Use of emblems only for anointed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cristo

Well-known member
One other thing that I remembered, and I had it saved in my notes, is this
The Jewish Passover lamb was a forward-looking festival. It looked toward the arrival of the true Passover lamb, Jesus Christ. However, once that lamb was offered once for all time, the Passover festival was fulfilled. The Lord’s evening meal is a backward-looking ceremony intended to remind us of what was offered for us until he arrives.
Does this make sense to you? To me it seems like a valid point.
The Passover was itself a backward looking ceremony to remind the Israelites of the angel of death passing them over, from which the very name is derived from. I would think that since it's very name is from something that happened in the past, it would in first order be backward looking. Moses made it clear when he spoke to the older men of Israel and said, “And it must occur that when your sons say to you, ‘What does this service mean to you?’ then you must say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when he plagued the Egyptians, but he delivered our houses.’”—Ex 12:26, 27.

However, the reference you mentioned is also correct in that the lamb did foreshadow Jesus Christ as the sacrificial lamb. So the Passover was both, a backward and forward pointing observance. So too is the memorial of Jesus death, as it reminds us of what he did for us, but also of what is to come for he himself said (Mt 26:29) “. . .But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.””

No doubt, he is referring the marriage feast. (Re 19:9) “. . .And he tells me: “Write: Happy are those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage.” . . .”

I don't know if this will help your consideration or not, but only those who are chosen will be at that marriage feast. This of course would mean that Jesus was speaking specifically to the holy ones when he said those worlds. Because the great crowd is not part of the 144,000, and are not at the marriage feast, they would not need to partake in order to receive the blessings of everlasting life, only the chosen ones would do so as they are part of the new covenant arrangement.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
The Passover was itself a backward looking ceremony to remind the Israelites of the angel of death passing them over, from which the very name is derived from. I would think that since it's very name is from something that happened in the past, it would in first order be backward looking. Moses made it clear when he spoke to the older men of Israel and said, “And it must occur that when your sons say to you, ‘What does this service mean to you?’ then you must say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when he plagued the Egyptians, but he delivered our houses.’”—Ex 12:26, 27.

However, the reference you mentioned is also correct in that the lamb did foreshadow Jesus Christ as the sacrificial lamb. So the Passover was both, a backward and forward pointing observance. So too is the memorial of Jesus death, as it reminds us of what he did for us, but also of what is to come for he himself said (Mt 26:29) “. . .But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.””

No doubt, he is referring the marriage feast. (Re 19:9) “. . .And he tells me: “Write: Happy are those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage.” . . .”

I don't know if this will help your consideration or not, but only those who are chosen will be at that marriage feast. This of course would mean that Jesus was speaking specifically to the holy ones when he said those worlds. Because the great crowd is not part of the 144,000, and are not at the marriage feast, they would not need to partake in order to receive the blessings of everlasting life, only the chosen ones would do so as they are part of the new covenant arrangement.
Thanks Cristo, it's very helpful! That's a very good point about looking both ways. I've mentioned earlier in one of the comments that Jews observed the passover as a reminder of what happened in Egypt. The reference I used after that was just to expand on the subject. The way you put it gives me some more material to think on, thanks for that!
Having said that, to me it doesn't make sense that Lord's evening meal is a replacement for passover because the promised messiah signified by the lamb had arrived and was sacrificed, thus fulfilling it. What is it replacing then? So any further comparison to passover is not clear to me...
 

alan ford

Well-known member
It makes sense to me in the context of an annual celebration.
I was looking for some info on how it was observed in the early Christianity and found that Justin Martyr in chapters 66 and 67 of his First Apology makes it clear that the early Christians shared the bread and wine on a regular basis. He wrote it between AD 155-157. It seems to confirm that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says "whenever you eat" means more often than once a year. The word rendered whenever in NWT is ὁσάκις (hosakis).
According to Strong's concordance
hosakis: as often as​
Original Word: ὁσάκις
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: hosakis
Phonetic Spelling: (hos-ak'-is)
Definition: as often as
Usage: as often as, as many times as.
So far my research is pointing towards it not being annual.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
I was looking for some info on how it was observed in the early Christianity and found that Justin Martyr in chapters 66 and 67 of his First Apology makes it clear that the early Christians shared the bread and wine on a regular basis. He wrote it between AD 155-157. It seems to confirm that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says "whenever you eat" means more often than once a year. The word rendered whenever in NWT is ὁσάκις (hosakis).
According to Strong's concordance

