Posted on 04/10/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Consider these important facts. First, Easter Sunday is traditionally revered as the day of Jesus' resurrection—although the Bible clearly states that He had already risen before Sunday dawned in the city of Jerusalem.
Second, even though Good Friday is generally observed as the traditional day of His crucifixion, Christ Himself told the disciples that He would be in the grave for all of three days and three nights. How can three days and three nights possibly fit between a Friday-afternoon crucifixion and a Sunday-morning resurrection?
Third, the word Easter is not found in the Greek New Testament. Nor is there biblical mention of or instruction to observe Lent.
Finally, unlike the specific instruction to commemorate Christ's death, there is absolutely no commandment in the New Testament to observe the date of Jesus' resurrection. Yet today's religious customs are so ingrained in the church calendar that many would consider it heretical to question them.
Most of the world is scarcely aware that the original apostles did not institute or keep these customs, nor were they observed by the early Christian Church. Try as you might to find them, Lent, Good Friday and Easter are not so much as mentioned in the original Greek wording of the New Testament. (The word Easter appears only once in the King James Version of the Bible—in Acts 12:4—where it is flagrantly mistranslated from the Greek word pascha, which should be translated "Passover," as most versions render it.)
The justification for the Lenten 40-day preparation for Easter is traditionally based on Jesus' 40-day wilderness fast before His temptation by Satan (Harper's Bible Dictionary, "Lent"; Matthew 4:1-2; Mark 1:13). The problem with this explanation is that this incident is not connected in any way with Jesus' supposed observance of Easter. The 40-day pre-Easter practice of fasting and penance did not originate in the Bible.
Many people still follow such practices, assuming that such activities honor God and are approved by Him. But, we should ask, how does God regard such extrabiblical customs? Consider God's instructions to those who would worship Him:
"Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, emphasis added throughout).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes: "The term Easter was derived from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eostre,' the name of the goddess of spring. In her honor sacrifices were offered at the time of the vernal [spring] equinox" (1982, Vol. 2, "Easter").
Many battles were fought over its observance date, but the Council of Nicea finally fixed the date of Easter in A.D. 325 to fall on the first Sunday after the full moon on or after the vernal equinox (March 21).
Not generally known is that "the preparation for Easter season, beginning on Ash Wednesday and continuing for a week after Easter Day, was filled with pagan customs that had been revised in the light
of Christianity. Germanic nations, for example, set bonfires in spring. This custom was frowned on by the Church, which tried to suppress it . . . In the sixth and seventh centuries [monks] came to Germany, [bringing] their earlier pagan rites[,] and would bless bonfires outside the church building on Holy Saturday. The custom spread to France, and eventually it was incorporated into the Easter liturgy of Rome in the ninth century. Even today the blessing of the new fire is part of the Vigil of Easter.
"Medieval celebrations of Easter began at dawn. According to one old legend, the sun dances on Easter morning, or makes three jumps at the moment of its rising, in honor of Christ's resurrection. The rays of light penetrating the clouds were believed to be angels dancing for joy.
"Some Easter folk traditions that have survived today are the Easter egg, rabbit and lamb. During medieval times it was a tradition to give eggs at Easter to servants. King Edward I of England had 450 eggs boiled before Easter and dyed or covered with gold leaf. He then gave them to members of the royal household on Easter day. The egg was an earlier pagan symbol of rebirth and was presented at the spring equinox, the beginning of the pagan new year.
"The Easter rabbit is mentioned in a German book of 1572 and also was a pagan fertility symbol. The Easter lamb goes back to the Middle Ages; the lamb, holding a flag with a red cross on a white field, represented the resurrected Christ [rather than the sacrifice of His life, as a fulfillment of the Passover lamb, that paid for the sins of the world (John 1:29)]" (Anthony Mercatante, Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, 1988, "Easter").
Easter traditions are embraced by many who profess Christianity. Yet none of these practices are found in the Bible or the customs of the early Church. Jesus and His apostles did not establish or perpetuate such practices, which obscure the true biblical meanings and observances of this time of year. In fact, a fourth-century church historian, Socrates Scholasticus, wrote in his Ecclesiastical History that neither the apostles nor the Gospels taught the observance of Easter, nor did they or Jesus give a law requiring the keeping of this feast. Instead, "the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom" (chapter 22, emphasis added).
