Posted on 12/25/2006 6:31:44 AM PST by DouglasKC
It's called the spirit of Christmas—the ringing of sleigh bells on a snowy night, Tiny Tim turning the heart of Scrooge in Charles Dickens' famous novel A Christmas Carol, Santa Claus and flying reindeer.
For many, it seems, the birth of Jesus takes a backseat to mythology, packed shopping malls and greed. Every year, signs in front of neighborhood churches remind people to put Christ back into Christmas—or proclaim "Jesus is the reason for the season."
But is He?
In his book 4,000 Years of Christmas: A Gift From the Ages (1997), Episcopal priest Earl Count enthusiastically relates historical connections between the exchanging of gifts on the 12 days of Christmas and customs originating in ancient, pagan Babylon. He shows that mistletoe was adopted from Druid mystery rituals and that Dec. 25 has more to do with the ancient Roman Saturnalia celebration than with Jesus.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Jesus' disciples observing His birthday.
In fact, as late as the third century the early Catholic theologian Origen declared that it was a sin to celebrate Christmas, viewing it as pagan.
First-century Corinth was a Greek city filled with polytheistic religions. Its customs included temple prostitution and priests who performed sacrifices to the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods.
The apostle Paul writes to the Church members there in 1 Corinthians 10:19-21: "What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons."
Paul clearly warns people to avoid having anything to do with pagan religious customs, labeling such actions "fellowship with demons"!
Familiar to early Christians was the Saturnalia, an ancient Roman festival celebrated during the last days of December in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture. Many ancient religions conducted festivals at that time of year, the time of the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, when days are the shortest, to appease the various gods to restore the sun and bring an end to winter.
The Roman Saturnalia included drunkenness, debauchery and other practices diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. Yet this holiday would eventually develop into Christmas. What happened to change many Christians from Paul's practice of abhorring and resisting pagan forms of worship to accepting and participating in such practices in the name of Jesus Christ?
Tremendous forces pressured early Christians away from the apostles' original instruction to avoid mixing idolatry with the worship of the true God. Thousands of pagans, while outwardly converting to Christianity, refused to give up the rituals and ceremonies of their former religious experiences.
Dr. Count sums up this historical struggle: "To the pagans, the Saturnalia were fun.
To the Christians, the Saturnalia were an abomination in homage to a disreputable god who had no existence anyway. The Christians, moreover, were dedicated to the slow, uphill task of converting these roistering pagan Romans.
"There were many immigrants into the ranks of the Christians by this time, but the Church Fathers discovered to their alarm that they were also facing an invasion of pagan customs. The habit of the Saturnalia was too strong to be left behind. At first the church forbade it, but in vain. When a river meets a boulder that will not be moved, the river flows around it. If the Saturnalia would not be forbidden, let it be tamed" (p. 36).
The church adopted Dec. 25—the date of the Roman Brumalia, immediately after Saturnalia—as the date of Christ's birth (even though biblical evidence shows this cannot be the right time of this event).
This date also marked a great festival in Mithraism, the Persian religion of the sun god. In A.D. 274 Emperor Aurelian of Rome declared Dec. 25 to be the "birthday of the invincible sun." In time the Son of God, Jesus Christ, became indistinguishable from the pagan sun god in the minds of hundreds of thousands of converts throughout the Roman Empire.
Instead of standing as Christ's force for change in the world, nominal Christianity was changed by the pagan world it was supposed to transform!
Dr. Count relates: "There exists a letter from the year 742 AD, in which Saint Boniface ... complains to Pope Zacharias that his labors to convert the heathen Franks and Alemans—Germanic tribes—were being handicapped by the escapades of the Christian Romans back home. The Franks and the Alemans were on the threshold of becoming Christians, but their conversion was retarded by their enjoyment of lurid carnivals.
"When Boniface tried to turn them away from such customs, they argued that they had seen them celebrated under the very shadow of Saint Peter's in Rome. Embarrassed and sorry, Pope Zacharias replied ... admitting that the people in the city of Rome behaved very badly at Christmas time" (p. 53).