So far my research is pointing towards it not being annual.
It seems to me it was both that these aren't mutually exclusive observances that there was a regular/frequent form but that Nissan 14 was special among the occasions given Polycarp stood up for it as apostolic tradition against the pro Easter pressure of the bishop of Rome.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
This part is something I need more clarification on because I don't follow the reasoning
With regard to who participates and partakes, that also is settled in my mind because Jesus instituted the covenant at that time with his brothers, the first ones to be anointed. As Robert King has pointed out, the main purpose of the Christian faith is to produce the anointed 144,000 in a like pattern as to how the Jewish system of worship was to produce the Messiah.
I've read about this on the site of another annointed and this part is what stood out to me:
According to the Scriptures, the Memorial of Jesus is not about who has what reward―whether everlasting life on earth, or to rule with Jesus in his kingdom―but about "proclaiming the death of the Lord until he arrives." And the fact that we are still "proclaiming the death of the Lord" by keeping the annual Memorial is evidence that Jesus has not yet arrived. (Matt. 5:5; 19:27-29; Rev. 7:1-4; 14:1; 20:6

I would love to see, as a counter-argument, where the "only annointed partake" teaching comes from. Because by purely reading the scripture I don't see it. Barry also posted plenty of scriptures in one of initial posts that supports the idea of non-annointed partaking. Do you have any references, because I'm not sure who this originated with. My guess would be that it was Rutherford who came up with this.
 

White Stone

Well-known member
I was looking for some info on how it was observed in the early Christianity and found that Justin Martyr in chapters 66 and 67 of his First Apology makes it clear that the early Christians shared the bread and wine on a regular basis. He wrote it between AD 155-157. It seems to confirm that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says "whenever you eat" means more often than once a year. The word rendered whenever in NWT is ὁσάκις (hosakis).
According to Strong's concordance

So far my research is pointing towards it not being annual.
According to Justin, the communion was done on a weekly basis which is Sunday.(also known as “the day of the Lord). Whether this is a normal communion or commemorating the Eucharist, I need to research more.
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. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
This part is something I need more clarification on because I don't follow the reasoning

I've read about this on the site of another annointed and this part is what stood out to me:


I would love to see, as a counter-argument, where the "only annointed partake" teaching comes from. Because by purely reading the scripture I don't see it. Barry also posted plenty of scriptures in one of initial posts that supports the idea of non-annointed partaking. Do you have any references, because I'm not sure who this originated with. My guess would be that it was Rutherford who came up with this.
Hi Alan, I could do the research when I’m not working, but I’ve had medical appointments and work to do. I want to give this subject the attention it deserves. I’m not sure if it will make any difference because based on your comments that I’ve read, we just don’t see eye to eye on what the scriptures actually mean nor what the practical effect would be on people who celebrate it weekly. To me just trying to decide how often it would be held (excluding annual) would be problematic because there is no scriptural support for it. So, I don’t see how you can use that reasoning in regards to it being annual when I think there is plenty of evidence it was intended to be annual but at the same time you don’t use that reasoning to celebrating more often. It shows me a prejudice in favor of your idea of celebrating it more often.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
Margaret argues that while Paul makes a connection to Christ and the Passover that link is overemphasized by christians relative to the other festivals.

