Posted on 07/24/2007 2:24:56 PM PDT by MarkBsnr
It is written.
It is written by the Church Fathers under the authorization of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Judaizing heresy was one of the first to be dealt with. And here we are almost 2000 years later popping up again.
Time for whack-a-mole.
Where is it written by God? If He was the one that made the rules shouldn't He be the one to say they no longer count? I see where all blood ordinances are done away with as Jesus shed His blood for all time but don't the others remain until He asks us to stop?
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It doesn't sound as if He wants any man to rewrite His laws.
It's related to Docetism ("Jesus' human nature is an illusion") with elements of Nestorianism ("Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not the divine Jesus")
Matt[17-20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (cf Matthew 18; Luke 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.
15 [21-48] Six examples of the conduct demanded of the Christian disciple. Each deals with a commandment of the law, introduced by You have heard that it was said to your ancestors or an equivalent formula, followed by Jesus’ teaching in respect to that commandment, But I say to you; thus their designation as “antitheses.” Three of them accept the Mosaic law but extend or deepen it (Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28; 43-44); three reject it as a standard of conduct for the disciples (Matthew 31-32; 33-37; 38-39).
Therefore, what Jesus has done is to change, extend, or revoke aspects of the Mosaic Law.
Thanks. I have been for some time.
The verses you quoted do not change the Commandments or the Law. The ones in question, as this article states, are the Sabbath, tithing and feast days. What He changed appear to be more about ordinances and some statutes but not the law.
Perhaps I'm wrong but that is what I see contained therein.
bump for a later read
Although I cannot recall a Mormon ever using the word subordination in a sentence—we don't do much systematic theology—I think I understand what you mean.
We believe that the Father and the Son are fully divine, yet the Son is subject to the Father. In the Bible, Jesus consistently states that he was sent to do the will of his Father; that he derived his authority from his Father; and that his Father was the greater of the two. In all that he did, Jesus gave the glory to his Father.
I should add that we are not Trinitarians in the classical sense. Some would call us Tritheists. We believe that not only are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost three persons; we also consider them as three separate Beings.
An analogy that I like to use is this: The Father is the King; the Son is the Prince; the Holy Ghost is the Prime Minister. The King is the Sovereign source of power and authority. He has delegated his authority to the Prince, who is equally royal and who does the will of the King in all things. The Prime Minister—who is also royal—carries out the will of the King and the Prince. (The analogy may not be perfect, but it is close.)
Do Mormons believe in reincarnation?
No. We do believe in resurrection; however, no one gets more than one shot at mortal life.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity teaches that original sin is not inherited, but for a different reason than the one you give.
Interesting. What is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine on original sin?
If I get this wrong, I am sure the Orthodox who post on FR will correct me. As I understand it, they believe that man inherits mortality from Adam. Mortality was the result of Adam's sin and enters the world with him. But man does not inherit his sin or guilt for what he has done. However man commits sin as a result of his mortal nature.
I should add that we are not Trinitarians in the classical sense. Some would call us Tritheists. We believe that not only are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost three persons; we also consider them as three separate Beings.
I would not call Orthodox Christians Tritheists, but they do emphasize the three Persons of God much more than Western Christianty.
I would agree with you that the new covenant does fulfill certain aspects of the old covenant such as animal sacrifice and the Levitical priesthood. These things are clearly spelled out in the book of Hebrews. However, I don't think that totality of scripture alone overturns the basic dietary laws instituted by the Lord.
And there are instances where the Church has made a ruling, such as in the moving of the weekly holy day from Saturday to Sunday.
It's refreshing to speak to someone who is honest about their tradition. Most Protestants won't admit Catholicism's claim of authority on this issue.
There is Biblical justification for that move, such as the apostles sitting at table on the first day of the week, or even Jesus rising on the first day of the week.
These examples are only valid when looked at through the prism of history and tradition. When examined critically there are many more examples of sabbath observance and none of Sunday observance.
There is Biblical justification for that move, such as the apostles sitting at table on the first day of the week, or even Jesus rising on the first day of the week.
There is absolutely no record in scripture of Our Lord rising on the first day of the week. This is bogus tradition and has been manipulated and played around with in translations from Jerome....to "The Living Bible"! It is simply false!
