Memorial of Christs Death

Originally posted by duecer
the wine and unleavened bread are passed, but who is invited to partake in the Lord's supper?

Only the 144,000 Jews referred to in Revelation ie 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel are allowed to partake. But the JWs have twisted that and concluded that they are now the modern day Jews. So 144,000 of the JW group are allowed to partake.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Only the 144,000 Jews referred to in Revelation ie 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel are allowed to partake. But the JWs have twisted that and concluded that they are now the modern day Jews. So 144,000 of the JW group are allowed to partake.

So will you be there to partake then?

Originally posted by galveston75
So will you be there to partake then?

my question is: who partakes? If Raj is correct in his assertion, then who decides who the 144,000 are? a rather simple question I should think

and why only the 144,000? inquiring minds want to know

Originally posted by duecer
my question is: who partakes? If Raj is correct in his assertion, then who decides who the 144,000 are? a rather simple question I should think

and why only the 144,000? inquiring minds want to know

Not to jump in on Robbie, but the bible speaks of only two groups of people pertaining to living in the future. As we know from the Bible that the wicked who are among us all here on the earth now will be cut off soon.
So the two groups that the Bible speaks of are the ones who will live here on the earth as God originally planned ( The great Crowd that no man was able to number ), and the second group that Jesus spoke of as ruling with him in heaven as Kings and Priest. ( The 144,000 or little flock ). The Bible speaks of no other groups.
I'll let Robbie explain how the 144,000 know's that they are to partake.

Originally posted by duecer
my question is: who partakes? If Raj is correct in his assertion, then who decides who the 144,000 are? a rather simple question I should think

and why only the 144,000? inquiring minds want to know

Raj is never correct in any of his assertions with regard to Jehovahs Witnesses, he knows next to nothing, infact i would state that he knows less than that, for he has a rather ignorant conceptual understanding and is prone to base erroneous assertions on this basis.

He for example claims that the 144,000 are Jews? considering that it has been pointed out to him literally tens of times that it cannot be the case, for Paul, clearly states that a 'Jew', in a spiritual sense is one who has circumcised his heart. Christ himself states that the Kingdom shall be taken from the nation of Israel and given to a 'people', producing its fruits, and lastly the list in revelation is not the original twelve tribes of Israel and Peter himself speaking of Christians states that it was the 'new nation of Christianity', that was a Holy nation, a people for special possession.

spiritual Jew
(Romans 2:28-29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God.

Jewish Nation as a whole rejected
(Matthew 21:42-43) . . .Jesus said to them: “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone. From Jehovah this has come to be, and it is marvellous in our eyes This is why I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits. . .

Who is this nation?
(1 Peter 2:7-10) . . .It is to you, therefore, that he is precious, because you are believers; but to those not believing, “the identical stone that the builders rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,”  and “a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offence.” These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.  But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.  For you were once not a people, but are now God’s people; you were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been shown mercy.

He has no idea who we consider the 144,000 to be, in fact, only they know and many of them have lived in different epochs of time from our own. Last year there have only been numbers in the region of 8,000 who consider themselves actual members of the 144,000 and every year the number diminishes. It is considered that the Holy Spirit reveals to an individual whether he should be a partaker or not.

(Romans 8:14-17) For all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons.  For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!”  The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.  If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.

In view of the above it is quite clear he has not the meanest inkling as to what we actually profess, despite his rather pompous and loud assertions to the contrary. I for one am looking forward to the occasion, it is always good to reflect on the life and example of the Christ, self reflection and taking stock of our aspirations in life is also important, for it can be so hectic, one day runs into the next and like a river we are carried down stream by the pace of the current without knowing why or how we got there. Taking time for reflection in a little quite eddy is always good.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Raj is never correct in any of his assertions with regard to Jehovahs Witnesses, he knows next to nothing, infact i would state that he knows less than that, for he has a rather ignorant conceptual understanding and is prone to base erroneous assertions on this basis.

He for example claims that the 144,000 are Jews? considering that it has been hy or how we got there. Taking time for reflection in a little quite eddy is always good.

I could bet you any money that every last knowledgeable person on this site apart from Galveston, will think, after reading this post, that you need to check into the nearest mental institution.

What really baffles me is how can someone be so blooming stupid and be so arrogant at the same time. Stupidity and arrogance are opposite personality traits. So pulling that off is your only claim to fame. ...😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
I could bet you any money that every last knowledgeable person on this site apart from Galveston, will think, after reading this post, that you need to check into the nearest mental institution.

