Posted on 04/10/2010 4:49:07 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Amen! Wonderful Post! Thank you!
for later
Several sources make the truth plain, at least as far as I can see. One of those sources is Fred Coulter’s extraordinarily well done harmony of the Gospels. He proves in exacting detail that the only explanation that is complete harmony with the text is a late Wednesday death and a resurrection at the end of the weekly Sabbath.
When I looked at the plain evidence about Xmas, it too was shown to be a tradition that modern Christians had found to be more important than the plain text.
A minister that I have known for several decades would always admonish his parishioners to read the text slowly, to understand that every word was inspired for a purpose, was not frivolous and was in harmony with every other scripture on the same topic. This forces you to accept the only explanation on a topic that is in harmony with all scriptures on a topic. When you approach scripture with that commitment to not allow tradition to be more important than what the scriptures plainly say, it is amazing how different the faith that the Apostles held and passed on to the early Church is from the faith we see today.
The best analogy I can give for this is to compare what the present guardians of the Constitution say about what it says as compared to what the text actually says. For example, I look at the Second Amendment and ask what is so difficult to accept about “shall not be infringed”? Yet so many people are just hell-bent on infringing that right.
Less than 250 years have passed between the ratification of the Second and the modern theory that the RKBA is a collective right. In less than 250 years we have gone from “shall not be infringed” to complete prohibition in some cases. If we can achieve a 180 degree reversal in this case, no wonder modern Christianity is night and day different than what the Bible actually says.
When I committed myself to just following what the text of the Bible said, instead of what today's tradition and opinion implied it said, I found myself in harmony with something that was amazingly powerful and satisfying.
Great great point. I've found that the best bible studies always start off with the notion that my initial thoughts are WRONG. I then go through scripture, as you suggest, and see what the totality of scripture says on the subject...and I assume that any contradictions I find are because I'm misunderstanding or there's a flawed translation or the translator has an agenda. The truth will come out.
Of course those holidays are not found in the Bible. The basis for those holidays are. Christians observe those holidays to celebrate Christ's birth and his resurrection, both of which are not only Biblical, but the events upon which Christianity is based.
That's true from a traditional standpoint. But the crux of the article is whether we should follow tradition when it goes against biblical teaching. It's clear of course that God, our Lord, Jesus Christ, created holy days to be observed by his followers:
Lev 23:4 'These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.
Biblically, there are no other feasts of the Lord. Traditionally, there is.
It's also clear that the Lord, Jesus Christ, affirmed the sabbath day (a feast of the Lord) by declaring himself the one and same Lord who created the sabbath:
Mar 2:27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."
The Lord Jesus Christ also observed the holy days, as did those first Christians.
That's a tough choice for Christians today...whether to follow what Christ commanded or not.
In another post, on another topic, I was inspired by a freeper’s comment to contribute (get out my wallet). I am now doubling my pledge. Thank you FRiend. And thank you admins, Jrobs for this forum, for this shocking thing.
Because the article was written by a man, I expect the tapestry of it to be frayed a bit at the edges (meh, xmas easter), yet it reminds me that if Jesus - the name the angels love to say - is the alpha and omega, he is everything in-between as well.
He did answer temptation, a subtil one that used scripture, by saying we should live by EVERY word from God.
Amen.
I see John beholding scenes of destruction, shocked himself, as he writes on the lonely isle. He pauses, trembling, wondering if any will come out of it. The angel, comforting him, directs his gaze toward a small company and identifies them:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Three times he is comforted! And remember the last words of his gospel? Humbly I will share a poem that has that in there, but before I do, I want to say this...I have changed greatly in the years I have been here. I live in my heart. I will try not to enter into controversy, understanding, that in the end, it is principalities and powers that hate. I expect Jesus to be a stumblingstone, a rock of offence, and will rest in him.
tenacious clinging-
to the hem of His cloak.
just one touch
gathered the fabric
of words that He spoke
and wrestle like jacob
I’m not letting go
through broken-heart tempests
though tears freely flow
I’m minded of Jesus
His death on the tree
his side pouring water
life’s blood out for me
the world can’t contain
all the books that’d be wrote
His healing, the dead raise,
the lonely sorrow worn coat
so hiding in Him now
stumble finish the race
and trembling the hand grips
a thread of His grace.
God bless you. Happy Sabbath.
Nothing in the inspired text of the Bible tells you that the Gospel of Mark is part of the inspired text of the Bible.
You depend on tradition to know the canon.
That would be the same inspired Biblical text that tells you that Jesus would be with his church always (Mt 28:20), and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles to "all truth" (Jn 16:13).
"Unless the LORD builds the house,They labor in vain who build it" sings the Psalmist (Ps 127:1). Conversely, if the Lord built the house, there is no possibility of it falling to pieces, and neither the need nor the possibility of any "restoration".
