Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on April 02, 1999 at 08:50:02 {ppHCdFLRUMMSSTtTA17sboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: ******WTS/Freemansonry/Crowley Links posted by Jaypeeto on April 02, 1999 at 04:44:05:
Hi Jay,
I don't want to get in between your views of the JWS, their wrong doctrines and my personal views.
So let me separate myself and restate simply my own "personal interpretation" of the apostasy.
1 John 4 in speaking of one of the anti-Christ's inspired expressions about the Messiah not coming in the flesh says "Furthermore, this is the antichrist's inspired expression which you have heard was coming, andnow it is already in the world."
Okay. Being "honest" here I'm sort of observing two things:
1. That at the time John writes his letters, around 98 A.D. (or earlier?) the apostasy had already begun, and
2. This was something the true christians had "heard was coming."
Therefore, anything that you call "early church" before 98 A.D. is totally inapplicable as a reference to a non-apostatic belief.
Second, may I emphasize again that my personal interpretation and concept of "apostasy" is not what I compare the ancient church believing but what is in the Bible.
So really, there is no issue about, for instance whether the "early church" (2nd century) didn't accept Jesus as "Michael, the archangel" or not, the Bible indicates he is and that's all that matters. Those who say he is not are holding on to an apostate teaching. So history is not an issue when it comes to what the Bible actually teaches.
As far as "my personal interpretation" goes. It is no different than anyone elses. Your views reflect "your personal interpretation" from my viewpoint. And I respect and accept that that is your choice. Your search for truth. Your answers. All I'll say on that is, that all knowledge is not known all at once and sometimes I have to revise and refine my personal interpretations as more light is given. Thus even in the "early church" all things may not have been understood but were understood at the best of their ability. You must be careful in comparing the dark truth of the past with the bright light of truth today since there is the issue of the light getting brighter, imposed darkness, sacred secrets, etc. So I don't aggressively compare what might have been believed in the past, presuming that those same Christians would have "come around" to better understanding once they were exposed to the correct understanding.
I AM NOW READING 1 CORINTHIANS 11:
I am not that familiar with the context of this
scripture and so I thank you for pointing it out to me. [I'm reading, I'll be right back .....tic.toc.tic.toc.]
[10 minutes later.]
Wow! Nice chapter. Thanks.
Okay, two verses stand out to me:
11:20, "Therefore, when you
come together to one place.. This is a limiting and qualifying statement as far as time and situation.
11:33, again, "Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. Again, limiting, specific, qualifying in association with eating the Lord's Evening Meal.
What does this say to me? It says that the early Christians did not have 5 weekly meetings to go to. It also suggests that they were somwhat spread out and they only "came together" as a local group for special occasions.
It also suggests that there might have been some smaller groups who met together at this time and only occasionally for special meetings did they all "come together." This is very consistent with an annual event and somewhat inconsistent (to me) with a regular, weekly event. That's just my cursory take on the language itself.
Certainly, however, there is no proof that this was every sabbath? After all, people eat meals every single day, right?
Another indication that this was a special event was the fact that certain ones were eating before the meal and some not and there was some confusion over this.
The context also seems to suggest that the Lords Evening Meal was the time when they "all came together" suggesting that they were not always all of them coming together on a regular basis, at least not in a large group.
Another indication this was a special event is because Paul called it specifically "the Lord's Evening Meal." Why would he refer to a regular, weekly meeting as "the Lord's Evening Meal?"
Thuy one must ask was Paul giving instructions for the weekly meeting or for a special event? Sounds like a special event to me.
So I will simply turn the tables on you here. It seems to me that it is just "your personal interpretation" that this is a weekly meeting, which means that every meeting was called the "Lord's Evening Meal" or maybe there were more meetings per week? That means that whenever they met it was the "Lord's Evening Meal."
When you consider what "remembrance" is about, though, custom is very overwhelmingly clear that this is done annually. Most significant events in life are commemorated annually.
For instance, wedding anniversaries, birth dates, etc. Even when a person dies, one remembers the DAY of the ir death. And that is the critical point here as well. If Jesus instituted the Lord's Evening Meal on a certain DATE, then that certain DATE would not repeat itself until the next year.
The Jews as well commemorated critical events in their history on an annual basis. For instance, there were four annual Fasts which the Jews celebrated. This was to commemorate and remember what happened on those dates in years past.
So from my standpoint, even the natural language of "remembrance" would automatically imply an annual event and not a weekly event, since nothing is more specific than repeating the process on the same DATE, and dates are an annual event.
So based upon my "personal interpretation" of 1 Corinthians 11, I'm more than ever convinced the "Lord's Evening Meal" was something special and the default frequency of celebration of most important events, which are special, are on an annual basis.
But I respect your interpretation otherwise and my
view would permit the
understanding that it could be OPTIONAL. That is, celebrating it more often than once a year probably isn't a sin or anything, but AT LEAST once a year.
Thus the bottom line is: The WTS is not WRONG to celebrate it once a year, though they have no scriptural basis for condemning others, if they wish, to celebrate it more often than that if they wish according to their own spiritual understanding.
1 Corinthians 11 is not specific enough to establish this was a weekly, monthly, or daily celebration based upon the text. But I'm open to other scriptures.
Thanks for the reference,
Cheers,
Gary