memorial of Christs death

Originally posted by Conrau K
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 ...[text shortened]... ed from the Pascha. Why don't you consult the volume on Patristics which you yourself cited?

tosh,

# Easter, central religious feast in the Christian liturgical year
# Paskha (meal), an Easter dish served in several Slavic countries
# Paska (bread), an Easter bread served in Ukraine
# Passover, a Latinized spelling of the Hebrew word Pesah
# Passover (Christian holiday), a holiday celebrated by a small number of Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascha

could it be any clearer, what is more there is no Biblical basis for commemorating
anything other than the death of the Christ. Commemoration of the passion is non
Biblical and another invention.

Originally posted by Doward
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.

stick to your empty rituals dude and let those who wish to learn about the significance
of the wine and bread, by putting meaning into scripture do so. We hold meetings for
the general public, not just Jehovah witnesses, will putting meaning into scripture also
be a waste of time for them? Clearly you are unaware of the teaching methods of
Paul,

(Acts 17:2-4) . . .So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for
three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and
proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise
from the dead, and saying: “This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to
you.” As a result some of them became believers and associated themselves with
Paul and Silas, and a great multitude of the Greeks who worshiped God]and not a
few of the principal women did so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tosh,

# Easter, central religious feast in the Christian liturgical year
# Paskha (meal), an Easter dish served in several Slavic countries
# Paska (bread), an Easter bread served in Ukraine
# Passover, a Latinized spelling of the Hebrew word Pesah
# Passover (Christian holiday), a holiday celebrated by a small number of Christians

http:// ...[text shortened]... n the death of the Christ. Commemoration of the passion is non
Biblical and another invention.

You are clearly confused about terminology. The Passion is the death of Christ (so you have contradicted yourself.) The Pascha is the commemoration of this event. Only you think that this must mean the Lord's supper. Of course, later Christians thought of every Mass as the paschal mystery, so it is right to associate the Pascha with the Lord's supper. Historically, however, the Pascha referred to an annual commemoration of the Lord's death, something quite different from the weekly celebration of the Lord's supper.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are clearly confused about terminology. The Passion is the death of Christ (so you have contradicted yourself.) The Pascha is the commemoration of this event. Only you think that this must mean the Lord's supper. Of course, later Christians thought of every Mass as the paschal mystery, so it is right to associate the Pascha with the Lord's supper ...[text shortened]... he Lord's death, something quite different from the weekly celebration of the Lord's supper.

i was unaware of what the passion was, its irrelevant anyway, what is clear is that the Pasha refers to the commemoration of Christ's death, which is what we are in fact memorialising. If we wish to term it the Lords evening meal, or the memorial, or the lords supper we shall, irrespective of what you claim or irrespective of any other rituals, weekly or annually you wish to observe. we are carrying on after the example of the Christ as handed down, through the Asiatic churches, by the apostles. I am glad at last, we have come to an agreement that the Pasha, was an annual event. This is where the confusion has arisen. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was unaware of what the passion was, its irrelevant anyway, what is clear is that the Pasha refers to the commemoration of Christ's death, which is what we are in fact memorialising. If we wish to term it the Lords evening meal, or the memorial, or the lords supper we shall, irrespective of what you claim or irrespective of any other rituals, week ...[text shortened]... o an agreement that the Pasha, was an annual event. This is where the confusion has arisen. 🙂

I am glad at last, we have come to an agreement that the Pasha, was an annual event. This is where the confusion has arisen

No. We agree now that the Pascha was the commemoration of the Lord's passion and death. We agree that it was an annual event. What we do not agree on is whether the Pascha was the celebration of the Lord's meal. While your religion may wish to commemorate the Lord's death through an reenactment of the Lord's supper, this was not how the ancient churches did. I still maintain that celebration of the Lord's supper was a weekly and even daily practice.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I am glad at last, we have come to an agreement that the Pasha, was an annual event. This is where the confusion has arisen

No. We agree now that the Pascha was the commemoration of the Lord's passion and death. We agree that it was an annual event. What we do not agree on is whether the Pascha was the celebration of the Lord's meal. While your r ...[text shortened]... still maintain that celebration of the Lord's supper was a weekly and even daily practice.[/b]

you can maintain what you like, we have a scriptural account, instituted on an annual
celebration, you have nothing but a vague reference to a communal meal.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you can maintain what you like, we have a scriptural account, instituted on an annual
celebration, you have nothing but a vague reference to a communal meal.