Temple Mysticism excerpt

Some early Christian writers quote ‘Scripture’ that cannot now be found in the Old Testament. The Letter of Barnabas, for example, a Christian text from the second or third generation,56 quotes frequently from unknown scriptures: ‘A heart that glorifies its maker is a sweet savour to the LORD’; ‘I am now making the last things even as I made the first’; ‘If my sons keep the Sabbath I will show mercy upon them’ and many more.57 Of considerable interest is a quotation about the day of atonement sacrifice that would link it directly to the original understanding of the Eucharist. ‘And what does it say in the prophet. “Let them eat of the goat which is offered for their sins at the fast, and [note this carefully] let all the priests but nobody else, eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.”’ Jesus drank vinegar just before he died, said Barnabas, to prepare himself as the atonement sacrifice that the priests consumed.58 This would explain why the Eucharist has the imagery of consuming blood, an otherwise un-Jewish practice. Blood was consumed with the unwashed sacrifice on the day of atonement. Thus the Eucharist is not drawn just from Passover, but, as set out in Hebrews, from the day of atonement also (Heb. 9.11–14).

King of the jews temple Theology and John's gospel excerpts big wall of text from searching the word Passover in kindle scrolling up from the bottom so these are in reverse order of the book

The Jews did not enter the Praetorium, to maintain their ritual purity for eating Passover, and presumably, since there were priests in the group, the purity required for serving in the temple that afternoon at the time of the Passover sacrifices.34 Many have commented that John here illustrates the Jews’ concern for ritual purity but not for a human life. These Passover precautions are a clear indication that for John, the last supper was not a Passover meal, which agrees with the account in the Talmud, that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover. The ritual impurity could have been what Peter feared before he went to visit Cornelius, the Roman centurion. There must have been a major change in the thinking of the first Christians, prompted by Peter’s vision at Joppa, when it was revealed to him that he should no longer consider the house of a Gentile unclean.35 Thus when he entered the centurion’s house, he said: ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation …’ (Acts 10.28). In addition, there would have been the Passover requirement to have no leaven or leaven product in the house, and Pilate’s residence would certainly have had some of the forbidden substances: perhaps not Babylonian porridge or Egyptian barley beer, but almost certainly a kneading trough for making bread and writer’s paste.36

Verses 38b–40 Pilate goes out again to the Jews and says that Jesus has committed no crime. Mindful of the need to respect Jewish customs, he suggests releasing at Passover the prisoner Jesus, the King of the Jews, but the crowd want Bar-Abbas the robber. Mark and Matthew seem to imply that this was Roman custom (Mark 15.6–8; Matt. 27.15), but whatever its origin, this is the only evidence for such a custom. It was seen as significant and therefore mentioned, because the random choice between two people, one of whom was released and the other killed, was an obvious allusion to the Day of Atonement. The ancient ritual had two goats: one representing Azazel, who was driven out into the desert; and the other representing the LORD, who was sacrificed and whose blood/life was used to purify and renew the temple/creation. I suggested some years ago that the original understanding ofthe death of Jesus was not the Passover lamb but the goat offered on the Day of Atonement,50 and others have explored, independently, some aspects of this.51 The Barabbas question is likely to remain unanswered as there is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion. The problem is that Bar-Abbas means ‘son of the father’ and so is very similar to the title given to Jesus. A few texts of Matthew 27.16, 17 even name Barabbas as ‘Jesus Barabbas’, making the two names exactly similar. It is not impossible that the robber had this name, but an addition to the text could have been made to emphasize the allusion to the two goats on the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah says the two goats had to be identical ‘in appearance, in size and in value, and bought at the same time’.52 Not long after Jesus’ death, and quite likely around the Day of Atonement in the same year, Peter was speaking in the temple and comparing the death of Jesus to the high priest who had taken blood into the holy of holies and would return to bring renewal (Acts 3.19–21). The writer of Hebrews developed this understanding of the death of Jesus in great detail (Heb. 9.11–14), as did Barnabas, who was a Levite (Acts 4.36) and so was well acquainted with temple practice. He was the first named among the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, and was sent on a missionary journey, accompanied by Saul

