[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]

Emil just wrote a book.. LOL!

Question about the PO. If Jesus was to 100% fulfill the PO lamb which is slaughtered on the 14th day 1st month, why wasn't He crux on that day? If He was, why did He keep the "NTPO" on the 13th day? [Pastor told me we can only accept the testimony of 2 witnesses. Being that John is the only one who says Jesus was crux on the 14th day, we cannot trust his claim; which makes sense because the bible does mention about 2 witnesses] With that being said, Jesus was not crux on the 14th day but 15th day. Pastor was beginning to explain why He wasn't killed on PO but the subject changed.

[Sarah2013]

renita.payno wrote:

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..

I lost my only pair of trousers. 🙂

[Sarah2013]

Emil, you have pointed out some very empowering annotations. I’m an avid reader though often distracted with other things around me; I took time out to give this my full attention. I’ll keep my response short to allow room for continuity. 

Emil wrote: “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.”

This is once again how you explain things with clarity so people can comprehend. I am not so particular on dates and times, as I am on the event (as in Jesus died and rose from the dead). Did it happen? What do I do now? Not what day do I do this and that and so on. Your post brought a lot to my awareness. Simple things that is often misunderstood. I don’t believe in celebrating a lot of things, save the acknowledgement of Jesus. I’d hate to crucify him over and over again.  I believe in the Word of God as the source of life. I believe in prayer. I believe in praises but I don’t believe in works, in other words, that I can work my way into heaven when Jesus already granted me a pathway with the shedding of his blood. Yet, having said that and as believers in Christ, I believe one must spread the word in truth. Particulars are what counts to me but that’s me. 

You certainly have taken the time to make an intriguing observation and research. Thanks for the information. 

[emil]

renita.payno wrote:

Emil just wrote a book.. LOL!

It certainly felt like I was writing a book. I wanted to break the topic up into smaller pireces and put forth my arguments rather than putting everything in a jumble. There is still one more chapter to come. About the date of celebration and the so-called abolishing.

Question about the PO. If Jesus was to 100% fulfill the PO lamb which is slaughtered on the 14th day 1st month, why wasn't He crux on that day? If He was, why did He keep the "NTPO" on the 13th day?

I'm not sure if you believe that is the NTPO or you are quoting the wmscog again. 🙂 What Jesus did was he offered us the food and drink of his body and blood on the evening before he was crucified. He had to do it in the context of a supper. Since Jesus is the PO lamb sacrificed for us in the NT, and we actually passover from eternal death to eternal through his subsequent resurrection, the NTPO should be the resurrection. That is what all mainstream chruches celebrate.

[Pastor told me we can only accept the testimony of 2 witnesses. Being that John is the only one who says Jesus was crux on the 14th day, we cannot trust his claim; which makes sense because the bible does mention about 2 witnesses] With that being said, Jesus was not crux on the 14th day but 15th day. Pastor was beginning to explain why He wasn't killed on PO but the subject changed.

That is wrong. The 2 witness thing does not apply to scripture. Else we would have to reject a lot of scripture. Secondly, of the 3 authors of the synoptic gospels, 2 were certainly not eye-witnesses. I'm not lowering the value of their testimony but I don't like that John should be discarded with the point about 2 witnesses.

[Love'n Honey]

emil wrote:

[Pastor told me we can only accept the testimony of 2 witnesses. Being that John is the only one who says Jesus was crux on the 14th day, we cannot trust his claim; which makes sense because the bible does mention about 2 witnesses] With that being said, Jesus was not crux on the 14th day but 15th day. Pastor was beginning to explain why He wasn't killed on PO but the subject changed.

That is wrong. The 2 witness thing does not apply to scripture. Else we would have to reject a lot of scripture. Secondly, of the 3 authors of the synoptic gospels, 2 were certainly not eye-witnesses. I'm not lowering the value of their testimony but I don't like that John should be discarded with the point about 2 witnesses.

 I asked someone else the same question and he said the same thing! He gave me a few examples of what would need to be "ignored" if we only went by the 2 witnesses thing. And I thought I read in the NT that the Father and the Son count as 2 witnesses anyway..

[Love'n Honey]

emil wrote:

renita.payno wrote:

Question about the PO. If Jesus was to 100% fulfill the PO lamb which is slaughtered on the 14th day 1st month, why wasn't He crux on that day? If He was, why did He keep the "NTPO" on the 13th day?

I'm not sure if you believe that is the NTPO or you are quoting the wmscog again. 🙂 What Jesus did was he offered us the food and drink of his body and blood on the evening before he was crucified. He had to do it in the context of a supper. Since Jesus is the PO lamb sacrificed for us in the NT, and we actually passover from eternal death to eternal through his subsequent resurrection, the NTPO should be the resurrection. That is what all mainstream chruches celebrate.

 No, I don't believe the bread and wine is the NTPO anymore.. that's why I put it in quotes. I can't believe that Jesus is the PO lamb and that the bread and wine is the PO because they happened on 2 different days. The more I read the gospels, it really appears like it was a supper. But then I question Luke 22:15

[Love'n Honey]

Ash wrote in Chapter 2 that the PO and Feast of UL represent "Jesus' suffering which He underwent from the Passover night until His death in the body on the cross." How does His death fulfill the Feast of UL when the PO lamb is slain on the night of the PO, not the Feast of UL?? He answers this question by saying the cross fulfills all the Feasts at once including the blood of the PO lamb, the bull, and male goat.