Even as early as the close of the second century, the theologian Irenaeus bore witness in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, that some early Roman bishops forbade the observance of Passover on the 14th of Nisan. This was the date of the biblical observance practiced each spring by Jesus and the apostles. At the time that the Nisan 14 Passover observance was banned, ecclesiastical authorities introduced Lent and Easter into Christian practice.
A century later the Syriac Didascalia recorded the attempts of teachers in Rome to reconcile Jesus' words that He would be entombed "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40) with a Friday-afternoon crucifixion and a Sunday-morning resurrection. According to their reasoning, Jesus' sufferings were part of the three days and three nights of Scripture. Friday morning from 9 to noon was counted as the first day, and noon to 3 p.m. (which was darkened) was considered the first night. Three in the afternoon to sunset was reckoned as the second day, whereas Friday night to Saturday morning constituted the second night. The daylight part of Saturday was the third day, and the night portion to Sunday morning was the third night.
In other words, the three days and three nights in the grave that Jesus said would be the sign that He was indeed sent from God were transformed into a period of two days and two nights, or a total of no more than 48 hours. This has subsequently been reduced even further in modern times by figuring from late afternoon Friday to early Sunday morning, which takes away another 12 hours or more. Such reasoning has to discount or somehow explain away Jesus' clear promise that He would be entombed three days and three nights.
Easter and Lent are nonbiblical and were not observed by the apostles or the first-century Church. The biblical record shows, however, that the early Church diligently kept other observances, the New Testament Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, just as Jesus and the apostles had done (Matthew 26:17-19; Acts 20:6; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 11:23-26). These were supplanted in later years by the customs and practices of Easter and Lent.
Passover is an annual reminder of Jesus' sacrificial death to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:26-28). The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a celebration that focuses on a Christian's need to live in sincerity, truth and purity (1 Corinthians 5:8). The nonbiblical festivals of Lent and Easter, added decades after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, only cloud the true significance of Christ's life, death and resurrection and the purpose of His coming.
The Passover, instituted in Exodus 12, continues by Jesus Christ's example and command—but with a change of symbols. Jesus' death fulfilled the symbolism of the sacrificial Passover lamb (Matthew 26:17-28; John 1:29). However, the New Testament Passover has been improperly replaced as an annual memorial of the death of Christ by Easter. We are commanded to commemorate Christ's death, not His resurrection (1 Corinthians 11:23-28).
Jesus Christ's promise was fulfilled exactly as He said, a fact that is made clear when we study and compare the Gospel accounts. These records give a clear, logical explanation that is perfectly consistent with Christ's words. Let's focus on Jesus' last days on earth to gain the proper perspective and understanding of how and when these events occurred.
Jesus said that, like the prophet Jonah, He would be entombed three days and three nights and that He would be raised up the third day after His crucifixion and death (Matthew 12:39-40; 17:23; 20:19). Putting these scriptures together, we see that He was resurrected at the end of the third day after His death. Luke 23:44 shows that He died around the ninth hour (Jewish reckoning), or 3 p.m. He would have been buried within the next few hours so that His body could be entombed before the approaching Sabbath (John 19:31).
Jesus' resurrection could not have been
on a Sunday morning because John 20:1-2 shows that He had already risen before Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early in the morning, arriving "while it was still dark." Therefore, neither could His death have occurred Friday afternoon, since that would not allow for His body to be in the grave three days and three nights. Clearly, the Good Friday-Easter Sunday explanation and tradition is without scriptural foundation.
Notice also that John 19:31 mentions that the Sabbath immediately after Jesus' death was "a high day"—not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (from Friday evening to Saturday evening), but one of the annual Sabbaths, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Leviticus 23:6-7), which can fall on any day of the week.
In fact, two Sabbaths—first an annual Holy Day and then the regular weekly Sabbath—are mentioned in the Gospel accounts, a detail overlooked by most people. This can be proven by comparing Mark 16:1 with Luke 23:56.
Mark's account tells us, "Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1). However, Luke's account describes how the women who followed Jesus saw how His body was laid in the tomb. "Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils" for the final preparation of the body. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56).
