[144000]

http://www.examiner.com/article/irenaeus-of-lyon-heresy-fighter-or-major-heretic

I'll just leave this here, though I pray all people will instead come to the bible and the Church of God which is not divided for answers; rather than consulting the wild assumptions posted here or blindly accepting its fabricated evidences.

Brothers and Sisters, and all soon to be children of God; God Bless You.

[emil]

[emil]

144000 wrote:

Emil

"The partaking of the body and blood of Jesus is not called the passover but "The Lord's Supper" in the NT."

You missed the part where Jesus refers to the lord's supper as "This passover" and "the passover" in several verses.

I'm not going to be baited into more off-topic discussion, even if you want to blame me for a 37 year question which was in reality yet another tangent by you and posted to me in two different and irrelevant threads. You can't bait me into an argument then strut around like your so clever when people refuse to play ball.

The question was posted to you in the exact same thread in which you made the preposterous claim that he prophesied his death at age 37. I asked you to show me where exactly in his writings he said that but you were unable to back your claim with any kind of substance. Your only defense was to read the books myself and find it or come to your church and study. That is very weird logic. You then started avoiding that thread. After that I posted in a couple of other threads where you were still active reminding you that the question remains unanswered, which it is to this day. And probably for ever since it is clear you have no answer.

This is very much like how your friend FTOS abandoned the thread where he claimed that the catholic church and the pope were the creatures identified in Rev and Dan. It is there that Genny cornered him about historical mismatches and I pointed out the wrong sequence of the interpretation proving it false.

You guys make strong assertions but can never back them up.

[emil]

144000 wrote:

Emil

"The partaking of the body and blood of Jesus is not called the passover but "The Lord's Supper" in the NT."

You missed the part where Jesus refers to the lord's supper as "This passover" and "the passover" in several verses.

I'm not going to be baited into more off-topic discussion, even if you want to blame me for a 37 year question which was in reality yet another tangent by you and posted to me in two different and irrelevant threads. You can't bait me into an argument then strut around like your so clever when people refuse to play ball.

The question was posted to you in the exact same thread in which you made the preposterous claim that he prophesied his death at age 37. I asked you to show me where exactly in his writings he said that but you were unable to back your claim with any kind of substance. Your only defense was to read the books myself and find it or come to your church and study. That is very weird logic. You then started avoiding that thread. After that I posted in a couple of other threads where you were still active reminding you that the question remains unanswered, which it is to this day. And probably for ever since it is clear you have no answer.

This is very much like how your friend FTOS abandoned the thread where he claimed that the catholic church and the pope were the creatures identified in Rev and Dan. It is there that Genny cornered him about historical mismatches and I pointed out the wrong sequence of the interpretation proving it false.

You guys make strong assertions but can never back them up.

[genny]

144,000 I've missed you!  How have you been?  I've been away for a few days.  Hope you are still around to read and answer…

Thank you for the link.  I do find those types of articles interesting.  The link you refer to in your second post (without the actual link) is this one: http://www.cogwriter.com/passover.htm  (By the way, did you know that the author there "cogwriter" uses the Bible and history to show that "true" Christians should not celebrate birthdays or Jan. 1 New Year?  What does the wmscog teach about birthdays and Jan. 1?  Sorry, not trying to change topics.  Just consider that a rhetorical question.)

After seeing how people have misused quote, I'm very wary and like to look up the source myself.  When you see that quote you pulled out…

   "For we could never tolerate celebrating the Passover twice in one year. But even if all these facts did not exist, your own sagacity would prompt you to watch with diligence and with prayer, lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. It must also be borne in mind, that upon so important a point as the celebration of a feast of such sanctity, discord is wrong. One day has our Saviour set apart for a commemoration of our deliverance, namely, of His most holy Passion" (Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History (Book I), Chapter IX. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).""

What would you want the reader to think after reading that?  From what I know of the wmscog, my guess is that you would want the reader to think that 1) celebrating the Passover more than once a in one year is "intolerable", 2) the writer just gave us "all these facts" about keeping the Passover only once a year, and 3) if you keep it more than once a year you "share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved"

If that's the kind of emotion you are trying to bring up in a reader by using that quote, then I must agree with Emily that you are ignoring the context.  Here's another link to the quote in context for those who would like to read the whole chapter (which isn't too long): http://books.google.com/books?id=RTswAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

144000 wrote:

The other comments

…are answered in the full context of the original source, no matter how many excuses forum members make in order to be people who do as they please; saying "I follow john" or saying "I follow paul".

