Check out the book of Gad the Seer, a few verses in one of king David's speeches are intentionally poorly translated by this moron Ken Johnson to sound more trinitariany but the books a good read there is a vision in the first two chapters that explains where the lamb of God concept came from what would be in the mind of the Baptist audience when he called Jesus that.
The sacrifice of lamb signified Jesus' sacrifice. Some details about the lamb were descriptive of Jesus (had to be without blemish) and how it was prepared (no broken bones) was to illustrate how Jesus would die.
Mediator, ransomer. Is there a difference?
In my limited opinion, I benefit from Jesus' sacrifice because he paid the ransom with his blood. I am however not a part of the Israel of God and therefore do not fall under the auspices of Christ's mediation between God and man. If there is a difference between Ransom and Mediation, that should settle the question. At least in my feeble brain.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 handIt's a big topic and I'm excited to look more into it.
Completely agree with this....
Could this note from the Study Bible help:
I think there is real no debate that Passover was observed annually, and the "Lord's Evening meal" replaced it, clearly, it's to be done annually!
”Commands placed upon the Jews in regard to Passover”. When I read ‘commands’ I also look to the principle. That often adds a great deal more depth as to what is required as a command. After all a command is demand, so it is advisable to understand what is being demanded and why. There are considerable numbers of principles in the mosaic laws that have been fulfilled but their values are still sound.
Sorry this is where I lose interest because I don’t see this is a consistent way to examine the ideas conveyed in the scriptures. The context or frame of reference of how memorials in general are viewed is important but you want to throw that context out. In my opinion that cannot be discarded. So, there is no common ground here. Next you say that you want scripture to examine scripture and then you refer to unscriptural manuscripts that I am not interested in because they likely were tainted by the apostasy that took root after the death of John. So, again, no common ground. In other words, if you setup a standard with which to understand scripture and you want others to comply with your standard, you should also follow the same standard and I think you are not doing that. You are discarding my question and then presenting your own argument while violating your own rule which you used to discard my question. So, I‘m really not interested in spending any more time on this subject since we will never have a meeting of the minds on this topic.…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
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
I am not throwing that context out, but I'm not using it as a foundation either. I refer to the manuscript as evidence of what was recorded of practices of early Christians that seem to support scriptures. You'd think that there should also be same evidence for annual observance which I haven't been able to find. I'm not sure how much apostasy could taint it in mere 50 years after the apostles. WT literature which is also tainted with apostasy is fine to use, right? They got it right immediately, after almost 2 millenia of corruption. I'm having hard time accepting that. Especially when they say they are not inspired. And even more so because it was Rutherford. I'm not sure what the issue is with trying to understand it.
Look, I'm fine with the annual observance. I never said I have a problem with it. What I'm trying to do is find specific references of the annual observation in early congregations (along with the "only annointed partake"). Why I'm doing that is because the passages from the Bible seem to indicate that it was observed more regularly. But I probably should keep it to myself as to not create more issues...
Hi @alan ford . Thank you for bringing this up. I have researched the tradition of the Eucharist being of weekly observance in the time of Justin, and how WT translates the “breaking of bread”(Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:19; Compare Acts 2:42,46 Greek Interlinear) to “taking of meals”—removing its significance.
My question was a leading question but it did not come across as such so how would you have known that unless you are a mind reader? You don't need to answer that one either. Thank you for your thoughts and answers Kiwi!
You’ve just exposed yourself with this little gem. Sayonara Alan Ford. I see what you are trying to do.
I'm ok with that. I would never be dogmatic on somebody else's beliefs. It is interesting that the word covenant wasn't actually used when Jesus made this promise to the apostles, however the WT decided it fit the context. I don't really think it changes anything when looked at from the bigger picture.
You take this way too personally imo. And what's with the personal attacks?... But I'll ask, exposed what exactly? What am I trying to do? Did I not repeatedly say what I am trying to do? You see what you want to see. And besides, is the WT apostasy not the main theme of this forum and Robert's commentaries? You do you I guess...
I love your comment Cristo. I will just add that we should want to seek Jehovah’s righteousness and stay humble. If we are truly confused, let Jehovah reveal the understanding to us at the appropriate time. Pray about it in full faith that he will guide you. If any uncertainty exists be patient and wait for the answer. I think humble people can agree to disagree but the arrogant ones seem to want to attack personalities and start the insults. That is always quite revealing.