Mark tells us that the women bought the spices after the Sabbath, "when the Sabbath was past." Luke, however, tells us that they prepared the spices and oils, "and they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment." How could the women have bought spices after the Sabbath, yet then prepared them and rested on the same Sabbath?
That is obviously impossible—unless two Sabbaths are involved, with a day between them. Once we realize this, the two accounts become clear (see "The Chronology of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection," p. 18). Christ died near 3 p.m. and was placed in the tomb near sunset that day—a Wednesday in the year 31. That evening began the "high day" Sabbath, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on Thursday that year. The women rested on that day, then on Friday purchased and prepared the spices and oils for Jesus' body, which could not be done on either the Holy Day or the weekly Sabbath. They then rested again on the weekly Sabbath before going to the tomb before daybreak on Sunday morning, at which time they discovered that Christ had already been resurrected.
The fact that two Sabbaths are involved is confirmed by Matthew 28:1, where the women went to the tomb "after the Sabbath." The Sabbath mentioned here is actually plural in the original Greek and should be translated "Sabbaths." Some Bible versions, including Alfred Marshall's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Ferrar Fenton's translation, Green's Literal Translation and Young's Literal Translation, make this clear.
Once we realize that two Sabbaths were involved—first an annual Holy Day, which was observed from Wednesday evening until Thursday evening, and the normal weekly Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, the fulfillment of Christ's words becomes clear.
The Savior of all humanity died near 3 p.m. on Wednesday and was buried shortly before sunset that day. From Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset is one day and one night; from then until Friday sunset is two days and two nights; and from then until Saturday sunset is three days and three nights. Jesus Christ was resurrected at the end of this three-day and three-night period, near sunset on Saturday. Thus He was already risen long before the women came to the tomb before daylight on Sunday morning.
Jesus Christ's words were thus perfectly fulfilled, as verified by the Gospel accounts. He was not crucified on Friday afternoon, nor was He resurrected on a Sunday morning. The biblical evidence shows the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition to be a fabrication.
A correct harmonization of all the facts demonstrates that Jesus died near 3 p.m. that Wednesday afternoon, was entombed near sunset and was resurrected near sunset on Saturday, exactly three days and three nights later—just as He had stated. These are the facts, the correct biblical chronology that verifies the identity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
The chart on page 18 gives a day-by-day chronology of these events as described in the Gospel accounts.
Actually, the principal festivals and holidays observed by mainstream Christendom are a poor and pale reflection of true biblical teachings. Easter and Lent are a poor substitute for the wondrous truths revealed by keeping God's feasts.
The New Testament Church continued to observe the annual Passover to commemorate the death of Jesus Christ, but used the new symbols of bread and wine that He instituted (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Today the members of the United Church of God commemorate this eminently important event in the same manner, in accordance with Christ's instructions. Again, the Bible contains no record of the Church observing Easter or Lent during the time of the apostles, nor any biblical command to observe Good Friday or Easter Sunday, especially since Christ did not die on Good Friday and was not resurrected on Easter Sunday. Instead, the apostles faithfully followed Christ's instructions to observe the biblical Passover "in remembrance" of Him (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). GN
You know, this is pretty funny DoorGunner- here the individual cites his own material to show himself as an authority. It is a good thing he is the author and can secure his own permissions to publish.
"His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way."
"...One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves."
Well again this is talking about justification in the sight of God by keeping the law.
What law? I asked you how it is that Gentiles, who did not have the written law, come under condemnation for transgession of the law they never had. You are talking here about people who DO have the law, which is not what I asked about. You had said that that the Gentiles referred to in Romans 2:14, 15 are not really heathen Gentiles, but converted Gentiles, i.e. Christians. You think it must be referring to Gentile Christians because it says they keep the requirements of the law. Well, that is circular reasoning and it leaves unexplained how the heathen come under condemnation for not obeying a law that they were never under, i.e. the law of Moses. How can the heathen break a law when they have no law to break? How can they keep a law they don't have? Why are they under condemnation then?
