Lords evening meal/last supper

by cyberdyne systems 101 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cyberdyne systems 101

  Has anyone else wondered why the witnesses hold a meeting in order to 'keep doing this in rememberance of me' ? Since I was old enough to think and reason (yes I know how terrible!) I could never understand why our 'celebration', the one thing important to true christians in the year, was another meeting! Why didnt we have meals and spend the time with our friends or family's, remembering the good that Jesus was supposed to have acomplished by means of his sacrifice in line with the type of arrangements we see in the bible? Instead we have this somber arrangement where all the elders had fresh haircuts and were unusually friendly to interested folk, and the bizzare ritual of passing round bread and wine only to be so called observers of it - we hadn't had any annointed ones in that congregation for the known history i had, and i'd attended for 25 years or so. It seems to me that due to the introduction of the great crowd and other sheep teaching they didnt know what to do and carried this on but in a ritualistic way in order to count those attending so to boost the number of interested persons

  Arnie
• 

  ozziepost

  Ahh, Arnie, yes indeed! The great annual Rejection Feast!

  They invite as many as possible to hear a talk reminding them that Jesus instructed his followers to "keep doing this in remembrance of me", and go through a great performance of ceremonially passing the bread and the wine, only to see everyone reject it!

  Blasphemy I'd call it!
• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  I wish I understood this (amongst other things) - I was taught that the Remnant are only party to the Contract.....
• 

  luna2

  It did always seem sort of flat and hollow, didn't it? We didn't even have any "annointed" in our congo to watch take the emblems. Mostly it was just an exercise in demonstrating that we were lesser sheep and weren't a part of any covenant with Jesus. So cool to sit there demonstrating that we were lower class Christians who's only hope for that paradise earth thing was to be slavishly devoted to the FDS...or, more correctly, the GB.

  A couple of years we did make arrangements to go out to dinner afterwards. That was fun at least.
• 

  Ingenuous

  I only went out to dinner after the Memorial once, and I didn't feel quite right about it. After all, I'd just been to a memorial service and felt I should have maintained a more somber mood for the rest of the evening.

  Given the Other Sheep's complete lack of involvement in the service, I wonder if there aren't overtones of idolatry in the attitude toward the "emblems."
• 

  ozziepost

  I wonder if there aren't overtones of idolatry in the attitude toward the "emblems."

  Ingenuous:

  It amazes me that the WTS can ridicule certain churches for their own idolatry (e.g. transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic church) and yet similar themselves!

  luna2;

  Looking back, i wonder why on earth we bothered attending! I didn't claim to be of "the anointed" at the time, so why on earth did I go? Surely the invitation wasn't for me?

  Fascinating how we used to go to great trouble to deliver printed invitation to the public, yet they weren't going to be invited to participate.

  Ohh, the contradictions!
• 

  Super_Becka

  I'm not a JW, but I've been doing my research and this is really something that I just don't get. OK, so it's the only thing that JWs actually "celebrate", if you can call it that, but only certain people are allowed to participate. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me", not "OK guys, only the remnants of the "144 000" can take part in this, so they can do it in remembrance of me and everyone else can watch", so why isn't everyone allowed to participate??
  
  

  Or maybe I'm just looking at this through the eyes of an Anglican - we're all allowed to take part in the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine. It's called "Holy Communion" or "Holy Eucharist" and you know what, we do it every single week, no exceptions, sometimes twice a week!! And everyone who's been baptized and confirmed (baptism as an infant, confirmation around age 12 or 13) can take part, no exceptions. It's purely voluntary, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, but most people do, and if you've been through the proper rites of passage (the aforementioned baptism and confirmation), then nobody can refuse to let you participate. The reverend blesses the bread and the wine, then everyone gets a piece of the bread (it's called a "communion wafer") and a sip of the wine (yes, everyone sips from the same silver chalice). There, the Last Supper is remembered and revered by everyone in attendance, and we do it weekly, not once a year.

  JWs and the whole "only whoever's left of the 144 000" bit doesn't make sense at all to me. For one, who tells you who's a member of the 144 000 and who's not (does the GB have a nice big list or do these people glow or something??) and two, who's to say that you can't participate in something that Jesus commanded that Christians observe?? Who can say that you're not good enough for it??

  -Becka :)

  
  
  
  
• 

  Narkissos

  Super Becka,

  Of course this is all related to the specific (and unbiblical) WT doctrine of "two hopes" for "Christians" -- "the 144,000 'anointed'" vs. "the 'great crowd' of 'other sheep'" (actually it's the former, not the latter, who are allowed to partake). This doctrine Rutherford set up in 1934-35 as a way to secure his control on the WT Society: none of the latecomers, whatever their number or weight, could then claim to have a say in the running of his "organisation".

  (As to "personal celebration," it's generally a great time for a night walk in the countryside, to watch the full moon playing with the clouds... Oh, and the last time I "partook". )
• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  none of the latecomers, whatever their number or weight, could then claim to have a say in the running of his "organisation".

  ......but there was always a 'limited' number. Annointed NOW profess to KNOW things not disclosed yet. Not acknowledged by the WTBTS, because they would be guilty of apostacy.
• 

  Narkissos

  none of the latecomers, whatever their number or weight, could then claim to have a say in the running of his "organisation".

  ......but there was always a 'limited' number. Annointed NOW profess to KNOW things not disclosed yet. Not acknowledged by the WTBTS, because they would be guilty of apostacy.

  Not sure what you mean here MidwichCuckoo. Could you elaborate?

  The oft-repeated WT stance is that the "anointed" or "FDS class" has no individual revelation but is collectively represented by the Governing Body as far as "new light" is concerned. So the whole teaching is nothing but a blanket warrant for the WT and GB's authority. Practically the system of authority is locked from the top of the hierarchical pyramid (no masonic allusion here). Whatever a so-called "anointed" can say has no force unless it is validated by the GB. And yes an "anointed" who would teach anything different from the WT would be immediately suspected of "apostasy".

  Actually the 1935 teaching has lost its grip since most of the professed "anointed" in the GB are now "post-1935 anointed". It's just a hierarchical system working.