Over the subsequent centuries, Christmas absorbed customs from German, Scandinavian and Celtic paganism—such as the yule log, the decorating of evergreen trees and the hanging of mistletoe.
In the Middle Ages, Christmas observances in Europe continued the excesses of Saturnalia. Dr. Penne Restad, in Christmas in America: A History, writes of the moral debate that raged during that era:
"Some clergy stressed that fallen humankind needed a season of abandonment and excess, as long as it was carried on under the umbrella of Christian supervision. Others argued that all vestiges of paganism must be removed from the holiday. Less fervent Christians complained about the unreasonableness of Church law and its attempts to change custom. Yet the Church sustained the hope that sacred would eventually overtake profane as pagans gave up their revels and turned to Christianity" (1996, p. 6).
Sadly, it didn't happen. Following the Middle Ages, some Protestants tried reforming Christmas but created little real change. The English Puritans waged a war on Christmas observance as unchristian behavior. In 1659 the holiday was outlawed in Massachusetts, but proved so popular that it gained official approval again in 1681.
A U.S. News & World Report cover story, "In Search of Christmas," states: "When Christmas landed on American shores, it fared little better. In colonial times, Christ's birth was celebrated as a wildly social event—if it was celebrated at all . . . Puritans in New England flatly refused to observe the holiday" (Dec. 23, 1996, p. 60).
In more modern times many Christians have become concerned about the commercialization of the day that is supposed to celebrate the birth of the Son of God. With parades featuring Santa Claus sponsored by department stores, half-price sales, and incessant TV and radio commercials, Christmas obviously has become more about the accountant's bottom line than about worshipping God.
Many people approach the yuletide season with a vague longing for a Christmas that is more spiritual and less commercial. But is our fast-paced, greed-filled rendition of Christmas the real problem, or is there something wrong with Christmas itself?
Christmas has become such a central holiday of American culture that it's difficult to get anyone to step back and evaluate its Christian validity. You be the judge.
Here are the facts: Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25. Christ's apostles rejected pagan ceremonies and rituals in their worship and told other Christians to likewise avoid them. The early Church didn't observe Jesus' birthday. The selection of Dec. 25 as Christ's supposed date of birth was based on the dates of the Roman Saturnalia and Brumalia—a time for worshiping the god Saturn.
Most Christmas customs—decorating the evergreen tree, use of mistletoe, exchanging of gifts, Santa Claus—come not from the Bible but from ancient pagan religions. For centuries Christianity tried unsuccessfully to rid itself of the paganism of Christmas. Throughout its history Christmas has inspired drunken parties, and the modern holiday is more about convincing children to harass their parents to buy toys than worshipping Christ.
What is your verdict? Some say, "But we can't take Christmas away from the children." Others: "As long as it brings people to Jesus, what does it matter?"
Earlier we saw Paul's instructions to Christians in pagan Corinth. He continues his instructions in his next letter to the Corinthians:
"For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? . . . Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? . . .
"Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you . . .' Therefore . . . let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 7:1).
Paul's point is very pertinent to Christmas. How can we claim to be honoring God with pagan customs and traditions that He forbids in His Word?
The crucial question is: How can we put Jesus back into the season when He was never part of it to begin with? It's a difficult question, isn't it? But it's one that's vitally important for you to answer. GN
Now I can be fooled some of the time.... but let's take another look at what you are saying here.
If....and you have agreed with me, he went into the tomb late Wednesday before sundown.....he would then spend the first day through Thursday at sundown. The second day would be through Friday at sundown and of course that leaves the Sabbath for a resurrection....the third day at sundown. Where do you arrive at three days and three nights to Sunday morning?