What really baffles me is how can someone be so blooming stupid and be so arrogant at the same time. Stupidity and arrogance are opposite personality traits. So pulling that off is your only claim to fame. ...😀

Pathetic, really pathetic in the original sense of the word, the last resort of one devoid of reason, the personal attack, well well, how very original! You should put away your ego Raj, i mean that sincerely, and who knows you just might learn something, even if you dont accept it, about anothers beliefs 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Pathetic, really pathetic in the original sense of the word, the last resort of one devoid of reason, the personal attack, well well, how original!

Get a second opinion on what the forum thinks of you. And get one on who did the personal attacks against me in the last couple weeks .. Its all you and Galveston attacking me and just ignored you dunces.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Get a second opinion on what the forum thinks of you. And get one on who did the personal attacks against me in the last couple weeks .. Its all you and Galveston attacking me and just ignored you dunces.

Awe there there bad ol putty cat, i didnt realise you were so sensitive, its ok, it will be alright, that mean ol Robbie is gonna be nice to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we have been through this Conrau, so let us not talk falsely now, Christ instituted the memorial on an annual occasion, the Jewish passover as prescribed by the law. You are free to celebrate it as per the doctrines of your church, who in instituting it every day, must have been quite forgetful, considering they only showed remembrance the day befor ...[text shortened]... cism and a command of men to do otherwise, not of scripture, you would do well to remember that.

we have been through this Conrau, so let us not talk falsely now, Christ instituted the memorial on an annual occasion, the Jewish passover as prescribed by the law. You are free to celebrate it as per the doctrines of your church, who in instituting it every day, must have been quite forgetful, considering they only showed remembrance the day before.

Christ certainly did institute the Eucharist as a memorial; there is no evidence that he ever intended to be merely annual. Jesus never says 'Only celebrate this on the day of the Passover'. Paul never says it either (in fact, it would have puzzled Paul that Christians would continue to observe such a Jewish festival.) You are right -- we have been over this.

Once again, Robbie, you show your complete ignorance of Scripture. The remembrance described by Jesus at the Lord's Supper is not an act of recollection. Jesus does not merely instruct Christians to remember him. What the gospels say, literally, is 'Do this as a commemoration.' The Latin word used for the Vulgate is 'commemoratio'. The Greek word used is 'anamhsis' which, while meaning recollection, has a much broader sense of 'a calling back' or 'a making present' (this is how Plato uses it.) So Catholics do not celebrate Eucharist daily because they have forgotten Christ's sacrifice; they do it because it is right and fitting that such a sacrifice be commemorated each day, that it be made 'present'.

The date Tuesday the 30th of March, 2010 after sundown actually corresponds to the day and the hour Christ instituted the remembrance all those years ago, please do not detract from the occasion with petty references to missing out, as if anyone ever missed out by not attending a mass. Christ never stated that we should celebrate his resurrection but rather his death and its significance, it is of course a practice of Catholicism and a command of men to do otherwise, not of scripture, you would do well to remember that.

No; Christ never instructs us to celebrate his resurrection. However, the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. It is the first thing that St Peter talks about when inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul writes abundantly on the significance of this event. Baptism itself, to Paul, is a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection. And, as I have already shown you, the significance of Sunday was recognised very early on in the Church. Ignatius of Antioch (mid second century) indicates that it was the norm to meet on this day and there are many references in Scripture of the 'Lord's day' and the 'first day' when Christians met.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Get a second opinion on what the forum thinks of you. And get one on who did the personal attacks against me in the last couple weeks .. Its all you and Galveston attacking me and just ignored you dunces.

Compared to the attacks you repeatedly have thrown and Robbie and myself as well as others here with extremely demeaning words, none of us has even come close to what you have said in the past even to the extent of you being barred from the forums at times by things you have said.. Grow up Raj!!!! You really embarrass yourself in front of all here.
I personally would love to have a decent conversation with you but you don't even come close to earning it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
we have been through this Conrau, so let us not talk falsely now, Christ instituted the memorial on an annual occasion, the Jewish passover as prescribed by the law. You are free to celebrate it as per the doctrines of your church, who in instituting it every day, must have been quite forgetful, considering they only showed remembrance the day before. in Scripture of the 'Lord's day' and the 'first day' when Christians met.[/b]

there is no evidence that he ever intended to be merely annual. bumf,

the early churches as you are very well aware such as the Asiatic churches celebrated it annually as was handed down to them by the Apostles and as you are also aware the only reason it was adopted otherwise was the Catholic churches anti Semitism. There is no evidence that it was meant to be daily either as we have been through before, your vain attempts to make a simple communal meal into a special memorial were exceptionally weak!

the linguistic argument says nothing, for it was intended as a memorial, commemoration, a remembrance, that it may broadly mean anything else, is neither here not there. i deny your assertions of ignorance, in fact, i would claim to know at least as much about scripture as you, in fact what you have done, not through any scriptural ordinance, but through tradition is taken a special occasion and made it into a completely mundane event, a semblance and a formality.

