- 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."
Elievalkyrie wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
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.
Can you provide that verse found in Revelation so we can look into it?
I believe he is referring to Rev. 1:10 when John writes, "On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet" except that John really was referring to Sunday not Saturday. The Lord's Day was not a new name for Saturday. If it had been Saturday, John would have said, "On the Sabbath…"
We know he means Sunday because other early church writers also refer to "the Lord's Day" and clarify that they did indeed mean Sunday. There are some quotes from them here (scroll down to the second half): http://exadventist.com/Home/Sabbath/SabbathSunday/tabid/516/Default.aspx
WMS brother wrote:
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.
At first I was going to ask where you got this from (because how do you know "unleavened bread day landed on a sunday"?), and then realized that you are probably referring to Acts 20. This was not a celebration of "Resurrection Day" but a regular Sunday service. We can know that by paying attention to the days mentioned. Here's Acts 20:6-7: "But we sailed from Philippi after the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight."
There are a few possible scenarios here:
1. They sailed after the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, arrived 5 days later, immediately (like the next day or so) was Resurrection Sunday which was their meeting. Paul left the next day, while the others stayed for the rest of the seven days. Problem for the wmscog with this one: They would not have kept the whole Feast of Unleavened Bread
2. They sailed after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, arrived 5 days later, sometime during the 7 days they were there was a Sunday meeting. Paul left the next day, and the others left after the rest of the seven days. Problem for the wmscog with this one: That Sunday would be too late to be Resurrection Day (which can't be more than 7 days after the beginning of Feast of Unleavened Bread, which itself is a 7 day festival, Lev. 23).
3. They sailed either after the first day or after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, arrived 5 days laters, stayed 7 days, and at the end of the 7 days there was a Sunday meeting. Both Paul and the others left the next day, but by different means (Paul by foot, the others by ship, Acts 20:13). Problem for the wmscog with this one: Again it is too late for this Sunday to be Resurrection Day.
WMS brother wrote:
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"?
Here is some research about the word "easter"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/04/19/name-easter-pagan
Have you ever wondered why it's only called Easter in English and German? Arguing about the word "easter" will not help your cause, WMSbrother.
"This was not a celebration of "Resurrection Day" but a regular Sunday service."
Please read the Cannon 29 of the Council Of Laodicea.
"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
1. Christians were in fact keeping the sabbath on saturday, this is why Roman authorities told them not to "judaize". And even passed a law against it.
2. Christians were keeping the sabbath on saturday previous to this law for a long time.
3. This is the "Early Church". This is the people who have the closest connection to the original instructions of the Apostles and Jesus.
Further, the following is a testimony to the character of Constantine better than you, or I;
<font face=”Arial”>"In the year 321 the Emperor Constantine, who was not yet a declared Christian, but was still hovering between paganism and Christianity, issued a decree making Sunday a compulsory day of rest: but the fact that he speaks of Sunday as 'the venerable day of the Sun' [the pagan sun-worship title for the day] shows that he was thinking of it as a traditional sun-festival at the same time that he thought of it as a Christian holy-day . . . Sunday came to be observed throughout Europe as it is still observed by Roman Catholics, namely, as a day on which, like our Christmas, people went to church in the morning and then gave themselves over to rest or to holiday-making and sports."–Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 236-237. [A. D. Weigall (1880-1934) was a British historian, Egyptologist and inspector-general of antiquities for the Egyptian Government]."</font>
There is a track record of Christian persecution flip-flopping between Roman authorities. Especially concerning the Sabbath, wiki some of the religious and political leaders, so you can read the hate letters and mobs they formed, and murders.
Read also "the faith of our fathers" where a catholic administrator themself admits to the fallacy of sunday worship.
So no, that is absurd. Sunday was never popular until a couple hundred years -after- the death of Jesus.
There is only one time the entire bible, where Sunday is worshipped according to a commandment from God. That is the Feast of Firstfruits, which later became Ressurection Day, and was continued by breaking bread on subsequent years' Ressurection Days for the opening of spiritual eyes.
WMS brother wrote:
"This was not a celebration of "Resurrection Day" but a regular Sunday service."
Please read the Cannon 29 of the Council Of Laodicea.
"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
1. Christians were in fact keeping the sabbath on saturday, this is why Roman authorities told them not to "judaize". And even passed a law against it.
