[emil]

The WMSCOG makes a big deal out of two things; keeping the Sabbath and celebrating the Passover. For both things, I understand they teach that the catholic church abolished them in the 4th century.

I am starting this thread to discuss the issue of the issue of the Passover and about when and how it was abolished by the catholic church. I request wmscog members and former members to weigh in.

I am not clear about what the passover is as celebrated by the wmscog. What aspect of it was abolished in the 4th century.

[Love'n Honey]

[Love'n Honey]

144000 wrote:

Keep criticizing, it only helps everyone see the depths of the slander posted here.

I told the truth, if thats a problem for you then I hope everyone can read it and see this communities deceptions for what they are.

 I know.. You keep slandering us. Dreadful isn't it. Perhaps you should stop and show more of Chairwoman Zahng Gil Jah's love?

[Love'n Honey]

144000 wrote:

The break that you aren't seeing between John verses 1 and 2 is:

The gospel of Luke

The gospel of Matthew.

Luke and matthew say that Jesus prepared the passover ON the night of the Passover the FIRST DAY of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

So when Jon says "the evening meal was in progress" he's talking about the evening meal, that happened the day AFTER Judas was negotiating with the pharisees.

Read luke and matthew, Judas negotiated with the Pharisees the DAY PRIOR to keeping the Passover.

So when John says that Jesus knew Judas was already taken by the Devil, THAT is the day John is talking about in verse 1, which in luke and matthew, it is further explained to be the -next day after that- which Jesus prepares Passover.

Is that clear?

 

Leviticus 23:5-6

New International Version (NIV)

5 The Lord’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast.

The PO and the UL are not on the same day.

 

[Smurf]

renita.payno wrote:

144000 wrote:

Keep criticizing, it only helps everyone see the depths of the slander posted here.

I told the truth, if thats a problem for you then I hope everyone can read it and see this communities deceptions for what they are.

 Perhaps you should stop and show more of Chairwoman Zahng Gil Jah's love?

Or do a musical piece… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Obgm-L3X4

You know how in the Bible God commands us to go and dance like crazy?

[Love'n Honey]

emil wrote:

This is of necessity a long post. Some of it is a repetition of what I have already said elsewhere. I am including it here for better understanding. I am going to be very candid here. Please bear with me and read carefully.

1. I asked the question whether the passover was supposed to be restored but no wmscog member has come up with any kind of support for this contention.

 144,000 did explain why it had to be restored. I don't remember which thread it was in but it was recently within the past few days or so.

[emil]

^ Renita, please lt me know if/when you find it.

[emil]

Can we please have a different thread for discussion about Is 9:5/6 ?

[Questioninginla]

144000 wrote:

It appears to me that you deny a fundamental Christian event, Jesus keeping the Passover.

You have some explaining to do about how the thief on the cross next to Jesus ended up next to Him in paradise without the salvation-bestowing powers of the PO.

[Love'n Honey]

emil wrote:

^ Renita, please lt me know if/when you find it.

 All I know is that I quoted it and responded with 2 words. Something like "Very well" "Well said" or something. When I search the forum, it said nothing could be found.

[Simon]

You can’t reject luke and use him to base an argument in the same thread

[genny]

144000 wrote:

But one person cannot speak in the plural then switch to singular then switch to plural again. Your only compelling argument was the word "Elohim"'s supposed mistranslation, but it neglects saying "us" "our" and the plural images of God created male and female.

That may be what you think, but it happens.  And it happens in the Bible too.

Daniel alone received the interpretation of the dream (Dan. 2:19), and Daniel alone spoke to the king (Dan. 2:24-27), but Daniels says, "this mystery has been revealed to me" (Dan. 2:30) and then "this was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king" (Dan. 2:36).

2 Chronicles 18:5, King Ahab asks the prophets, "Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I not?"

This article is kind of long, but if you are willing to read through it, you will learn a lot about Hebrew grammar and why and when "elohim" is used in a singular sense: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm (written by a Karaite Jew)

[Simon]

Also its worth reiterating koine does not differentiate Passover and unleavened bread

[emil]

I found 144000's post about why the passover needs to be restored from another thread and I'm posting it here to keep it all together.

 

144000 wrote:

"Was the Passover required to be restored?" Where in the bible is that?"