Cordially,
There is no dilemma. You have a misunderstanding of the question. I'm under grace, not law. In context that means that I was justified and am justified by the blood of Jesus Christ and not through any law keeping. But I'm not trying to be justified by allowing the Lord to keep his law through me. I'm being obedient and doing the will of the Lord.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
I have already stipulated that the old covenant consisted of more than just the 10 commandments, but it does you no good. "More than" than just the ten commandments is a tacit admission that the ten commandments are included, which destroys your whole theory. The covenant and the commandments are the same thing.
I don't understand your thought here. Did the 10 commandments just appear out of nowhere? Did God just make them up on Mt. Sinai? They existed as eternal Godly laws before they were codified and written in stone.
See Did the Ten Commandments Exist Before Moses?
They became part of the old covenant true but as I've said multiple times and it should be obvious that "terms of a covenant" and a covenant are not the same thing. The terms are what Israel agreed to do. The covenant encompasses that plus God's promises if the people abided by those terms.
Did it ever occur to you that what you call "the law of God" was also written in the book by Moses and was placed beside the ark? The ten commandments in full were written twice by Moses in the book
Many times. Only the ten commandments on the tablets of stone were placed inside the ark. In the heart of the ark. In the midst of the ark of God. God's law are written in believers. In the hearts of believers. In the midst of believers. The book of law was carried outside of the ark.
They broke it. He revoked it. A revoked Covenant is no longer in force. You have admitted that it was the Ten Commandment law that was "written and engraved in stones". Well, whatever it was that Paul said was done away was the thing "written and engraved in stones", which you have admitted is the Ten Commandments.
Well again, it's the old covenant that has faded away. Let's put it this way.
Hbr 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.
Clearly Paul is speaking about the covenant. To justify your view that it's the laws of God, the ten commandments, that have faded away you have to say these are one and the same.
he book from which Ezra reed is called "the book of the law of Moses" in verse 1. Verse 2 calls it "the law." Verse 3 calls it "the book of the law." And verse 8 says "they read in the book of the law of God." So "the law." "the book of the law," "the book of the law of Moses," and "the law of God" are all the same thing. I challenge you to explain all these things in the light of your theory.
I don't see your point. What is it you want me to explain?
That's what you assume, but have yet to prove. You must prove that the commandments of the new covenant are THE SAME as those of the old covenant. You have thus far offered no evidence that the SAME LAWS, including Sabbath keeping, of the old covenant will be written on the heart in the new covenant.
lol...I suspect that you would have no problem with this if it weren't for that pesky sabbath commandment.
Exactly what laws do you think God writes on the hearts on his servants?
Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
All people are under condemnation for transgressing the law of God and have been since Adam and Eve sinned.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Paul didn't say all gentiles were blameless. Just the opposite. Everyone is a sinner, a violator of God's laws.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
God had laws and commandments before the old covenant.
Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
Note that this is before the "old covenant" was established.
Gen 39:9 "There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?"
Again before the covenant was established. Joseph knew that he sinned against God.
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
In both examples above (and there's more) sin was imputed before the old covenant was established. Therefore there was "law".
You are talking here about people who DO have the law, which is not what I asked about. You had said that that the Gentiles referred to in Romans 2:14, 15 are not really heathen Gentiles, but converted Gentiles, i.e. Christians. You think it must be referring to Gentile Christians because it says they keep the requirements of the law.
Of course it's referring to gentile Christians. To believe otherwise goes against scripture in a million different ways. If gentiles already have God's laws written on their hearts then there's no need for a new covenant. And if there's no need for a new covenant there's no need for the sacrifice of Christ.
I'm under grace, not law. In context that means that I was justified and am justified by the blood of Jesus Christ and not through any law keeping. But I'm not trying to be justified by allowing the Lord to keep his law through me. I'm being obedient and doing the will of the Lord.
Why was it so hard to get out of you that you are under grace and not law? The question at issue of course is whether or not your thinking is correct that keeping certain Mosaic requirements is really God's will.
They became part of the old covenant true but as I've said multiple times and it should be obvious that "terms of a covenant" and a covenant are not the same thing. The terms are what Israel agreed to do. The covenant encompasses that plus God's promises if the people abided by those terms.
The terms of the covenant are the terms of the covenant, which include the Ten Commandments. The terms are not Israel's agreement. The terms are what they agreed to. It says, to abide by them. To abide by what? To agree to abide by their agreement? That is absurd.