But the reason for this being Jesus’ ‘hour’ (cf. 2.4; 7.30; 8.20; 12.23) was that the eve of Passover, according to the calendar of the second temple, fell that year on a Friday.70 In the second temple, Passover was the feast of the spring equinox, and the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles was the feast of the autumn equinox. In Ezekiel’s vision for the restored temple, however, he saw both the spring and autumn equinox festivals as similar: both were days of atonement to purify the temple. On the first day of the first month and on the seventh day, the priest had to atone the temple with the blood of a young bull, to purge away the result of any inadvertent sin. On the fourteenth day it was the feast of Passover with unleavened bread, when the prince had to provide a young bull as a sin offering for himself and his people, and for the seven days after that he had to provide daily offerings of animals and grain (Ezek. 45.18–25). This is very different from the Passover prescribed in Exodus 12.1–20, although Ezekiel’s festival may be what Passover became after Josiah had made it a temple pilgrimage. But Ezekiel’s Passover is identical with his prescription for the autumn festival – the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles (Ezek. 45.25) – and it is like the Pentateuch’s prescription for the duration of Tabernacles: a festival of seven (or eight) days71 beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 23.33–36). If Jesus was restoring the ways of the first temple, his ‘Passover’ would have been a day of atonement, and in the old solar calendar still used by the Qumran community, the Day of Atonement always fell on a Friday. The Damascus Document describes people who were keeping to the old ways, holding fast to the commandments of God, preserving the hidden things in which all Israel had gone astray, which included the calendar: the Sabbaths and glorious feasts;72 and Enoch also knew that sinners had changed the calendar such that the stars did not appear at their appointed times.73

In the synoptic accounts of the last supper, Jesus transforms the Passover table into a highpriestly table (Melchi-Zedek’s table?). He takes only the bread and the wine, but has no place in his new ritual for the lamb which was the central feature of a Passover table in Jerusalem. He then renews the everlasting covenant which was entrusted to the priests and upheld by atonement (Num. 25.10–13). In the synoptic Gospels the bread becomes the bread of the Presence and as such the most holy food of the high priests, their privilege. The wine becomes the covenant blood, which the disciples consume and thus become a part of the covenant/atonement sacrifice, their duty. John describes another element. With the footwashing, the new high priests are purified for their role as part of the restored high priesthood, and what follows in the farewell discourse is the teaching that was exclusive to the high priests, the secret things of God. A generation after John compiled his Gospel, Ignatius of Antioch wrote using the same imagery as John: The priests of old I admit were estimable men; but our own High Priest is greater, for he has been entrusted with the most holy things and to him alone are the secret things of God committed. He is the doorway to the Father, and it is by him that Abraham and Isaac and the prophets go in, no less than the apostles and the whole church; for all these have their part in God’s unity.11

Facing east to pray, as in the first temple, was one of the traditions about Christian worship passed down unwritten by the Apostles, according to Basil.24 All four New Testament Gospels say the people were calling out words from Psalm 118, one of the Hallel psalms sung at Tabernacles and Passover. Only John says it was the people from Jerusalem who sang this psalm. At Tabernacles, the pilgrims carrying palms sang the whole psalm, waving their palms during the first and last verses but also at the Hosanna,25 but the priests used to carry willow branches and process around the altar each day saying [singing?], ‘We beseech you, LORD, save us [= hȏšȋ‘ȃnā’]! We beseech you, LORD, make us prosper’ (Ps. 118.25, my translation).26 The Hebrew Scriptures say nothing of the reason for carrying the branches at Tabernacles; the huts of leafy branches are explained,27 but the procession with branches could well have originated in a sunrise procession when the king came from the east into the temple. Solomon entered the city from the east after he had been anointed at the Gihon spring. He rode up the hill on the king’s mule, and the city was in uproar from the rejoicing (1 Kings 1.44–45).
 
