Is Celebration of Passover a Requirement for Salvation?

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

I think it is important all Christians ask ourselves that question. Lets get right into it.

My former view: The “Passover is for the Jews, but I am a Christian”. My view was, the Passover was just a Jewish thing, along with many of the other holy days/festivals of the old testament.

My view was also that the old testament is a rich source of great history pertaining to God and how he dealt with his chosen people. However, most of that stuff didn’t translate over to Christianity, which is the “new stuff”…the “new covenant” with Jesus Christ.

Well, that is what I used to think..however…

What had happened was: Over the past 3 years (on and off), I’ve been partaking in Bible studies with a particular Christian denomination. They called themselves World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG). I had never heard of them until recent, and if you aren’t familiar with them, they have a very unorthodox way of Bible interpretation and with that comes, of course, very “wacky” Biblical doctrines.

For example, their most infamous doctrine is perhaps the teaching that there is a “Mother” God, along with God the “Father”. Need I say more? (and that isn’t even the tip of the iceberg).

Another thing that stands out, is that they are somehow/someway able to translate a lot of Old Testament teachings over to the New Testament…and after studying with them, you will find yourself not being able to take almost anything literally in the Bible…because with them, they take even basic Biblical teachings in some symbolic or metaphorical way.

Now, I said all of that to say this; me and a particular fellow (lets call him Ollie) from the WMSCOG have been studying off and on for the past 3 years. We’ve had long, mentally DRAINING discussions…our discussions include questions like..

1. Is Ahn Sahng-hong (their church founder) Jesus Christ? It is what they believe.

2. Is baptism required for salvation? It is what they believe.

3. Is there a “Mother” God? It is what they believe.

4. Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the same person? It is what they believe.

5. Is the commemoration/celebration of the Passover a requirement for salvation? It is what they believe.

That being said, I found myself disagreeing with all 5 of those. But what I can’t deny is, the fact that on most of the conversations that me and Ollie have had, Ollie has made compelling Biblical cases for almost all of those topics.

I’ve found myself admitting (even to him), that “even though I disagree with you, I can see where you are coming from”.

Now, this thread is being created based on something that he was able to convince me of, which is that Christians should celebrate the Passover…now, is the Passover a requirement for salvation? I have mixed views on this, depending on the day.

However, I am convinced that the Passover is a commandment by God, not just to the Jews, but for Christians as well.

Ollie was able to convince me by taking old testament scriptures, and harmonizing them with new testament verses…and making it all one cohesive unit.

After putting up so much resistance to his case, I finally had to bow down to the truth of the matter, in the affirmative.

Some of you may already be familiar with his case, but I certainly was not. Apparently, I need to read my Bible more. I mean, I thought I knew my Bible..but there are levels to this.

So, what was his case? See below…

[JehovahsWitness]

In all cases we have to regard scientific evidence as more authoritative than the Bible IF said evidence shows this to be the case.

We do? Says who?!

Say's The Truth.

And who pray tell is qualified to say what is The Truth?



JW

[William]

In all cases we have to regard scientific evidence as more authoritative than the Bible IF said evidence shows this to be the case.

We do? Says who?!

Say's The Truth.

And who pray tell is qualified to say what is The Truth?



JW

You haven't yet watched the video linked or you would know the answer to that question because it is related to my answer to your first question.

[benchwarmer]

Matthew 5:18 does not contradict my post.


Matthew 5:18 does not say the MOSAIC LAW would never pass away, it says it would not pass away until it was all fulfilled.

MATTHEW 5:18 - NWT

Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place.

At Christ's death "all things" [as in all the prophecies required for the Messiah's earthly mission] did indeed take place. It was thus time for the Mosaic law to "pass away"

So you are now contending that heaven and earth have passed away? That's odd. I still see the earth anyway. Staring right at it. I note that the translation you are using allows the wiggle room whereas the one I quoted does not. I checked a few different translations.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I also find it somewhat strange that in this thread you are claiming Mosaic Law is no longer relevant and in other threads you are claiming its upheld by Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew who explicitly expressed his endorsement of the Mosaic law.

Which is it? Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Can Christians now ignore ALL Mosaic Law or just the pieces various religious organizations find inconvenient?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Jesus commanded his disciples to commemorate his death and showed them how. He did not command them to continue to celebrate the Passover so there is no reason to conclude Christians need to do so.

Ya know, instead of glossing over my points...how about actually addressing them?

[We_Are_VENOM]

You continue to make my point. If the Bible is the word of God, why should there be any misunderstandings? Is God not familiar with what would be clear to us?

What is "clear" to individuals can be subjective. What is clear to me may not be clear to you, and vice versa.

Even the most clearest message can still be misconstrued.

For those that it is clear to, it is their job to try to make it clear to others.

And your beliefs are based on...?

