memorial of Christs death

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sooo do you have an answer to your assertion with regard to the temple or do you not?

Are you so desperate to prove yourself a smart-arse yet unable to defend the doctrines of the organisation you are bound by?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you so desperate to prove yourself a smart-arse yet unable to defend the doctrines of the organisation you are bound by?

ill try again, sooo do you have an answer to your assertion with regard to the temple or do you not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ill try again, sooo do you have an answer to your assertion with regard to the temple or do you not?

What was the question again?

Originally posted by divegeester
What was the question again?

you made reference to the temple and in particular the most holy, as the temple is a reflection of
the reality that is in the heavens, what do the different divisions of the temple signify, because
quite clearly, not all Israelites entered into the most Holy, in fact, only the priestly class did, yet
they were all dedicated servants of God, therefore if this is a pattern and clearly Paul states that it
is, why is that the case?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not, i could not care less what your church fathers are professing, as far as I am concerned they are apostates for they have deviated from the scriptural account and seek to inaugurate ordinances which cannot be found in scripture, for example, stating that the resurrection must be celebrated. I care even less for the traditions of the churc ...[text shortened]... rom the scriptural record and supplanting it with something other than was originally practised.

Look, it doesn't matter whether you like them or not. The point is that the burden of proof rests on you to explain why the celebration of the Lord's supper should only be annual. The men you quoted are the very men who fought to preserve the Scripture you profess. They are the ones opposed the apocryphal Scriptures, so how could they be so ignorant to not know when to properly celebrate the Lord's supper?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Look, it doesn't matter whether you like them or not. The point is that the burden of proof rests on you to explain why the celebration of the Lord's supper should only be annual. The men you quoted are the very men who fought to preserve the Scripture you profess. They are the ones opposed the apocryphal Scriptures, so how could they be so ignorant to not know when to properly celebrate the Lord's supper?

no i dont need to prove anything, we celebrate it annually because Christ held it on the passover,
an annual celebration, ass there are no other ordinances, we observe it after that example, you
have nothing besides that. I find your insistence on this detail quite telling, for in fact, you seem to
be obsessed with the timing of the event rather than its content, which is reflective of pedantry
rather than spirituality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you made reference to the temple and in particular the most holy, as the temple is a reflection of
the reality that is in the heavens, what do the different divisions of the temple signify, because
quite clearly, not all Israelites entered into the most Holy, in fact, only the priestly class did, yet
they were all dedicated servants of God, therefore if this is a pattern and clearly Paul states that it
is, why is that the case?

What! Do you not realise what the significance is of the temple curtain (which separated the normal Israelites from the Most Holy Presence of the Lord) being "torn in two, from top to bottom?

Originally posted by divegeester
What! Do you not realise what the significance is of the temple curtain (which separated the normal Israelites from the Most Holy Presence of the Lord) being "torn in two, from top to bottom?

yes i recognize it, but that does not answer the question, does it, it merely seeks to evade it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i dont need to prove anything, we celebrate it annually because Christ held it on the passover,
an annual celebration, ass there are no other ordinances, we observe it after that example, you
have nothing besides that. I find your insistence on this detail quite telling, for in fact, you seem to
be obsessed with the timing of the event rather than its content, which is reflective of pedantry
rather than spirituality.

no i dont need to prove anything, we celebrate it annually because Christ held it on the passover, an annual celebration, ass there are no other ordinances, we observe it after that example, you have nothing besides that.

Again, that's just an argument from silence and clearly it is so weak that none of the early Christians decided it was a good argument.

I find your insistence on this detail quite telling, for in fact, you seem to be obsessed with the timing of the event rather than its content, which is reflective of pedantry rather than spirituality.

I don't understand. We haven't discussed content because the disputed issue is the date. What do you have to say about the content?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]no i dont need to prove anything, we celebrate it annually because Christ held it on the passover, an annual celebration, ass there are no other ordinances, we observe it after that example, you have nothing besides that.