Last edited:

The God Pill

Well-known member
(Continuing excerpts)

When Jesus knows that Diaspora Jews have come to him, he knows the time has come for him to die (13.1). John implies that Jesus planned to die at a particular time, at a Passover when he arranged a Tabernacles procession to enter the city. Jesus was celebrating the great festival of the first temple at Passover, which was the great festival of the pro-Moses second temple. He was replacing Passover with Atonement/Tabernacles. This has been a theme running through John’s Gospel: after the first Passover Jesus spoke with Nicodemus and tried to explain heavenly birth, the theōsis described in Psalms 2, 89 and 110, when the king became the divine Son; and just before the second Passover, Jesus fed the 5,000 and explained that the true bread from heaven was not the manna but the flesh and blood of the Man, a reference to the bread of the Presence and the Day of Atonement sacrifice.49 Neither of these Passovers was the right ‘time’ for what Jesus had to do. The third Passover, however, is the appointed time, and the sign of the Greeks confirms this. Jesus comes to Jerusalem, and John reflects that the Jews – the people of Moses and the Passover – cannot understand what he has been teaching (12.37–43). John emphasizes that the last supper is not a Passover meal, and he does not mention the Eucharist. The meal takes place on the day before the Passover lambs are sacrificed, and Jesus dies at exactly the time when the lambs for Passover are being killed in the temple. If the eve of Passover fell on the sixth day of the week, the eve of a Sabbath, then the regular temple sacrifices were offered earlier in the day so that the Passover lambs could be killed after the eighth hour.50 John does not say when Jesus died, but Mark says it was at the ninth hour (Mark 15.33). Paul described Jesus as the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5.7), but the other Christians, as we shall see,51 understood Jesus’ death as the Day of Atonement sacrifice and said that Jesus saw himself as the Day of Atonement sacrifice.52 This was his final act of replacing Passover with Tabernacles, and explains why the first two Passovers of his ministry had not been the right time for him to die. John describes each of the three Passovers as ‘the Passover of the Jews’ (2.13; 11.55), or ‘the Passover, the feast of the Jews’ (6.4), which may indicate that John was writing for people who did not know about Jewish festivals.53 But he may have been indicating the Jews’ festival, to distinguish it from that of people who observed Passover by a different calendar and so at a different time. The enigmatic Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk mentions the Wicked Priest who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness when he was observing the Day of Atonement, and so the Wicked Priest must have observed the Day of Atonement at a different time.54

Ezekiel’s vision at New Year in 572 BCE, however, describes the glory of the LORD returning through the eastern gate. He saw the temple that would be restored in the future, and the glory returning to it (Ezek. 43.1–5). In his earlier vision he saw ‘the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD’ on the chariot throne, leaving the temple and going to Babylon through the eastern gate (Ezek. 1.4–28; 10.1—11.22). He said he saw it return in the same way, and the earth shone. This was a sunrise vision on the tenth day of the first month (Ezek. 40.1), and whether he reckoned by the old calendar or the new, this was a vision at or near the equinox, in other words, at Passover or at the autumn festival.6 His angel guide showed him the measurements of the true temple and said that the eastern outer gate of the temple, through which the LORD had returned, had to remain closed because the glory of the LORD had passed through it (Ezek. 44.1–2). Then the angel7 told Ezekiel who would be allowed to enter the holy place and who would be excluded. The faithful sons of Zadok (wordplay on ‘the righteous’) would be allowed to serve in the restored temple and enter the holy place (Ezek. 44.15–16). The Damascus Document describes such a community, people who saw themselves as the faithful sons of Zadok, the remnant left when the LORD hid his face from his temple. Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE, but the age of wrath which the Damascus Document describes had begun many years before this, as the Enochic histories show. It probably began when the priesthood changed in the time of Uzziah. According to the Damascus Document, there was a faithful remnant in those turbulent times who became custodians of ‘the hidden things in which all Israel had gone astray’. They were promised eternal life and all the glory that Adam, the Man, had lost.8