I understand you are simply doing your best to do the right thing. That's great. However, trying to base that on the Bible is clearly a minefield since it is neither concise, nor clear.

Well, let me put it to you this way, BW...

Are you familiar with the NFL's instant replay policy? It goes like this; the official(s) makes an initial call on any given play.

If there is a call at which a coach finds questionable, he has the right to challenge the ruling, at which the official will look at the instant replay of the play, to see if the right call was initially made.

When the official is looking at the replay, he must find indisputable evidence to make him overturn his initial call.

If he finds indisputable evidence upon reviewing the play, he overturns the initial call. If he doesn't find indisputable evidence to make him overturn the initial call, the "ruling on the field STANDS" (at which the team who challenged the play will be penalized a timeout).

Now, I said all of that to say this; how I draw my Biblical conclusions is the same as the NFL's instant replay policy.

When I read a scripture, I make an initial "ruling", and unless I see indisputable evidence against my official ruling, my ruling "stands".

It can always be overturned, but I need to see convincing reasons why my initial assessment in error.

Works for me.

Not trying to kill the messenger. The entire point of this topic is to discuss what the Bible says. Obviously it's not clear in many areas. That's the entire problem.

But that is what the Bible says. You said you left the religion...and Scripture says no true Christian leaves the religion, because if you leave, you were never a follower in the first place.

Now, if that much isn't clear...then again, we are back to misunderstandings I alluded to earlier. .

That's sounds all fine and dandy, but apparently our eternal souls are on the line. There is no 'fun' involved here, this should be serious business if it's true.

Right, and when hunters are out there in the wilderness, their lives are on the line. They can be attacked by wild animals, shot by accident, succumb to exposure, and in general get injured.

But to them, the reward outweighs the risks.

You are essentially saying that God has made it complicated so we can have fellowship and feel close to God (and maybe have some fun). The sheer number of differing Christian denominations all trying to do this very thing and coming up with often very different answers should tell you something.

What it tells me is; let God be true, and all man liars (Rom 3:4).

I'm not sure what problems you seem to be hinting at. Was that a threat? I'm not even sure how that relates to what I said, but anyway, moving on.

It is hinting at; let not the conversation transition to a discussion of morality.

So you assert. The problem is I've already shown 2 better ways and I came up with those in 2 minutes. An actual god would likely put my ideas to shame and have something truly spectacular that doesn't involve slaughtering children and livestock.

Better is subjective. Is a pizza better with pineapples on it? I say no, you say yes...either way, your way is right for you, and mines is right for me.

You get the point, don't you?

And I'm trying to sort out why you think God would bother with all this if simply killing everyone himself will save everyone.

That's a pretty simple plan no? 100% success rate at saving everyone. Instead we have these contorted apologetics that try to sweep under the carpet anything the god of the Bible does that is clearly the musings of blood thirsty men.

God's ways are higher than our ways...and he can see things eons into the future while you don't even know what your world will look like an hour from now.

1. If your way is better, God would have used your way.

2. God did not use your way.

3. Therefore, your way is not better.

End of discussion.

More veiled threats? I'm not concerned per se about the children, just the obvious dichotomy of a loving god and the slaughter of children and livestock. An all powerful God could accomplish the same tasks without subjecting humans to all the trauma of killing. See my suggestions above. I'm partial to the instantaneous moving of all his people to a new land with no death. Can you imagine the look on the Egyptians faces? All their labor force gone in the blink of an eye and later reports of them living in splendor in Israel. No one would doubt the power of this god with such wonderous feats.

The trauma comes from disciplinary actions. Do as your parents tell you, and you won't get a spanking.

And you seem to be imagining emotion where there is none. Just because I point out fatal flaws does not mean I'm angry. Who exactly is it you think I'm angry at? God? I'm an atheist so fail there. You? Not at all, just debating. Myself? Nope, I'm much happier now as an atheist. No more trying to sort out which cryptic law of god I might be breaking at any given time.

Hey, no one said you can't live a happy life without God. Go ahead, be free. Live a happy, Godless life.



However..

As for disdain, you got me there. I have no respect for the writers of these obviously fictional stories trying to portray these atrocities on an all knowing, loving god. It's clear they didn't think these stories through. Like I said, if there is a god, the fact that I reject this and other similar stories is something I will be proud of. I don't think a wonderful god would employ such obviously human tactics. If I'm wrong, I only had the best picture of what a god would be like and refused to believe what I feel would be insulting.

Do you.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus commanded his disciples to commemorate his death and showed them how. He did not command them to continue to celebrate the Passover so there is no reason to conclude Christians need to do so.

Ya know, instead of glossing over my points...how about actually addressing them?

Because they are all irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether the passover observation us a Christian requirement. If Christians are required to do what Jesus instructed them to do and Jesus did not instruct his followers to keep the Passover, that is that.

