Posted on 01/08/2014 1:11:34 PM PST by DouglasKC
Jesus Christ's Disciples Understood Him to Be the Creator
When the early followers of Christ say Jesus is the One through whom all things were created, they are clearly saying that Jesus is God.
The book of Hebrews speaks of the Son as the Being through whom God created the worlds (Hebrews 1:2) and who "sustains all things by his powerful word" (verse 3, NRSV). Only God is great enough to do such things.
John confirms that Jesus was the divine Word through whom God created the universe: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:3; see verses 1-3, 14).
Paul states quite clearly that "God ...created all things through Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 3:9). He elsewhere writes of Jesus: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16). He adds in verse 17, "and in Him all things consist."
The Old Testament presents God alone as Creator of the universe (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 40:25-26, 28). When the early followers of Christ say Jesus is the One through whom all things were created, they are clearly saying that Jesus is God.
Jesus claimed to be all that God is, and the disciples believed and taught it. They understood that Jesus was "the express [exact] image of His [God's] person" (Hebrews 1:3) and "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), and that "in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9, NRSV).
They understood precisely who He was and still is from His own words and actions. There was no question in their minds. They had seen Him prove it time and time again. They would go to their martyrdom firm in this conviction.
In the first century my beliefs were mainstream. That's good enough for me.
This doesn't mean what your tradition tells you it means:
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
He's talking to gentile Christians. He's telling them that because of their sin and that fact that they were gentiles, not provy to the promises God made israel, that they had no hope of eternal life. Death was their only option. But because of Christ their sins were forgiven...
Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
He took the death penalty and paid it for us. The penalty for sin, death, is spelled out multiple times in the Hebrew scriptures. The death penalty was against us. It was our fate. But the death of Christ took the death penalty requirements and were nailed to the cross.
Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
BECAUSE you've been saved by the death of Christ don't let anyone judge you in HOW you observe the holy days (HEORTE).
The gentiles were being judged for HOW they were observing them.
They were being judged by people in a belief system that had the following characteristics:
Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
The holy days of Christ are NOT "philosophy". They are scriptural writings of Christ. They are not "empty deceit"...they are writings of the Lord God. They are "tradition of men"....they are commandments of God. They are not "basic principles of the world" (ha far from it!) they are as far from what the world thinks as can be. They are basic principles of Christ.
To think that Paul is calling the scriptural, written, holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ ANY of these things is either willful biblical ignorance or the result of a mass delusion.
These same people who were criticizing the gentile church in Collosae had these attributes of worship:
Col 2:18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
They delighted in false humility. Would God create holy days as "false humility". They worshipped angels. Does that sound like anything God would condone?
What else?
Col 2:21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
Col 2:22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
The holy days are NOT commandments and doctrines of men. They are commandments and doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Apparently though some were thinking that the gentile Christians in the Colossian church were NOT observing the holy days correctly. They had made up their own man made rules and traditions about "how" to observe the holy days of the Lord....much like the Pharisees made up their own rules about the sabbath.
The problem friend is that you have allowed yourself to be blinded by tradition. You literally cannot read the bible without removing the prism of tradition you view it from. As a result, you do exactly opposite of what Christ in scripture tells us to do.
What was changed in the new covenant is clear and specific and listed in the book of Hebrews.
Chiefly among these is a transition from a Levitical priesthood to Melchizadek type priesthood with Christ as our high priest.
The Levitical priesthood was intended to be and was designated as temporary. Hebrews 9 details exactly what the temporary aspect were...it's very detailed and specific.
But here's the important thing: The holy days ARE independent of the old covenant. They were created in the beginning and given toe Israel before the old covenant was struck at Mt. Sinai. So though they are part of the old AND the new covenant they also stand independent of any covenant.
Here is the new covenant:
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
The primary difference is that instead of the laws of God being external, they are internalized, implanted and grow in the hearts and minds of believers through the spirit of God. Those in the new covenant allow themselves to be changed and altered by the spirit of God into the image of the Lord...and the Lord will NOT break his own laws and he WILL observe his holy days.
“Poisonous Animals You Can’t Eat”
In that case, you can also ridicule Christ’s words too, since, obviously, poison can defile a man, at least physically, if eaten!