Ex. 19:5God does not refer to their agreement which they made with him, but to the covenant which he made with them. And that covenant which God made was the old covenant that was done away. He said they broke his covenant
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.
Jeremiah 31:32God said they broke his covenant not merely their agreement. So their agreement was not his covenant, but his covenant which they broke was taken away. Again, it was the covenant that God made:
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.
Deuteronomy 4:13
13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.
Clearly Paul is speaking about the covenant. To justify your view that it's the laws of God, the ten commandments, that have faded away you have to say these are one and the same.
It should be obvious from all of the above that it's not just me who is saying it. I don't know what can be plainer than Deuteronomy 4:13. He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments. You tell me, try taking away the words of the covenant and see what you have left. Here, I have a proposed contract for you to sign. It has no words in it. It has no terms, and it is obsolete, but just go ahead and sign it anyway, and consider it binding.
The tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written were called "the tablets of the covenant":
Deuteronomy 9:9And you're right; the tablets were place in the ark, which was called "the ark of the covenant"
9"When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; (A)I neither ate bread nor drank water.
Deuteronomy 31:9
9So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi (A)who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.
The ten commandments are called "the words of the covenant":
Exodus 34:27, 28
27Then the LORD said to Moses, "(AO)Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made (AP)a covenant with you and with Israel."28So he was there with the LORD (AQ)forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water And (AR)he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, (AS)the Ten Commandments.
This is the covenant Israel broke and God took away.
The terms of an obsolete covenant that has been revoked are no longer in force.
lol...I suspect that you would have no problem with this if it weren't for that pesky sabbath commandment.
Exactly what laws do you think God writes on the hearts on his servants?
See 1,025 DoorGunner has already answered it well enough.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the laws written on the heart are THE SAME laws of the old covenant. Thus far you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that they are the SAME LAWS that bind Christians. You just assume it.
Cordially,
I agree. But as I said, what law? You said that gentiles do not have the law by nature. On what basis then are they condemned? How can they violate a law they do not have?
I know how Paul takes away the excuse of the heathen who do not have the revealed law of Moses, I just don't know how you do it. You have admitted previously that God's covenant with Israel and the law of Moses was NOT made for,and did not apply to strangers, foreigners or uncircumcised Gentiles as Gentiles outside Israel. So on what basis are the heathen condemned? How can they be condemned where there is no law? You say there was law before the old covenant, and I agree, but what law do you say they were they under, since you say that they do not have the law by nature?
Cordially,
The question at issue of course is whether or not your thinking is correct that keeping certain Mosaic requirements is really God's will.
Define what you mean by "Mosaic requirements".
They became part of the old covenant true but as I've said multiple times and it should be obvious that "terms of a covenant" and a covenant are not the same thing. The terms are what Israel agreed to do. The covenant encompasses that plus God's promises if the people abided by those terms.
The terms of the covenant are the terms of the covenant, which include the Ten Commandments. The terms are not Israel's agreement. The terms are what they agreed to. It says, to abide by them. To abide by what? To agree to abide by their agreement? That is absurd.
Read my statement again. Based on your answer I don't think your read it correctly.
He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments. You tell me, try taking away the words of the covenant and see what you have left. Here, I have a proposed contract for you to sign. It has no words in it. It has no terms, and it is obsolete, but just go ahead and sign it anyway, and consider it binding.
I'm really having a tough time understanding your logic. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. A formal contract so to speak. Actions and terms are agreed upon. In the case of the old covenant, Israel promised that they would do all those things that God commanded:
Exo 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient."
They agreed to do what the Lord said. Part of what he said was the ten commandments. Those laws were part of the terms of the old covenant. They weren't the covenant itself. They aren't interchangeable. Look at what happens when you try to make them so:
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law"old covenant" of God according to the inward man.
Rom 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law"old covenant" are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law"old covenant" will be justified;
Silly huh?
Exactly what laws do you think God writes on the hearts on his servants? See 1,025 DoorGunner has already answered it well enough.
