- Topic
I was at the other site, and I read a comment where someone asked Genny if anyone from the church that has celebrated the passover, has died and if so what did the church tell the members, because if the person died having the passover then what excuse could it give it's member, that the person had no faith?
I also read at the same site that a deacones died, and it was all kept quite, could this be true and is there any proof of it. I personally believe in the passover because it is the word of GOD, even if i don't agree with the wms on somethings.
Also if we can not die having the passover, what about the people that walked with Ahnsanghong, back in the days, who also kept the passover. Are they alive today, if so they must be like almost 100 yrs old. I'm just saying!
LUV wrote:
Stained wrote:
Seriously ? The title of this thread befuddles me. In short here's the answer. YES. This isn't the last age or generation or church or whatever they call it. If one of them dies in there though they will play it down or play it off.
I think the person was asking since, according to the wmscog teaching that we are living in the last age, does anyone who partake in the passover not die, BEFORE Father comes, because it is God's protection and they will live to witness that moment.
as Renita posted the 144,000 will not die, they will ascend to heaven and be transfromed in a twinklwe of an eye, but it's not because the wmscog says so, it's because it's wrtitten in bible and GOD said so! The rest who obey God's commands will be the Great Multitude, who will die physically, suffer a little on earth before death, then ascend to heaven.
As it was written on another post, what I can not understand is that the 144,000 sealed ( Revelation 7)
are from all the tribes of Israel, and the 144,000 DID NOT DEFILE themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure (Revelation 14: 3-5)
so if we read this literaly and not twist it, everyone else (all nations aka Great Multiude) will die, except for the chosen Israelites. I dunno I'm no bible expert, just my thought.
Does anyone know what they say is the explantion for revelation 14:3-5, I never found out.
HI. Hint: Nobody's coming and the 144,000 are JEWS from Israel. Not Spiritual Jews as someone tried to BS me. The old man said in his writings, if I remember correctly, that the New Jerusalem will come down out of Heaven 1000 years AFTER the end of the world. Last I checked, the world ain't ended. Even if it did tonight, we'd be a thousand years short. TTYL.
emil wrote:
LUV wrote:
here it see, the protection physically. http://youtu.be/eZmr5mVEGD8 the people in the video clearly state they survived, because of the power of the passover.
Honestly, I do believe in the passover, because Jesus said to do it, and because Jehovah also commanded it, I know I know, same God, but different age. Anyway I believe in the passover, but since I decide to leave although they teach things from the bible, let it be known that I left because of things that were said or done, which I did not approve of, and No I don't think God would approve either!
Did Jesus command the passover? Here is what my wmscog friend quotes: Mt 26:27-28
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Apparently this is the command to keep the PO according to the wmscog. However, it was not the PO that Jesus was exhorting. It was on the occassion of the passover seder meal that Jesus offered the cup of the new covenant to his disciples. Check out the other gospels too for confirmation.
The wmscog also uses that passage to affirm that keeping the PO is essential for forgiveness of sins. But look carefully at the verse again. To me Jesus is saying the forgiveness of sins has come by the pouring out of his blood, not the drinking of it.
He actually does command to drink it not just then but also in John 6
Then again look at what Jesus tells the rich young man who came to him with the eternal life question. Jesus lists out the important commandments. I don't see either the Sabbath or any passover command in the list.
Would appreciate if you can point out where exactly Jesus commanded the passover.
As regards Jehovah's command, it was for a different time and place and peoples. See Exodus 12:43-51. It is clear for whom the command was.
Neither is worship or believe in God
Stained wrote:
LUV wrote:
Stained wrote:
Seriously ? The title of this thread befuddles me. In short here's the answer. YES. This isn't the last age or generation or church or whatever they call it. If one of them dies in there though they will play it down or play it off.
I think the person was asking since, according to the wmscog teaching that we are living in the last age, does anyone who partake in the passover not die, BEFORE Father comes, because it is God's protection and they will live to witness that moment.
as Renita posted the 144,000 will not die, they will ascend to heaven and be transfromed in a twinklwe of an eye, but it's not because the wmscog says so, it's because it's wrtitten in bible and GOD said so! The rest who obey God's commands will be the Great Multitude, who will die physically, suffer a little on earth before death, then ascend to heaven.
As it was written on another post, what I can not understand is that the 144,000 sealed ( Revelation 7)
are from all the tribes of Israel, and the 144,000 DID NOT DEFILE themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure (Revelation 14: 3-5)
so if we read this literaly and not twist it, everyone else (all nations aka Great Multiude) will die, except for the chosen Israelites. I dunno I'm no bible expert, just my thought.