Again, that's just an argument from silence and clearly it is so weak that none of the early Christians decided it was a goo ed content because the disputed issue is the date. What do you have to say about the content?[/b]

whether you think its weak or not is neither here nor there, nor is it based on silence, for we are
following the example of Christ, understand that, the example of Christ who instituted
it not on any other day, but on the day of the passover, therefore your assertions of silence are at
the best, utterly false and an attempt to substantiate your apostatizing and making the matter something
of a mundane affair. Perhaps catholics are more forgetful than others and need more reminding,
who can say?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether you think its weak or not is neither here nor there, nor is it based on silence, for we are
following the [b]example of Christ, understand that, the example of Christ who instituted
it not on any other day, but on the day of the passover, therefore your assertions of silence are at
the best, utterly false and an attempt to su ...[text shortened]... affair. Perhaps catholics are more forgetful than others and need more reminding,
who can say?[/b]

No; it is an argument from silence. Jesus does not, nor does any apostolic writer, explicitly indicate when it is to be celebrated (although, as I have said, I believe Acts is proof enough.) Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the annual date should be presumed on that basis of silence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i recognize it, but that does not answer the question, does it, it merely seeks to evade it.

So you are asking me a question to which you already (think) you know the answer to - are you trying to test me you cheeky little glory grabber...

The temple curtain represents the barrier between man and God that occurred at the fall. God set up a Priestly order and strict ordinances by which those elect few may enter. At the death of Christ there was atonement for the separating sin through the blood and all mankind was given free access to God through Jesus Christ - the tearing of the curtain is therefore one of the most significant occurrences in the whole of the Bible signifying as it does that we all have access to God without all the Priests and ordinances (OT Law etc).

Good isn't it.

Originally posted by divegeester
So you are asking me a question to which you already (think) you know the answer to - are you trying to test me you cheeky little glory grabber...

The temple curtain represents the barrier between man and God that occurred at the fall. God set up a Priestly order and strict ordinances by which those elect few may enter. At the death of Christ there ...[text shortened]... e all have access to God without all the Priests and ordinances (OT Law etc).

Good isn't it.

Well, I wonder how much you guys are reading your doctrines into this biblical passage, rather than from it. The fact is that many Christian churches claim a priesthood of some kind. The general interpretation of this passage, as taken from Hebrews as well, is that Jesus' death on the cross is a new sacrifice which supersedes that of the temple. That is why the veil is torn. Many Christians would argue that the priesthood is retained, not one of animal sacrifice, but of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ re-presented in the Mass.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I wonder how much you guys are reading your doctrines into this biblical passage, rather than from it. The fact is that many Christian churches claim a priesthood of some kind. The general interpretation of this passage, as taken from Hebrews as well, is that Jesus' death on the cross is a new sacrifice which supersedes that of the temple. That is why ...[text shortened]... ed, not one of animal sacrifice, but of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ re-presented in the Mass.

I think my explanation is fairly mainstream, certainly in the non denominational networks but also in the Baptists and Methodists I think.

The fact that the larger denominational organisations maintain some form of Priestly function is more indicative of a need to stand in place of Christ. Pope or Vicar of Christ (vicarious > in place of Christ)is the obvious example, but the C of E is similar.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether you think its weak or not is neither here nor there, nor is it based on silence, for we are
following the [b]example of Christ, understand that, the example of Christ who instituted
it not on any other day, but on the day of the passover, therefore your assertions of silence are at
the best, utterly false and an attempt to su ...[text shortened]... affair. Perhaps catholics are more forgetful than others and need more reminding,
who can say?[/b]

I'm still confused at our old friend Conrau K here. He's still arguing for some reason beyond my grasp for the Catholic church even with mountains of evidence that after just a few hundred years after the apostles died, many things, yes serious things started to change and began to be corrupted by pagan beliefs that were allowed into the churches...just as was fortold by scripture.
And at last I heard our old friend Conrau K had turned atheist on us. What is this guy up too? I actually find all this really intertaining to say the least with him. I mean if he really believes this Catholic stuff why isn't he an active member of that religion?