kata <2596> mian <3391> {EVERY FIRST [DAY]} sabbatwn<4521> {OF THE WEEK} ekastoV <1538> {EACH} umwn <5216> {OF YOU} par <3844> {BY} eautw <1438> {HIM} tiqetw <5087> (5720) {LET PUT,} qhsaurizwn <2343> (5723) {TREASURING UP} o <3739> ti <5100> an <302> {WHATEVER} euodwtai <2137> (5747) {HE MAY BE PROSPERED IN,} ina <2443> {THAT} mh <3361> {NOT} otan <3752> {WHEN} elqw <2064> (5632) {I MAY COME} tote <5119> {THEN} logiai <3048> {COLLECTIONS} ginwntai <1096> (5741) {THERE SHOULD BE.}
I didn't say it was in verse 8. I said Paul indicated he would be staying until Pentecost (verse 8) implying he would arrive during Passover and the counting of the Omer. The Greek translation here in verse 2 is best rendered as "the first of the Sabbaths".....not the first day of the week. If you look in your King James you will see the word "Day" italicized...meaning it was added. There were 2 High Sabbaths during Passover and 7 weekly Sabbaths counted to Pentecost!
Nevertheless....Corinthians 16 is not speaking of the Church meeting on the first day of the week.....but I doubt you will be able to admit this.
I don't believe I ever made the comment that Mark was not scripture. What I did say....was "Mark" was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus. He only wrote down what he heard Peter say. And that is why Mark 15 and Mark 16 are structured the way they are. Mark was not there. The confusion is caused by the Chapter and verse divisions...not by Mark or the Holy Spirit.
When Mark 15 includes the first verse of Mark 16 you can see the context flow. This is the way the original manuscripts looked before the Church inserted chapters and verses.
[Mark 15:42-48] 42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 48 1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
I have included Mark 16:1 at the end of the 15th chapter of Mark so you can see the context. You can see that the Sabbath being spoken of is the High Sabbath of [John 19:31] and not having any resemblance to the Saturday Sabbath as the Church of Rome would like you to believe.
The Christian is told no such thing.:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
I know you don't, or can't, believe this because it would require that you admit that you're wrong in your biblical knowledge, but this is really aimed at lurkers, so I'll explain the verse under the pretext that you're actually trying to comprehend it:
Paul, in Colossians 2, is addressing a certain issue. This issue involves the following elements:
Col 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
MEN with enticing words.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Philosophy, tradition of men, rudiments of the world.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
"Voluntary humility", angel worship.
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Commandments and doctrines of men.
So Paul is addressing an issue that has the following hallmarks: enticing words of MEN, philosophy, TRADITION of MEN, rudiments OF THE WORLD, voluntary humility, ANGEL WORSHIP, commandments and doctrines OF MEN.
Now you must believe that Paul was either a liar or an idiot. You must think that Paul doesn't know that the holy days created by the Lord and enumerated in scripture were created by God. You must think Paul was some uneducated pagan who didn't know scripture from a hole in the ground because you believe that Paul thinks the word of God is a "rudiment of the world".
For you to believe that Paul, in this chapter, is saying that God ordained, God given, God commanded holy days are a "rudiment of the world", a "philosophy of man" or a "vain deceit" is either blasphemy against God or an exercise in deception.
What you really should do is consider that Paul was addressing a form of ascetic gnosticism. You would be well advised to do a search on "ascetic gnosticism". When you're done researching, you will see, with your own two eyes, that this is exactly the type of philosophy that was begin preached to the new Christians at Colossae and this was exactly what Paul was addressing.
What this verse ACTUALLY urges Christians to do is to not LET these gnostics JUDGE them for HOW they were keeping the Lord's holy days. In other words, it's an affirmation that yes indeed, Christians do keep the Lord's days.
That is quite an amusing attempt to get out of what the verse says.
You jump to vs 18 and ignore what 14-17 actually say
In verse 14, Paul states that 'ordinances' were blotted out.
Those ordinances were the rituals of the Jewish Law (Acts.6:14, Eph.2:15).
Those rituals included all those listed in vs.16, which will come back in the Millennial reign.
Today, the Christian has only two ordinances that he is to follow, adult water baptism (once) and the Lords supper.
The passage is very clear and it lines up with Acts 15:24,
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Rom.14:5-6 and 2Cor.3:6, Gal.3:3-5.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say a Christian is to keep the Sabbath or tithe (and that will go against alot of Baptists).
