memorial of Christs death

Originally posted by galveston75
I think if your honest and look back on Robbies and my many, many post just in this forum alone my friend you'll see the vast majoriy of our answers are from the Bible and quoted fom the Bible. So that accusation doesn't fly.
And the really big differance between you and Robbie and myself is we are not hypocrites. We completely believe in our faith and you do as it really undermines anything you say.

Sorry but that's the way I see it.

I think if your honest and look back on Robbies and my many, many post just in this forum alone my friend you'll see the vast majoriy of our answers are from the Bible and quoted fom the Bible. So that accusation doesn't fly.

Yes, your point? How exactly does this relate to anything I just said?

And the really big differance between you and Robbie and myself is we are not hypocrites. We completely believe in our faith and the organization we're a part of.
It's really silly to me to hear you defend that Catholics as you do as it really undermines anything you say.

I'm not a hypocrite. I am not trying to convert anyone while I myself have lapsed. If anything, the fact that I no longer hold the Catholic faith just adds credibility to my argument -- I am not motivated by faith but by the actual historical evidence. I am just trying to ensure that the truth wins out in the end, rather than trying to settle dogma with people.

You on the other hand are blinded by dogma. You only trust historians already approved by your organisation. You never read outside your tracts. You consider plausible even the most absurd anti-Catholic idea, such as when you said the mitre was derived from the cult of Dagon (even though centuries separate the cult from the use of the mitre.) You lack any credibility whatsoever and the laughable thing is that you just cannot see it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I think if your honest and look back on Robbies and my many, many post just in this forum alone my friend you'll see the vast majoriy of our answers are from the Bible and quoted fom the Bible. So that accusation doesn't fly.

Yes, your point? How exactly does this relate to anything I just said?

And the really big differance between you and ...[text shortened]... You lack any credibility whatsoever and the laughable thing is that you just cannot see it.

Relate? Are you serious?

Anyway just wonder if you get this scripture?

Revelation 3:15-16 (New Living Translation)

15 “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16 But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!

Originally posted by galveston75
Relate? Are you serious?

Anyway just wonder if you get this scripture?

Revelation 3:15-16 (New Living Translation)

15 “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16 But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!

Relate? Are you serious?

Of course. The majority of issues I have been debating with you and RC have concerned historical matters. You have accused the early Christians, for example, of changing the day of worship to Sunday and to importing pagan religion, deriving ideas like the Trinity from paganism. Most recently the issue has been about the celebration of the Lord's supper, in which RC has argued that early Christians like Polycarp celebrated it only annually. He suggests that Irenaeus and Eusebius argued for change because they were anti-Semitic. These are not matters of scriptural nature. So whether you have quoted Scripture is quite irrelevant.

15 “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16 But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!

Exactly what is your point?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Relate? Are you serious?

Of course. The majority of issues I have been debating with you and RC have concerned historical matters. You have accused the early Christians, for example, of changing the day of worship to Sunday and to importing pagan religion, deriving ideas like the Trinity from paganism. Most recently the issue has been about the ce ...[text shortened]... ater, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth![/b]

Exactly what is your point?[/b]

I didn't think you'd understand that scripture and your situation.

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't think you'd understand that scripture and your situation.

You think I am tepid?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Relate? Are you serious?

Of course. The majority of issues I have been debating with you and RC have concerned historical matters. You have accused the early Christians, for example, of changing the day of worship to Sunday and to importing pagan religion, deriving ideas like the Trinity from paganism. Most recently the issue has been about the ce ...[text shortened]... ater, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth![/b]

Exactly what is your point?[/b]

Did you know that the old Authorized King James version of the
Holy Bible translated the Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter"
in Acts 12:4 because at the time of translation they thought
that Easter had replace the old Passover of the Jews? This
belief was a direct result of action taken by the Roman Catholic
Church in hostility toward the Jews. Since you are interested in
the history, you should know this. The New King James Verion
of the Holy Bible has corrected this error in translation to read
"Passover". I am not trying to support the Jehovah Witnesses
but they do teach some truth along with the errors. Easter was
a pagan holiday adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and
carried on by most Protestant daughter churches that came out of
that church. The Roman Catholic church also adopted another
pagan holiday and renamed it Christmas and declared it to be
the birthday of Jesus (Yahshua). Jesus the Christ was actually
born at the time of the Passover as Luke 2:41-42 NASB reveals.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you know that the old Authorized King James version of the
Holy Bible translated the Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter"
in Acts 12:4 because at the time of translation they thought
that Easter had replace the old Passover of the Jews? This
belief was a direct result of action taken by the Roman Catholic
Church in hostility toward the Jews. Since us the Christ was actually
born at the time of the Passover as Luke 2:41-42 NASB reveals.