On eight occasions the "First Day of the Week" is mentioned in scripture....never with a sacred intent. In fact it is disputed in some of these passages that the intent is even Sunday. Five of these verses are about the women visiting an empty tomb. [Matthew 28:1][Mark 16:2][Mark 16:9][Luke 24:1][John 20:1]. That means three passages left for authority to change the day. [John 20:19] Assembled for fear of the Jews! [Acts 20:7] A "Havdalah" meal (after Sabbath repast) Saturday evening....notice the lights are still on. [1 Corinthians 16:1] A collection for the poor Saints in Jerusalem.
The Sabbath our Lord instituted is mentioned in scripture 126 times in the Old Testament and 62 times in the New. It can easily be shown from scripture with little difficulty that Our Lord resurrected himself late on the Sabbath, shortly before sundown. this would have been 72 hours after his burial on the First Sabbath of Unleavened Bread [John 19:31].
How about trying these on for size?
Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).
Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
(John 20:26).
The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16; Acts 2:1).
The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days, but the Roman system.
Paul instructed the churches to put aside contributions on the first day of the week
(1 Cor. 16:2).
Jesus gave the apostle John the vision of Revelation on the first day of the week
(Rev. 1:10).
There is no explicit NT instruction to move the holy day to the first day of the week. It is ultimately on the authority of the Catholic Church that this was done.
The intention here is to support the idea that the NT in some cases overrode, changed, or eliminated some OT rules, regulations, culture, etc.
You are correct.....There was never any explicit instructions to do away with God's Holy Sabbath. In addition to this "The Catholic Church" has never had the authority to do anything of this kind.....nor will they ever!
All your Bible passages are in error and have been mistranslated. This is another reason why your Church was and never will have any authority!
One example, as I am pressed for time this morning.
[John 20:19] Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. This is no religious service or any implication that it should be memorialized. They are there because they were hiding from the Jews!
Now let's see what the Greek translates as "First day of the week": Strong's #3391. mia (mee'-ah) one or first and strong's #4521. Sabbaton (sab'-bat-on)the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications.
This, according to the Greek should read, "On the First Sabbath".
So, in addition to hiding from the Jews....it appears that the Apostles were hiding there on Saturday.....not Sunday! This was probably after Sabbath services and The Lord knew they would be there.....together.....at that time. This would be in accordance to the commandments....which He did not abolish.
This is why folks should ignore your theology. It is false doctrine emanating from a false church.
When I have some more time I will correct all your other errors.
The article presents that is an odd way, to me. It doesn't seem right to call Old Testament laws, laid down by God Himself, as heretical. Nor does it seem right for those that keep Sabbath on Saturday, tithe and observe the Jewish feasts, as God instructs to be of a cult.
My thoughts are that those things shouldn't be condemned by others, even if they themself don't follow them.
....Ping
Arrogance, pride, hubris. You’re going to correct all my errors, eh?
There’s only One who could do that; and I’m sure that he’s trying through the offices of the Church that He founded. There is also another: a beautiful bright angel that convinced Adam and Eve that it’d be a real good thing to leave the Garden of Eden (only he didn’t put it in that fashion).
More evidence that God works through His Church; outside of the Church are darker forces.
The Church, upon being given the authority, is responsible for acting with that authority. The Church, with the same logic and faced with the same Bible and Tradition that is laid out for all to see, has made these decisions.
Kinda like the parable of the talents. Now, I’m sure that some Popes are going to be treated more harshly than others, given their actions upon ascending the Chair of Peter.
Here are what the scriptures say: [Matthew 28:1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Two things....end of Sabbath means it is still the Sabbath (7th) day. Dawning of the first day of the week would be close to sundown as that's (according to the Hebrews) when the new day started. In fact the word used to describe this event "episphosko" means this: Strong's # 2020. epiphosko (ep-ee-foce'-ko) "begin to draw on". The only other place in scripture where this word (epiphoskp) is used in in [Luke 23:54] "that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on."
That means....the Sabbath (first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread)(Wednesday) was about to begin. This would be sundown also....on Passover and Joseph was hurriedly trying to get Our Saviour into the tomb [John 19:31].
So, you see....in your first example that I corrected, the Apostles were gathered together on a Sabbath "For fear of the Jews". No divine inspiration here for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. My point!
In this second example I have now corrected....from scripture....Matthew 28 shows this to still be on the Sabbath....late in the day....right before sundown. Notice that in verse 6 the Angel says: "He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay." There is also no justification for changing the Sabbath to Sunday here either.....since this all takes place on Saturday!
Two points now for me! I shall correct the rest of your errors when I find time. Mark, Luke and John are all similar but the events are told differently. Until then......
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.