Define "love". I say that the words of the ten commandments define perfect love toward God and toward man. It's the objective and subjective definition of spiritual, mental and physical "love". Doorgunner quoted:
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
"Fullfill" is pleroo, which was discussed earlier. It means to fill up to the full. Fill to the full. Not "do away with". Love FILLS the written law full. If you love your neighbor,as as Paul said, there is NO way you would dream about harming them because you love them so much. As a result you are ALSO keeping those commandments. You won't covet. You won't steal. You won't lie because all these things are not of LOVE.
It's the same with the first 4 commandments and love toward God. IF we really love with all our hearts, souls and mind then the natural result is that we won't have any other Gods, we won't use him name carelessly or in vain, we won't build up worship idols and we will honor his sabbath. It's the result of LOVE and obedience.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the laws written on the heart are THE SAME laws of the old covenant. Thus far you haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove that they are the SAME LAWS that bind Christians. You just assume it.
Nope, I"m just agreeing with Paul.
The laws we call the ten commmandments were and are always there. They are eternal laws, unchangable, immutable, that if violated is sin. The difference between gentiles and Israel was that God defined these principles and put them into words for Israel so Israel would know them and recognize them. God cultivated Israel to be his special people:
Deu 14:2 For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
In the example of the cultivated and the wild olive trees that Paul used, God cultivated Israel. There were wild olive trees, gentiles. For the sake of argument think of "pruning" as a Godly law. We know that pruning a tree can make it grow better and bear more fruit. Well, if nobody ever told you about pruning you probably wouldn't do it unless it were by accident. But if someone TOLD you about pruning then you would do it to increase the health of the tree.
In the same way God's laws apply to everyone. But back in the day, God told Israel about these laws. He defined them and instructed them on how they apply and how they would benefit them. He didn't do this for gentiles. This is how Israel had the law by nature and gentiles didn't.
Rom 11:24 For if you (gentiles) were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree (Israel)?
Gentiles who were grafted into Israel then had access to these definitions of God's laws and could apply them and use them. The catch was that they would have to enter into the same covenant relationship. Those who believed that Jesus was the messiah remained on the tree or in the case of gentiles were grafted in. Those who didn't were cast off.
"[...] But back in the day, God told Israel about these laws. He defined them and instructed them on how they apply and how they would benefit them. He didn't do this for gentiles."
Yes, I know. Why are Gentiles condemned?
Cordially,
What scripture are you referring to?
In quoting part of your statement to make its meaning clear I may have inadvertently implied that I agree with that portion of your statement. I do not agree with it. And Moses didn't seem to be convinced of the truth of your assertion, either:
Deuteronomy 5:3
3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
And neither did the early church:
Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that I am God who redeemed you."
Justin
Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
Cordially,
Romans 2:12
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
Cordially,
The old covenant, the binding agreement, that the Lord made with Israel in Horeb of course wasn't made with their fathers. It was made with them.
You're having a tough time getting the sense of scripture because you believe the old covenant and the ten commandments are the same. They're not.
Lev 26:45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.' "
Lev 26:46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.
All of these things were the terms of the old covenant.
And neither did the early church: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses...
I don't take the opinions of others as gospel. But scripture doesn't say whether or not these people kept the sabbath. But of Abraham:
Gen 26:4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
God's law, commandments and statutes existed BEFORE, long before, the old covenant was instituted. It's not unreasonable to believe that his sabbath was known and taught to his servants.
I don't think that this verse is condemning gentiles specifically. I think it's saying that both gentiles and jews are marked as sinners. In the case of the jews they are sinners despite being God's covenant people. In the case of the gentiles even though God didn't define and reveal his laws to them the transgression of these eternal laws still warrant death.
That there were eternal laws that were violated before the old covenant is evident from scripture.
Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD.
If there were no Godly laws then how were the men of Sodom sinful?
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Yes, but as you said in #1082:
Again before the covenant was established. Joseph knew that he sinned against God."Sin is not imputed where there is no law." You have said that God didn't define and reveal his laws to Gentiles. Never mind the issue of God's fairness in condemning people for not obeying a law they did not know because it had never been revealed to them, that they had never heard, and that they were never under, why are Gentiles without the law condemned as sinners, (which you have correctly pointed out is the case) since "sin is not imputed where there is no law."? At the same time, Romans 2:12 does clearly indicate that all who have sinned "without the Law will also perish without the Law", which implies that people sinned "without the Law". And yet, Romans 5:18 clearly indicates that all men, Jew and Gentile alike are under condemnation:Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
In both examples above (and there's more) sin was imputed before the old covenant was established. Therefore there was "law".