Does anyone know what they say is the explantion for revelation 14:3-5, I never found out.
HI. Hint: Nobody's coming and the 144,000 are JEWS from Israel. Not Spiritual Jews as someone tried to BS me. The old man said in his writings, if I remember correctly, that the New Jerusalem will come down out of Heaven 1000 years AFTER the end of the world. Last I checked, the world ain't ended. Even if it did tonight, we'd be a thousand years short. TTYL.
Actually it is not Jews it is Israelites, and it is unlikely literal seeing as nothing else in revelation is
When someone tells you to do something it is a demand or command. If someone asks you to do something then it is a choice. There is no example of Jesus keeping the po hal’s way. When a po was prepared, there was no physical lamb described. Jesus said he waited to eat “this” po, the po his disciples prepared. It was not said that when they prepared the po they prepared bread and wine as the po BUT bread and wine was prepared the same night when Jesus commanded to prepare the po. We cannot assume the lamb was there because that would be adding to scripture. Either the disciples disobeyed Jesus when he said prepare the po OR the bread and wine they prepared was the po. Jesus did not rebuke them for preparing bread and wine, at least the rebuke wasn’t written. So, it appears that Jesus commanded the disciples to prepare the po with bread and wine and commanded them to continue to keep this po and commanded them to teach everyone what he had taught them.
But where then was "passover" changed from the lamb, or seder, or whatever to a simulated blood sacrifice? If we cannot assume the lamb was there, then we also cannot assume that by "prepare the passover" JC meant to get some wine and bread. If he was a jew, wouldn't he have kept passover the way jews do?
That’s what i said. We can’t assume that Jesus meant bread and wine because he did not say “go prepare the po with bread and wine.” But we can conclude that a lamb was never mentioned so we don’t know if it was there. And it wasn’t recorded that the discipled were rebuked for “only” preparing bread and wine. So it APPEARS (key word) that the disciples did as jesus directed. They prepared the po the way he inteded, replace the lamb with bread and wine. But not everything is as it seems or appears to be.
Somehow my post isn’t showing up. But that’s what I said. We can’t assume there was a lamb but we can’t assume there wasn’t. Given everything written is all we need, that nothing is missing from record, when the disciples prepared the po with bread and wine, they did as jesus directed them. Surely he would have rebuked them for not obeying him. Because there is no record of a lamb being there, given that nothing is missing from record, there was no lamb prepared. Because it is written that they only took bread and wine directly after jesus said I have waited for this po, given that nothing is missing from record, the bread and wine was the po jesus waited for. It APPEARS this way.. but not everything is as it seems or appears to be. There very well may have been an undescribed lamb there. Perhaps the bread was dulce and they were having dessert. Who knows? But given what we have and believing nothing is missing, the scripture leans toward the bread and wine being the po jesus commanded then to prepare.
Ah, I just read your post over again Renita. I misunderstood the first go round. We're on the same page.
renita.payno wrote:
That's what i said. We can't assume that Jesus meant bread and wine because he did not say "go prepare the po with bread and wine." But we can conclude that a lamb was never mentioned so we don't know if it was there. And it wasn't recorded that the discipled were rebuked for "only" preparing bread and wine. So it APPEARS (key word) that the disciples did as jesus directed. They prepared the po the way he inteded, replace the lamb with bread and wine. But not everything is as it seems or appears to be.
Kinda jumping in at the middle of this discussion but I would like to point out that the last supper was not Passover. Well, I'm 99 99/100% sure. I remember taking this lesson in a real Church and through watching Michael Rood Videos. Not positive this is what yall are talking about.
Sueno Maruyama wrote:
Joshua wrote:
New Years Party at my house. When the clock strikes twelve we will all toast a new year 2013. Will all of the WMSCOG members do the same? I hope so. Out with the old and in with the new. I hope this relates to the state of mind as well. Jesus is Lord!
Excellent!!!!! I will be facing East, towards Korea, tosting Heavenly Mommy! OOOPS! With a delicious Martini!!!!!
Here's to the end of preaching ! CHEERS !! Bud-Lite baby !
Cephas' Brother wrote:
But where then was "passover" changed from the lamb, or seder, or whatever to a simulated blood sacrifice? If we cannot assume the lamb was there, then we also cannot assume that by "prepare the passover" JC meant to get some wine and bread. If he was a jew, wouldn't he have kept passover the way jews do?
after they ate the bread and wine, Jesus was arrested, then curcified, therefore he became the sacrifice lamb, installing the change there, he was the perfect lamb offered to God for the forgiveness of our sins, once and for all.
read: LUKE 22, LUKE 23, LUKE 24
this is why Jesus said I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, he also said to do this in remeberance of him. The bread & wine which was going to be the new covenant.