[Disturbed]

With the OT Passover regulations in mind there was an appointed time.

Exodus 12:6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

From what I was taught by WMSCOG, even in NT times Passover is still at the appointed time.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread…

Matthew 26:18 …My appointed time is near.

Mark 14:12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb…

Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching.

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.

Luke 22:14 When the hour came…

Luke 22:15 …”I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”

So why are these events detailed in this manner if Passover doesn’t matter? Why did Jesus wait until a specific day and hour? He could have kept Passover (or communion/Eucharist) on any day, at any time but he being of Jewish background he would have kept Passover at the regulation time.

And one other story that sticks in my mind…

John 2:1-4 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

Again, why does Jesus refer to His time when discussing wine? Everything in the bible has a purpose and meaning. I can’t imagine he only wanted us to read about Him turning water into wine.

This is just my understanding, from what I learned there.

[Love'n Honey]

I definitely think the bread and wine has some importance but how can we call it the PO if it wasn't kept at the appointed time? And if it was, how can we call Jesus the PO Lamb if He wasn't slaughtered at the appointed time of the PO lamb? Is that part not prophecy?

[emil]

There you have it Renita. You are right about your conclusion. About Lk 22:15, we may have some more discerning to do. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide us and He will reveal the answer in His time. For the sake of our understanding it appears that it no more matters whether it was the 13, 14 or 15 of Nisan. Our NTPO is related to Jesus, His death and Resurrection.

That is a great find about what Ash wrote. Obviously that is a great contradiction. If the cross fulfills the PO then how can he say that he restored the PO by celebrating the body and blood? The crucification occured the next day.

[Love'n Honey]

My grandmother had said you can't participate in Christ flesh and blood while He's living.

[Questioninginla]

Questioninginla wrote:

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.

Bumping my RFI to Mr. Know-It-All, 144000.

[Love'n Honey]

God's current instruction overrules any past instruction. Is it fair? Oh well if it isn't..

[Simon]

Matthew and Mark would both be witnesses

I mentioned the lack of Koine distinction between Passover and unleavened bread

Eucharist only applied to the cup in scripture

You can’t say Matthew 26 doesn’t mean consumption when clearly you need to consume it by 6

[emil]

1. Mark was not an apostle. It is suggested that the house were they met was Mark's but that is not confirmed in scripture. That also does not mean that Mark was present with the apostles.

2. I don't know what that is all about. was that for me?

3. Can you show me how Eucharist only applied to the cup?

4. I don't know what you mean about Mt 26 and consumption. Was it to me? Could you elaborate?

[emil]

Disturbed wrote:

With the OT Passover regulations in mind there was an appointed time.

Exodus 12:6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

From what I was taught by WMSCOG, even in NT times Passover is still at the appointed time.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread…

Matthew 26:18 …My appointed time is near.

Mark 14:12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb…

Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching.

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.

Luke 22:14 When the hour came…

Luke 22:15 …"I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer"

So why are these events detailed in this manner if Passover doesn't matter? Why did Jesus wait until a specific day and hour? He could have kept Passover (or communion/Eucharist) on any day, at any time but he being of Jewish background he would have kept Passover at the regulation time.

You are right. There were regulations about keeping the OT passover. But it was meant only for the Jews. The regulations stipulate so. You had to be a circumcised Jew. Jesus, being the unblemished lamb, had to fulfill all by keeping the Jewish regulations.

But as I have explained, Christ is the passover lamb of the NT. Just as the blood of the lamb on the doorpost was the sign in Egypt, our sign is his resurrection which signals his victory over death, passing over from death to life.

And one other story that sticks in my mind…

John 2:1-4 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

Again, why does Jesus refer to His time when discussing wine? Everything in the bible has a purpose and meaning. I can't imagine he only wanted us to read about Him turning water into wine.

This is just my understanding, from what I learned there.

Good question. The wine is a tenuous connection they use to make their point. The fact is that Jesus' public ministry was just starting and he did not desire to attract too much attention right at the start. He had not really started working miracles openly yet. You will recall how even later he did not want miracles to be spoken about too much. His mission was not the miracles but the message. If the focus became miracles, he would have been mobbed and unable to move freely.

[emil]

renita.payno wrote:

Emil just wrote a book.. LOL!

Question about the PO. If Jesus was to 100% fulfill the PO lamb which is slaughtered on the 14th day 1st month, why wasn't He crux on that day? If He was, why did He keep the "NTPO" on the 13th day? [Pastor told me we can only accept the testimony of 2 witnesses. Being that John is the only one who says Jesus was crux on the 14th day, we cannot trust his claim; which makes sense because the bible does mention about 2 witnesses] With that being said, Jesus was not crux on the 14th day but 15th day. Pastor was beginning to explain why He wasn't killed on PO but the subject changed.

Just thought of one more thing. Matthew is the only one who adds the phrase "forgiveness of sins" in the last supper account. Shall we say it should be discarded because he is the only witness? Yet the wmscog uses it and twists its meaning.

[Simon]

Paul says it too

[emil]

^ I was specifically refering to the last supper accounts but I would be interested to know where exactly Paul has said that about consuming the body and blood.

[Simon]

He said it about Christs blood in general in Ephesians 1