LOL
Cronos, isn't it funny, that the term Sola Scriptura is not found in the bible?
Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
He must have been a con artist. Is that your point?
Not at all. My point is that the Church of God is not a manmade organization at all, but is composed of a called out body of believers. And since members of God's church are going to have eternal life, then of course his church can never die.
There was alot more detail than just the 'Holy Spirit'.
Also even the RCC does not state that the books between the testaments are 'inspired'. The Catachism states that they are good for instruction.
Protestants simply recognize the other points of Inspiriation that were recognized by the church to establish the canon.
Just a few of them here.
One; they claim to be holy scripture.
two; other scriputers recognize them as holy scripture.
Three; They do not contradict estabilshed scripture or scriptural teaching.
Four: Their historically accurate.
There are other tests that are valid for scripture that beleivers recognize and make sense. Yes the Holy Spirit brought these simple test out to God fearing men who then stated that these were scripture to the rest of us.
But they are time tested established tests of scripture.
One of the tests that is failed by the books protestants leave out, is direction in morality. The book of Tobit describes a holy angel lying directly. Is this a good representation of morality by a holy one? Is there any other place in scripture were a holy angel lyes?
There are lyes in scripture, almost every time satan speaks. But the scripture simply accurate record what satan said.
Many other things, like are there any verses in the rest of the bible that support the prayer of the living to the dead? Anywhere?
Some people say in Revelations, but just because the elders hear a prayer does not mean it was directed at them.
Again; how long will we be happy sitting in a car with no engine. Then selling that car to others with descriptions of the great trips we took in it.
First of all, the Passover is to be celebrated on the 14th of the month of Nisan....no matter which day it falls on. Error #1.
Secondly, the Passover is an eight day affair with two separate Sabbaths of its own....not counting the weekly. Error #2.
Thirdly, the Passover celebrates something other than what you folks celebrate on Easter. Error #3.
You know, Claud....there are many differences in the two events....they are not even similar. The point is, God's Holiday has been supplanted by something that is rife with paganism, has no scriptural authority, was never observed by the Apostles....or the early Church and Satan has the entire world believing it is correct to do this.
Are you a Messianic Jew?
No, I'm just a poor sinner who is amazed, everyday when I wake up that....... God actually wants me in his Kingdom.
He doesn't lie, he just doesn't identify himself in a straightforward manner. (That is to say, his "lie" is like you calling yourself "Rhadaghast" is a "lie".)
Hebrews speaks of "those who have entertained angels unaware" (13:2); you can't very easily entertain an angel unaware if they go around announcing that they're the archangel Raphael at every opportunity.
Paul would have recognized you instantly, and not as a friend, either.
I confess to have no idea where you are coming from with this one. I thought I'd heard everything.
The Passover *was* to be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan. And why? To commemorate the Isrealites' liberation from the bondage of Egypt. That is what a feast is, divine or otherwise. It commemorates an event. Now, if that deliverance should be commemorated with its own day, how much more should the day of Christ's delivering us from the bondage of sin be commemorated with its own feast. Christ's Resurrection was a far more perfect fulfillment of what the Exodus was only the prototype.
So for you to demand that we keep the old feast of the shadow, of the prophecy, and not keep the same, fulfilled feast of the real, true, and most perfect deliverance...well it is quite strange. I do not think you do so intentionally, but you end up wanting to cling to the date of Moses' deliverance over and against Christ's.
And as for Passover being an eight-day affair, obviously you don't have much familiarity with those liturgical churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox) for whom the Easter cycle--to say nothing of Lent--begins with the solemn Palm Sunday liturgy and then Holy Week, proceeds to the sacred Triduum of Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday, and THEN gets its very own 8-day Easter octave of feasts during the whole subsequent week. It was the communities of the Reformation that dwindled it down to one day...we still keep the feast in the old manner.
And you keep saying that "it was not observed by the Apostles". Again, you have absolutely no evidence to say that. It is simply an assumption you are making based on nothing. John seems to have kept the 14th Nisan, but as for the rest? We simply don't know. Here's what Eusebius says:
1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.1687 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.Furthermore, the modern Passover is not even what it used to be any more. The temple has fallen, ergo no more sacrifices. No more sacrificial lambs. The holiday you claim to follow doesn't even exist as it once did. So I'm bewildered about your continued defense of it.
You may wish to skim you way through this FR thread from 2000b'shem Y'shuaThe Seven Festivals Of The Messiah
Here is a link to A Calendar for the Holy Land for the year 27 a.d. You can change the year and month yourself to see which day Passover, the 14th of Nisan fell on. In year 30 a.d. it also fell on a Wednesday and in year 33 a.d. it fell on a Friday. Between the years 27 a.d. and 33 a.d. Passover fell on a Saturday once, a Wednesday twice, a Monday thrice and a Friday once.
Your Easter story say Christ was crucified on Good Friday at about 3:00 p.m. and was buried shortly before the Sabbath began at sunset. (Year 33 a.d.) It goes on to say He arose at sunrise on Sunday morning and this is one of the reasons for sunrise services throughout Christendom. It is also your rational for the celebration of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath as this was the day of resurrection. This is the gist of the celebration. I won't even get into the other traditions of Easter that we are all familiar with. Mark 16:2 indicates the women arrive at sunrise finding our Saviour arisen and I believe this is where most of the tradition began.