Passover is the sign of David which Jesus brings with him, in Passover is the seal of God. In the last days the 144000 must be sealed. Passover is also the sign of the restoration of Zion which is the place where God's feasts are kept.

Isaiah 25, Psalms 102, Psalm 87, Isaiah 51, and Amos 9 all of theese chapters, and many more, testify to the destruction of Zion and its restoration in the last days.

According to Isaiah 25, after the destruction of zion: There is a feast of God including aged wine which has the power to destroy death.

In the last days we follow the New Covenant. So what new covenant regulation of Jesus involves wine, and has the power to destroy death?

In fact there is only one feast ever provided by God to destroy death forever and grant eternal life, it is the Passover.

What new covenant regulations were highly controversial and eventually laws were passed to change its set time?

What did Quartodecimanism practice?

Which new covenenant regulation was argued about between Anicetus and Polycarp?

No matter how you slice or dice it, no matter how much you argue, no matter which different question you ask, the answers will always come back to Passover.

It will be said of Zion in the last days "here is our God". And now you can see us keeping the Passover. And now you hear us saying "here is our God".

Zion has been restored, the passover has destroyed death, and God appeared to do it. Nations stream to Zion to visit God for a period of time before the end and you see it before you now.

That is why the restoration of Passover is required.

Most of that stuff is about the OT passover and nothing about it needing to be restored. He is just beating around the bush.

About the NT there is absolutely no scripture support that the passover had to be restored. In fact, I would like to ask you 144000 to point out just one scripture passage from the NT which says that the passover needs to be celebrated. I can show you where the NT shows the celebration of the body and blood where it clearly names it differently and does not imply an annual celebration. Are you open to the challenge?

[Love'n Honey]

genny wrote:

144000 wrote:

But one person cannot speak in the plural then switch to singular then switch to plural again. Your only compelling argument was the word "Elohim"'s supposed mistranslation, but it neglects saying "us" "our" and the plural images of God created male and female.

That may be what you think, but it happens.  And it happens in the Bible too.

Daniel alone received the interpretation of the dream (Dan. 2:19), and Daniel alone spoke to the king (Dan. 2:24-27), but Daniels says, "this mystery has been revealed to me" (Dan. 2:30) and then "this was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king" (Dan. 2:36).

2 Chronicles 18:5, King Ahab asks the prophets, "Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I not?"

This article is kind of long, but if you are willing to read through it, you will learn a lot about Hebrew grammar and why and when "elohim" is used in a singular sense: http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm (written by a Karaite Jew)

 As I understand it, the "numerical value" [where numerical value = singular or plural] of any noun is determined by the verb. I even read about the word chayim which ends in -im, a plural "suffix" just like Elohim. But chayim isn't used plural-ly in Gen 27:46. I made a video about it.

[genny]

renita.payno wrote:

 As I understand it, the "numerical value" [where numerical value = singular or plural] of any noun is determined by the verb. I even read about the word chayim which ends in -im, a plural "suffix" just like Elohim. But chayim isn't used plural-ly in Gen 27:46. I made a video about it.

Yep, you got it Renita.  Plurality is not just shown by the noun itself, but also by the associated verbs and adjectives.  This happens in other languages, not just Hebrew.  If the verbs and adjectives are singular, then the noun is also meant as singular (even if it doesn't appear so in its form).

[Love'n Honey]

genny wrote:

Yep, you got it Renita.  Plurality is not just shown by the noun itself, but also by the associated verbs and adjectives.  This happens in other languages, not just Hebrew.  If the verbs and adjectives are singular, then the noun is also meant as singular (even if it doesn't appear so in its form).

 Yea! Like pants! Pants alone looks plural but in the sentence "I lost my only pair of pants" we know that pants is singular. =) Yay to literature! Or whatever it is..

[emil]

I posted a lengthy post showing that the bread and wine process is not the passover in any way. First of all, it is debatable whether it was actually the passover seder meal or the previous evening. Secondly, I call into question whether the actions of Jesus, which he asked us to commemorate can be called the NT passover as the wmscog would like to call it, even if it may have been during the passover seder.

Here are some more thoughts.

