Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
i didn’t realize you considered speaking about Jesus and the Scriptures as “bugging” you!
why post on the religion board if you don’t want to be engaged in discussion.
if our beliefs and ideas can’t with stand the scrutiny of the free market place of ideas, they just might not be true.
now, thank you for answering Thursday as the sabbath in the wed/sat theory, it would have to be for the very scriptures you cited.
now, if Thursday is the Sabbath day which occurred the day after Jesus was crucified, then the book of Mark tells us that the women came to the empty tomb on Friday morning.
how do we know this?
look at Mark 15:42, it mentions Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, “THAT IS THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH”
now Mark 16:1 “and when THE SABBATH was past”
Mark 15:42 and 16:1 are referring to the same sabbath “ THE SABBATH”
so if the sabbath of 15:42 is thursday, it past on FRIDAY.
BUT THIS CAN’T BE BECAUSE VERSE 2 TELLS US THEY WENT TO THE TOMB ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, SUNDAY.
Jesus is the “first fruits”, the feast was a type and shadow of the harvest of lost souls begun on the feast of first fruits, which is the first day of the week!
Iscool wrote:
“That would have been 6-8 o’clock Saturday early evening...He certainly wouldn’t have risen at sunrise...He would have been sure to avoid the pagan sun-god worship at sunrise...”
The “He would have been sure to avoid the pagan sun-god worship at sunrise ...” addition is, of course, conjecture on your part and not provable on the part of the Holy Scriptures. In regard to the question of when Jesus rose from death - and let me state for the record that I firmly believe, teach and confess that He did indeed rise from death on the first day of the week - let us be careful here before we disparage others. It is true that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all identify the “first day of the week” as the time when Jesus rose from death. However, all were not operating with the same time reference. This is a case of apples and oranges. On this, please be patient, all of you.
Without question Matthew, Mark and Luke utilized the Jewish/Israelite system of reckoning time. That is to say, the day was understood to run from sunset one day to sunset the following day. This is clear from both the Old Testament and the New. Thus, if we had only the testimony of the first three evangelists it would be possible that Jesus rose from death at anytime after sunset on Saturday. So far so good. However, it is demonstrably so that John, the author of the fourth Gospel account, speaks of the time of day differently. He wrote his Gospel 20 to 30 years after the others, at a time when neither Jerusalem nor its temple existed any more, a time when no one reckoned time that way anymore. He wrote from Ephesus, where he was pastor/elder/bishop of the congregation in that city, and from which later he was exiled to Patmos. He wrote to people who did not reckon time according to the manner of the ancient Jews. Sorry, but this is historical fact.
Throughout his gospel his manner of time keeping in regard to the course of hours through the day was that of the imperial system (which we still use today) rather than that of the Old Testament. His hours are expressed in terms not of sunrise (the already informal manner of reckoning of the ordinary person in the Roman Palestine of Jesus’ day), but in terms of “ante-meridiem” and “post-meridiem,” i.e., of A.M. and P.M. Thus when John says the “first day of the week,” he means “first day of the week” according to Roman usage, that is, from midnight to midnight, as we do today. This would still be the “first day of the week according to Jewish usage, but it forces us to understand it to be after the midnight between Saturday and Sunday.
This is reflected in the early Christian practice of gathering for worship in the early morning darkness of the first day of the week (Roman reckoning). John is in no way disagreeing with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but is adding new information for our benefit that helps us to understand more precisely the time of His resurrection. So, to summarize, Jesus rose from death sometime between midnight and dawn. No more than this can be said with certainty. But this much can be said with certainty, and with full Scriptural authority.
This is not a matter of theological dispute or confession, but a matter of history.
There's nothing wrong with trying too place the days, nights, etc in accordances with Jewish laws and customs of that era. Whatever day it actually was like His birth does not change nor challange ones salvation.
tell that to the Sabbath keepers who use this wed/sat teaching to deny the reason the Church changed the day of worship from saturday to sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on sunday, the feast of first fruits.
