The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question

Good News Magazine ^ | March 2000 | Wilber Berg

[DouglasKC]

Using The Message translation to defend your position is brnging the weak sauce.

There's others, but for the sake of brevity I didn't use them. Would you like me to?

The point is that even biblical scholars disagree on the translation of the verse you're using as proof of a Sunday resurrection.

[safisoft]

My Bible has a New Testament.

Apparently, that is all it has.

Question, why is Christianity the only religion that negates the front 3/4 of their Scriptures with the back 1/4?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“It says to not wear clothes made out of certain blends of wool and linen. The reasons why and the specific blends are not given. It DOESN’T say you can’t wear wool socks and a linen shirt.”

And so you believe it is morally permissable to wear those formerly banned “blends”?

[JohnnyM]

Mark:18-19
And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

It seems that Mark once again disagrees with your assessment, as well as Peter's vision, but that's OK. If you wish to observe the food laws, then go right ahead, but we are clearly shown that all foods have become clean.

We live, like you said, under Grace. Feel free to eat the foods that you wish. If you feel that certain food are verboten or can cause stumbling blocks, then by all means avoid them.

Romans 14:3-13
3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11 For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

JM

[DouglasKC]

That is incorrect. The old covenant was made between God and Abram, back in Genesis 15. God's specific references to Holy Days such as Passover and the Sabbath do not show up until the time of Moses, several hundred years later.

There are several covenants that have been established. When I use the term "old covenant", most understand it to mean the covenant established with Israel at Mount Sinai.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The heart of the old covenant was the 10 commandments, given at mt. Sinai.:

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The holy days are first mentioned and instructed before the Israelites struck this covenant.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Comparing United Church of God to Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong is in many ways like comparing Protestants to Catholics.”

No, it’s comparing one sect to another. That would leave Catholics out of it entirely.

Also, you wrote:

“...tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles.”

Another latter-day, restorationist sect. It’s fitting that when I cut and pasted in “http://www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm"; this came up: FILE NOT FOUND.

[MHGinTN]

Asking an idiot question such as that proves you have little or no familiarity with the Bible, and The God Whom created you is an alien concept you cannot grasp.

[safisoft]

In other words, would you support the execution of adulterers? (Lev. 20:10)

Or, how about the death penalty for murder (Exodus 20:13)?

The fact is, no one was ever executed for adultery. What few folks bother to do is to study the words of the Almighty. Two or three EYE witnesses are necessary for capital offenses. And the reason it says "three" is to confirm that the witnesses cannot be independent - they have to have seen each other as well. John 8 confirms this as well. Normally, the only "witness" to adultery are the participants.

Maybe instead of assuming that everything to the LEFT of Matthew 1:1 is INVALID, you should consider the weight of ANYTHING that comes from the mouth of the Almighty.

[JohnnyM]

Would you like me to?

Sure!!! And please dont refer to the writers of The Message as Biblical Scholars :)

JM

[DouglasKC]

You wrote:
“It says to not wear clothes made out of certain blends of wool and linen. The reasons why and the specific blends are not given. It DOESN’T say you can’t wear wool socks and a linen shirt.”
And so you believe it is morally permissable to wear those formerly banned “blends”?

A blend is a blend of different fabrics. For example, wool socks and a linen shirt is not a fabric blend, but socks made out of a blend, an interweaving of wool and linen fabric, are. There's not enough information to judge whether it's a moral or practical issue. I would say that if God said not to do it then there's a good reason not to do it. That reason may not be evident, but it's still there.

[safisoft]

The dietary laws were overturned in Acts. Jesus broke the Sabbath Laws by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his followers to pick grain on the Sabbath.

A common, and quite fallacious opinion. What did PETER think the vision was about?

Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But G0d has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:28

What is not generally known is that the traditions regarding interacting with Gentiles were very strict, but NOT in the Bible. Peter needed some convincing that it is the Almighty, and NOT man that decides what is unclean or common. The Almighty spoke in Leviticus 11, and only a fool would say that it does not apply to him.

As for "Jesus breaking the Sabbath" - again, you are quite confused. No where did He break the Sabbath laws of Scripture. Jesus did not keep some of the Sabbath TRADITIONS of the First Century - but those were TRADITIONS of men - not the words of the Almighty.

BTW, if Jesus broke the Sabbath, we all would be without hope... that would make Him a sinner - and only a perfect lamb is permitted.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Maybe instead of assuming that everything to the LEFT of Matthew 1:1 is INVALID, you should consider the weight of ANYTHING that comes from the mouth of the Almighty.”

Maybe instead of assuming that I believe everything to the LEFT of Matthew 1:1 is INVALID, you should consider that you have no idea what I believe and that you just made a fool out of yourself.

[MHGinTN]

Since February, you have posted on exactly two threads that were not religion oriented, one on Ron Silver and one on Bibi’s election in Israel. Your posts are a study in contradicting yourself and agitprop efforts to incite an argument for you to enjoy. Are you related to freeper Non Sequitur?

[DouglasKC]

Mark:18-19 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) It seems that Mark once again disagrees with your assessmen

Not Mark, but translators. This is again a translator bias. The phrase "Thus he declared all foods clean" doesn't appear in many translations. For example the King James Revised:

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Christ meant something entirely different. The issue again was eating with unwashed hands, not eating pork. Fretting over one speck of filth defiling an otherwise CLEAN piece of meat was silly.

And Peter told us what his vision meant and it had nothing to do with clean or unclean food.

And Romans 14 was about early Christians refusing to eat otherwise clean meat that had been brought in the "shambles" a meat market, that may have been used in pagan sacrifice rituals.

[r9etb]

It seems that Mark once again disagrees with your assessment, as well as Peter's vision, but that's OK. If you wish to observe the food laws, then go right ahead, but we are clearly shown that all foods have become clean.

Well, sure ... but what did Mark know?

[safisoft]

Asking an idiot question such as that proves you have little or no familiarity with the Bible, and The God Whom created you is an alien concept you cannot grasp.

Please, explain it to me. I am all ears.

Honoring the Almighty with your lips, and not an obedient heart is serious, would you not agree? I think the WHOLE Bible is valid and life-giving. My Savior said something about it:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19

[DouglasKC]

The food laws, on the other hand, were something that Christ himself commanded.
Proof, please?

Lev 11:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

[safisoft]

Since February, you have posted on exactly two threads that were not religion oriented, one on Ron Silver and one on Bibi’s election in Israel. Your posts are a study in contradicting yourself and agitprop efforts to incite an argument for you to enjoy. Are you related to freeper Non Sequitur?

Ad hominem is the defense of the indefensible.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“There’s not enough information to judge whether it’s a moral or practical issue.”

Incorrect. The law is stated and stated simply enough. You already essentially admitted you understood it to mean blends were wrong to wear. So, if you wear them, are you violating the law (the answer has to be YES) and is that morally permissable (the answer to that logically must be NO). Thus, according to your own logic, to wear blends is morally wrong. Now, do you believe that or do you, according to your own reasoning, deny the law of God?

“I would say that if God said not to do it then there’s a good reason not to do it. That reason may not be evident, but it’s still there.”

So, it is morally allowable for people to wear blends and do you do so?

[safisoft]

Maybe instead of assuming that I believe everything to the LEFT of Matthew 1:1 is INVALID, you should consider that you have no idea what I believe and that you just made a fool out of yourself.

I am quite sorry. I assumed that when you said that some Scriptures were not valid that you meant it.