The highlight of the original passover was the killing of the lamb, roasting it and eating with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, the application of the blood on the doorpost and the angel of the Lord passing over (PASSOVER) that house without harming the first born. That was the OT passover. The feast of the unleavened bread was added to commemorate the crossing of the Red Sea. Later on, the two feasts were merged with a Passover day followed by the days of unleavened bread. The Passover became the first day of the days of unleavened bread. So one can see that the critical elements of the passover were the killing of the lamb and its blood. When does the blood come into the passover? Obviously only after the lamb is killed.

What does the NT say about the passover? Post Jesus' death and resurrection, the word passover occurs only thrice. The first in Acts 12 refers to the PO of the Jews. The third is Hebrews 11 which is talking about Moses. We are only left with 1 Cor 5:7 – For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

So the NT refers to Christ as our passover lamb. How can the passover meal be the one before the lamb is sacrificed? This therefore, is the second reason why we cannot call the last supper the NT PO.

[emil]

What then is the NT Passover?

As mentioned in my previous post, Paul confirms what we Christians believe, that Jesus is our passover lamb. Why? Because he died to pay for our sins. But is that all? No. On the third day he rose again to destroy death. He was the first in the resurrection with the promise of resurrection for us all. He passed over from death to life. That is our answer. The NT passover culminates in Jesus' resurrection. It is what is called Pasche in most languages and Easter in English.

[emil]

So if the partaking of the body and blood is not the passover, then what does scripture call it?

Let us look at 1 Cor 11:17-34 which discusses the commemoration. First let us look at verses 23-26 to check if it is the same thing we are talking about:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

It is clear that Paul is talking about the exact same event that the wmscog calls the PO. Correct?

Now we back up and look at Paul's admonishment to the church of Corinth in verses 17-22. In verse 20 Paul identifies it as the Lord's Supper. That is one possible name. Another name that is commonly used is the word Eucharist which is the Greek word for "giving thanks" in verse 24.

So the two possible scriptural names for the commemoration of the body and blood of Jesus are: The Lord's Supper and The Eucharist.

[emil]

Interestingly, this same scripture passage answers another falsehood perpetrated by the wmscog. Their claim that their PO forgives sins. But first lets take a close look at the scripture which they use for their claim.

I looked at their website and I find they use Luke 4:17-21, where Jesus is proclaiming his kingdom, which is hardly a clear cut proof (read it yourselves and see) and Rom 6:22, which again does not have a direct connection to their claim. Please let me know if there is anything better that they use. Their article on PO also throws in 1 Cor 10:1-12, which in fact seems to testify exactly the opposite. It says that despite the spiritual food and drink the people couldn't be saved.

My friend in the wmscog uses the verse Mt 26:28, which may appear to prove their point. Here it is:

28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

At first glance that looks good but examine it closely. What exactly does it say? It says that the blood of the covenant has been poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness comes from the pouring out, not from the drinking.

Going back to the passage 1 Cor 11, which I wrote about in my previous post, in vs 27 Paul writes that the eating and drinking has to be done in a worthy manner. The KJV says "unworthily". Now the wmscog would tell you that the worthiness comes from celebrating it on the correct date. I will explore this aspect in another post later. But once again we look back to what Paul has said earlier in this passage. In the verses 17-22 he has already castigated them for their manner of eating. So when in vs 27 he tells them the consequence of their action, and in vs 28 it is clear that he is saying that we cannot come forward for this celebration in a state of sinfulness.

But if the body and blood forgives sins then why would this be a criterion? If you were in a state of sin before partaking of the body and blood, you would be forgiven according to the wmscog. But that's not what scripture says. On the contrary, it says you must not be in a sinful state to partake.

[emil]

Next point is how often. According to the wmscog, it is an annual event. But what does 1 Cor 11 tell us? The verses 17 and 18 which start off this rebuke clearly imply that it is something that happens whenever they meet. This is the same thing that has been written about in Acts 2 but since it is not described in detail it is denied by the wmscog.

But in this scripture passage, it is very clear that whenever they meet, they celebrate the Lord's Supper. Any way you read it, you can hardly understand that to mean once a year.

I am sorry for the information overload. I promise it is the last one for today. The only thing I am left with now is to show that this was never abolished as the wmscog says it was.

Please feel free to discuss all my above posts.