2. Christians were keeping the sabbath on saturday previous to this law for a long time.
3. This is the "Early Church". This is the people who have the closest connection to the original instructions of the Apostles and Jesus.
If you'd like to get into a discussion about the Sabbath and Sunday, we should start a new thread. This thread should stick closer to the original topic of the Passover and the Lord's Supper.
You had mentioned the disciples keeping the Passover and followed by Resurrection Sunday (I assumed you meant Acts 20) I wrote that the timing is wrong here for the Sunday mentioned to be Resurrection Sunday, and if it was then the disciples would not have kept the entire Feast of Unleavened Bread (which starts with Passover). And by the way, that chapter doesn't specifically mention the Passover–you are filling that part in yourself. They might have kept it, or they might have just mentioned the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a reference point for when these incidents happened.
I didn't mean to change the subject to Sunday vs. Sabbath, but to show that your use of the Scripture in this case has a problem. Do you have anything to say about the discrepancy I showed you?
with scenario 1 they would have kept Un leavened bread as wmscog doctrine says
By the understanding that Ressurection Day was an example set by Jesus, whom broke bread and the eating of which opened spiritual eyes, we understand this is a Holy Day with blessings.
By the understanding that exactly one year later, on that SAME Sunday, they broke bread again (the timing is no coincidence), we understand that Ressurection Day is an ordinance that is supposed to be repeated.
If Ressurection Day was an ordinance to be repeated, than they kept the Passover which preceeds it (as they were instructed to by Christ).
In adition there is no other Sunday in the entire year before or after that was celebrated as the Lord's Day. You only see "The Lord's Day" appear once a year for a reason, it is to rephrase a title, the very same "Ressurection Day".
That is to say Ressurection Day is NOT a weekly sunday service, and thus is not a "sabbath" of any kind. Continuing that is a tangent, however, so I'll avoid it unless prompted.
Simon wrote:
with scenario 1 they would have kept Un leavened bread as wmscog doctrine says
I recall that Unleavened Bread is celebrated as a 7 day feast. If they left on their journey after only the first day, then they would not have kept the whole feast.
But also I notice that the literal phrase in Acts 20:6 is that they sailed after the "Days of Unleavened Bread." Since days is plural, it is unlikely they meant that they sailed after just the first day.
according to wmscog because it was fulfilled in one day the new covenant feast is one day.
but wms brother the old covenant has two annual Sunday moedim not one.
"So the Passover replaced the Passover?"
Matt 26:18 "I am going to celebrate the Passover"
Luke 22:15 "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover"
Yeah, thats exactly what happened.
Passover is still the passover, the reality of the lamb we were supposed to eat all along is Christ.
But I don't mean to criticize you in all honesty, theres nothing wrong at all with mentioning the proper names of the feast of Unleavened Bread, and -also- mention that it was called the Lord's supper too, because the Apostles used both terms interchangeably.
It is only paramount that the Passover is understood to still be Passover, regardless of what new terms arose afterwards.
So for us to say that the Passover is still the Passover, is not only correct, it is the word of Jesus.
Simon wrote:
according to wmscog because it was fulfilled in one day the new covenant feast is one day.
but wms brother the old covenant has two annual Sunday moedim not one.
And what makes them think this feast changed from 7 days to only 1?
Though still the verse says in this case, after the days of unleavened bread. Meaning they sailed after the 7 days.
"Then Jesus was wrong"
I stopped reading there.
I'm not exactly sure what your beliefs are at the moment, so I'm going to pass here.
it’s worth noting kainos does mean renewed
Kainos means renrew in the context of the covenant.
This has been mulling around in my mind for a while…
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 for I received from The Lord what I also handed on to you, that The Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when He had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ” This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
The WMSCOG believes, preaches, proclaims that The Lord has already come, therefore, they do not proclaim the Lord’s death anymore. Is this partly the reason why they insist on partaking in the Passover and not the Lord’s Supper?
I agree with you there eli.The wms dont know their own doctrine it contradicts it self all the time. or at least they make it seem like that.When you first come in they tell you that all you need is the sabbath. Then you must come on the 3 day services..then you must tithe..then you must believe in father and mother..then you must attend all the feast…then you must help around the church..and you can do all these things but if you dont have those 10 talents your not going to heaven. They say that they dont follow the old testament but yet they follow all the rules from those times. So in a way I was always feeling that I was not good enough for god. I was never going to be a good fruit because all of these laws and regulations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.