Mat_15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
“Which food did God “create to be received”? God listed them:”
It is verse 4, however, which defines what creatures are to be received, which is “every.” It does not lapse suddenly into Leviticus. And it would never even consider Leviticus, as Paul is quite clear, that:
Rom 14:14 ... there is NOTHING unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
If nothing is unclean of itself, but is made so only by our conscience, so that those who would “eat all things” and those who eat “only herbs” stand on equal ground, what is there to fear of the UCG’s profitless chatter?
But, just because you can mock the Apostle by saying ‘But there are inedible creatures that are poisonous,” doesn’t mean that his “every” is less of an ‘every.” All you offer is an irrational retort against the Apostle himself, without removing the force of his message, as the meaning of the verse remains unmolested even if you, Mr.Sherlock Holmes, would say “Well, some foods are poisonous! Therefore, let us remain under the Jewish dietary laws!” But a poisonous food isn’t unclean spiritually, as if it will harm a man spiritually if he should accidentally ingest it, it’s only fatal to the body. Would you condemn Christ for saying, that we should lop off our arms or remove our eyes or genitals, in order to avoid sin? When, all he means, is that we should endeavor to mortify the flesh? You must, at least, attempt to read the scripture rationally, according to its meaning, and not continually attack all common sense with sophistry. As long as the “every” remains, you cannot rend out his message, which frees us from a law that is already removed.
You also ignored Romans 14 again, as you find another “eat ALL things” in them, which Paul places on the same grounds as those who refuse. As these things are governed by our conscience, and not by any obligation to the law.
“Yes, I did but you must have missed it.”
I did not miss it, it was just irrelevant, and all you’re doing now is repeating yourself in vain.
” “Esteeem” isnt’ worship...the greek word means to decide or distinguish.”
This is just slick talking. You did not answer anything, and there are two words:
The first is our friend “Krino,” which in this context can be translated esteem, we could say “consider”.” And then there is “Phroneo,” which Strong’s dictionary defines this way:
“From G5424; to exercise the mind, that is, entertain or have a sentiment or opinion; by implication to be (mentally) disposed (more or less earnestly in a certain direction); intensively to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience): - set the affection on,”
What does it mean that one “regards one day above another” and “esteemeth one day above another”? You define the word, accuse me of claiming it means “worship” (which I never did), but you don’t actually attempt to explain the meaning of the sense.
So, what does it mean to REGARD or ESTEEM one day above another? Doesn’t it mean... well, to REGARD ONE DAY ABOVE ANOTHER? Is that not what we do with a holyday? We observe it, we set our affection to it, and we regard it as different from any other ordinary day?
Spiritual blindness, unfortunately, makes even simple things impossible to comprehend.
Also, you still ignored the other verses that I originally provided.
“In fact Polycarp tried to persuade others not to abandon the Passover.”
The controversy had nothing whatever to do with what we are talking about, which is, whether or not Christians should not receive communion every Sunday, but should celebrate seven Jewish feast days instead annually. The question at hand was when to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, and how to do so, which some argued for one day, and others another, some for fasting this number of days, and others for more or less. And, in fact, Polycarp received communion immediately after the debate from his opponent, despite their disagreement:
“And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Irenaeus, Letter to Victor)
To celebrate the Lord’s supper with each other immediately after, not only refutes you, but shows their doctrinal and church unity with each other, which the UCG would never tolerate, as they see it as breaking “God’s law,” by not observing the 7 Jewish feasts, and ought to be celebrated once annually.
“Now that is so much more than just a superficial communion, or Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper—this is something that God says we do once a year as a memorial.”
http://www.ucg.org/beyond-today-daily/gods-holy-days/communion-or-passover
“Every instance of “break bread” in the scriptures does not mean that it was the bread and wine ceremony of Passover.”
The phrase “breaking of bread” is one directly associated with the Lord’s Supper, as seen in those other verses. And so it reads, according to Dr. Gill, in the Syriac and Arabic translations of this same verse:
“as the Syriac version renders it, “to break the eucharist”, by which the Lord’s supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, “to distribute the body of Christ”, which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord’s table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, “when we were come together”;”
You also ignore where it says “the first day of the week.” This is the day, not the Sabbath, that the church met for worship throughout the centuries.
