And I always thought the question was -
What's the point?
cheeses.
by etan 4 U 36 Replies latest jw friends
And I always thought the question was -
What's the point?
cheeses.
This is an interesting page from the Awake! 3-8-02. It is a memorial invite that depicts a young girl holding the wine. The write up only says, "drink out of it, all of you . . . ".
This may very well lead some to think that children and anyone else can partake of the "emblems" at the memorial.
Corvin
Ignorance,
Welcome Home to Rome Sweet Home.
I'm a Catholic Too.
I will be partaking, but in a Catholic Mass for the first time
My understanding is that RC's don't partake of the wine, but only the wafer. The priest alone partakes of the wine. Am I correct?
Why do the JWs not partake? Is it because they wish to be of an earthly resurection? They may not feel that they are worthy enough to be one of the 144,000?
I take it your not a witness? That's ok too.
The JW's do not believe all witnesses should partake because of what an alcoholic president of the Watchtower believed and taught all the rest. His organisation grew so rapidly that he could not figure out who all these new witnesses were that were coming into his organisation! He knew the total number of those who would actually live in heaven were and he had to find a home for all these new ones...........and so he came up with the TWO CLASSES. One a heavenly class.....the other an earthly class.And all the dubs believed him.
Gumby
Sorry for the multiple posts...darned triple clicking mouse (head space and timing error...mods...can you delete?
Sorry for the multiple posts...darned triple clicking mouse (head space and timing error...mods...can you delete?
Sorry for the multiple posts...darned triple clicking mouse (head space and timing error...mods...can you delete?
"This is my body." I, personally, don't see whats so complicated.
I do. I can understand perfectly how the bread and wine can mean (represent, stand for, symbolise etc.) Jesus' body and blood, but I don't understand how it could really be his body and blood, unless you're redefining what it means to be. Is this a Clintonesque thing where "it depends on what you definition of 'is' is"?