Did you know that the old Authorized King James version of the
Holy Bible translated the Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter"
in Acts 12:4 because at the time of translation they thought
that Easter had replace the old Passover of the Jews? This
belief was a direct result of action taken by the Roman Catholic
Church in hostility toward the Jews.

Well, you are wrong on a number of points here. I do not know whether the KJV used the word 'Easter' but no Catholic translator (although none really existed anyway) would want to substitute 'Easter' for 'Passover', although the Catholic Church maintains that Easter follows on from the Jewish tradition (since the Lord's death is the new Paschal lamb and abolishes the old Passover.) The reason for moving the date of this particular feast was simply because many Christians felt that it was more fitting to celebrate the Resurrection on Sunday, rather than on the movable date of the Jewish Passover.

Easter was
a pagan holiday adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and
carried on by most Protestant daughter churches that came out of
that church. The Roman Catholic church also adopted another
pagan holiday and renamed it Christmas and declared it to be
the birthday of Jesus (Yahshua). Jesus the Christ was actually
born at the time of the Passover as Luke 2:41-42 NASB reveals.

Well, first of all, I am just going to point out that the idea of a 'Roman Catholic Church' did not yet exist. Now it is true that in the middle of the 2nd century Pope Victor had wanted the feast of the Resurrection to be celebrated on a Sunday. But he failed. Polycarp of Smyrna resisted and the rest of the bishops of Turkey continued to celebrate Easter at a different time (the date of the Jewish Passover, in fact.) Clearly the 'Roman' Catholic Church did not have the power to force the rest of the churches to observe the feast on the same day. If Rome wanted to introduce a pagan festival, it clearly failed and the bishops felt it had no authority to do so.

When the Council of Nicaea eventually met in the fourth century, still no resolution was achieved and the Byzantine Orthodox continue to observe Easter on different days. To say that the Roman Catholic Church adopted Easter from pagan religion is clearly false -- many Christian churches celebrated Easter (or more rightly called, Pascha) at other times and still do. Easter is clearly an apostolic tradition. Its date was being disputed very early on in the second century, between Victor and Polycarp. These disputes were occurring long before the See of Rome had any political power or was vulnerable to pagan influences.

Now there is a lot of speculation about the date of the feast of the Nativity, which we colloquially call Christmas. I am not convinced that this date was some pagan derivation. The Patristic Christians (Augustine, for example) saw this as purely coincidental. They believed that the date was actually calculated as approximately nine months from the date of Easter. Anyway, as a Protestant Christian you probably can only think of the year in terms of Christmas and Easter but for Catholics and Orthodox, and for early Christians, the year is divided up into a number of significant feast days (Christmas and Easter are chief among them, but so are the feasts of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception and Assumption, and the memorial feast days of martyrs and saints, which were historically more important in the church than Christmas.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Did you know that the old Authorized King James version of the
Holy Bible translated the Greek word for "Passover" as "Easter"
in Acts 12:4 because at the time of translation they thought
that Easter had replace the old Passover of the Jews? This
belief was a direct result of action taken by the Roman Catholic
Church in hostility toward the Jews. [ ...[text shortened]... and saints, which were historically more important in the church than Christmas.)

It is not I that am wrong, but you are the one that is wrong.
If you would really investigate the history and not take
the Catholic Church view of history you would see the conflict.
The fact that they tried to eliminate the jewish feasts from
Christianity is why they refuse to see that Jesus (Yahshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they declare.
The 8 day feast of unleaven bread came at that time. And the day
after Passover and the sacrificing of the lamb is always a
Sabbath day, no matter what day of the week the Passover
falls on. So the first Sabbath that came after Jesus was crucified
was from wednesday sunset to thursday sunset; then on friday,
the women went to the market and bought spices and prepared
them before the weekly Sabbath began, which was from friday
sunset to Saturday sunset. Then after the weekly Sabbath the
women came to the tomb where Jesus was placed with their
prepared spices to annoint Jesus; but He was no longer there.
This fulfilled the prophecy from the mouth of Jesus stating,
"for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly
of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40 NASB)
So there is no "Good Friday" as they call it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not I that am wrong, but you are the one that is wrong.
If you would really investigate the history and not take
the Catholic Church view of history you would see the conflict.
The fact that they tried to eliminate the jewish feasts from
Christianity is why they refuse to see that Jesus (Yahshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they d the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40 NASB)
So there is no "Good Friday" as they call it.

If you would really investigate the history and not take
the Catholic Church view of history you would see the conflict.
The fact that they tried to eliminate the jewish feasts from
Christianity is why they refuse to see that Jesus (Yahshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they declare.