From Ignatius, perished between 95-115AD, contemporary of Polycarp and the elder John the Apostle:
“If then those who had walked in ancient
practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after
the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through
Him and through His death which some men deny — a
mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found
disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher” (Ignatius to the Magnesians, Ch.9)
From the Epistle attributed to Barnabas, written as late as 130AD:
Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)
Justin Martyr again, about 150AD:
“But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)
This had nothing to do with clean or unclean food. It had to do with ritual washings:
Mat 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
Mat 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
Jesus was condemning the ritualistic, non-biblical practices and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. His point was that if you're worried that a little speck of dirt or something else is going to make you "unclean" then don't worry about it..that little speck is going to come out when you go the bathroom.
You're suggesting, again based ONLY on warped view of this through the prism of tradition, that Christ was saying it's okay to eat pork. This is ridiculous since scripture SHOWS what he was talking about, hand washing. And IF he was suggesting they could eat pork then the scribes and Pharisees had him....he was NOT God or God's prophet because he was specifically violating a law of God. But they didn't do or say anything like that because it's not what Jesus meant and it's not what they understood.
You would do well to learn the difference between "koinos" and "akathartos". The word translated "unclean" here in Roman 14 is "koinos"...ritually unclean.
It means that...something normally clean that is made koinos, or common, by association with something akathartos, inherently unclean. The foods that God designed as unclean are akathartos, not koinos.
Paul said that there is nothing, in his opinion, that is ritually unclean. And he's right. No matter what happens to beef, it's going clean. I can rub a piece of pork on it...that doesn't make it unclean. But jews then and now believe that clean meats can be made unclean by accidental contact. It's why kosher observant jews have two kitchens or at least two sets of utensils...one for meat and one for dairy in order not to violate what they believe to be a prohibition against mixing the two in food preparation.
Pauls' challenge was to help the jewish Christians to distinguish was was written in God's law about clean and unclean versus what their tradition had added to it.
This ritual uncleaness, koinos, is what the kosher laws are all about.
You might want to read about basic kosher
Also see Understanding Acts 10 and Understanding Unclean in Romans 14
Do you ever actually STUDY the bible or just blindly accept what people tell you?
Even a cursory study will give you the context of what God was talking about:
Isa 1:11 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats.
Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts?
Isa 1:13 Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
Isa 1:14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them.
Is this God condemning HIS new moons and sabbaths? No, it's YOUR new moons and sabbaths. God is upbraiding and chastising Israel for defiling his holy sabbath.
Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.
Israel was vile, evil and corrupted and it was hypocritical and the shameful of them to pretend to worship God when their behavior, spirit and attitudes showed they clearly were NOT worshiping God.
Tell me what the greek phrase "first day of the week" literally translates to in English...
Again, there are specific greek words used to denote the holy days of God. They denote no other. There are also specific greek words that mean "to observe God's holy days".
In the context of the entire CHAPTER this has nothing to do with those days. You've lifted a verse completely out of context and applied a modern day meaning to it.
You totally disregard that the entire focus of the chapter is on days that are associate with food:
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
You not only do that, but you also are saying that Paul is saying that disregarding the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ is just peachy. This not only violates commmon sense, but scripture in multiple places. Paul said:
Act_24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
Unless Paul was lying to their faces he totally believes what God wrote in scripture about the holy days. And of course he did because he observed them:
1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast [HEORTAZO), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
And here:
Act_18:21 but took leave of them, saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast[HEORTE] in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing." And he sailed from Ephesus.
Who to believe? Paul and Jesus Christ...or some guy who looks at a scripture, lifts it out of context, and applies a 21st century belief to a 1st century situation?
“This had nothing to do with clean or unclean food. It had to do with ritual washings:”
As a matter of language, it must encompass not only ritual washings, but everything that enters a man:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
And it reads just as explicitly in its parallels:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that WHATSOEVER entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
All the carnal ordinances, whether it be in washing or meats and drinks, I will add, were only imposed on us until the time of reformation:
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
“His point was that if you’re worried that a little speck of dirt or something else is going to make you “unclean” then don’t worry about it..that little speck is going to come out when you go the bathroom.”
I can’t help but to notice that your interpretation of Jesus is superficial. His purpose was not merely to say “it’ll come out of you anyway,” but to show that what actually defiles a man is what COMES OUT OF HIM, that is, his heart:
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
This is a revolution to the entire Old Testament system, which regards all ritual uncleanliness as coming from without a man. This sort of message is absolutely hostile to the UCG, since what goes into you really CAN leave you defiled.
