Catholic church doesnt follow ALL of Christ's teachings?!?! I need your help BIG time..

[Charlotte408]

I'm having a, well its getting heated, conversation with another guy and I have these questions:

1. He says I'm wrong, the Catholic church was NOT the first original church established by Christ, and he refers to:

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

His religion is called World Mission Society Church of God, and...for some reason he keeps going into the 'God the Mother', who, is NOT Mary...still dont know where thats going....but can someone please help me cite where in the bible it says that the Catholic church is the church he founded?

2. He asked why be catholic? And I said, because we are the ONLY religion that has ALL of Christ's teachings...all the seven sacrements...He said that Catholics DO NOT follow ALL of Christ's teachings, as they boast...he refers to:

Luke 22
7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

and then:

Leviticus 23
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

The Passover and Unleavened Bread
4 " 'These are the LORD's appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: 5 The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. 8 For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.' "





somewhere I interjected and probably wrongly thought outloud, well, isnt the whole partaking of the blood and body of christ the Eucharist or Communion?

And he's like, well, if it is, then it wasnt meant to be taken once a week, it should be like how they have it..

Appreciate any help

[Tim Kirchoff]

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

I'm having a, well its getting heated, conversation with another guy and I have these questions:

1. He says I'm wrong, the Catholic church was NOT the first original church established by Christ, and he refers to:

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

His religion is called World Mission Society Church of God, and...for some reason he keeps going into the 'God the Mother', who, is NOT Mary...still dont know where thats going....but can someone please help me cite where in the bible it says that the Catholic church is the church he founded?

2. He asked why be catholic? And I said, because we are the ONLY religion that has ALL of Christ's teachings...all the seven sacrements...He said that Catholics DO NOT follow ALL of Christ's teachings, as they boast...he refers to:

Luke 22
7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

and then:

Leviticus 23
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

The Passover and Unleavened Bread
4 " 'These are the LORD's appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: 5 The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. 8 For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.' "





somewhere I interjected and probably wrongly thought outloud, well, isnt the whole partaking of the blood and body of christ the Eucharist or Communion?

And he's like, well, if it is, then it wasnt meant to be taken once a week, it should be like how they have it..

Appreciate any help

The Mass is the new Passover, but it is also a fulfillment of another Jewish practice reagrding ritual bread and wine (Exodus 25:23-30)

Holy Week is a rather direct observance of Passover, but why should we be limited to celebrating our salvation but once a year?

Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The Eucharist is a fulfillment of multiple Old Testament practices. We may not strictly observe the Old Testament feasts, but their spirit is certainly present in the observances of the Catholic Church.

[RedSoxWife]

This was one of the main verses that led me to convert to Catholicism!

Matthew 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus is most definitely establishing his Church here with Peter and apostolic succession takes us from Peter right up to the present Pope.


The person you are arguing with would most likely like to forget John's description of the Installation of the Eucharist:

John 6:47-66

47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

If it was a easy, purely symbolic gesture as many other groups would have us belief, it would have been easy for everyone listening to accept. But that wasn't what He said because it wasn't what He intended.

The argument that we shouldn't partake in the Eucharist frequently seems to be based on his own twisted logic rather than any actual scripture. Jesus instructed us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He didn't set a timeline. However he did found the Church with Peter and the Church tells us that Sunday Masses are Holy Days of Obligation. Christ gave the Church he founded with Saint Peter the power to bind and the power to loose and the Church has consistently held that we are to go to Mass every Sunday. I doubt that logic will work with him, because he probably isn't going to accept the basic premise that Jesus was founding the Church with Peter.

The main problem though is that he sounds as if he'll take the words of the Bible and twist them to say whatever he wants them to say. That's why we are so fortunate to have the Church to guide us. I don't know how many times I've met people who truly believe they are "guided by the Holy Spirit" who have come to all sorts of whacky conclusions about what God has "told them" that the Bible says.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

His religion is called World Mission Society Church of God, and...for some reason he keeps going into the 'God the Mother', who, is NOT Mary...still dont know where thats going....but can someone please help me cite where in the bible it says that the Catholic church is the church he founded?