I think you're assuming that the article is telling us that all tradition is wrong. I don't think that's the case.
That would be the same inspired Biblical text that tells you that Jesus would be with his church always (Mt 28:20), and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles to "all truth" (Jn 16:13).
I agree with the scripture 100%.
"Unless the LORD builds the house,They labor in vain who build it" sings the Psalmist (Ps 127:1). Conversely, if the Lord built the house, there is no possibility of it falling to pieces, and neither the need nor the possibility of any "restoration".
I think it's abundantly clear that many do not build upon the foundation of Christ:
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
Mat 7:24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
Mat 7:25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
Mat 7:26 "But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
Mat 7:27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."
Many houses not built on Christ will fall.
ping for later
Absolutely true, period. Sunday is Sunday, the Sabbath is the Sabbath; Sunday is the first day of the week and the Sabbath = Saturday, which is the 7th day of the week - and never the twain shall meet. As far as Christmas goes, no one knows for a certainty when Jesus was born, although many Scholars think it may have been in October or there-abouts. Easter is something else: the name itself is pagan, and is not true at all - the Resurrection of Jesus from the grave happened before sunup on Sunday, leaving it on a Saturday.
But, there is then the words of the Apostle Paul who says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord....For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." (Romans 14:5-8).
To continue, Paul says, "Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way." (Romans 14:13.) Thusly, celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week (Sunday) in assembly is fine for those who want to hold that day for themselves - but it is not okay to force anyone else to do so. The same goes for those who celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus on the Sabbath (Saturday). Keeping "feast days, etc., is fine, but implying that those not keeping those days special are not Christian is absolutely wrong; just as those who do not keep those days have no right to condemn those who do as "keeping the law" is wrong.
Nowhere in the NT does it say that a Christian is to keep any special day or days sacred, whatever one calls those day or days!
Thanks for your responses. On the verses above I think there's a few very important points that need to be pointed out.
1. When the NT writers wanted to convey the fact that they were talking about one of the Lord's sabbaths or one of his holy days they used specific words. These words are (transliterated) "sabbaton" or a derivative (Strongs G4521) to designate "sabbath day". And "heorte" (Strongs G1859) to designate one of God's feast days outlined in Leviticus 23. None of these words are used in the scriptures above which strongly implies that different "days" were being referred to. In context, if ALL of Romans 14 is read, it's clear that the days referred to have to do with either fasting or not eating meat. Chapter 14 is devoted to this topic.
2. If Paul HAD been suggesting that keeping the Lord's sabbaths and holy days WERE optional then there would certainly have been extreme objections from the Jews and from believing gentiles. For a case in point look at circumcision. There was a huge controversy about that and it wasn't even one of the ten commandments! The sabbath is one of the 10 commandments. If they understood it that Paul was calling for optional observance of the Lord's days it would have certainly caused a major disturbance. Yet there's NOT any hint of controversy. This is again a very strong indication that the traditional interpretation of these verses are just that...traditional.
3. Finally we have the words of Paul himself:
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:
Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
So UNLESS one believes that Paul was lying, it's clear that HE did NOT break the sabbath or teach others to do the same. It's just the opposite. He believed ALL that was in the law and the prophets...the books of the old testament. AND he practiced the customs of his fathers...which included the feast days of his Lord, Jesus Christ.
To continue, Paul says, "Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way." (Romans 14:13.) Thusly, celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week (Sunday) in assembly is fine for those who want to hold that day for themselves - but it is not okay to force anyone else to do so. The same goes for those who celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus on the Sabbath (Saturday). Keeping "feast days, etc., is fine, but implying that those not keeping those days special are not Christian is absolutely wrong; just as those who do not keep those days have no right to condemn those who do as "keeping the law" is wrong.
Condemnation isn't warranted for any violation of the laws of Jesus Christ. But NOT to point out error in Christian living is wrong. The sabbath is one of Jesus Christ's ten commandments. So is murder. But no reasonable person would make the argument that murder is personal choice for Christians. Ditto on any other commandment.
Nowhere in the NT does it say that a Christian is to keep any special day or days sacred, whatever one calls those day or days!
The new testament is a chronicle of the early church. The early church relied mostly on the books of what we call the "old" testament. This is where they got their understanding that Jesus was the messiah. This is where they got their understanding of eternal life. The sabbath and the holy days didn't have to be restated as specific commandments...they KNEW they were the days that the Lord Christ created and kept. The first disciples did the same. It got mucked up after biblical times.
ping
Sabbath is under the law...Bible tells Christians that if we live by the law, we will be judged by the law...