Any verse can be explained away if you avoid context and approach it with that the view that it cannot say what it is actually saying.
So don't say that there are no verses that say we are not to observe 'holydays', there are at least two that say just that, Rom.14:5-6 and Col.2:16 and those are the clear readings of each passage.
Vs 18-19 begins a new subject,dealing with false mysticism.
vs.20-23 warns against asceticism.
A Book and chapter can be dealing with more than a single subject.
The Scofield introduction notes, Epaphras, who laboured in the Word in the assembly at Colosse, was Paul's fellow-prisoner at Rome. Doubtless from him Paul learned the state of that church. As to fundamentals that state was excellent ( 1:3-8), but in a subtle way two forms of error were at work: The first was legality in its Alexandrian form of asceticism, "touch not, taste not," with a trace of the Judaic observance of "days"; the object of which was the mortification of the body (cf Romans 8:13). The second form of error was false mysticism, "intruding into those things which he hath not seen"--the result of philosophic speculation. Because these are ever present perils, Colossians was written, not for that day only, but for the warning of the church in all days. http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=000
What you are implying is that Mark got it wrong!
Mark does not have to be there.
Moses was not there at the Creation either!
Mark states very clearly what happened and you are simply avoiding dealing with it by running to more obscure verses and the Greek to make it say what you want it to say
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Nothing can be more clearer then that.
And the other verse have to be interpeted in light of the clear verse.
When Mark 15 includes the first verse of Mark 16 you can see the context flow. This is the way the original manuscripts looked before the Church inserted chapters and verses. [Mark 15:42-48] 42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 48 1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. I have included Mark 16:1 at the end of the 15th chapter of Mark so you can see the context. You can see that the Sabbath being spoken of is the High Sabbath of [John 19:31] and not having any resemblance to the Saturday Sabbath as the Church of Rome would like you to believe.
I do not believe that Christ was crucified on a Friday.
Christ was crucified on a Wed.
He arose some time after sundown on Sat.
Stop swinging at strawmen.
Your changing the verse markings does nothing to change the meaning of the passages.
They brought the spices in the very early morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun (vs2)
Christ could have risen anytime after sundown on Sat, but if He did, that would still be Sunday Jewish time, since for the Jews, the day ends at Sunset (5-6pm) while our ends at Midnight.
You are saying that Christ probably rose on Sat but that would be considered Gentile time, not Jewish time.
As for the Greek original manuscripts, there would have been no separation between Mark 16 1 and 2, all the passages would have been read as a whole.
It is you that have arbitrary decided to break up the verses where you want them to be.
Because anytime after Sundown on Sat (Wed-Sat) would have been considered Sunday for the Jew.
Just like 12:01 is the new day for us.
Christ was discovered by the women in the early morning of Sunday to have risen.
You cannot shift back and forth from Jewish time to Gentile time.
We are getting three full days in the tomb (Matt.12:40) by reckoning Jewish time (Sundown-Sundown) and thus, sometime after the 3rd Sundown,at the start of the next day (using Jewish time) Christ arose.
There you go swinging at strawmen again!
Christ was buried in the tomb sundown Wednesday night, before the High Sabbath which began The Feast of Unleavened Bread. The sabbath that Mark.16 is speaking is referring to the Sat. Sabbath, there being two sabbaths in that week.
Evidently, some things just sail right over your head. I've explained this to you satisfactorily before.
No, it is you are confused, trying to shift verses around to get away from the clear reading of the passage.
Christ rose sometime after Sat.(sabbath) sundown, having spent three full sundowns in the tomb.
As for the order of the appearance of the women,
In the end of the Sabbath The order of events, combining the four narratives, is as follows: Three women, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, start for the sepulchre, followed by other women bearing spices. The three find the stone rolled away, and Mary Magdalene goes to tell the disciples. Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2. Mary, the mother of James and Joses, draws nearer the tomb and sees the angel of the Lord Matthew 28:2. She goes back to meet the other women following with the spices. Meanwhile Peter and John, warned by Mary Magdalene, arrive, look in, and go away John 20:3-10. Mary Magdalene returns weeping, sees the two angels and then Jesus John 20:11-18 and goes as He bade her to tell the disciples. Mary (mother of James and Joses), meanwhile, has met the women with the spices and, returning with them, they see the two angels. ; Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5. They also receive the angelic message, and, going to seek the disciples, are met by Jesus. Matthew 28:8-10. http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=028
Every translation that I have checked has has 'day' because the sense demands it.
