14 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Yes, indeed, which led me also to try to assert that the memorial is like a new kind of
Christ is the passover literally. The substance is in and with Christ. His blood which covers the sins and judgement is passed over.
Manny
passover celebration, this time for Christians who accepted the sin atoning sacrifice.
Although i continue to assert that there are no special properties in or around the actual
bread and wine, they are, as was the case with the Christ, merely symbolic and are
not imbued with special properties themselves, in fact, it seems to me to cheapen the
arrangement to state that they are and is reflective not of a spiritual understanding,
but of a purely physical one, in other words, we dont really understand what this is
about therfore we shall ascribe magical properties to the unleavened bread and wine.
I dont think so.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75I don't have to. I am satisfied simply by the fact that the early church universally celebrated the Lord's supper regularly. I have however in the past cited passages in Acts which talk about a regular breaking of bread and I remain unconvinced by your suggestion that these were simply meals. The point is that the burden of proof is on you because you are challenging the status quo.
Man up and show me the scripture in the "Bible" that supports your weekly idea and we'll talk.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I don't 'know' this at all. The reason for Mass on a Sunday has always been that this was the day of resurrection -- obviously something you would be uncomfortable with. Anti-Semitism was not really something that characterised the early church. Certainly it arose later in the Patristic era but not in the early church.
what a pile of bull, it was changed to a Sunday because of the Catholic churches anti Semitism, you know its true.
14 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kyou know it,
No, I don't 'know' this at all. The reason for Mass on a Sunday has always been that this was the day of resurrection -- obviously something you would be uncomfortable with. Anti-Semitism was not really something that characterised the early church. Certainly it arose later in the Patristic era but not in the early church.
“Sundays will be kept for serving God devoutly.” Such is the Fourth Commandment on the Sabbath as presented by the Catholic Church. The recently published French Catéchisme pour adultes explains: “The Christian Sunday is celebrated the day after the Sabbath: on the eighth day, that is to say, the first day of the new creation. It adopts the essential elements of the Sabbath but is centered on Christ’s Passover.”
How did this changeover from a Saturday to a Sunday sabbath come about?
Even though Sunday was the day on which Jesus was resurrected, for early Christians it was a workday like any other. But a decision by a Laodicean church council (mid-to-late fourth century C.E.) reveals that with the passing of time, the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday was replaced by a “Christian” sabbath on Sunday. This canon “forbade Christians to Judaize and to be idle on the day of the [Jewish] Sabbath, and the Lord’s day [the day of the week on which he was resurrected] was to be honored in a Christian way.” From then on Christendom’s adherents had to work on Saturdays and refrain from work on Sundays. Later, they were required to attend Mass on Sunday.
With the backing of the secular authorities, work on Sundays was soon prohibited throughout Christendom. From the sixth century onward, transgressors were fined or whipped, and their oxen could be confiscated. On occasion, unrepentant sinners could be reduced to servitude.
In a sense, laws relating to acceptable work on Sundays were as complex as traditions governing the Jewish Sabbath. The Dictionnaire de théologie catholique gives lengthy explanations regarding the development of church casuistry and, among the things prohibited, mentions servile work, farm work, legal proceedings, markets, and hunting.
Paradoxically, the Jewish Sabbath was referred to as justification for these prohibitions. The New Catholic Encyclopedia mentions Emperor Charlemagne’s laws regarding Sundays: “The Sabbatarian idea, expressly repudiated by St. Jerome and condemned by the Council of Orléans in 538 as Jewish and non-Christian, was clearly stated in Charlemagne’s decree of 789, which forbade all labor on Sunday as a violation [of the Ten Commandments].” Thus, although it pleased the church to see the civil authorities impose a Sunday day of rest, it allowed this secular arm to justify these restrictions on the basis of a legal foundation it rejected, namely, the Mosaic law concerning the Sabbath.