Explain what the last supper is, what po jesus was talking about, and how they are not the same.
Stained wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
That's what i said. We can't assume that Jesus meant bread and wine because he did not say "go prepare the po with bread and wine." But we can conclude that a lamb was never mentioned so we don't know if it was there. And it wasn't recorded that the discipled were rebuked for "only" preparing bread and wine. So it APPEARS (key word) that the disciples did as jesus directed. They prepared the po the way he inteded, replace the lamb with bread and wine. But not everything is as it seems or appears to be.
Kinda jumping in at the middle of this discussion but I would like to point out that the last supper was not Passover. Well, I'm 99 99/100% sure. I remember taking this lesson in a real Church and through watching Michael Rood Videos. Not positive this is what yall are talking about.
Jesus said it was.
And yes, Jesus is the Passover Lamb and Jesus gave his flesh and blood through bread and wine thus they were eating the Passover lamb when they ate the bread and drank the wine.
renita.payno wrote:
Explain what the last supper is, what po jesus was talking about, and how they are not the same.
the lord's supper, or the last supper, is just another way to say passover, they all come to the same conculsion, Jesus eating with his disciples at the table, with the bread & wine. In the bible The lord's supper is used as a title, but the passage is about the passover. The famous painting of Jesus eating with the 12 is called the last supper. The passover in the O.T. was celebrated by scarificing a 1 yr old male lamb without defect, in the N.T. he (Jesus) is the Lamb of the lord, who is also without defect, therefore perfect, and the sacrifice. The P/O he spoke of was the new covenant. He made things easier for us to follow him.
I found this article, on the passover, interesting: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/1144/What-Is-Passover-Anyway.htm
it answer my question as to, if I'm not in a church, how can I keep the passover. This gave me hope, because like I said I do believe in the P/O.
My question was directed to stained.
renita.payno wrote:
My question was directed to stained.
are you talking to me, because your question is right under my comment, so I don't see how it's been directed to stain, or are you talking to Simon??? [removed by admin for rules] Have a Good Day
I'm using my phone curse word. I cannot quote. The question I asked was directed to stained. I already posted about what people call the last supper. Stained said the last supper was not the po. Before you tell me what I should, 1st consider my circumstances. [removed by admin for rules violation]
Looks like there are a few technical difficulties today with all the repeated posts, so that conversation was a bit hard to follow, but…
just wanted to add that there is no reason to think that the Last Supper Passover did not include a lamb. They were Jews and would have prepared it the prescribed way. And in Luke 22:20 it says that Jesus took the cup "after the supper." They had a meal, not just a bit of cracker or bread.
renita.payno wrote:
That's what i said. We can't assume that Jesus meant bread and wine because he did not say "go prepare the po with bread and wine." But we can conclude that a lamb was never mentioned so we don't know if it was there. And it wasn't recorded that the discipled were rebuked for "only" preparing bread and wine. So it APPEARS (key word) that the disciples did as jesus directed. They prepared the po the way he inteded, replace the lamb with bread and wine. But not everything is as it seems or appears to be.
It was not actually stated that Jesus "intended" to replace the lamb with bread and wine. If He did, then it would have been stated that the lamb was actually replaced as not to confuse the readers. If you look closely at the story, you could say that their actions during the preparations and the eating that night was not pointed out one by one. So it could be assumed that they really celebrated the PO "correctly" since if they didn't, it would have been stated because that would have been important. So, you can read that while they were eating (it might be the lamb since we have no reason to assume otherwise) that Jesus calmly dropped the bomb that he is making a new covenant.
That's our point in saying that the New Covenant (which others called "The Last Supper") was made DURING the celebration of Passover. The Passover was made for the Israelites, they were the one who were saved out of Egypt. The Lord's Supper was for the WHOLE MANKIND. Now if some of you wants to celebrate the Passover, would that mean that you are actually assuming that you were part of the people, a descendant maybe, that were saved out of Egypt? So the choice here really is either to celebrate the Passover or the Lord's Supper and I would like to repeatedly point out that they are NOT one and the same. If i could make some diagram out of this, I would really just to make my point clear. LOL.
Simon wrote:
He actually does command to drink it not just then but also in John 6
I don't dispute that. What I dispute is the wmscog claim to call it the PO and then say nobody but them does that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.