And, if it is the law, it is no more grace...God gives us the grace to worship him on Tuesday at midnight if we so desire...
Can you tell me what "lawnessless" is in this verse?:
Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
And here:
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
or here:
Mat 24:12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
here?
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
Clearly there IS a law that Christians keep. And clearly those who are not Christian break these laws....they practice lawlessness.
And, if it is the law, it is no more grace...God gives us the grace to worship him on Tuesday at midnight if we so desire...
The notion that God gives us the grace to break one of his commandments, his laws, isn't biblical.
But the penalty for breaking one of His commandments has been removed...
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
And that's because we are no longer under the penalty of the law...The bondage of the law has been removed...The law, to us, was our school-master...But that's over...
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (which is the bondage of the law...
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Yes, but the law is still there. It didn't go anywhere. It's eternal.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Mat 5:18 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.
So the law exists. And violation of the law IS sin:
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
And yes, it's true that the death of Christ atones for our sins, but that doesn't give us license to sin, or break God's laws:
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
And since the sabbath is one of God's laws, one of his eternal commandments, then breaking it IS sin.
Many mix up the relationship between the written law and grace through Christ. The written law is the written definition of love toward God and toward man.
Someone who possesses perfect Godly love will APPEAR to be keeping God's commandments perfectly, both inwardly and outwardly. Unfortunately no human can do this. But Christ did.
Grace through Christ simply means that we depend on the indwelling spirit of Christ to keep the law, to perfectly love, for us. We can't do it on our own, so we conform our will to Christ's, will, his spirit, that dwells within. To grow perfect Godly love. Paul sums it up like this:
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 neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Likewise, love toward God APPEARS as:
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
This new testament teaching is consistent with the old testament...simply because God is eternal and doesn't change:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The "lawlessness" warned about by Christ is what is running rampant in Christianity today...the notion that God's law is dead and we are free to commit sin...i.e. break his commandments...break his laws.
Mat 24:11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
Mat 24:12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
Doug ...
As a christian, I find much to agree with in what is presented here.
But, without getting into the detail of the piece, I find my attention turned to the the purpose of the Law.
For instance, a statement that caught my eye is this one ...Finally we strive daily to become more and more spiritually mature or perfect (Matthew 5:48), living by and applying God's law, which is spiritual and holy (Romans 7:12). The apostle Paul said that we die daily (1 Corinthians 15:31), continuing to repent of our old habits and sins that crop back up at times, and are renewed daily, striving to follow Jesus' sinless example (2 Corinthians 4:16).I found myself in agreement with Paul (I think) when I consider that the Law only does so much for us.
As non-believers, the Law brings us to the knowledge of our need for the salvation of God, ... but it (the Law) itself, ... does not save us.
In like manner, as believers, ... the law does guide us to live the behaviors that God desires from us, but once again, ... the Law only goes so far.
Ultimately, God does not desire that we conform to His will by the following of the Law, ... but rather, by the conversion of our hearts.
By the time we are fit for heaven, Godly living should be as natural to us as breathing, ... and we should have no need of the Law.
As christians, we should never be seen as those that are lawless, but our lives should be guided by the Law of love which God, Himself, has placed in our hearts.
Given that, is it surprising that we celebrate His birth, ... or His resurrection from the dead. This is only a sign of our love for Him, ... and our gratefulness for His gift to us.
Like the woman with the alabaster, we offer of thanks to Him in ways that do not completely conform to the old ways, ... but which express our personal love for Him.
I guess that is the question ... is it about conformance ... or is it about love?
Thanks for your thoughts and it's good to hear from you again. I agree wholeheartedly with the above.
Given that, is it surprising that we celebrate His birth, ... or His resurrection from the dead. This is only a sign of our love for Him, ... and our gratefulness for His gift to us.
Like the woman with the alabaster, we offer of thanks to Him in ways that do not completely conform to the old ways, ... but which express our personal love for Him.
I guess that is the question ... is it about conformance ... or is it about love?
It's about Godly love. "Love", with no definition, can mean anything. Thus we have adultery in the name of love. We have homosexuality in the name of love. We idolatry in the name of love. If we don't agree on a definition of what love toward God is then anything goes. Everyone does right in their own eyes because nobody agrees on the definition of love.
God didn't leave us with nothing. He left us with scripture. He left us with holy days...the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ. He left us with his laws so that we know when we're OUT of his love, when we're straying from Godly love and beginning to fool ourselves.
Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
These aren't just cute sayings. They're profound truth.
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jn 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
And this isn't commandment keeping for the sake of keeping the commandments. This is done BECAUSE this is what Godly love appears as. IF we love God we'll obey him, as an obedient child loves his father and obeys him. The more we obey, the more our love grows toward our father. The better the relationship. The better the communication.
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.