Double wordplay follows: ‘I am the living leḥem, bread/flesh of sacrifice, that comes down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread/flesh of sacrifice, he will live for ever; and the bread/flesh of sacrifice which I give for the life of the world is my bāśār, flesh/good news’ (v. 51, my translation). The sacrifice given for the life of the world was not the Passover. It was the sacrifice offered on the Day of Atonement, a temple festival not even mentioned in the calendar of Deuteronomy, which has only Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles (Deut.16.1–17). On the Day of Atonement the royal high priest, albeit using a substitute animal, offered his blood/life to cleanse the temple and thus to heal the creation that it represented and to restore the eternal covenant.38 The Jubilee, the ‘release’, was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 25.8–12), and this was also the good news, the ‘liberty’ proclaimed by the Anointed One (Isa. 61.1) and by Melchi-Zedek,39 which Jesus claimed to fulfil (Luke 4.21). The writer of Hebrews knew that the Day of Atonement sacrifice was the meaning of Jesus’ death (Heb. 9.11–14), and Paul knew that this sacrifice was linked to a certain teaching: he exhorted Christians to offer themselves as living sacrifices, and to be transformed by the renewal of their minds (Rom. 12.1–2).

Deuteronomy 16 sets out the calendar of festivals, each of which had to be kept in the temple, ‘the place which the LORD your God will choose’ (v. 6): the year began with Passover, then after seven weeks, Weeks, and then, after an unspecified interval, Tabernacles. The priestly calendars (Lev. 23; Num. 28—29), in their revised second-temple form, included other festivals: the New Year and the Day of Atonement. The festival they describe as ‘trumpets’ was a vestige of the ancient New Year, but in these calendars was prescribed for the first day of the seventh month (Lev. 23.24; Num. 29.1). The ancient New Year festival was described in the older Exodus calendar as the ‘ingathering at the end of the year’ (Exod. 23.16), as is implied by the Gezer calendar which begins the year with the months of ingathering.18 In the second-temple calendar, there had been a six-month shift, so that the new year was celebrated with Passover, the great festival of the pro-Moses group. Deuteronomy had no place for the festivals of the original temple which marked the building and reconsecrating of the temple, itself a symbol of the whole creation. The calendar remained a matter of dispute as can be seen from the Damascus Document, the manifesto of the faithful sons of the Righteous One (the sons of Zadok, Ezek. 44.15). They held fast to the commandments of God, and God had revealed to them the hidden things in which the rest of Israel had gone astray, including the calendar – ‘the glorious feasts’.19 Their community kept the ancient solar calendar of 364 days,20 and in this calendar of exactly 52 weeks the festivals fell on the same day of the week each year: Passover was on a Tuesday and the Day of Atonement on a Friday. The new year always fell on the fourth day of the week, presumably because this was when the lights of heaven were created to be ‘signs and for seasons and for days and years’ (Gen. 1.14).21 The Qumran community ordered their worship in accordance with ‘the great light of heaven’.22 This eclipsing of the ancient autumn festivals – New Year, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles – in favour of Passover marked the transition to the pro-Moses era, and a theme that runs through John’s Gospel is Jesus restoring the autumn festivals to their dominant position.

At the third Passover (19.31–37), Jesus died at exactly the time when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the temple. John emphasized the similarity between Jesus and the Passover lambs but also the vinegar that characterized the Day of Atonement. Hebrews too understood the death of Jesus as fulfilling the Day of Atonement sacrifice: ‘not the blood of goats and calves, but his own blood’ (Heb. 9.12). With the second-temple calendar, Passover could have fallen on any day of the week, and Jesus waiting for the right time (e.g. 2.4, ‘My hour is not yet come’) meant that he was waiting for the year when Passover fell on a Friday, so as to replace the Passover sacrifice with the Day of Atonement sacrifice.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
Hi Alan, I could do the research when I’m not working, but I’ve had medical appointments and work to do. I want to give this subject the attention it deserves.
This is fair enough, and just to make sure, I am not pushing for you to do anything you don't want to, or don't feel comfortable to do. What I dont see as fair though is that you call me prejudiced when I present the evidence of my research so far. I mentioned earlier that this is not settled matter for me and I am open to discuss it and to learn from others. I am willing to change my position based on evidence. To reiterate, my intention is not to convince anyone of anything but to study.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
This is fair enough, and just to make sure, I am not pushing for you to do anything you don't want to, or don't feel comfortable to do. What I dont see as fair though is that you call me prejudiced when I present the evidence of my research so far. I mentioned earlier that this is not settled matter for me and I am open to discuss it and to learn from others. I am willing to change my position based on evidence. To reiterate, my intention is not to convince anyone of anything but to study.
I didn’t mean anything derogatory by using the word ”prejudiced” so please forgive me. I do think there is a bias because you have a stated position. I think this topic is still interesting but while I collect my thoughts and take time to research this subject when I‘m off work, let me ask you a question. What “memorial” or remembrance of anything significant, like a birth, a death, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or anything else that is of immense significance that is celebrated or officially commemorated more often than annually? Now think about the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice. The Memorial takes a lot of investment of time, thoughts, preparations, etc. Can that type of event with those commitments be celebrated more often than annually or should it be? I don’t think so but what do you think Alan Ford?
 