...as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men..."How do you explain this apparent contradiction? I do not believe it is a contradiction, and I know how to explain it, but I would like to know how you explain the seeming discrepancy.
Cordially,
Fair enough. But Justin was sure a lot closer to the practice of the early church than William Miller.
But scripture doesn't say whether or not these people kept the sabbath.
It sure doesn't. You can search the scriptures till you're blue in the face for a Sabbath on which man rested before Moses’ time. There is no record of one in scripture. It's just not there. Your argument is from silence. You base a whole doctrine that the Ten Commandments were practiced without any Scripture record of it whatsoever, all the while chiding us for lack of explicit reference for Sunday worship, even though the New Testament is NOT silent, for we have "The Lord's Day".
But of Abraham:
Gen 26:4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
God's law, commandments and statutes existed BEFORE, long before, the old covenant was instituted. It's not unreasonable to believe that his sabbath was known and taught to his servants.
If you have to resort to, "it's not unreasonable", what that really means is that you've got no Scriptural support for it. You can't just get one foot down in bounds. You've got to get both feet down in bounds. On this one you're out of Scriptural bounds. You've got Sabbath Syndrome. Every time you see the word commandment, or statutes, or laws it's either the Ten or is the Sabbath, or something. If you want to appeal to reason alone, though, then you can't just assume what you must prove.
Your logic is that this was commandments, therefore Abraham kept the Sabbath. You're just assuming what you need to prove, i.e., that this was the 10 commandments. But Paul said in Galations 3:16, 17, this was 430 years before the the Ten Commandments were given. How could he keep what was not yet given? And not only that, the word, "sabbath" never appears in the book of Genesis.
Even supposing Abraham did keep the Sabbath, would that prove that it is binding on Christians now? Abraham kept the law of circumcision and offered animal sacrifices. Why don't you take that as authority to bind these things upon Christians?
There is simply no way to understand the following passage of Scripture if you deny that the law has both a historical beginning and historical ending:
Romans 5:13The words "before the law" in Romans 5:13 cannot possibly refer to anything other than the covenant given at Sinai. The "law" did not exist before that time. The words "before the law" mean "before the law." Those words clearly mean that the "law" had a historical beginning at Mt Sinai. The words "the law was added" make no sense if the law was already there. The law was added at Sinai or Paul is talking nonsense. The law that was "added" at Sinai had reference specifically to "transgressions." The ministry of the law ("the ministry of death") that began at Sinai ended when Christ came. There has to be both a historical beginning and ending to the law or Paul is talking in circles. There was a given point in time when this law "was put in charge" and there was another point in time when we ceased to be any longer "under the supervision of the law".
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.Rom 5:20
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.Galatians 3:19
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.Galatians 3:24,25
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Cordially,
Think of the law of gravity. You don't have to be knowledable about it to suffer the consequences of breaking it. If you don't abide by it's rules you're going to die. It's a natural part of the universe. It's the same with God's laws. They're built into the fabric of our reality. You abide by them, things go well. You don't, you suffer.
...as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men..." How do you explain this apparent contradiction? I do not believe it is a contradiction, and I know how to explain it, but I would like to know how you explain the seeming discrepancy.
Let's stick to the gravity example. Newton supposedly "discovered" the law of gravity. After its discovery it became possible to use the mathematics behind this to build things based upon mathmatical laws.
That's essentially what happened with Israel and how God taught his laws to Israel.
All will by judged by Law
"12 For as many as lawless sin as lawless also will perish: even as many as according to Law sin, through law will be judged." (DLT: torahtimes.org, Rom. 2:12).
___
1. Whether at the last judgment, or whether in Messiah, all are judged or will be judged by the Torah. Better to be judged in Messiah. 2. The lawless do sin, and the lawless do perish, but it will be the law that sentences them to perish. 3. The lawless sin according to the Law, therefore, the Law will judge them. 4. One may exclude themselves from the first statement if they are in Messiah and are not in willful rebellion, but the second statement still applies, except we are judged by the Law in Messiah.