“And IF he was suggesting they could eat pork then the scribes and Pharisees had him....he was NOT God or God’s prophet because he was specifically violating a law of God.”
But Jesus did all KINDS of things that would have accounted Him unclean under the law. For example, one must not touch a leper:
(Mat 8:2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(Mat 8:3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Nor did He follow the Sabbath according to the Law, but did as He pleased, since He is ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ too:
Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
Compare:
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”
(Mat 12:5-8)
Such even the Jews confess:
R. David Kimchi in Josh. vi. 11:
““the day on which Jericho was taken was the sabbath day; and that though they slew and burnt on the sabbath day, “he that commanded the observation of the sabbath, commanded the profanation of it”.’’
“You would do well to learn the difference between “koinos” and “akathartos”. The word translated “unclean” here in Roman 14 is “koinos”...ritually unclean....It means that...something normally clean that is made koinos, or common, by association with something akathartos, inherently unclean.”
From the former Worldwide Church of God, now with a new name and a new mission after renouncing the teachings of Armstrong:
“The Louw and Nida lexicon lists koinos as a synonym of akathartos, saying: “It is possible that there is some subtle distinction in meaning, particularly on a connotative level, between koinos and akathartos in Ac 10.14, but it is difficult to determine the precise differences of meaning on the basis of existing contexts. The two terms are probably used in Ac 10.14 primarily for the sake of emphasis.”
http://www.gci.org/law/unclean
Compare Thayer’s definitions:
“Thayer’s Definition
not cleansed, unclean
in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the levitical law
in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life”
Thayer’s Definition
common i.e. ordinary, belonging to generality
by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean
I’ll also add, if Akathartos means “inherently unclean,” then that means that children without a Christian parent can be “inherently unclean”:
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean (akathartos); but now are they holy.
This verse uses the same word:
Ephesians 5:5
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Yet, an “unclean” person, whom you say is inherently clean, can be sanctified and washed by God. The same is true of “every creature,” provided it is “received with thanksgiving”:
1 Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Notice that “every creature” can be cleansed, provided it is received in thanksgiving, BECAUSE “it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
If something that is “akathartos” cannot be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, then there will be many people out there who will forever be damned.
“Again, there are specific greek words used to denote the holy days of God.”
“Again,” is just a repetition, and utterly boring, and soon I’ll probably stop responding to you entirely, as I know how these things degenerate. It does not reply to anything I wrote. You are also still ignoring the other verses I presented, and are still refusing to explain what this chapter even means, if anything. Just claiming that Paul should hve used this word or that word, doesn’t explain the words that are there.
“1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast [HEORTAZO), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
I will happily keep the feast with unleavened bread of SINCERITY AND TRUTH, as opposed to actual unleavened bread, as your religion demands. Paul also entirely spiritualizes the Passover, applying it wholly to the person of Christ. From verse 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:
This verse is fatal to your religion, as the Passover, one of six feasts you claim we are obligated to obey in order to join the Godhead, is to be literally enjoined, not spiritually fulfilled in Christ.
“Act_18:21 but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast[HEORTE] in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.
Who to believe? Paul and Jesus Christ...”
From Clarke’s commentary:
I must - keep this feast - Most likely the passover, at which he wished to attend for the purpose of seeing many of his friends, and having the most favorable opportunity to preach the Gospel to thousands who would attend at Jerusalem on that occasion. The whole of this clause, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem, is wanting in ABE, six others; with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach leaves it in the text, with the mark of doubtfulness; and Professor White, in his Crisews, says, probabiliter delenda. Without this clause the verse will read thus: But he bade them farewell, saying, I will return again unto you, if God will. And this he did before the expiration of that same year, Acts 19:1, and spent three years with them, Acts 20:31, extending and establishing the Church at that place.
By the way, I’ll believe in Paul and Jesus Christ, and you are free to believe in whatever you like.
“or some guy who looks at a scripture, lifts it out of context, and applies a 21st century belief to a 1st century situation?”
Remember though, both Ignatius and Polycarp were men of the 1st century, dying early into the second. And they were both with me. Not with you. And so does 2,000 years of Christianity. That’s really the only thing “Ecumenical” about this whole thread!