Everything else is just gravy,


JW

[We_Are_VENOM]

The evidence against the obligation for Christians to keep the PASSOVER is as follows:

1. The requirement to observe the Passover was part of the Mosaic law given only to the nation of Israel (Psalms 147:20). Non-Israelites were never under obligation to keep Passover.

Irrelevant. What the Israelites did under the old covenant has no bearing on what Christians are obligated to do under the new covenant.

I had touched on this in the OP...and if you are not going to engage my points then please don't bother with the thread.

2. The Mosaic law was abolished following the death of Christ (Eph 2:15
Col 3:13,14)

Yeah, it was so abolished that Paul apparently kept the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is in conjunction with the 7 day week of Passover. (Acts 20:6).

And again, the Mosaic law was abolished in the sense that the old way of doing things were obsolete, however, Jesus established the new way, which is new covenant with the bread and wine (Luke 22:20).

3. Arguably Christ's own commemoration would replace the annual observance of the Passover for Christians (1 Cor 5:7b)

False. Christ told us how to commemorate him when he said "Do this in remembrance of me" and he broke bread and told them to eat, which was as they were celebrating Passover, when they ate the unleavened bread which Christ said was his body.

Obviously, the bread that they ate was unleavened, which is what Paul said was a bread filled with sincerity and truth (in the very scripture you mention 1 Cor 5:7).

So, by eating the unleavened bread, you are eating a bread of sincerity and truth, which is why Christ said "this is my body, eat".

It just all makes sense.

4. When the issue arose amongst the fledging congregation as to what if anything from the Mosaic law was to be carried over to gentile Christians, the church leaders made no mention of the observation of the Passover (Acts 15)[/indent]

Wait a minute, you are the one who stated that the Mosaic law was abolished...so if it was abolished, then why would they have a council as to what laws were to be carried over?

Makes no sense.

Second, this is a borderline argument from silence but either way, I think we have enough from Jesus' own words which allows us to draw the conclusion that we are obligated to keep Passover.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If Christians are required to do what Jesus instructed them to do and Jesus did not instruct his followers to keep the Passover, that is that.

Everything else is just gravy

“Take, eat; this is my body.” Do this in remembrance of me". (Matt 26:26, Luke 22:19)

Do you see that? Those are instructions that he gave his followers on the Passover.

Obviously, they wouldn't need to "remember" Jesus while he was there with them, so gave them instructions on how to "remember" him after he was gone, which was by keeping the feast and eating the bread and drinking the wine, on the Passover.

And Paul told us to keep the Festival of unleavened bread.

The proof is in the text.

[JehovahsWitness]

“Take, eat; this is my body.” Do this in remembrance of me". (Matt 26:26, Luke 22:19)

Do you see that? Those are instructions that he gave his followers on the Passover.

WHEN DID JESUS PASS THE BREAD AND THE WINE?



It was certainly on the day of the Passover but it wasn't during the Passover meal. The Passover meal was over when Jesus did what he did. Luke reports ....

LUKE 22:20 - Berean Study Bible

In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus ...gave them instructions on how to "remember" him after he was gone, which was by keeping the feast and eating the bread and drinking the wine,on the Passover.

That is incorrect, Jesus gave no instruction to keep the feast of the Passover. The passing of broken bread and the passing of wine between the participants was no part of the Passover commemoration. Remembrance of Jesus no part of the Passover commemoration. Jesus explicitly said he did not come to change as single letter of the Law, he had no authority to add a modification to the Passove instructions.

What Jesus did was entirely new.

...he broke bread and told them to eat, which was as they were celebrating Passover

Not exactly. Luke points out that that they "continued eating". If the Sedar (Passover meal) was not over the point is redundant ( while they were eating they continued eating?!). Since both the bread and the wine symbolized Christs upcoming sacrifice, and the writer spcifically says the wine was passed after the meal, then a logical reading is that both were passed after the sedar (celebration) was over.

1 CORINTHIANS 11 :23-26 NWT

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night+ on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, 24 and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body,+ which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+ 25 He did the same with the cup+ also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood.+ Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”+ 26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord,+ until he comes.

JW




RELATED POSTS

Why do most Jehovah's Witnesses not eat the bread or drink the wine at their memorial commemoration?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p961920

What are the aspects of the Passover that are valuable for a Christian to meditate on?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 22#p961422

Are Christians under obligation to observe the Jewish PASSOVER?
viewtopic.php?p=1042845#p1042845

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

THE PASSOVER, THE MOSAIC LAW COVENANT and ... THE MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH,

[JehovahsWitness]

Wait a minute, you are the one who stated that the Mosaic law was abolished...so if it was abolished, then why would they have a council as to what laws were to be carried over?

Fair enough, let me reword. The fledgingling congregation in discussing if Christians (specifically Jewish Christians) were obliged to do anything that is also mentioned in the Mosaic Law made no mention of the observation of the Passover.