Protestants see this come up quite frequently. Protestants, for the most part, do not have "competing" interpretations of the Gospel. I have attend numerous churches in my life and have never had a problem with worshiping with any Protestants except liberals or mega-churches that preach a water-down version of the gospel. We may differ on some issues, but on the substantive issues we concur.
I'm sure you see my point. I would hope most Catholics would not support the Hindu Mass, a Buddhist mass, or even using dragons in masses to promote racial harmony. However, mass is mass. It doesn't matter what shenanigans goes on. Good Catholics (sometimes) just wring their hands and bemoan the fact that their political religious leaders are taking them down a bad path but the Holy Spirit will ultimately guide the Church. Of course, then again, there was that thing that happened with Luther so one has to wonder how that logic really works. For other Catholics they thing it's grand. And the Vatican really doesn't mind what goes on in Mass as long as attendance is up and the coffers remain full. They often chaulk it up to diversity even if it involves incorporating pagan rituals.
Hmmmm....in retrospect perhaps on some things Catholics and Protestants aren't so terribly different.
Joh 19:31 ¶ The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
There were TWO sabbaths in that week, since Passover is a sabbath day as well.
So, does that mean that you would consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians?
Cronos: If you think that it's ok to just rely upon Christ's righteousness for our salvation then why do you argue with people over other theological matters?
harleyD: because theology matters
Now that is contradictory -- 'theology matters' yet all a person needs to do is "we rely upon Christ's righteousness for our salvation" -- so then why are you even discussing theology? Oh, it matters, but evidently not enough to tell a Mormon they are wrong in their beliefs
Yet in your Calvinist philosophy that prayer is useless as:
Ask Mr Rogers or any Baptist on this forum. Most will tell you they are not "creedal Christians" and many say they consider creeds to be unwanted -- some say even dangerous and unscriptural.
most will hold to the tenets of the Nicene Creed, that Jesus is God, part of the Triune God. however there are some who will argue against parts of the Creed and some further
We are commanded to make sure we understand biblical truths and, when we see someone in error, we are to correct them in a spirit of love and gentleness. We are also commanded that when we see a brother living in sin not to have anything to do with him and to admonish him. However, judging others about the status of their salvation is reserved by God the Father for Christ alone. It is not my place to presume their salvation status based solely on my observations. But, as you are well aware, if they ask for my opinion I'd be happy to tell them. :O)
HA!!! It's really the Arminians who can't get this together. If you really believe in the free-will of man, why would you even pray for God to change the hearts of unbelievers? God never will invoke His sovereignty over their free will, otherwise it wouldn't be free will. This has always puzzled me even before I understood the Reformed faith.
The truth is we pray that God WILL change the hearts of men. We are praying that God will change their very nature so that they will come to Him. But it's up to God to grant our prayers and we humbly submit to His divine knowledge to know what is best and perfect and just. We are not praying to override their "free will" because there is no such thing. We are praying for God to GIVE them a new heart. And if God in His mercy gives them a new heart and they come to know Christ, it is because their name was written before the foundation of the worlds but God allowed us to play a small part in it. It is no different then God giving Adam the garden to till while God knew Adam's needs and provided the growth.
God commands us to pray. God also knows what we need. The only way we know God's will is for us to pray and to see whether it is granted or not. Whatever the answer we win because we understand God's will. That is why all our prayers find their "yes" in Him.
I understand where they're coming from. Creeds are written by men and do not rise to the same level as scripture. The Orthodox have trouble with accepting some parts of various creeds. They believe some zealot Latin Catholic inserted the phrase that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son whereas they believe the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. And to be frank, I happen to agree with them. I think the Latin version of the Nicene Creed is in error.
Now what do you believe? Do you believe the Nicene Creed as it is accepted by the Catholic Church or by the Orthodox? Do you think it is in error? I can understand the position of where FTD and Mr. Rogers are coming from.
I believe the Trinity is correct. However, it answers a question God did not feel needed an authoritative, single-sentence answer.
God isn’t interested in philosophy. There is no sign God cares about systematic theology.
