memorial of Christs death

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are talking about things that you have absolutely no idea about. Look how you
tried to assert that we emphasise salvation through works, it was a nonsense, and now
you are trying to assert that we guarantee salvation? dude i dont know where you are
getting this stuff from, but so far, you have not accurately conveyed one of our beliefs,
...[text shortened]... cannot say, then why are you arguing against a belief that you have no idea
what it professes?

Read my post again.

Do you need to do good works in order to make certain your salvation as a JW or not?

Are you denying this like you denied that a person needed to join the JW's in order to be eligible for salvation (until Proper Knob corrected failure to understand your own doctrine!)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Can you find him
doing it anywhere else in the entire biblical cannon? nope neither can I. If Christ had
meant it to happen haphazardly as you say, there would be evidence of it, there is
none. We are trying to conform to the exact pattern set by Christ, even to the time
and date, Nisan 14th after sundown.

I am going to restate what I h ...[text shortened]... Polycarp. I see no reason why early gentile Christian would keep the day of the Jewish passover.[/b]

i have told you elsewhere that its nothing more than a mundane meal, I will not argue
the point with you again, for you are fully aware that it was changed from an annual
celebration to a weekly one, by the catholic church after having dispensed with the
apostolic tradition as handed down through the Asiatic churches. If Christ himself had
wished to celebrate it on a weekly basis there would have been evidence of him doing
so, there is none. He chose deliberately to hold it on an annual occasion, that of the
passover.

Originally posted by divegeester
Read my post again.

Do you need to do good works in order to make certain your salvation as a JW or not?

Are you denying this like you denied that a person needed to join the JW's in order to be eligible for salvation (until Proper Knob corrected failure to understand your own doctrine!)

please tell me what it is about , we do not guarantee salvation that yet evades you? is
it so hard to understand?

As for the argument about salvation, you changed it from heaven, to salvation without
actually knowing what you were talking about, i suspect this may be another instance
of that. But we wont get caught out a second time for you will be made to define your
terms, this time, to avoid you shifting the goal posts because you dont know what you
are talking about and then blaming us because we cannot figure it out either.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i suspected, so tell me dear Conrau, why would Jesus be present simply because of
bread and wine, which were after all, nothing more than a symbol when he instituted
the celebration?

as i suspected, so tell me dear Conrau, why would Jesus be present simply because of
bread and wine, which were after all, nothing more than a symbol when he instituted
the celebration?

Well, obviously Catholics do not believe that they were 'nothing more than a symbol'. Don't ask loaded questions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]as i suspected, so tell me dear Conrau, why would Jesus be present simply because of
bread and wine, which were after all, nothing more than a symbol when he instituted
the celebration?

Well, obviously Catholics do not believe that they were 'nothing more than a symbol'. Don't ask loaded questions.[/b]

hehe, sussed again! but tell me why you think they are nothing more than symbolic, for
Christ certainly never.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have told you elsewhere that its nothing more than a mundane meal, I will not argue
the point with you again, for you are fully aware that it was changed from an annual
celebration to a weekly one, by the catholic church after having dispensed with the
apostolic tradition as handed down through the Asiatic churches. If Christ himself had
w ...[text shortened]... there is none. He chose deliberately to hold it on an annual occasion, that of the
passover.

Look, you're crazy. What you are arguing here is a fringe idea. I can find no scholars out there who agree with you. The unanimous opinion is that the early church celebrated Eucharist weekly even daily.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hehe, sussed again! but tell me why you think they are nothing more than symbolic, for
Christ certainly never.

Why 'certainly'? Aside from your bizarre translation, there is no evidence otherwise that he intended them to be merely symbols.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Look, you're crazy. What you are arguing here is a fringe idea. I can find no scholars out there who agree with you. The unanimous opinion is that the early church celebrated Eucharist weekly even daily.

cant find any scholars, well i can,

“The Christians of Asia Minor were called Quartodecimans [Fourteenthers] from their
custom of celebrating the pascha [Lord’s Evening Meal] invariably on the 14th of
Nisan . . . The date might fall on Friday or on any of the other days of the week.”
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume IV, page 44.

Commenting concerning the second century C.E. practice, historian J. L. von
Mosheim says that the Quartodecimans observed the Memorial on Nisan 14 because
“they considered the example of Christ as possessing the force of a law.”

“The usage of the Quartodeciman churches of Asia was continuous with that of the
Jerusalem church. In the 2nd century these churches at their Pascha on the 14th of
Nisan commemorated the redemption effected by the death of Christ.” - Studia
Patristica, Volume V, 1962, page 8.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
cant find any scholars, well i can,

“The Christians of Asia Minor were called Quartodecimans [Fourteenthers] from their
custom of celebrating the pascha [Lord’s Evening Meal] invariably on the 14th of
Nisan . . . The date might fall on Friday or on any of the other days of the week.”
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge ...[text shortened]... the redemption effected by the death of Christ.” - Studia
Patristica, Volume V, 1962, page 8.

What's your point? We were not discussing the date for the feast of the Pascha; we were discussing when Eucharist was celebrated.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why 'certainly'? Aside from your bizarre translation, there is no evidence otherwise that he intended them to be merely symbols.

clearly there is, otherwise he would be transgressing the Law, but i have no time at the
moment to debate this, meet me at high noon tomorrow, ill get two coffins ready 🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
What's your point? We were not discussing the date for the feast of the Pascha; we were discussing when Eucharist was celebrated.

clearly those scholars think that the pasha is the lords evening meal, as do I. Eucharist is a Catholic invention.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly those scholars think that the pasha is the lords evening meal, as do I. Eucharist is a Catholic invention.

No, they don't. Whatever source you got these quotes from has inserted in brackets that the Pascha is the Lord's meal. The Pascha however is something entirely different. It is a feast day rather than an actual ritual.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No, they don't. Whatever source you got these quotes from has inserted in brackets that the Pascha is the Lord's meal. The Pascha however is something entirely different. It is a feast day rather than an actual ritual.

I say its the same, Eucharist is a total invention. Lords evening meal, last supper,
memorial celebration, Pasha, these are one and the same.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I say its the same, Eucharist is a total invention. Lords evening meal, last supper,
memorial celebration, Pasha, these are one and the same.

No; they're not. Pascha refers to the day commemorating the passion of Jesus. In English, it is known as Easter but in official Latin and Greek documents, it has always been Pascha. You may believe that Eucharist is a total invention (although I don't see why since it is essentially the same commemoration of the Lord's meal) but it clearly existed in the early Church and was distinguished from the Pascha. Why don't you consult the volume on Patristics which you yourself cited?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will be attending as an observer, those with a heavenly hope, that is, those who are
party to the covenant arrangement instituted by Christ and who will reside with him in
the heavens, as kings and priests will partake. I have a different hope, that is to be a
subject of that heavenly Kingdom and hope to reside on a paradise earth. I rarely ...[text shortened]... ely deviod of
anything other than a ritual and that my friend is the greatest irony of all.

yes I am sure you have learned many things, but something you should have learned is that the Lord's Supper is for all believers, not for "those with a heavenly hope" (really poor theology there). It is a pointless ritual unless you partake, so for 99.9% of JW congregations it is a waste of time.