And the day that the Church was regarding as 'sabbaths' was Sunday, not Saturday.
Moreover, taken literally, your reading from the Greek doesn't even make sense.
it says, Upon first of (no article in the Greek) sabbaths let every one of you lay by him in store....
This is what you get when you run to the Greek to find a way out of the English!
Nonsense.
Nevertheless....Corinthians 16 is not speaking of the Church meeting on the first day of the week.....but I doubt you will be able to admit this.
The Church was worshipping on Sunday, because that is the Day the Lord arose, sometime after Sundown on Sat.
And it is called the Lord's day in Rev.1:10, not the Sabbath.
Now, if Christians want to gather together on a Sat instead of a Sunday, that doesn't bother me at all.
Just don't call it 'sabbath observance' because the Christian (whether he meets on a Saturday or a Sunday) is not observing the Jewish Sabbath.
I'm trying to show you that you are "reading" what you think it says into what it actually says. You are reading with a preconceived idea.
You jump to vs 18 and ignore what 14-17 actually say In verse 14, Paul states that 'ordinances' were blotted out. Those ordinances were the rituals of the Jewish Law (Acts.6:14, Eph.2:15).
I agree with you that these "ordinances" could very well have been rituals of Jewish law. Let's look at verse 14:
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Here's what you're doing. You're reading the word translated "ordinances" and then jumping to the conclusion that these "ordinances" are God's commands and that they have been "done away with" by having them nailed to the cross. You[re further hindered in the fact that you won't consider ANY other translation other than the King James, the one you've locked yourself into. But I'm going to once again try.
I'm going to look at two words. Let's start with "ordinances".
ORDINANCES
This is the greek word "dogma":
from G1380; an opinion, (a public) decree: - decree (1), decrees (3), ordinances (1).
In scripture "dogma" isn't used very much. But every time it does, it refers to manmade decrees, not decrees directly from God:
Act 17:7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees (dogma) of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree (dogma) from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Sometimes men who worship God make "dogma", as evidenced by the council of Jerusalems decision about the gentiles in Acts 15:
Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees (dogma) for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogma); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
In Ephesians, "dogma" refers to the added in laws of the Jewish religion. ADDED. They weren't original commands of God, but LAWS of the jewish religion. Traditions. Dogma of their faith.
But let's actually look at the word "ordinances" as used in other places in the King James because this is why you're getting confused and being led astray.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances (dikaioma)of the Lord blameless.
Note that this is NOT "dogma". It's a different greek word, "dikaioma".
DIKAIOMA
dik-ah'-yo-mah
From G1344; an equitable deed; by implication a statute or decision: - judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness.
Let's look at another:
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance (diatage) of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Note once again that it's an entirely different greek word, which by definition conveys an entirely different concept. I won't both with definitions from here on out, I'll assume that you have access to a greek lexicon.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (paradosis), as I delivered them to you.
Yet one more:
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance (ktsis) of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
So in the King James, the word "ordinance" is substituted for at least 5 DIFFERENT greek words.
But clearly here it must mean something a man made decree, considering that the rest of the chapter dwells upon this in some detail.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (dogmatizo),
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Note that this "dogmatizo" (obligated to following dogma) is again translated "ordinance". And it's MANMADE.
As I said, this is why you don't "get it". You're locked into YOUR English understanding of the word "ordinance". You've made the assumption, with NO biblical basis, that "ordinance" is a commandment of God. But we KNOW that Paul believed in the Lord's Holy Days and God's laws.
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Note that he was clear. He believed ALL that was in the law and prophets. He did NOT believe ALL that was in the body of Jewish Law. They were, and are, two separate things.
