- 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."
fromtheotherside wrote:
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.
Acts 10:45- "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”"
God accepted the Gentile believers even before they were baptized or kept a Sabbath or a Passover.
History also says the early church met on Sundays. And when there were differences in how they worshipped, they were encouraged not to judge each other about it. See Romans 14, Colossians 2:16.
fromtheotherside wrote:
I think this was sufficient to refute the arguments, if you have no replies I will take it you have none to give.
I have no reply right now because I have lost track of the main purpose of this conversation. Since it was Elie who started it, I'm happy to wait to hear from her.
I hope you don't mind me adding a little to this. Jesus had to keep the commandments. 1) He said that he came to fulfill them. 2) He would have been viewed as a sinner by all of the people around him if he had not. Being God He could have just showed up and declared that the Law is done and over. Here's a new set of rules. No need to prove himself, no need to offer himself in our place, he could have just taken away all of our ability to choose and just remove sin from the world and turn us into puppets. This is not Gods way. I have always been curious as to why He has done things the way He has chosen to but some thing I just have to accept on faith. As for keeping the commandments: He would have made himself a liar if he said he was going to fulfill them and then didn't. Many people would not be saved today if it were not for the perfect life of Jesus. If we had been able to keep the commandments we would have been able to save ourselves by living perfect lives. He did have to keep the Laws in order to fulfill them. After the Resurrection, well that's another thing altogether. Things really changed.
fromtheotherside wrote:
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.<
You are putting your thoughts into her argument. It says God cannot lie Isaac lied.
It doesn't say God cannot speak unrighteous and we never said Isaac spoke unrighteous
Joshua! I have to say your comment is phenomenal. This is the point I was making on another topic in a different discussion board. Well said indeed.
Mat 26: his disciples asked where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the passover, … my appointed time has come i'm going to celebrate passover with my disciples… Luke 22 says I have eagerly desired to eat ???? with my disciples. so did Jesus call it passover? yes He did, do you want to deny it you can try, but makes no difference he still said it. Did apostle paul call it the lords feast, as I said before, yes he did, he REFERED to the passover (which jesus clearly said it was) as the lords feast, also as I stated before I have no problem with you calling it that because if apostle paul who is far better then any of us did that's fine, but to deny that Jesus celebrated Passover with bread and wine and deny that it was the passover the early church kept, and to say that the passover celebrated with bread and wine is for jews and is obsolete is false and not historical or biblical. Is this clear enough for you?
Elievalkyrie wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
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?
Your comments are getting kinda personal. Please calm down a bit. Anger makes people irrational.
I didn't change anything at all. I guess if you want to accuse someone, then I guess you can accuse the disciples. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 talks about the sharing of bread and wine and IT IS called the Lord's Supper by Jesus' disciples themselves. I believe you can see that in verse 20. Since it is obvious that they didn't incurred God's wrath by calling it the Lord's Supper, I would assume that it is allowed and since the bible itself is considered as the Word of God, then I could also say that even God calls the new covenant that way.
how is this personal?? it wasn't meant to be personal, Truly how is any human or man have any right to change even the name of God's law? is that a personal statement???
Elievalkyrie wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
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.
I think you are making your own conclusions. Your words show how you judge people that you don't even know very well yet. Your attitude as a church member does not paint a very good picture of the wmscog. If you want a clear discussion of this, I'd like to suggest that you try to keep from making personal attacks.
I haven't made any personal attacks you took them that way. Asking who are to change God's laws is not personal it is a justifiable question as it is a sin.
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.
I think you just put something that is not there. Jesus did not exactly say, "I want to keep the Passover". Can you provide verses that He did in fact say these words?
I reply to this is in the post above.
He didn't say lets now call this the Lords supper.
Personally, He didn't. But the Bible contains it and since we all agree that the bible is the Word of God, you could say that God DID call it the Lord's Supper through the bible. OR are you implying that we are not allowed to follow the bible's use of the word "Lord's Supper" just because Jesus did not say it Himself?
Also in the post above
He didn't have to keep any law in order to fulfill it, he fulfilled all the laws by becoming the perfect sacrifice on the cross.
Are you saying that He just have to die on the cross and that was already the fulfillment of ALL the laws? Let me make this clear… The laws I am talking about here pertains to ALL the laws, this includes the Passover, the Festivals and the 5 different Offerings. So you are saying Jesus fulfilled all of these when He died on the cross? I think I just require a yes or no answer to this one, i'll just wait for your answer.
you can find your answer if you read the book of hebrews, and understand it.
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.