Many congregations in the SBC hold to the “Baptist Faith and Message” - which is a creed under another name. However, my sympathy is with those who do not.
If a homosexual-accepting Lutheran church says they hold to Luther’s catechism, would it mean anything?
What did Jesus say about false prophets?
“15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
They will come in sheep’s clothing - outwardly, they will look like good Christian men. But their lives will reveal their hearts.
That is why the evil Popes - those who murdered, or kept mistresses, and who sought worldly gain - matter. No false prophet is the “Vicar of Christ”, and no church that makes him one is holding true to God.
If you went to a Mormon church, and asked them if they believed Jesus is the Son of God, they would say yes. You would need to know enough about their beliefs to phrase your question very carefully. I spent 7 years living in Utah, and I eventually got fairly good at it.
Creeds can show a church is NOT christian, and to that extent they help. However, I don’t think I would need a creed to figure out that the LDS church is false, or that Universalists or Moonies are not Christians.
And when you deal with a creed as old as the Nicene Creed, you probably need to be a historian to understand how the words were being used at the time it was written.
Take, for example, this:
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”
I’m not stupid, but I’m not entirely certain what it means. If you asked many Mormons if they agreed with this, many would say yes. Indeed, they would take the ‘begotten’ VERY literally - in a way no student of scripture ever would. The LDS church teaches God the Father had sex with Mary...
“In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”
Hmmm...I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins, but I believe it is the baptism by Jesus of the believer in the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does not remit squat, since water baptism can be given to someone who has not repented at all. In fact, with infant baptism, it always IS given to someone who has not repented of anything. Jesus said repent and believe, not be baptized and forgiven.
But Creeds state the difference between heresy and orthodoxy.
A lot of the language used especially in the New Testament reflects platonic language. Unlike the Muslims, Christians don’t believe that God dictated the scriptures to the authors word for word.
The concepts St. Paul uses have strong antecedents in Philo of Alexandria who combined Platonism with Judaism. http://books.google.com/books?id=_Jw8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=st.+paul+philo&source=bl&ots=0PGN68B0dT&sig=NSfQ9T38RP3s4QiFDh4IwV7-GbU&hl=en&ei=8Oe5Tt3lLZTxggf8m_HzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=st.%20paul%20philo&f=false
“Hmmm...I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins, but I believe it is the baptism by Jesus of the believer in the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does not remit squat, since water baptism can be given to someone who has not repented at all. In fact, with infant baptism, it always IS given to someone who has not repented of anything. Jesus said repent and believe, not be baptized and forgiven.”
You twist the scriptures and foist your private interpretation on the text.
Sacraments like baptism are outward signs of God’s inward grace that were instituted or commanded by Christ.
http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Sacraments.html
“You twist the scriptures and foist your private interpretation on the text.”
No. The Baptism of Jesus is explicitly stated, in scripture, to be with the Holy Spirit. Not water.
And salvation is by grace, thru faith. Not by grace thru sacraments. Not grace thru infant baptism. By grace thru faith.
Faith describes what exists when you believe. Jesus was clear:
“14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” - Mark 1
Repent and believe. Baptism - with water - will follow. But water baptism does not regenerate us. We are born again when we believe.
Water and the spirit, consubstantial and one in the same.
You are born again through the waters of baptism. The Holy Spirit is conferred by the act itself, not some subjective emotion-filled moment.
Again when you cite scripture, you are speaking your private interpretation and imposing your sect’s relatively late reinterpretation on what the Sacrament, yes sacrament of Holy Baptism is about.
Martin Luther writes:
“The most certain form of baptism is child baptism. For an adult might deceive and come to Christ as a Judas and have himself baptized. But a child cannot deceive. He comes to Christ in baptism, as John came to him, and as the children were brought to him, that his word and work might be effective in them, move them, and make them holy, because his Word and work cannot be without fruit. Yet it has this effect alone in the child. Were it to fail here it would fail everywhere and be in vain, which is impossible.30”
We can play Bible bingo until the Second Coming.
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.