But that's only part of your problem in trying to translate Colossians 2:14. Let's turn to the second word.
HANDWRITING
As in "handwriting of ordinances". This is going to be a little shorter because the greek word translated "handwriting" (in the King James) only occurs here in scripture. It is:
cheirographon
Thayer Definition:
1) a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand
2) a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time
The second is the definition that is pertinent. It's basically an IOU. There are other definitions of "writing" in the new testament and most often the greek word employed is "graphos". So if the verse had meant merely "writing" this is the word that would have been employed. So it's an "iou" a debt.
So what is this "debt", this "iou", this "handwriting" that is against us?
Most likely, as you said, it's JEWISH ritual, coupled with an ascetic gnostic viewpoint. The Jews HAD added a variety, a plethora, a whole body of manmade law to scripture. They used this AGAINST gentiles, to separate them from God. Christ took this dogma and nailed it to the cross. He cancelled out the debt. He got rid of the "iou".
Look, I don't mean to be so harsh about this, but many people don't interpret Paul's writing correctly and always have:
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
Peter KNEW that Paul's writings were hard for people to understand. But we would do well to heed his advice.
The use of one gender specific pronoun does not a doctrine make. One must look at the entire volume of scriptures in order to make a conclusion.
And it sounds to me that you have a neat little system that wants to pick and choose what Jewish laws it will follow and what ones it won't-very covenient.
God's Laws, most specifically the 10 Commandments are for all mankind, not just Jews.
The Bible says any man who starts to live by the Law will live by all of it.
The Bible also says not to sin and sin is the transgression of the Law. Jesus said that one jot or tittle won't pass from the LAw until all be fulfilled. Jesus also said that those who break these least commandments and teach men to do so will be called least in the Kingdom. There is a difference between living by the law, and following the law through faith. The first and greates Commandment is to love God with all your heart, and Jesus also said that if you love Him, you would do what He says. How does one love God if one refuses to obey God?
You see anyone before Exodus keeping them?
God kept the Sabbath on the 7th day of creation.
God did not give the Sabbath to anyone but the Jew (Ezek.20).
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.
You can't show me anyone in the New Testament after Acts 2 that was keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
There is neither Jew nor Greek now there will be.
That's not what Paul wrote. Perhaps you missed it last time
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
As I said, the day is unimportant, sabbath observance is not for the Church, it is for the Jew and has ceased with the removal of their nation, but will return later when they are reestablished (Col.2:16-17)
Collosians 2:16-17 says no such thing. You know it and it has been explained to you many times. Here is another angle that perhaps youhave not considered. What are the Pharisees doing here?
Mat 12:10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse Him.
They were applying the standard for false prophets set out in Deuteronomy 13:1-5. They wanted Jesus to break the Sabbath so they could kill him and get back to oppresing the faithful. They didn't kill Jesus because He didn't break the Sabbath - he explained the Sabbath.
Many, many people think Jesus died, then was resurrected, and then, voila'!, everyone is Christian! This is absolutely not the case, and we all know it. Christians were the overwhelming minority while Paul lived. Had Paul ever preached the end of the Sabbath or the Law, he would have been executed on the spot using the same standard.
Today there is neither Jew nor Gentile once they are saved.
Again, that is not what the Bible says. It puts no adjectives or qualifications or anything in the verses that state this. In fact, Paul writes that the same Lord is Lord of them all!
You know, you have adopted a debate style that is prominent on the left. You keep saying the same incorrect stuff over and over. Well, W didn't lie about WMD, Al Gore did not invent the internet, and there is no difference between the Jew or the Greek. You can repeat yourself another 100 times, it simply is not so.
That is not an English dictionary now is it?
You're being "dynamic" again.
I have proven that the Jew is a Jew and a Gentile is a Gentile-racially.
How, I must have missed it?
No, you quote verses that drop context and have nothing to do with the Jewish age that will come again.