Last edited:

Medi-tator

Well-known member
I didn’t mean anything derogatory by using the word ”prejudiced” so please forgive me. I do think there is a bias because you have a stated position. I think this topic is still interesting but while I collect my thoughts and take time when I‘m off work, let me ask you a question. What “memorial” or remembrance of anything significant, like a birth, a death, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or anything else that is of immense significance that is celebrated or officially commemorated more often than annually? Now think about the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice. The Memorial takes a lot of investment of time, thoughts, preparations, etc. Can that and should really be done more than annually? I don’t think so but what do you think Alan Ford?
Not everything is going to be spelled out in detail in the scriptures. Power of reason must be employed/deployed along with faith to get past some of these types of "debates about words". I applaud you all for going over these matters based on personal study, AND, I am happy with where this has led me in my personal conclusive process which is to say that I am good with 'annual memorial observance' and good with 'not partaking of the emblems' as a hopeful member of the other sheep who in turn become the great crowd post tribulation.
 

DR74minus

Well-known member
Regarding 1 Cor. 11, in verses 25 and 26, most translations including the reference NWT, instead of "whenever you eat" render it "as often as you eat".

Do not "whenever" and "Often" mean more than once prehaps. How do the remaining verse in the chapter sit? I mean if we want to "...make sure of all things..." Not a small matter, the taking of the emblems prehaps..

So I have no problem passing them along. Just being at the gathering is observance, prehaps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: evw

Nomex

Well-known member
I don't know if this will help your consideration or not, but only those who are chosen will be at that marriage feast.
I think I will have to take issue with this. The 144,000 would actually be part of the bride class, therefore the bride, but what about the guests who are invited? Do they not partake of the wedding reception "feast"? Who witnesses the "Wedding" if they are all part of the wedding class? Are the Great Crowd not invited to the to the "wedding"?
Now I understand this is a heavenly wedding, so we could not literally be present, But are we not beneficiaries of Christ sacrifice, in fact the main beneficiaries? There would be NO Bride Class if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and God's primary purpose is to restore his Kingdom arrangement to the earth as it was prior to their sin! I think there is a good argument to make that the Great Crowd should partake of the emblems! I also understand that Jesus was instituting a "New Covenant" but no Jew under the Mosaic Law Covenant was going to heaven either. I think there is some discrepancy as to what the New Covenant means to the Great Crowd....
 

alan ford

Well-known member
I didn’t mean anything derogatory by using the word ”prejudiced” so please forgive me. I do think there is a bias because you have a stated position. I think this topic is still interesting but while I collect my thoughts and take time when I‘m off work, let me ask you a question. What “memorial” or remembrance of anything significant, like a birth, a death, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or anything else that is of immense significance that is celebrated or officially commemorated more often than annually? Now think about the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice. The Memorial takes a lot of investment of time, thoughts, preparations, etc. Can that and should really be done more than annually? I don’t think so but what do you think Alan Ford?
Susan, I take no offense, so all good on my end.
I don't believe there is such thing as unbiased. I do believe that the bias can be adjusted depending on the weight of the evidence that feeds into it. Now I'll just have to adjust the premise a little... you give the example of worldly events or traditions and apply the same logic to the the remembrance of Jesus' death. I understand and it makes sense logically. But I'm trying not to follow that logic and go by what the scriptures say, without reading into the text, but connecting the dots and trying to find evidence of how it was observed in early congregations. Using scripture to examine scripture. So what I think doesn't matter, because my thinking will change according to where that evidence points me to.