I sit here amazed that you will completely toss out scripture and pretend that Jesus said something he didn't just so you can keep your tradition:
Mat 15:17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
Again, in the larger context of the whole chapter Christ was referring to the man made laws and traditions of the Pharisees.
Mat 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
Does it make any sense that Christ would yell at the Pharisees about transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition and then establish a tradition that transgresses the commandment of God?
Mat 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
Mat 15:8 'THESE PEOPLE DRAW NEAR TO ME WITH THEIR MOUTH, AND HONOR ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME.
Mat 15:9 AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.' "
This has NOTHING to do with the Lord Jesus Christ's designations of clean and unnclean food. It has to do with the MANMADE TRADITIONS and MANMADE COMMANDMENTS that caused the pharisees to transgress God's laws. That caused them to harden their hearts and not practice love and compassion but to elevate their traditions above the Lord.
And this probably hits home with you because you're doing the same thing. Against all context, scripture, and the words of Christ in the Hebrew scriptures and in the new testament you would rather keep your tradition rather than obey Christ.
Again you totally lifted a verse out of context and twisted it to keep your tradition. We'll look at the quote in CONTEXT:
Heb 9:1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary;
Heb 9:3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All,
Heb 9:4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Heb 9:6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.
Heb 9:7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance;
Heb 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
Heb 9:9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
Heb 9:10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Heb 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
What are these verses about...IN CONTEXT? They're all about the sacrificial system. The tabernacle and the ordinances concerned with sacrifices.
The whole chapter is about why Christ is our perfect sacrifice so the sacrificial system is no longer needed.
The "meats and drinks" are the sacrificial meats and drinks.
The washings are the washings that had to do with the preparation for sacrifice.
what you did was take this verse out of context, rip out it's true meaning and intent, and ascribe your own intent. You made your own opinion superior over what God put down in scripture.
In a nutshell here is how you derive your theology. You pick verses out of the bible and remove them from entire context in which they were presented and taught. You then make up pretend philosophies and attempt to prove them by taking these verses and applying them. This works and has worked, but only on those who are ignorant of scripture. Those who don't bother to read or study for themselves.
This is a perfect description for our time:
2Ti_4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
This is also a perfect description of today:
Eze_22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Jesus Christ followed the sabbath law that he created perfectly. He did NOT follow the sabbath laws as DEFINED and ADDED to by the Pharisees.
You quote two veses from Exodus 16 and matthew 12 to "prove" that the Lord God violated his sabbath which he made holy in the beginning:
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Your first clue that you're completely wrong is that YOU'RE on the side of the Pharisees...you're right next to them, yelling at Jesus that he violated the sabbath law.
You presume to tell God almighty, the Lord of the sabbath, WHAT the sabbath law is.
That alone should have made you study the issue a little more before you posted this nonsense. Jesus had not much good to say about the Pharisees. They were grossly in error in their doctrine and had violated the Lord's written laws in order to keep their traditions. That should make you pause and think...gee....why am I agreeing with the Pharisees and accusing Christ?
In context Exodus 16 actually affirms the sabbath...it was given as a reminder to Israel that the sabbath was created holy in the beginning and they should honor it. And this was done BEFORE Israel got to Mt. Sinai and the formation of the old covenant. In other words, the sabbath stands outside of the old covenant. At least according to God.
I shouldn't have to read or quote the entire chapter to for you or anyone else to see the verses in context.
You then quote Matthew 12:1 to presumably "prove" that Exodus 16:1 applies to matthew 12:1. Obviously not but of course you made the same mistakes the pharisses made. You think you know better than the Lord how his sabbath should be kept.
There's nothing wrong with what Jesus did on the sabbath with his disciples. The pharisees DEFINED it as being wrong. They may have though it violated exodus 16, but they also thought it violated commmandments about working on the sabbath because they considered these actions as "harvesting". They had hundreds of micro-managed rules about what could or could not be done on the sabbath. They made the sabbath a burden instead of a delight as the Lord intended:
Isa_58:13 "If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,
In the first century my beliefs were mainstream. That’s good enough for me.
***Then you need to come up to speed on first century history. Maybe that will put a stop to your heretical undertakings on Free Republic.
Than answer the questions put to you in post #57 rather than dancing around like a magician’s assistant with something to hide.