Is there any explanation offered as to what the blood and the wine symbolise, why a propitiatory sacrifice was needed? what was lost and what was ransomed back? what faith in the sacrifice accomplishes? how it may be put to practical use? How one may benefit from it personally? Is there? for every Mass that i have observed was nothing but a formal ritual.

i do not deny that it is central, but there is no ordinance to celebrate it, another pagan festival, in this instance a rite of Spring, has been hijacked and 'Christianised'.

okay, without replying/qoute the whole post etc...I still see no biblical reference that sates only the "144,000" may partake of the Lord's supper, but thankyou for the rest of the explanation

The 144,000 number itself I have an issue with, but that is for a different thread I think.

Originally posted by duecer
okay, without replying/qoute the whole post etc...I still see no biblical reference that sates only the "144,000" may partake of the Lord's supper, but thankyou for the rest of the explanation

The 144,000 number itself I have an issue with, but that is for a different thread I think.

Sure my friend, its really quite simply, Christ made a covenant (an agreement) for a kingdom, beginning with the apostles, those who were going to rule with him as 'kings and priests', which we believe are members of the 144,000 (spiritual Israel). He also stated that he has 'other sheep', which are not of this 'flock', and who stand before the throne of the lamb, the great crowd of revelation chapter 7:9 We believe that there are two party's, members of the 144,000 and those who shall be earthly subjects of the heavenly government, Gods Kingdom. Thus if you feel that you have a 'heavenly calling', that you shall rule with Christ as a king and a priest, then the Holy Spirit should reveal it to you and you are party to the covenant or arrangement that Christ made with his followers during the lords evening meal and thus you should partake, if you are otherwise minded, you should not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no evidence that he ever intended to be merely annual. bumf,

the early churches as you are very well aware such as the Asiatic churches celebrated it annually as was handed down to them by the Apostles and as you are also aware the only reason it was adopted otherwise was the Catholic churches anti Semitism. There is no evidence that i ...[text shortened]... ther pagan festival, in this instance a rite of Spring, has been hijacked and 'Christianised'.

the early churches as you are very well aware such as the Asiatic churches celebrated it annually as was handed down to them by the Apostles and as you are also aware the only reason it was adopted otherwise was the Catholic churches anti Semitism. There is no evidence that it was meant to be daily either as we have been through before, your vain attempts to make a simple communal meal into a special memorial were exceptionally weak!

No. You are simply ignorant of history. You are unable to escape the shackles of the bizarre doctrines of your religious cult. The only historical record we have of the dispute between the Asiatic churches and Rome come from St Irenaeus. The whole event is recounted by Eusebius in Book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History. Irenaeus only talks about the paschal feast. Ignorant of history and unable to think outside dogmatic lines, you are unable to comprehend that 'paschal feast' has never meant the Lord's Supper.

the linguistic argument says nothing, for it was intended as a memorial, commemoration, a remembrance, that it may broadly mean anything else, is neither here not there. i deny your assertions of ignorance, in fact, i would claim to know at least as much about scripture as you, in fact what you have done, not through any scriptural ordinance, but through tradition is taken a special occasion and made it into a completely mundane event, a semblance and a formality.

Good. Then you should acknowledge that Catholics do not celebrate Eucharist daily because they have forgotten. They do it because they want to commemorate. I think you should appreciate the substantial semantic different between 'to remember' and 'to commemorate'.

Is there any explanation offered as to what the blood and the wine symbolise, why a propitiatory sacrifice was needed? what was lost and what was ransomed back? what faith in the sacrifice accomplishes? how it may be put to practical use? How one may benefit from it personally? Is there? for every Mass that i have observed was nothing but a formal ritual.

Of course there is. At several times in the Mass, the significance of Christ's sacrifice is explained. This is a large part of the ritual.