Why would i be uncomfortable with the resurrection, we are after all, commande not the celebrate the resurrection, but the sacrificial death of the Christ, or perhaps you can point to a biblical reference to the contrary?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLook, I am not going to sort through these references. Just glancing at them, I see that half are irrelevant; the other half are probably out of context anyway (and I do not have access to French Catholic encyclopedias, do you?) Why don't you quote to me a Church Father or a conciliar document, some hard proof?
you know it,
“Sundays will be kept for serving God devoutly.” Such is the Fourth Commandment on the Sabbath as presented by the Catholic Church. The recently published French Catéchisme pour adultes explains: “The Christian Sunday is celebrated the day after the Sabbath: on the eighth day, that is to say, the first day of the new creation. It ado ...[text shortened]... s on the basis of a legal foundation it rejected, namely, the Mosaic law concerning the Sabbath.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by Conrau Kok, your pretensions aside, ill see what I can do, just cause its you!
Look, I am not going to sort through these references. Just glancing at them, I see that half are irrelevant; the other half are probably out of context anyway (and I do not have access to French Catholic encyclopedias, do you?) Why don't you quote to me a Church Father or a conciliar document, some hard proof?
14 Apr 11
ouch, it gets worse,
“The retention of the old Pagan name of ‘Dies Solis,’ or ‘Sunday,’ for the weekly Christian festival, is, in great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and [so-called] Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine [in an edict in 321 C.E.] to his subjects, Pagan and Christian alike, as the ‘venerable day of the Sun.’ . . . It was his mode of harmonizing the discordant religions of the Empire under one common institution.”—Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (New York, 1871), A. P. Stanley, p. 291.
14 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KEusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 23 (c. 315 A.D.)
Look, I am not going to sort through these references. Just glancing at them, I see that half are irrelevant; the other half are probably out of context anyway (and I do not have access to French Catholic encyclopedias, do you?) Why don't you quote to me a Church Father or a conciliar document, some hard proof?
"The churches throughout the rest of the world observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Savior. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question; and all unanimously drew up the ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lords resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lords day."
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 178 A.D.)
"The duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord may be done only on the day of the Lord."
The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 67
"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things ... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead."
As can be clearly evidenced, these are admonitions, not to celebrate the death of the Christ, but the resurrection, of which there is no Biblical command, and in my opinion, one can see, that it was done so as a rejection of anything remotely resembling Judaism. Thus what we witness is a shifting away from the Apostolic tradition and the example set by the Christ and a bastardisation taking place under the guise that the Mosaic law is now nullified, which of course is true, but it need not necessitate that it be supplanted with something else, as is clearly evidenced here.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71Well said Manny, and your previous post.
Man this is so deja vu !!! I hate the Catholic religion and the JW religion the same. I hate it because it's just a big pissing match. The book of Colossians speaks on this clearly.
16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
17things which are a mere sha ...[text shortened]... it says no man judge for to some everyday is holy while to others it does not matter.
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs can be clearly evidenced, these are admonitions, not to celebrate the death of the Christ, but the resurrection, of which there is no Biblical command, and in my opinion, one can see, that it was done so as a rejection of anything remotely resembling Judaism. Thus what we witness is a shifting away from the Apostolic tradition and the example set by the Christ and a bastardisation taking place under the guise that the Mosaic law is now nullified, which of course is true, but it need not necessitate that it be supplanted with something else, as is clearly evidenced here.
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 23 (c. 315 A.D.)
"The churches throughout the rest of the world observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Savior. Hence there were synods and convocat ...[text shortened]... d not necessitate that it be supplanted with something else, as is clearly evidenced here.
Well, first of all, Eusebius and Irenaeus are talking about the Pascha again, not the celebration of the Lord's supper. Why you continue to confuse these two I have no idea. Justin the Martyr is clearly talking about the Lord's supper and if anything that just proves that the celebration on a Sunday was an apostolic practice. Justin the Martyr was writing in the middle of the 2nd century. He was writing very close to the time of the apostles. This was clearly not some invention of Constantine.