Look, you can be as condescending as you want but all you are doing here is spouting assertions without any supporting evidence. You talk about the 'Catholic Church' which is just anachronistic for this period. It is as if you are completely ignorant of the Orthodox and Oriental churches (which, mind you, still exist in substantial numbers.) The fact is that some kind of feast like Easter was celebrated in the second century; the See of Rome could not compel the Eastern churches to observe the same date; the Turkish churches all retained the Jewish date of the Passover until the Council of Nicaea (although disagreement about the particular date was unresolved).

You can read about this in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 24. An online version is available here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

The fact that they tried to eliminate the jewish feasts from
Christianity is why they refuse to see that Jesus (Yahshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they declare.

Can you prove this?

Originally posted by galveston75
This message in the Bible of the paradise earth being restored is a promise that all of God's servants of old had in their hearts and looked forward to. If you were to look back thru the entire Old Testiment there is never one thought, hope or mention by any of them of going to heaven after their death. All their hopes were of an earthly resurrection.
e JW's saying we base a true Bible doctrine on one or two scriptures. That is silly!!!!!

It's not silly. I'm not silly. You are not silly.

If you wish to adopt your mentor robbie's inclination of throwing insults into debate then we shall talk a lot less Galveston. The way you and robbie use mild and sometimes stronger insulting comments at those who disagree with you reveals a lot.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's not silly. I'm not silly. You are not silly.

If you wish to adopt your mentor robbie's inclination of throwing insults into debate then we shall talk a lot less Galveston. The way you and robbie use mild and sometimes stronger insulting comments at those who disagree with you reveals a lot.

throwing insults??? the last bastion of the truly desperate and those without an
argument. Try as i might i cannot find one reference to a personal insult, were you
called a name, perhaps an idiot? an imbecile? nope, all that was attacked were your
arguments, and having no recourse to any reasonable line of reasoning to the
contrary you try to make it personal, now while that may work in the general
forum, we are not buying it here.

In my case you attempted , to state that my argument was driven by ego, vain
glory, you termed me a smart arse, etc etc when it was pointed out to you that
there were a number of scriptures that had nothing to do with me, you continued
the charade, who are you trying to fool with this? I repeat it again, its another
excuse, in fact, the whole thread has been filled with one excuse after another, in
an attempt to evade the rather obvious.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If you would really investigate the history and not take
the Catholic Church view of history you would see the conflict.
The fact that they tried to eliminate the jewish feasts from
Christianity is why they refuse to see that Jesus (Yahshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they declare.

Look, you can be as condescending as you wan ...[text shortened]... hshua)
was crucified on wednesday and not friday as they declare.[/b]

Can you prove this?[/b]

What exactly do you wish me to prove? By the numbers please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Luke 22:19-20) . . .Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them,
saying: “This means my body which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in
remembrance of me.”  Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal,
he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be
poured ...[text shortened]... e, you are warmly invited to attend any Kingdom Hall
near you to observe this sacred ceremony.

"...when Christ instituted a covenant for a Kingdom with his
disciples."

So where's the Kingdom? Doesn't Jesus need to be here on earth for that Kingdom to be realized? Where is Peter and the other disciples?

To many Christians think they are responsible for establishing God's Kingdom here on earth by their actions (whether by faith or by the sword). It's called covenant theology. The Church (The Body of Christ) isn't spiritual Israel as some suppose it to be.

It ain't gonna happen that way!

Originally posted by RJHinds
What exactly do you wish me to prove? By the numbers please.

Ok, here are the points I want you to address:

1. If Easter was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, what do you think of the Orthodox churches which are coeval to the See of Rome and which celebrated Easter but always strenuously objected to the Roman date? Did they also invent Easter? Why did they observe a different date even past the Council of Nicaea?

2. What do you think of the dispute with Polycarp who claimed that the celebration of Easter on the Jewish date of the Passover was an apostolic custom and refused to observe the Roman date? What does this say about the power of Rome to change religious festivals if all of Turkey objected simply to the change of a single date?

3. If you seriously believe that the Roman Catholic Church invented Easter, can you point to a contemporaneous religious festival? What is the pagan antecedent to Easter?

3. You say that Jesus died on a Wednesday, rather than Friday. How then do you interpret the following statements in Scripture: the Jews ask not to touch Jesus "in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the Sabbath" (John 19:31); "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher" (Matt. 28:1); "On the Sabbath they [the women] rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56); "And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate" (Matt. 27:62).

4. You say that the Catholic Church sought to eliminate Jewish festivals. This may after all be true for all I know. Could you however supply relevant historical evidence though to support this claim?

Originally posted by galveston75
Hi Manny. Are you still in the Seattle area?

No not anymore




Manny