I had to look this up. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...hurch_of_God):

The World Mission Society Church of God was founded by Ahn Sang-hong in 1964. The church believes that he is the second coming of Jesus. Ahn Sang-Hong was baptized in 1948 and died in 1985 and the current leader of the church is Zang Gil-Jah, "the Heavenly Mother", and the General Pastor is Kim Joo-Cheol. About 70 percent of followers are women and Korean Americans are increasingly found among the new adherents. Its headquarters are located in Bundang, Sungnam City, Kyunggi Province, roughly an hour away from Seoul.

The church believes that Zang Gil-Jah is "God the Mother" (who they believe is referred to in the Bible as the New Jerusalem Mother) and that Ahn Sahng-Hong is God the Father. The church regards the earthly family system as a copy and shadow of the heavenly family system, consisting of a Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, and the spiritual brothers and sisters (humans).

Since they believe they are following Jesus (in his second coming) then all other Churches must be in error.

His "religion" is a cult. The stuff about passover probably has to do with their belief that the Sabbath is Saturday and is the day to honor God. You can easily refute this by going to www.catholic.com and searching for info about Seventh Day Adventists (who adhere to the same fallacy), although honestly if he is as brainwashed as other cult members I have met you are really wasting your breath. He does not want to discuss his religion with you, he wants to convert you and nothing more.

Best of luck.

[William Pitts]

Try this link for more information about what his group teaches and where it comes from:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/659-...-church-of-god

Remember Satan himself uses scripture to try to deceive and confuse.

William

[JacobG]

What John wrote in 6:47-66 happened before the institution of the Eucharist in the other gospels (In fact, John does not record the Last Supper at all in his account). Therefore, none of the original hearers would have understood Jesus to be referring to the Eucharist. Instead, when Jesus did finally speak the eucharistic words "this is my body" the hearers would naturally have recalled Jesus’ words in John 6.

It must be interpreted in light of the surrounding context. Jesus had just fed the five thousand (6:5-14). The next day these same people, remembering what Jesus had done, compare Jesus’ miracle to Moses’ miracle of feeding the Israelites manna ("bread from heaven") for forty years, while Jesus had fed them for only a day. Jesus, playing off of the crowd’s comparison, states that he is the true bread from heaven. The crowd, still dull in understanding, ask to be given this "true" bread, whereupon Jesus says: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty".

These people had previously asked him what "work" needed to be done to earn eternal life (v. 28). Jesus answers: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (v. 29).

Jesus’ intent is clear from other passages in this same chapter. In the midst of the bread discourse Jesus affirms: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty" (v. 35) There can be no doubt that what Jesus meant by "eating" and "drinking" him was to come to him and to believe in him. This is further evident from v. 47: "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life," which is immediately followed by:

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

Again, Jesus equates the "eating" of him to believing in him. This belief results in eternal life: For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him (notice, this time not "eats" and "drinks" him) shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

This has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

[JacobG]

If John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist, then the inescapable conclusion according to this passage is that anyone who does not partake of the Eucharist does not have eternal life. Christ states unequivocally that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

If this is a reference to the Eucharist, then no one outside the catholic church has eternal life. However, this contradicts what is written in the catholic catechism which refers to Protestants as "separated brethren" whose churches are a "means of salvation"

Either Jesus is not referring to the Catholic Eucharist in this passage and other Christians can have eternal life; or Jesus is referring to the Catholic Eucharist and Christians cannot have eternal life. The Catholic apologist will have to decide whether he believes Jesus’ clear statement in John 6, or the official teaching of Rome. They cannot both be true.

[DOShea]

Why did Jesus allow all those believers to walk away full of misunderstanding if what you say is true? He certainly knew they were put off by the idea of eating "real flesh," and could have corrected their misunderstanding. Perhaps He didn't correct them because they understood Him correctly?

Look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation Christians and you will see people who got the faith directly from the Apostles or disciples of the Apostles, and you find them speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and affirming the Real Presence. Why would they be doing the same thing we do today if Christ meant something else? The Apostles would have known, and surely didn't go out and found churches teaching something different than was taught to them by Jesus.