___
Well, the translators did a real doozy of screwing up this text. Let's just take a look at the ESV for a minute, "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." What does this translation say? It says that if someone does not have the law, then the the law will have nothing to do with them perishing. It says also if someone is "under the law" or implies that if they put themselves "under the law" then and only then will the Law judge them. Nothing could be further from what Paul said, and no Greek could be more perverted. Yet, this is exactly what the lawless Church teaches.
___
Firstly let's look at the words "as lawless" (ανομως). This word is composed of three parts: α- = less, -νομ-(ος) = law, -ως=as. The word is an adverb. BDAG gives just one formal gloss, "lawlessly " (pg. 86, 3rd edition), and indeed we could have used it, "As many as lawlessly sin lawlessly, also will perish". However, the adverbial information is contained in the suffix -ως, which can be looked up as the separate word "as, like". An adverb tells us the manner of something or the manner in which the action of a verb happens. He did it lawless+ly, i.e. in a lawless manner, or "as lawless", "being lawless". The end phrase is a bit awkward in the "-ly" form: "....lawlessly[,] also will perish" implying in English that somehow the perishing is unjustified. It is not clear how the sentence should be punctuated based on semantics alone. However, since we know that the perishing is justified, a comma will be appropriate after the second "lawlessly". The Greek is not so restricted as English, and the adverbial suffix -ως may be rendered "as lawless", which is preferable since the English meaning will not need to be punctuated.
___
Second "according to Law sin", εν νομω ημαρτον = "legally sin" or "lawfully sin" (cf. BDAG εννομος, pg. 337). The idea is "in connection with law" or "in respect to law". The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, says, "In the first instance it simply means 'according to law' ...." (Vol. IV, page 1087). By no means does it mean "under law" (ESV), (cf. similar mistranslation in Rom. 3:19).
___
The connotation neutral periphrasis "without law" is not the usual understanding of ανομος. And the adverbial form ανομως is even more connotative of "lawlessly", "lawless-as"; It is regularly in the sense of "lawless" in the LXX and elsewhere in the NT, except in 1Cor. 9:21, "To those without customs as without custom, not being without the Law of God, but according to the Law of Messiah...." In spite of the fact that Greek allows "without custom" instead of "lawless", Paul feels it is necessary to add "not being without the Law of God" to prevent a misunderstanding.
__
Finally, the ESV, and like translations cannot stand because in Romans 3:19 Paul says, "Now we know that what ever things the law says, it says to those with the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may under justice before God."
Daniel's Literal Translation and Commentary: (http://www.torahtimes.org/translation/rom0212.html)
You were very careful to say "before Moses' time". The simple fact of the matter is that the sabbath existed AND was kept BEFORE the old covenant existed...BEFORE the ten commandments were given.
Exd 16:23 And he said unto them, This [is that] which the LORD hath said, To morrow [is] the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake [that] which ye will bake [to day], and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
The events in Exodus 16 happen BEFORE the Israelites got to Mt. Sinai, where God spoke the ten commandments. BEFORE the old covenant was instituted. This proves beyond a doubt that the sabbath existed BEFORE the old covenant.
But of course that much is evident if you believe scripture. Because scripture says:
Gen 2:2 KJV - And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 KJV - And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
This IS the creation of the sabbath of our Lord. It exists as surely as God's word is true. It's holy and blessed by God and no amount of conversation can break this scripture. Jesus himself affirmed its creation:
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Jesus IS THE LORD OF THE SABBATH because it is HIS sabbath.
I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into this scripture too. When Paul is talking about the law he's talking about all the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the law such as sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood etc.
These laws were added to God's eternal laws because, as Paul said, because of "transgressions". If there were trangressions than that means that there were laws before to transgress. These temporary laws (sacrifices, etc.) were added to teach and reinforce concepts such as sin and the need for atonement, repentence, etc. Under the new covenant through Christ the spirit of God indwells and convicts us of our trangressions against God's laws.
It's the same thing spoken of here:
Galatians 3:24,25 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
The law of God IS the ten commandments. These were the only things spoken directly to the people at Sinai. They were the only things written on stone. Words spoken by the eternal and written on stone to symbolize eternal laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.