Posted on 04/10/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC
You're giving ownership of the Lord's holy days to the modern religion of Judaism. For example, the Lord's holy days are enumerated in Leviticus 23, but they're actually instituted before before Israel leaves Egypt, before they strike the old covenant. The weekly sabbath, Passover, and the days of unleavened bread are all commanded to be observed prior to and outside of the bounds of the old covenant.
Three points:
1. Peters vision occurred anywhere from 10 to 20 years AFTER the death of Christ. Peter was a direct disciple of Christ. He knew what Christ taught. Yet:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
So Christ didn't teach it.
2. In the vision, despite being told to, Peter NEVER ate. He didn't do it. He wouldn't do it. Did God chastise him for it? No. Did God judge him for it. No.
3. What did Peter think the vision meant?
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Nowhere in scripture does anyone EVER suggest another interpretation of Peter's vision. Even when he told other's of the vision nobody, NOBODY, understood it to mean that they could now eat foods like pork and shrimp.
Again, only revisionist interpretation done through the prism of tradition allows the view you have.
Nope, sorry. It is clear from Exodus that Moses was not meeting with Jesus all the time. For example,
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live." And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen." (Ex. 33:20-23)
That's not a description of a "Jesus" sighting; nor is God's appearance to Moses in the desert a "Jesus" sighting. And after all, thousands of people saw Jesus's face and did not die as a result.
It seems that you're using a theology of convenience to make a case for your own peculiar mixture of grace and legalism.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
So far verse 22 is talking about 2 people having consenting adultery.
When we get to 23, the verse begins with a man and married woman in town and him sleeping with her.
24 then mentions the punishment, and why.:
the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help
and the man because he violated another man's wife.
So it comes down to the woman does not scream for protection, and by her silence gives her consent. Meaning it IS NOT rape. If it were rape she would have screamed.
Now verse 25:
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
So verse 25 specifically calls it rape, and then absolves the girl because she WAS raped.
Now verse 27 ties verse 24 in to the 2 scenarios.
for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Verse 24 convicts the woman because she did not scream, while 27 absolves her, because there was no one to hear here when/if she did scream.
Now as far as OT vs NT, one must take into entire context. The OT was/is the LAW it points to the Messiah and makes clear what right and wrong is. The NT brings the Messiah and GRACE which supercedes the LAW.
The Law was needed in the OT to let man know what sin was, and sin has to have a consequence. But with Christ and the NT, though the LAW still shows us what sin is, for Christians the consequences change, because the consequences fall on Christ, and we are no longer under condemnation.
The only change between the OT and NT is that sins consequences change, everything else is the same. Grace has always been Gods goal, but before Christ there was no removal of sin.
God hates sin the same OT and NT, how he views the sinner has changed, ONLY for the Christian. Until a person realizes he is a sinner, and that sin seperates him from God, and by faith, accepts Christs as Messiah, and the remover of all sin, past, present and future, he is still under the law. It is faith in Christ, and what he says and has done that changes a mans standing before God. But the Law still lets him know what wrong is.
Now as far as this overall discussion and Easter and Passover. The OT tells us to celebrate Passover, and HOW to celebrate Passover.
What is Passover?
It goes beyond the angel of death going through Egypt and killing the first born male of anyone not having the blood of a perfect lamb on their doorposts.
The secret of Passover wasn't Jew vs Egyptian(gentile). The secret was the blood of a perfect lamb. That lamb being sacrificed, and its blood being put on the door posts of the house. If a Jewish house was without the blood on the door post, they would have lost their first born male, the same as the Egyptian house. Also, if an Egyptian house would have sacrificed a perfect lamb to Jehovah God, and put the blood on their doorposts, the angel would have passed by.
So today, as Christians, Passover has special meaning to us. One, it reminds us of what God did for HIS PEOPLE thousands of years ago. Jews celebrated Passover because God wanted them to remember what he did for them, and to celebrate him. Second, Christ is our perfect lamb, sacrificed, whose blood, causes God's wrath to Passover us, who have accepted him as Messiah.
God gave us Passover as a celebration of what he has done, and a celebration of his promise to us.
Communion he also gave as a celebration for us. Celebrating his death and resurrection. Communion is to be a regular occurence. If we are regularly celebrating communion, what use is adding Easter? Accept to celebrate once again communion.
Your misinterpretation of Scripture is of no use to me.
Nothing but tradition and two thousand years of history and the Gospels. That's all.
Yes!
The Catholic Church.
That doesn't violate the words of Christ. This very well could be the preincarnate Christ.
But supposing for a moment that Moses did meet with the father and with Christ, do you believe that Christ and the Father would have different wills? Isn't the will of the father the will of the son?
Did he or did he not?
The relevant question is whether He said to remember His death on Passover, and on no other day.
Sorry, but that's a conclusion that isn't supported by scripture and history.
I would agree that it's a universal, catholic church.
Absolutely!
Not my fault.
That's certainly what he meant and what the early disciples thought he meant.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
A couple of points here. This was written to a predominantly gentile church. The context is clearly during passover and the days of leavened bread. The instruction is to celebrate, observe, the feast of passover and unleavened bread.
Later in the same letter:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Passover, the day that Jesus died, is an annual observance. Passover, the day that Jesus instituted the Lord's supper of wine and bread, was the days that his followers partook of the Lord's supper.
To believe that the Lord's supper was not intimately linked with Passover is to deny scripture, history and the culture of the time. The Lord's supper as practiced today has deviated greatly from how the Lord and his original disciples practiced it.
Paul is exhorting his listeners to partake of Holy Eucharist. He is, after all, an early father of the Catholic Church.
“I don’t follow or adhere to Judaic law.”
and
“But generally if God says not to do it’s undoubtedly correct.”
are not consistent.
You should take your arrogance and modern-day Phariseeism elsewhere.
We are under grace, not law. I find your attitude disgusting.
Not fair altering my responses...
Our of curiosity would you say that everyone that is a member of the Roman Catholic Church (I'm assuming that's the Catholic church you're referring to) has God's spirit and is a member of the body of Christ?
He is continuing what Christ taught. To take the Passover on Passover and to observe the festivals that Christ created.
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.