[Newbie2]

Originally Posted by JacobG

If John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist, then the inescapable conclusion according to this passage is that anyone who does not partake of the Eucharist does not have eternal life. Christ states unequivocally that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

If this is a reference to the Eucharist, then no one outside the catholic church has eternal life. However, this contradicts what is written in the catholic catechism which refers to Protestants as "separated brethren" whose churches are a "means of salvation"

Either Jesus is not referring to the Catholic Eucharist in this passage and other Christians can have eternal life; or Jesus is referring to the Catholic Eucharist and Christians cannot have eternal life. The Catholic apologist will have to decide whether he believes Jesus’ clear statement in John 6, or the official teaching of Rome. They cannot both be true.

Perhaps there is an alternate meaning to John 6, as discussed ad nauseum in the CAF? This is a fine example of cut-n-paste biblical exegesis. Catholics believe that Scripture must be taken as a whole, not little snippets taken out of context.

[Charlotte408]

Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff

The Mass is the new Passover, but it is also a fulfillment of another Jewish practice reagrding ritual bread and wine (Exodus 25:23-30)

ok so heres what your referring to in exodus...

The Table
23 "Make a table of acacia wood—two cubits long, a cubit wide and a cubit and a half high. [e] 24 Overlay it with pure gold and make a gold molding around it. 25 Also make around it a rim a handbreadth [f] wide and put a gold molding on the rim. 26 Make four gold rings for the table and fasten them to the four corners, where the four legs are. 27 The rings are to be close to the rim to hold the poles used in carrying the table. 28 Make the poles of acacia wood, overlay them with gold and carry the table with them. 29 And make its plates and dishes of pure gold, as well as its pitchers and bowls for the pouring out of offerings. 30 Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.

and i have to say that i read the whole chapter, to make sure i got it in context..and it seems to be talking about something else, like, the offerings from the isrealites...and i will dwell among them...the gold silver yarn....nothing about unleavened bread...could this be just another...ritual?? Not the passover like quoted above? Oh, I'm sorry I just read your quote and you said its the 'new' passover...but, why is it the 'new' one? why did we choose to use this part of exodus to replace what Christ had originally taught as the passover? Sorry if these are .. idiotic questions im totally ignorant and just want a firm understanding so i can back up what i say...

Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff

Holy Week is a rather direct observance of Passover, but why should we be limited to celebrating our salvation but once a year?

Why should we be limited? Idk, i would like to say we shouldn't, but it begs the answer, because thats what Christ told us to do. Again, just...thinking outloud..and I'm sure he's probably gonna think of these things too...

Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff

Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The Eucharist is a fulfillment of multiple Old Testament practices. We may not strictly observe the Old Testament feasts, but their spirit is certainly present in the observances of the Catholic Church.

Ok so we DONT directly observe all feasts as put out by Christ, BUT, we do have some form or other OF them in which their spirit is present? And is that JUST passover that we're a little off on? is there any others I should be prepared for? And I can just tell the guy that, yes, we do celebrate passover in the sense that Christ intended, in the form of HolyWeek, and we par take in communion more often than He said..because...oh i wish this was live conversation...

[Charlotte408]

Originally Posted by RedSoxWife

This was one of the main verses that led me to convert to Catholicism!



Jesus is most definitely establishing his Church here with Peter and apostolic succession takes us from Peter right up to the present Pope.


The person you are arguing with would most likely like to forget John's description of the Installation of the Eucharist:



If it was a easy, purely symbolic gesture as many other groups would have us belief, it would have been easy for everyone listening to accept. But that wasn't what He said because it wasn't what He intended.

The argument that we shouldn't partake in the Eucharist frequently seems to be based on his own twisted logic rather than any actual scripture. Jesus instructed us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He didn't set a timeline. However he did found the Church with Peter and the Church tells us that Sunday Masses are Holy Days of Obligation. Christ gave the Church he founded with Saint Peter the power to bind and the power to loose and the Church has consistently held that we are to go to Mass every Sunday. I doubt that logic will work with him, because he probably isn't going to accept the basic premise that Jesus was founding the Church with Peter.

