he does. Again you put god under YOUR standards, which he is above.
You keep saying this but again you're putting God under YOUR standards and thoughts
It was impossible for God to lie.
This doesn't mean that he is under some type of moral standard or law that keeps God from lying, it means that no matter what comes out of God's mouth is it is righteous,
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.</dd>
Even if God deceives people it is not evil if YOU OR I were to it would be evil, because God does things that are for the GOOD, no matter what his action maybe, it is for the greater good that is why even if he deceives it is righteous!</dd>
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.<
Please keep responses in the same thread as the post you are responding to. I'm going to copy your last post here: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=4486&page=2
which is where the point was made about God and lying.
fromtheotherside, you had a lot to argue about in your last post here about Passover and I lost the main point of the argument. I hope Elie has kept track and can get us back to the main idea. If not, you can try again.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Doesn't matter if you don't want to accept it, it doesn't matter on what you believe, your argument still denyed elies view point! Saying NO, doesn't make you right, and you still didn't make any valid proof to your argument, what you believe doesn't matter it's proof that counts, both you and elie has unsuccessfully backed up your views, and both reasonings go both ways the only reason your objecting is because I'm challenging your belief and that's the ONLY reason your objecting cuz you don't want to be proved wrong, if it's not in the bible it didn't happen is valid and also saying just cuz it's not in there doesn't mean it didn't happen is valid too, see I can agree with different view points, but which ever one is correct depends on other biblical proof to the underlining argument. But to say Jesus didn't celebrate the Passover with bread and wine calling it the new covenant thats where the conflict lies. You and Elie want to point out that the passover is Jewish and the lords supper is christian, that is the argument, Apostle paul refered to the passover as the Lords supper, but Jesus who is God said I want to keep the passover and instituted the use of Bread and wine and said this is the new covenant, He didn't say lets now call this the Lords supper, to dismiss this by saying Jesus is a Jew so he kept the jewish feast is absurd. He didn't have tokeep any law in order to fulfill it, he fulfilled all the laws by becoming the perfect sacrifice on the cross. to say that if he didn't keep the law he would sin is absurd I don't know if elie is so bent on proving her view she doesn't want to listen but I will say it again Jesus is not a sinner he is righteous no matter what he does, even if he were to not keep the laws, he is above the law no matter in the flesh or in spirit. He is blameless not because he keeps Jewish laws but because he is God who is righteous not matter what he does. Again you put god under YOUR standards, which he is above.
I think this was sufficient to refute the arguments, if you have no replies I will take it you have none to give.
genny wrote:
No, I believe, with Elie, that Jesus kept the Passover, and all the Law. I also believe that (many) Jewish believers in the early church also kept the Passover because it was part of their culture, but things were different with Gentile believers, and God accepted them even without their keeping any of those laws.
It's your reasoning I object to, saying that because it isn't specified in the Bible then it didn't happen.
Also Sorry to say history says the gentiles in the early church did keep the passover and the sabbath. That is only what you want to believe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.