I have a two page long list of reasons under my message history for how absurd Emily and Emil's other claims are, and I'm not going to get into a circular argument again. I'd suggest that we not pretend anyone "Backed off" before new forum members check my message history and see your track record of fibbing about me and making ludicrous assumptions about my intentions. Running in circles like a fool until somebody gets frustrated and leaves is not a valid argument that you were ever right about anything.

I'd reccomend not trying to divert attention from the main article before new posters see the collossal failure of your (and other member's) ability to stay on topic. In fact I'd advise that you make this your very first thread where you don't shift the goalposts, it would do a lot for your credibility.

I was also wondering about matters you left unfinished in other threads.  I don't quite understand what you mean by "a two page long list of reasons."  You don't need to divert the topic here, but if you could give me a link to that list of reasons it would be great.

[genny]

144,000 I've missed you!  How have you been?  I've been away for a few days.  Hope you are still around to read and answer…

Thank you for the link.  I do find those types of articles interesting.  The link you refer to in your second post (without the actual link) is this one: http://www.cogwriter.com/passover.htm  (By the way, did you know that the author there "cogwriter" uses the Bible and history to show that "true" Christians should not celebrate birthdays or Jan. 1 New Year?  What does the wmscog teach about birthdays and Jan. 1?  Sorry, not trying to change topics.  Just consider that a rhetorical question.)

After seeing how people have misused quote, I'm very wary and like to look up the source myself.  When you see that quote you pulled out…

   "For we could never tolerate celebrating the Passover twice in one year. But even if all these facts did not exist, your own sagacity would prompt you to watch with diligence and with prayer, lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. It must also be borne in mind, that upon so important a point as the celebration of a feast of such sanctity, discord is wrong. One day has our Saviour set apart for a commemoration of our deliverance, namely, of His most holy Passion" (Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History (Book I), Chapter IX. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).""

What would you want the reader to think after reading that?  From what I know of the wmscog, my guess is that you would want the reader to think that 1) celebrating the Passover more than once a in one year is "intolerable", 2) the writer just gave us "all these facts" about keeping the Passover only once a year, and 3) if you keep it more than once a year you "share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved"

If that's the kind of emotion you are trying to bring up in a reader by using that quote, then I must agree with Emily that you are ignoring the context.  Here's another link to the quote in context for those who would like to read the whole chapter (which isn't too long): http://books.google.com/books?id=RTswAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

144000 wrote:

The other comments

…are answered in the full context of the original source, no matter how many excuses forum members make in order to be people who do as they please; saying "I follow john" or saying "I follow paul".

I have a two page long list of reasons under my message history for how absurd Emily and Emil's other claims are, and I'm not going to get into a circular argument again. I'd suggest that we not pretend anyone "Backed off" before new forum members check my message history and see your track record of fibbing about me and making ludicrous assumptions about my intentions. Running in circles like a fool until somebody gets frustrated and leaves is not a valid argument that you were ever right about anything.

I'd reccomend not trying to divert attention from the main article before new posters see the collossal failure of your (and other member's) ability to stay on topic. In fact I'd advise that you make this your very first thread where you don't shift the goalposts, it would do a lot for your credibility.

I was also wondering about matters you left unfinished in other threads.  I don't quite understand what you mean by "a two page long list of reasons."  You don't need to divert the topic here, but if you could give me a link to that list of reasons it would be great.

[emil]

I also wish to point out that the original article that 144000 refered to, is from the CoG founded by Herbert Armstrong. Rings a bell? Hope 144000 realizes that he has greater rights to the claim of restoring the passover. In that case 144000 must believe that Herbert Armstrong is God and therefore Ahn isn't.

Perhaps 144000 ought to examine whether he has lost a foot. He might possibly find it in his mouth.

[emil]

I also wish to point out that the original article that 144000 refered to, is from the CoG founded by Herbert Armstrong. Rings a bell? Hope 144000 realizes that he has greater rights to the claim of restoring the passover. In that case 144000 must believe that Herbert Armstrong is God and therefore Ahn isn't.

Perhaps 144000 ought to examine whether he has lost a foot. He might possibly find it in his mouth.