The main problem though is that he sounds as if he'll take the words of the Bible and twist them to say whatever he wants them to say. That's why we are so fortunate to have the Church to guide us. I don't know how many times I've met people who truly believe they are "guided by the Holy Spirit" who have come to all sorts of whacky conclusions about what God has "told them" that the Bible says.

k perfect, so John 6:47-66 covers exactly WHEN the church was founded, with Peter, and we can trace our Popes and apostolic succession straight to Peter. Thats good, cuz one of his points was that, Christ lived, preached. And established the 'church of God'..and then some 860 years or so passed (during which there was this 'church of God still'...and then they wrote the bible..then some 1700 years later the Catholic church came out....so..in his line of thinking, the catholic church was NOT the first one, the 'Church of God' was....

I see it like this, and correct me if im wrong... Christ established the church of God with Peter, and gave him the power to bind and loose etc....860 yrs or so go by and teaching are taught verbally and by tradition (back then werent only like, super rich or royalty allowed to write??? and besides, i think most of the church people were poor and illiterate, thats why they had like, stained glass windows to 'tell' the stories and stuff??? any ways, finally the Bible's printed up, based on those teachings...and then, at some point, it becomes Catholicism...which is STILL those SAME teachings and ALL of them, so in essence, IT IS the CHURCH of God...

am I right?? and all these other denominations came FROM the Catholic church but do not have ALL the same books and/or teachings?

the passover thing is killing me tho...WHY do we have a 'new' one? and not just stick to the way He said to do it?

[DOShea]

When is the subject of stoning going to enter the discussion?

I ask that because it seems you are taking a set of laws and instructions, including liturgical ones (animal sacrifices, temple tax, Levitical priesthood) and trying to crowbar those into what we have today. Those things were given to the Israelites as things they needed to do. There is no automatic transfer of those things to Christians in the modern day. Circumcision isn't required; polygamous marriages are no more; secular civil laws have replaced rabbinical laws, the list goes on and on.

Just as the prophet Malachi predicted, God would no longer accept the sacrifices of the Jews (because they profaned it) and would accept instead the more pure sacrifices of the Gentiles. This is the practice that was initiated by Jesus at the Last Supper and continues unabated until present day. There is no other major religion that has the element of sacrifice today except Catholicism.

So if we don't continue to stone people as the penalty for sin, don't offer animal sacrifices, don't do all those other things in the Mosaic and Levitical laws, what would make anyone think we are required to celebrate Jewish liturgical feasts?

Consider You Kippur, the Day of Attonement. We (Christians) don't consider "books of life" to have an annual periodicity, that is, they "close out" at sunset on the day of atonement, and if you haven't made things right with God (for that year), your name is in that book for all time as out of favor with God. Ours is a continuous relationship not marked by annual milestones. Another example of not doing something in relation to religious feasts of Judaism.

[Charlotte408]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

I had to look this up. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...hurch_of_God):

The World Mission Society Church of God was founded by Ahn Sang-hong in 1964. The church believes that he is the second coming of Jesus. Ahn Sang-Hong was baptized in 1948 and died in 1985 and the current leader of the church is Zang Gil-Jah, "the Heavenly Mother", and the General Pastor is Kim Joo-Cheol. About 70 percent of followers are women and Korean Americans are increasingly found among the new adherents. Its headquarters are located in Bundang, Sungnam City, Kyunggi Province, roughly an hour away from Seoul.

The church believes that Zang Gil-Jah is "God the Mother" (who they believe is referred to in the Bible as the New Jerusalem Mother) and that Ahn Sahng-Hong is God the Father. The church regards the earthly family system as a copy and shadow of the heavenly family system, consisting of a Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, and the spiritual brothers and sisters (humans).

Since they believe they are following Jesus (in his second coming) then all other Churches must be in error.

His "religion" is a cult. The stuff about passover probably has to do with their belief that the Sabbath is Saturday and is the day to honor God. You can easily refute this by going to www.catholic.com and searching for info about Seventh Day Adventists (who adhere to the same fallacy), although honestly if he is as brainwashed as other cult members I have met you are really wasting your breath. He does not want to discuss his religion with you, he wants to convert you and nothing more.

Best of luck.