regarding your statement
What “memorial” or remembrance of anything significant, like a birth, a death, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or anything else that is of immense significance that is celebrated or officially commemorated more often than annually?
I'll say that if the breaking of bread is done at every meeting, it significally increases the importance of every meeting. But I digress.

I found that, according to Justin Martyr, the practice was a weekly event, on the first day. Acts 20:7 seems to support it:
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight."
I listed more verses in previous posts, which also seem to confirm this.
Didache also states that eucharist (also known as Holy Communion and the Lord's Supper) was the essential part of Christian worship gatherings. Didache was recognized as one of the most important manuscripts of the early Christianity because it was written before church hierarchy was firmly in place and was very close to the Jewish Apostolic Age.

Now for the JW practice. Please note that this adresses the "annointed only partake" part since I am still looking for the "when the annual observance started" part.
I found that how the Memorial is practiced today most likely originates with Rutherford (I'm still researching this). It looks like it's closely connected to the changes in teaching who Other Sheep, Great Multitude and Jonadabs are. In March 1, 1938 Watchtower, p.75 it's stated:
"Am I of the anointed who are privileged and duty-bound to partake of the Memorial, or am I a Jonadab, who cannot partake of it?"

Now, as I am reading this WT and seeing that it's drawing the parallels to passover a thought occured to me: If the passover was a feast that was to be eaten by all Jews how is it then that only annointed eat the emblems? It seems to put an emphasis on who eats it instead of why it's eaten.
In Exodus 12 the reason why is stated: 26 And when your sons ask you, ‘What does this observance mean to you?’ 27 you must say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the Passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when he plagued the Egyptians, but he spared our houses.’” Then the people bowed low and prostrated themselves. 28 So the Israelites went and did just as Jehovah had commanded Moses and Aaron. They did just so.
If today it's the spiritual Israel that are meant to eat, then it would mean that Jesus' sacrifice was only for them, and that doesn't make sense since Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind. But that brings the point from one of the previous posts that other sheep are part of spiritual Israel too. I'll stop here before it gets out of hand :D It's a big topic and I'm excited to look more into it.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
One reason I've grown more comfortable with uncertainty on topics the past two years is the reassurance knowing many things will obviously be cleared up for us after Christ manifest to the annointed
I am like this too on most issues, but this one is special because of the implications of not taking emblems which Jesus said are required for salvation.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
I think I will have to take issue with this. The 144,000 would actually be part of the bride class, therefore the bride, but what about the guests who are invited? Do they not partake of the wedding reception "feast"? Who witnesses the "Wedding" if they are all part of the wedding class? Are the Great Crowd not invited to the to the "wedding"?
Now I understand this is a heavenly wedding, so we could not literally be present, But are we not beneficiaries of Christ sacrifice, in fact the main beneficiaries? There would be NO Bride Class if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and God's primary purpose is to restore his Kingdom arrangement to the earth as it was prior to their sin! I think there is a good argument to make that the Great Crowd should partake of the emblems! I also understand that Jesus was instituting a "New Covenant" but no Jew under the Mosaic Law Covenant was going to heaven either. I think there is some discrepancy as to what the New Covenant means to the Great Crowd....
It's like saying only Levites were allowed to eat passover.
 

Patricia

Well-known member
What did the Passover lamb do? It's blood covered or hid the Israelite firstborn from the angel of death.
Jesus' blood cleanses us of our sins. Just seems to me that his death more closely resembles the yearly Day of Atonement then the Passover. I could be wrong but I think only the priests were allowed to eat of the sacrifice on that day.
More research needed. The whole lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world thing .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top