I keep searching my Bible for a "Jewish age" and coming up blank. What I do come up with is a whole lot of scriptures that indicate there is no more Jew or Greek, and that the priests of God will come out of all nations in the millenia. Where do you come up with this stuff?
I hope you are not counting on your Sabbath observance for getting you into heaven, because it won't.
And my non-observance will not keep me out.
The only issue today is the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work on the Cross.
You're half right. Works do not save men. Salvation is a gift and can't be earned. However, your theology is explicitly refuted time and again:
Luk 12:47 "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
Luk 12:48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
There you go again. Let me ask a basic question: Do you see, or understand that there is a difference, between scriptural commandments of God and Jewish traditions and ordinances? Do you recognize the fact that Jews have built up a vast body of laws, ordinances and customs that are not necessarily scriptural in nature?
There is a 2 1/2 day gap between verse 1 and 2. To reiterate....the Sabbath spoken of in Mark 16:1 is the Wednesday night/Thursday First Sabbath of Unleavened bread. This is also mentioned in [John 19:31]. The women cannot have purchased the spices on Saturday night/Sunday morning as you are trying to convince yourself....because [Luke 23:56] says they rested on the Sabbath after preparing these same spices that they purchased after the High Sabbath of Thursday. The Sabbath that they rested on was Saturday.
If you cannot understand this simple explanation to a very simple problem in the time line....then I'll just leave it there.
As for the Greek original manuscripts, there would have been no separation between Mark 16 1 and 2, all the passages would have been read as a whole.
Now please stop and think about what you have just said. There was no separation between Mark 15:47 and Mark 16:1 in the original manuscripts also! Does this register at all? My point has always been that when you read them as one unit then you can see that the Sabbath being referred to in Mark 16:1 is the same Sabbath referred to in Mark 15:42....not the weekly Saturday Sabbath. There were no Chapters and Verses until the Middle ages. There was one long manuscript for each book.
In verse 14 of Colossians 2, Paul states that 'ordinances' were blotted out.
Answering for Douglas here.....The Greek word here for ordinances is "Dogma". This means these ordinances that Paul speaks of are man made....the ordinances of the Pharisee's. These are not God's laws Paul is speaking of.
Because anytime after Sundown on Sat (Wed-Sat) would have been considered Sunday for the Jew......FTD
I'm sorry, but what you have said makes no sense whatsoever. I've already proved to you that Our Saviour resurrected BEFORE sundown on Saturday! [Matthew 28:1]
Christ was discovered by the women in the early morning of Sunday to have risen.
Here again you are simply wrong. Verse 6 of Matthew 28 says "HE IS RISEN"! This is taking place before sundown on the weekly Sabbath! And all they discovered was an empty tomb...[Mark 16:2-8] and then they run away frightened, telling no one. Different women from Mary Magdalene and friends who discover the tomb empty on the Sabbath.....shortly before sundown.
We are getting three full days in the tomb (Matt.12:40) by reckoning Jewish time (Sundown-Sundown) and thus, sometime after the 3rd Sundown,at the start of the next day (using Jewish time) Christ arose.
O.K., Let's see if you can understand this.
[Matthew 27:63]"After three days I will rise again!" This must be at least 72 hours!
[Mark 9:31]"He shall rise the third day!" This must be at least 48 hours.....but no more than 72!
[John 2:19-21]"In three days I will raise it up"! This must again be no more than 72 hours!
[Mark 8:31]"After three days Rise again"! This must be at least 72 hours....but not a second more!
Everyone agrees that His body was place in the tomb before sundown on Wednesday the 14th. If we have shown that He had to be in the tomb for exactly 72 hours....which we have just done.....then he would have come out of the tomb shortly before sundown three days later on the 17th. The 17th was the Saturday Sabbath.
Every translation you have checked has "Day" added to it. It is not in the original and first of the Sabbaths is what Paul speaks of....not the first day of the week. You are trying to make something fit because of your bias and Roman Catholic tradition! I know.....your not an RC....but the tradition is RC.
No, because when you translate from language to another, you often have to add words to the translation to have it make sense.
All you have is a private interpretion that doesn't even make sense.