Since these are not elementary principles of Christ, just as the bible verse says, I see no need to continue discussing them with someone pushing a heretical viewpoint on Free Republic. Christ’s identity is an elementary principle, so I’ll endure that particular hardship.
I did, in post 63:. I answered your question with a question:
"Let me ask you...what is your belief and is it built upon scripture or tradition? If it's built upon tradition then we have nothing to discuss. If it's built upon scripture then I'll be glad to contrast what you believe, based on scripture, with what I believe. Fair enough?"
Your question wasn't meant as an attempt to get an answer. It was meant as an attempt to label and demean. If you REALLY want to discuss it you would have no problem actually enunciating your belief and telling me why you believe what you do. If it's tradition, we have nothing to talk about. If it's scripture we do. If you don't want to answer fine, but don't pretend that I'm trying to avoid anything. This thread should be evidence that I'm doing no such thing.
Judging from the.. ummm... “quality” of your latest posts, I think you’re running out of steam. I’ll keep this response short then:
“Jesus Christ followed the sabbath law that he created perfectly.”
The most fascinating aspect of all this is that the Jews fully expected God to have the authority to abolish the Sabbath day, whenever He pleased. Hence the quote from Kimchi, in his commentary of Josiah, wherein he notes that God commanded the Hebrews to take Jericho on the 7th day, after having marched around the city for the previous 6 days.
Indeed, and the Priests too, who break the Sabbath when they are about the work of God, are called “blameless” by Christ in the quote you ignored, as agreed upon by the Jews themselves, as Dr. Gill notes:
“There were many things, which, according to the Jewish canons, the priests might do on the sabbath day; particularly they might slay the sacrifice: it was a rule with them, “that slaying drives away the sabbath” (u). They might also knead, make, and bake the showbread on the sabbath day: their general rule was, as R. Akiba says, that what was possible to be done on the evening of the sabbath, did not drive away the sabbath; but what was not possible to be done on the sabbath eve, did drive away the sabbath (w): so they might kill the passover, sprinkle its blood, wipe its inwards, and burn the fat on the sabbath day (x), with many other things. What exculpated these men was, that what they did was done in the temple, and for the service of it, upon which an emphasis is put; and agrees with their canons, which say, that there is no prohibition in the sanctuary; “that which is forbidden to be done on the sabbath, is lawful to be done in the sanctuary” (John Gill, quoting (u) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 72. 2. (w) Misn. Menachot, c. 11. sect. 3. (x) Misn. Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 1. Maimon. Pesach. c. 1. sect. 18.)
Hence why Christ justifies the Apostles for breaking the Sabbath by saying, “There is one here who is GREATER than the temple,” which is a direct reference to Jewish interpretation of Priestly activity. And He justly concludes, ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath day” as well, and, if the Lord, He may abrogate it as He pleases.
You claim that Christ was simply not following the Pharisees’ teaching on the matter. On the contrary, not only was their teaching in full agreement with His actions, He asserted His agreement with them and used His breaking of them to declare His identity as Messiah, which they hypocritically rejected; and He did this, using the exact mirror image of Exodus, that is, of the Hebrews not being allowed to pluck food on the Sabbath, with His Apostles flagrantly doing the opposite, because “There is one GREATER than the Temple” present with them!
And this He did many times, flagrantly, as the laws called anyone unclean who touched the body of a dead man, or anything that the dead touched, or of certain individuals with great illnesses, which Christ did happily, while at the same time making them absolutely clean. Thus, by His works, He proved Himself LORD over all the Law, He who is cleanliness Himself, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees who would not own Him to be the Messiah, which all His actions showed He was.
What's most fascinating is that you won't defend your position with scripture but will instead depend upon the opinion of a Jew who did not believe in Jesus as the messiah.
And again, instead of mounting a scriptural defense of your position you'll quote the opinions of someone else.
To me this indicates that you can't defend your position based on scripture but instead in an effort to lend legitimacy to your opinions you rely on quoting others.
I've noticed also that in my response I based my opinion almost exclusively on scripture and absolutely proved that your positions were based on lifting verses out of context and applying your own interpretations. You neither refuted what I said nor attempted to quote other scripture that supported your position.
In other words, your can't prove a single bit of what you've asserted via scripture. That makes sense since whatever you believe is based almost entirely on tradition.
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.