14 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhether it is with regard to the lords supper or the pasha is your business, not mine, to
As can be clearly evidenced, these are admonitions, not to celebrate the death of the Christ, but the resurrection, of which there is no Biblical command, and in my opinion, one can see, that it was done so as a rejection of anything remotely resembling Judaism. Thus what we witness is a shifting away from the Apostolic tradition and the example set by ng very close to the time of the apostles. This was clearly not some invention of Constantine.
me they are one and the same, but of course that does not address the issue, in that
we are seeing a shift away from a celebration of the death of Christ, of which there is a
direct Biblical ordinance, to one, which has no Biblical basis whatsoever, a celebration
of the resurrection. In other words, its an apostasy.
14 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have no idea how I remember the Lord's atoning passover. You and Galveston smooth talking and stroking each other in that condescending manner you both have, is the only joke in this forum.
Lol, you're talking to the guy who will be sitting on Sunday evening with a bottle of
Ribena and a packet of Jacobs cream crackers holding his own service and making it
up as he goes along, it is to laugh.
Your religion denies people of Jesus completed work by keeping them in bondage to the need do produce works in order to earn their salvation; you also therefore deny the Sovereignty of God by implication that man's effort and will can earn him is place.
You also deny people the right earned by Christ to enter into the holiest of holies through his work alone because of the JW doctrine for the need to join the JW organisation in order to be eligible for it, which is completely indefensible in scripture and in the spirit. It is what ALL cult like religions claim (exclusivity of membership) and is a doctrine of fear intended to control the laity and keep them in the system. As I have pointed out and will keep pointing out for the benefit of others, you and Galveston did not even know this until Proper Knob referred you to your own doctrinal references!
You and Galveston are part of the Babylonian system you seem to despise and you do not realise it.
14 Apr 11
5 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterLol, will you be using Vitmo instead? look man, its just making fun, thats all, you dont
You have no idea how I remember the Lord's atoning passover. You and Galveston smooth talking and stroking each other in that condescending manner you both have, is the only joke in this forum.
Your religion denies people of Jesus [b]completed work by keeping them in bondage to the need do produce works in order to earn their salvation; you also and Galveston are part of the Babylonian system you seem to despise and you do not realise it.[/b]
need to take it personally, its just taking the rip, thats all. Relax and have some fun,
otherwise, it loses its perspective. Sooo how will you be celebrating the occasion, do
tell?
as for entering the Holy of Holies, perhaps you will tell the forum the significance of the
different temple elements, why the court of the gentiles, why the court of women, why
the holy, why the holy of holies etc etc , indeed, what is pictured by the court of
gentiles, for clearly as Paul states, these things are a representation of the reality in
heaven itself. Do tell if you know the answer.
as for your assertion of barring persons coming to Christ, when any member of
Christendom takes the time to come to my home and to teach me personally then i
will listen to their petitions, otherwise, its the usual armchair preacher, telling others of
what they themselves are not willing to do and is nothing short of hypocrisy, if you
are unwilling to preach the good news you are a plastic Christian, for you are not
observing the example or the command of the Christ, let it be a lesson to you so
that you may think twice before condemning others.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI notice you do not deny what I said because you cannot.
Lol, will you be using Vitmo instead? look man, its just making fun, thats all, you dont
need to take it personally, its just taking the rip, thats all. Relax and have some fun,
otherwise, it loses its perspective. Sooo how will you be celebrating the occasion, do
tell?
as for entering the Holy of Holies, perhaps you will tell the forum th ...[text shortened]... of the Christ, let it be a lesson to you so
that you may think twice before condemning others.
I will not share my private life with you.
You make insulting statements and then back off by saying you are only "taking the rip" (whatever that means). No wonder you fall out with so many people at this site.
I'm not being hypocritical (that is such an easy word to throw into a debate where you cannot defend the topic isn't it) - I'm making statements about the JW religion which are true.
"Let that be a lesson to you" - do you realise how arrogant you sound.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso then you believe that christ was physically ressurected?
nope, another piece of evidence that proves beyond a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. why dont you hold an inquisition, get your priests to test us with torture and burn us if we are found to be heretical? It is also noted that once again you have failed to tell the forum what you know of our observance, yet you seem to have ...[text shortened]... n empty ritual, must be the ultimate irony, considering what transpires at mass, it is to laugh.