'The first of sabbaths' means what?
As if yours does??????
The first of sabbaths' means what?
[Leviticus 23:15] Seven weekly Sabbaths from Passover to Pentecost. The "First of the Sabbaths" is first weekly Sabbath after Passover. The Greek word for this is Sabbatwn. Greek for Sabbath is Sabbaton Here. The Greeks, remember, had no word for Sabbath as they did not celebrate it. But, the translation became as follows: Weekly Sabbath as Sabbaton and the first of the Sabbaths as Sabbatwn. These words never meant first day of the week. That is simply Roman tradition!
He have proven nothing of the sought.
Matthew 28:1 states lit. 'end of sabbaths as it began to dawn'.
The end of sabbaths, would have been after the Sat. Sabbath.
The Greek word that you tried to say meant 'dusk' meant 'dawn'.
Christ was discovered by the women in the early morning of Sunday to have risen. Here again you are simply wrong. Verse 6 of Matthew 28 says "HE IS RISEN"! This is taking place before sundown on the weekly Sabbath! And all they discovered was an empty tomb...[Mark 16:2-8] and then they run away frightened, telling no one. Different women from Mary Magdalene and friends who discover the tomb empty on the Sabbath.....shortly before sundown.
Yes, and that happened in the morning not the evening (Mk.16:1)
That is the verse that explains the sequence of events.
We are getting three full days in the tomb (Matt.12:40) by reckoning Jewish time (Sundown-Sundown) and thus, sometime after the 3rd Sundown,at the start of the next day (using Jewish time) Christ arose. O.K., Let's see if you can understand this. [Matthew 27:63]"After three days I will rise again!" This must be at least 72 hours! [Mark 9:31]"He shall rise the third day!" This must be at least 48 hours.....but no more than 72! [John 2:19-21]"In three days I will raise it up"! This must again be no more than 72 hours! [Mark 8:31]"After three days Rise again"! This must be at least 72 hours....but not a second more! Everyone agrees that His body was place in the tomb before sundown on Wednesday the 14th. If we have shown that He had to be in the tomb for exactly 72 hours....which we have just done.....then he would have come out of the tomb shortly before sundown three days later on the 17th. The 17th was the Saturday Sabbath.
No, the demand of scripture is that Christ be in three full days, not that He cannot be in it one moment past 72 hours.
I do not see anything in those passages that you cite that would demand that Christ could not be in the tomb one moment after 72 hours.
The issue is days not hours or minutes.
I note also you are using verse markings.
They do come in handy don't they.
Christ rose after sundown on Sat. and not even your vain efforts with the Greek in Matthew 28:1 or attempting to change the words of Mark.16:1-2 have altered that fact.
The Roman Catholic error is not that Christ rose on the first day of the week, the RCC error is that he was crucified on a Friday and did not have to spend three full days in the tomb (hence Good Friday).
Yes it does, that is why all the translations have it!
The first of sabbaths' means what? [Leviticus 23:15] Seven weekly Sabbaths from Passover to Pentecost. The "First of the Sabbaths" is first weekly Sabbath after Passover. The Greek word for this is Sabbatwn. Greek for Sabbath is Sabbaton Here. The Greeks, remember, had no word for Sabbath as they did not celebrate it. But, the translation became as follows: Weekly Sabbath as Sabbaton and the first of the Sabbaths as Sabbatwn. These words never meant first day of the week. That is simply Roman tradition!
You keeping saying 'First of the the sabbaths.
Where are getting the 'the' from, there is no definite article in the Greek.
Are you adding it?
Now translate Lk 4:16 as 'sabbaths' or Jn.20:1, did Mary Margdalene come to the tomb on the first sabbaths?
How about Acts 13:14, did Paul come to the synagagoue on the day of 'sabbaths'
In terms of 'cherry picking' your way through scripture, you are making the Roman Catholics look like Bible believers!
Well....since you want to twist everything I say to fit your bias, ignoring all my Biblical proofs, instead of discerning what the Holy Spirit actually inspired....I will say good luck to you my friend...and God bless.
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.