The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question

Good News Magazine ^ | March 2000 | Wilber Berg

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahahaha, try again, agitprop. Are you a rabbi?

[DouglasKC]

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

It must have been user error. This is the url:

http://www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm

Here it is hyperlinked: fundamental beliefs

[r9etb]

Lev 11:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them...

I see. So you're basically saying that Moses spent his time with Jesus, rather than God the Father. Well, I suppose one can make a case for that, but it's just an opinion rather than a clear Scriptural reference.

Your New Testament certainly doesn't include such a statement. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[r9etb]

Stop, please.

[safisoft]

Mark 16:9 - Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. This passage is quite a hurdle to jump over to claim that Christ did not rise on Sunday.

Modern day Saturday night, does not equal Sunday morning "sunrise" services. The "first of weeks" (plural in the Greek) can mean the first day of the week (modern Sunday) which begins at sunset on Saturday, or it can mean the first day counted for the omer, which is the 7 week counting between the Feast of First Fruits and Pentecost.

Regardless, it is not the early morning of Sunday. An example: at sunset on Saturdy night in modern Jerusalem, the city comes alive as all the shops open up. This is when the women would have gone to buy spices... not at 3 in the morning.

[JohnnyM]

God clearly tells Peter to eat unclean meat in the vision, even after Peter's protest. God clearly tells Peter in the vision that what He has cleansed, do not consider Unholy.

Now I agree that God was using this illustration to show Peter that the Gentiles were now clean, but that begs the question of why did He use unclean foods to make this point, why not just tell Peter outright that the Gentiles were clean.

I think God is killing two birds with one stone here, but I also believe He is revealing a truth to us. The mandate for clean and unclean foods in the OT was to set apart the nation of Israel from the other nations. Now that Christ had come, this setting apart was no longer needed. Christ had removed the wall of division between the Gentiles and the Jews. We are now all one in Christ. There is no need for distinction on the national level and there is no need for distinction on the culinary level.

JM

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The fact is, no one was ever executed for adultery.”

At best you’re speculating, and it’s the worst kind of speculation. The woman caught in adultery in John 8 would have been executed if not for Jesus. Do you honestly think that was the only time a person risked execution in centuries and centuries after the law was received? You would have to be very naive to believe that.

[MHGinTN]

Perhaqps you would like to reconcile these two posts of yours in this thread for us? ...

"I think the WHOLE Bible is valid and life-giving. My Savior said something about it:"
"Question, why is Christianity the only religion that negates the front 3/4 of their Scriptures with the back 1/4?"

It might be interesting to hear how you can reconcile making such contradictory posts. Do you really believe Christians believe the last 1/4 of the Bible negates the front 3/4?

[safisoft]

So, it is morally allowable for people to wear blends

Yes it is. The Almighty said it, and it stands. But do you know WHY? And do you know what is meant not to mix those two types of cloth? It most certainly does not mean that you cannot wear two types of cloth, and the Hebrew clearly shows that. Add to that, the commandment of "fringes" is a commandment to intertwine two different types of strings (wool and flax) - so there is something quite marvellous in the teaching regarding the mixing of cloth. But... most folks aren't interested...

[JohnnyM]

Scripture doesn't say at what time exactly Christ rose on Sunday, just that He did rise on Sunday. It took place sometime between 6pm Saturday night and 6am Sunday morning our time, which would be on the first day of the week and not on the Sabbath.

Also the first day counted for the Omer and the first day of the week are both Sunday.

JM

[r9etb]

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

Well, no. The Jewish Holy days can be found here.

Hannukah, for example, "celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over the Syrian army of Antiochus Epiphanes (165 B.C.)."

The feast of Purim celebrates the salvation of the Jews during their exile in Persia.

Unless you've got some different holy days in mind?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

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

I never said that some scriptures were not valid. Like I said - and I did say this - “you just made a fool out of yourself.”

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yes it is. The Almighty said it, and it stands.”

So, you just said that it is morally permissible to do what you earlier said God said not to do?

[vladimir998]

Sorry, it was really DouglasKC.

[DouglasKC]

“There’s not enough information to judge whether it’s a moral or practical issue.”
Incorrect. The law is stated and stated simply enough. You already essentially admitted you understood it to mean blends were wrong to wear.

No, I said God had good reasons for the instructions and we should heed them.

So, if you wear them, are you violating the law (the answer has to be YES) and is that morally permissable (the answer to that logically must be NO).

We're approaching this from different perspective and definitions of "law". Without getting into a study about why laws such as this were added to the covenant, it's logical to conclude that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to cover circumstances where we may accidentally wear wool/linen blends.

OTOH clearly there's reasons why God said to do this and we shouldn't do it in a Godly society run by God. But we don't live in these types of societies anymore...or yet.

Lacking information, if you want my opinion I don't wear wool/linen blends. And I don't think God is going to smite somebody for doing so. But if someone wears them with the specific intent of disregarding this prohibition then I think they've got deeper issues with God than what they wearing.

[safisoft]

Perhaqps you would like to reconcile these two posts of yours in this thread for us? ...

I would be glad to, thank you.

"I think the WHOLE Bible is valid and life-giving.

Shock of shocks. Jesus and the first disciples were OBSERVANT JEWS.

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

Christianity is an INSTITUTION. As an institution, it has historically distanced itself (at best) and persecuted Jews (at worst). As an INSTITUTION it since the days of Justin Martyr (110 CE) attempted to show that the only Scriptural authority they claim is in the New Testament. Problem: 1/4 of the New Testament is either direct quote, or allusion to the "Old Testament" - therefore a theory of Supercessionism was created whereby the "New" replaced the "Old." Only problem with this theory... the Bible itself does not support it - ESPECIALLY the New Testament.

I believe that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of G0d may be complete, thoroughly equipped for good works.

If the INSTITUTION of Christianity cannot agree with that, then I am not a member of the INSTITUTION called "Christianity." Should a follower of Jesus follow Him obediently? Can a disciple of Jesus imitate Him? Must that follower be a member of the INSTITUTION that annuls the words of the Almighty? Certainly not.

[safisoft]

Bwahahahaha, try again, agitprop. Are you a rabbi?

Are you saying that rabbis agitprop?

[MHGinTN]

At which books does ‘inspired scripture’ end in your estimation? Which of the Bible books in the Christian Bible are not ‘given by God for inspiration’ in your estimation?

[DouglasKC]

I see. So you're basically saying that Moses spent his time with Jesus, rather than God the Father. Well, I suppose one can make a case for that, but it's just an opinion rather than a clear Scriptural reference.
Your New Testament certainly doesn't include such a statement. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Not really.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Nobody has seen the father except Christ.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

[safisoft]

I never said that some scriptures were not valid. Like I said - and I did say this - “you just made a fool out of yourself.”

So... what exactly did you mean by this then?

vladimir998 said, Uh, are you sure that they both have the ABSOLUTE SAME authority NOW? In other words, would you support the execution of adulterers? (Lev. 20:10) How about stoning rape victims - if the rape happens inside the city limits? Deuteronomy 22:23-24

You clearly intended to write those words for a reason. You went to the effort to darken those pages in the OLLLLD Testament. Since I say I am misquoting you, maybe you can say what you MEANT by those words, if not to say that some Scriptures no longer have validity?