LOL DUDE he TOTALLY wants to convert me!!! LMBO...

how funny huh? i smile so much during our conversations its crazy...its almost flattering..but..NO THANKS...lol...and you know what? the first time he came around, I did the same thing, i looked em' up and saw the same article...and when he came over LAST night..when we started talking the first thing he says is 'I'm a Christian too' and I hit him with 'Oh yeah, Christian in the sense that your following 'Jesus' CHRIST, or...some Japanese guy thats the second coming of Christ?? Which one? lol...

but he had an oblivious look on his face and acted like he had nooo idea what i was talking about, even said that no he had never heard of that person, or the God the Mother...

I think they may be like mormons? no offense of course, but you know how they dont openly speak about things they believe until you get sucked in to a certain point???

idk......

[Charlotte408]

Originally Posted by JacobG

If John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist, then the inescapable conclusion according to this passage is that anyone who does not partake of the Eucharist does not have eternal life. Christ states unequivocally that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

If this is a reference to the Eucharist, then no one outside the catholic church has eternal life. However, this contradicts what is written in the catholic catechism which refers to Protestants as "separated brethren" whose churches are a "means of salvation"

Either Jesus is not referring to the Catholic Eucharist in this passage and other Christians can have eternal life; or Jesus is referring to the Catholic Eucharist and Christians cannot have eternal life. The Catholic apologist will have to decide whether he believes Jesus’ clear statement in John 6, or the official teaching of Rome. They cannot both be true.

Well, maybe they can....I can see how it can go both ways...did He mean it literally, or not? Lets say he didnt mean it literally....if he gave the power to Peter to loose and bind...built his church upon him...couldnt Paul say, 'hey, ok, he didnt mean this literally..but...to physically and emotionally connect people with Christ...to strengthen the .. idk..relationship...lets act this one out'

if he has the power to do so, as put forth by Christ himself, couldnt he make that tradition?

[Charlotte408]

Originally Posted by DOShea

When is the subject of stoning going to enter the discussion?

I ask that because it seems you are taking a set of laws and instructions, including liturgical ones (animal sacrifices, temple tax, Levitical priesthood) and trying to crowbar those into what we have today. Those things were given to the Israelites as things they needed to do. There is no automatic transfer of those things to Christians in the modern day. Circumcision isn't required; polygamous marriages are no more; secular civil laws have replaced rabbinical laws, the list goes on and on.

I apologize...we're not talking about 'stoning' or taxes and laws...were talking about sacred assemblies as the Lord put forth...I would think, that if He asked, He desired for us to pay homage to Him in such a way..it would be so...circumcision isnt required because we live in a secular world, right?? But I believe in God, and Christ...and my sons fer sure havin one! lol..idk..it just seems if they held weight, this would be one of the 'heavier' teachings i would think would remain the same...but, in the end, if Christ gave the authority to the church to 'loose and bind' then...thats the 'trump card'

Originally Posted by DOShea

Just as the prophet Malachi predicted, God would no longer accept the sacrifices of the Jews (because they profaned it) and would accept instead the more pure sacrifices of the Gentiles. This is the practice that was initiated by Jesus at the Last Supper and continues unabated until present day. There is no other major religion that has the element of sacrifice today except Catholicism.

So if we don't continue to stone people as the penalty for sin, don't offer animal sacrifices, don't do all those other things in the Mosaic and Levitical laws, what would make anyone think we are required to celebrate Jewish liturgical feasts?

Consider You Kippur, the Day of Attonement. We (Christians) don't consider "books of life" to have an annual periodicity, that is, they "close out" at sunset on the day of atonement, and if you haven't made things right with God (for that year), your name is in that book for all time as out of favor with God. Ours is a continuous relationship not marked by annual milestones. Another example of not doing something in relation to religious feasts of Judaism.

--That totally lost me, I'm going to have to read all that a couple times...

Ok, so, ... your saying that passover is a Jewish liturgical feast? I'm confused because, were the ones that believe in Christ?? I thought that was the difference? We both believe in God, but we believe that Jesus Christ was ACTUALLY him/his son..while Jews believe he was just a prophet? I'm confused on how its IN our bible, CHRIST says he wants us to do it, desires us to do it, WE are the ones supposed to believe in him, yet, we DONT follow this, and, the Jews, who DONT believe in Him...do....

I might have to read it again, I'm sorry...lol...oh its early wheres my coffee?!!?!?!?