Look, there is no scriptural evidence that the celebration was an annual event. You presume it is from silence. Certainly there is no evidence in the early Church that it was an annual event.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Look, there is no scriptural evidence that the celebration was an annual event. You presume it is from silence. Certainly there is no evidence in the early Church that it was an annual event.

pascha, passover, lord evening meal, held on the same day, practically immediately
after as a new covenant and arrangement, and you are claiming its on the basis
of silence? I dont think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pascha, passover, lord evening meal, held on the same day, practically immediately
after as [b]a new covenant and arrangement, and you are claiming its on the basis
of silence? I dont think so.[/b]

Yes. The Scripture does not say that the memorial celebration of the Lord's supper was to be only annual. You presume this only from silence, which are poor grounds considering the weight of tradition. Again, I don't understand why you conflate the Pascha with the Lord's supper, as though these two must be celebrated together.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
stick to your empty rituals dude and let those who wish to learn about the significance
of the wine and bread, by putting meaning into scripture do so. We hold meetings for
the general public, not just Jehovah witnesses, will putting meaning into scripture also
be a waste of time for them? Clearly you are unaware of the teaching methods of
...[text shortened]... a great multitude of the Greeks who worshiped God]and not a
few of the principal women did so.

nothing you quoted addresses why only 144,000 may partake of the love feast. The truth is that the JW tradition is not biblical.

Originally posted by Doward
nothing you quoted addresses why only 144,000 may partake of the love feast. The truth is that the JW tradition is not biblical.

love feast, what are you talking about? the memorial was a communion meal, between
Christ and his disciples who would be party to the new covenant made with God, on behalf
of the disciples, to be part of the Heavenly Kingdom. If you are part of that heavenly
government, which the Bibles states clearly are the 144,000, who are with the lamb,
upon figurative mount Zion, then you partake, for you are part of that covenant
arrangement, if you are, on the other hand, a member of the great crowd, which no
man was able to number, and which stands before the throne of the lamb, you are
an observer. Your assertion that this is not biblical is simply not true, please refrain
from projecting your ignorance of our understanding, which is solidly based on
scripture and then proceeding to make false claims upon that basis.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes. The Scripture does not say that the memorial celebration of the Lord's supper was to be only annual. You presume this only from silence, which are poor grounds considering the weight of tradition. Again, I don't understand why you conflate the Pascha with the Lord's supper, as though these two must be celebrated together.

tradition, now what did Christ state about tradition, oh yes, 'you make the word of God
invalid, because of your tradition'. Please tell the forum Conrau why the Christ chose
to institute the memorial on the passover occasion, an annual celebration and not the
weeks before or any other date? we do so because to us they are one and the same,
that is why. The covenant made between God and the disciples, for a kingdom
constitutes a new arrangement and supersedes that of the passover.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tradition, now what did Christ state about tradition, oh yes, 'you make the word of God
invalid, because of your tradition'. Please tell the forum Conrau why the Christ chose
to institute the memorial on the passover occasion, an annual celebration and not the
weeks before or any other date? we do so because to us they are one and the same,
...[text shortened]... disciples, for a kingdom
constitutes a new arrangement and supersedes that of the passover.

Yes, Jesus urges his disciples to be skeptical of man-made traditions. What this has to do with the current discussion escapes me. Why can't you just explain what grounds you believe that the Lord's supper should be celebrated only annually, despite the historical evidence that early Christians celebrated it frequently?

lease tell the forum Conrau why the Christ chose
to institute the memorial on the passover occasion, an annual celebration and not the
weeks before or any other date?

Well, a number of reasons come to mind. The first is that it was simply a coincidence that Jesus celebrated the Passover immediately before his arrest. The second is that, most obviously, Jesus chose the date to emphasise the fact that the new covenant of his death has replaced the covenant and the need for the old paschal sacrifice. But that's the point, the old Passover is replaced and it does not seem clear why it should still be celebrated on the same day.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, Jesus urges his disciples to be skeptical of man-made traditions. What this has to do with the current discussion escapes me. Why can't you just explain what grounds you believe that the Lord's supper should be celebrated only annually, despite the historical evidence that early Christians celebrated it frequently?

lease tell the forum Conrau wh replaced and it does not seem clear why it should still be celebrated on the same day.

simply a coincidence, muhaha, thas funny Conrau, real funny.

Of course it should be celebrated on the same evening, there are, as you are aware,
intrinsic similarities, for as Paul states, 'Christ our passover, has been sacrificed.'

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply a coincidence, muhaha, thas funny Conrau, real funny.

Of course it should be celebrated on the same evening, there are, as you are aware,
intrinsic similarities, for as Paul states, 'Christ our passover, has been sacrificed.'

Of course it should be celebrated on the same evening, there are, as you are aware,
intrinsic similarities, for as Paul states, 'Christ our passover, has been sacrificed.'

Yes, I know, I basically said as much. Again, I still don't see why the date should be retained. Paul after all did not recommend that Jewish rituals be retained, so why should Christians continue to observe this day?