We all agree that God is good and that He can do no wrong. He is also not a liar. He provided the people the laws so that they will know what is good and bad. He says, DO NOT MURDER. This command let us know that it is wrong to kill innocent people. God setting the laws is what helped the people discern between right and wrong.
Let's give a little situation and use some logic here, shall we? Let's make it very, very simple so everyone can understand.
Jesus (as God) is good and can do no wrong.
Jesus did NOT keep the Passover. *As claimed by FTOS*
Therefore, not keeping the Passover is good and not wrong.
You said GOd commanded to not murder so by your logic that would make GOd a murderer in the eyes of many atheist, and because he did it you can do it too. But only he can kill because he is the Judge even if someone sinned and if we killed someone as did God then it would still be a sin! But with my logic all of GOd's ways are justified cuz he knows the greater good!
This is what you are basically saying, FTOS. If Jesus did it Himself, how could He say that if you do it, it is wrong? Not sure if I am made myself clear but I hope you understood my point.
We are clearly getting each other's words mixed up, so we don't have to keep quoting at least I won't. let's start again. It is the passover Jesus kept as I proved and on that night he established the new Covenant, which is the Passover celebrated with bread and wine. I said you can refer to is as did Apostle paul as the Lord's supper, again I said 'refer' to the Passover. But it is the Passover Jesus kept with bread and wine. That is why he said let us keep the festival.
1 cor 5:7 …christ our passover lam has been sacrificed, therefore let us keep the festival…
He is refering to christ being the Passover lamb, and says let us keep the festival which clearly means Passover. The Passover of the OT is obsolete that is the offering of a lamb, but christ setup a new passover which is with his flesh and blood, the New Covenant.
and last but not least Calm down elie don't take things so personal.
I am glad you are commenting here, fromtheotherside, but I notice something. Often wmscog members tell non members to "calm down" when they really are already calm. It only tends to be annoying when you do this. Just telling you so you don't make that mistake again if you really want people to calm down. Just don't make insulting remarks about dating sites, etc. It will work better for you.
Lol! Eli. @ “Jumping from one page to another.”
That’s one thing I will say they are good at. All the while you are wondering why the other verses are neglected.
Nice cherry picking elie, Read all of Mat 26 and luke 22, in context. Jesus KEPT Passover stating he wanted to keep passover because on that night he instituted the New covenant through bread and wine, on the Passover night which is significant to prove the fact that Jesus established the Passover to be kept with bread and wine calling it the New covenant. Which the apostle refered to as the Lords supper. Not calling it by another name but only refering to it by such. Its the same thing as when apostle John called the Sabbath Day as the lords day (rev), doesn't mean that it is the new name for the sabbath its still the Sabbath. So again your argument does not stand. Everyone here can back it all they want cuz no one here wants to hear they are wrong. Shows how stubborn you guys are and how willing you are to construe the bible just to fit your own needs. ^^ But to bad what you all believe and what is fact are different.
>fromtheotherside wrote:
>as I proved and on that night he established the new Covenant
Please don't get ahead of yourself, you have not proven anything YET.
Open your eyes Elie.. come out of deniel…
In reply to the OP:
"That's why the sharing of bread and wine is called the Lord's Supper."
No, actually, Jesus still called it the Passover. And instructed the apostles to make preparations for "the passover". "The Lord's Supper" was a description used to define the Passover, but the Passover never stopped being the Passover because of it. In fact even after that Apostle Paul said that he was passing on "this same passover" and to continue keeping it that was.
"The Lord's Supper is NOT the PASSOVER"
Then why did they continue to call it the Passover for the next 300 years? I'm sure your aware of the origins of the word "easter" a.k.a "pascha"?
In fact after Jesus' passover,
there is a record of the apostles journeying the next year after that (or was it two years later?) and the point is: they stopped a certain city during the "passover" feast, and did such a good job of keeping it, that the immediate sunday after that (i believe it was a full week later as unleavened bread day landed on sunday) they kept "the lords day" on "Ressurection day".
Not only did they keep Passover, but they continued to follow the same structure of appointed holy days.
So much so, in fact, that Roman authorities flip-flopped on illegalizing it, or giving them slack and restitution across the next several hundred years (depending on the political figure at the time).
Elievalkyrie wrote:
I think that we are way past people stoning each other. And since the WMSCOG does not condone to stoning of any kind, can we skip this topic? LOL. What we are talking about here is Christianity itself, I think this should be talked about in another forum as not to confuse the other members. We are trying to help people get out of wmscog, not trying to confuse them more! ^_^
Well the wmscog proclaim that those who ever does not believe in ASH and Zang are more or less like the Jews 2000 years ago who did not believe Jesus as the messiah…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.