We know that Jesus began his ministry at age 30 because Luke 3:23 says so and Numbers 4:3,23,and 30 verify this. We know that his ministry lasted about 3 1/2 years because John indicates three separate Passover celebrations attended by The Lord in 2:13; 6:4; and 13:1. It is doubtful that Jesus was born in "Anno Domini one". Most historical sources now agree that it was anywhere from 3 to 6 b.c. The calendar we use today is based upon a 33 a.d. crucifixion. It is wrong.
More than likely it was the year 27 or 30 a.d. The reason for this is simple. The crucifixion, burial and resurrection took place over a three day (72 hour) period of time. Matthew 12:40 indicates the time Jesus himself prophesied that he would be in the tomb and we know that the Hebrew idiom that counts part of one day as a full day does not apply in this case. Both days and nights are mentioned eliminating this possibility. Scripture also verifies in four different places how long the entombment would be. Mark 8:31 says "after three days" (at least 72 hours). Matthew 27:63 says the same. Mark 9:31 says "the third day" (at least 48....no more than 72 hours). John 2:19-21 says "in three days" (not more than 72 hours). Scripture therefore says, without a question, the entombment had to have been exactly 72 hours.
In your scenario Jesus would have been in the tomb 36 hours....more or less.
Let's now get back to Mark 16. The first verse indicates the Sabbath is now over and the women are going to purchase some spices to anoint our Lord's body. Mark was not an eyewitness to the events and only wrote down what he had learned from Peter. Please see Papias, section VI for further clarification. When the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses so the Sabbath spoken of in Mark 16:1 is actually the Sabbath you saw on the calendar earlier indicating the first Sabbath of unleavened Bread....Wednesday evening/Thursday......the Hebrews beginning their days at sunset. The reason we know this is because the women after purchasing these spices go home and prepare them and rest again for another Sabbath [Luke 23:56] this time the weekly Sabbath. The women had purchased and prepared the spices on the non Sabbath day of Thursday evening/Friday and the weekly Sabbath was Friday evening/Saturday.
Now, who are these women in Mark 16:2 that visit the tomb at sunrise? Contrary to popular belief, they are not Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome spoken of in Mark 16:1. Mark 16:1 should actually be Mark 15:48....a continuation of the thought process where Joseph of Arimathia was attempting to get the body buried before "that" Sabbath began [John 19:31] and of course this verse is the verification that the Sabbath here was a special Sabbath....not the weekly one. These women after finding the tomb empty run away, frightened....and tell no one (verse 8). In Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and friends, filled with joy, run and tell the disciples! In Luke 24:9 they tell the disciples! In John 20:2 they tell the disciples!
This brings me to Matthew 28:1. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, The Douay-Rheims and the King James all say "Late on Sabbath....or in the End of the Sabbath." The Greek word "Epiphosko" translated "Dawn" in many translations can also mean "to begin" or "to draw on" like it does the only other place it is used in scripture [Luke 23:54] and the Sabbath was drawing on as Joseph was hurriedly trying to get the body in the tomb. This was taking place just before sunset on Wednesday evening and since we know our Lord would be entombed for 72 hours he would have resurrected Late on Sabbath. In Matthew, Luke and John it is easily verified that the resurrection took place on the Sabbath. Mark 16:2 simply says the tomb was empty Sunday morning.
There is no command anywhere in scripture to celebrate Sunday as the day of resurrection. There is no command anywhere in scripture to do away with Passover. The Apostles celebrated Passover as did our Saviour. The last living Apostle, John, saw to it that his disciples were instructed in the correct manner and all of the early churches in the "East" celebrated the Passover on the 14th. The doctrinal error emanated from Rome and it continues.........
actually, there is no proof, it's just statements made by those outside of the apostolic churches and the Assyrian church.
This title goes all the way back to Babylon and the beginnings of the mother-child
cult under Nimrod of Genesis 10
Another false statement
When the Babylonian cult of the Magians was driven out of Babylon,
they found a haven in Pergamum.
Any proof of that? The Magi were priests in pre-Zoroastrian Persia, not really Babylon. Your beliefs also include Xenu and thetans?
paganism was introduced in the modern so-called "churchs" in the 20th century when they deviated further and further away from Christianity and the Church. Any Church created in the last 100 years by mere men is a diseased joke of true Christianity.
Remember that the Church is a community and also that God is too immense for one solitary person to understand
well, they believe anything, no healthy dose of Catholic sceptism, eh?
Easter is the Passover, you argue over words -- in Latin languages Easter is Pâques in French, pascua in Spanish, pasqua in Italian,
Tell that to Gabriel.
or
Micheal.
He also encourages Tobit to lye.
-Concerning the Apocryphal / Deutero-canonical books -
"It seems, however, that they did not continue to hold their place along with the other books, for Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal Epistle in 367 gave a list of the books of the Bible which were to be read, and at the close of this list he said:
"There are also other books besides these, not canonized, yet set by the Fathers to be read to those who have just come up and who wish to be informed as to the word of godliness: Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the so-called Teaching of the Apes, and the Shepherd of Hermas." Jerome also made a distinction between the apocryphal books and the others. In his Preface, after enumerating the books contained in the Hebrew Canon, he adds: "This prologue I write as a preface to the books to be translated by us from the Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that all the books which are not of this number are apocrphyal; therefore Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon as its author, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and the Shepher are not in the Canon." Rufinus made the same distinction as did Jerome. He declared that "these books are not canonical, but have been called by our forefathers ecclesiastical." Augustine included these books in his list which he published in 397. He begins the list thus: "The entire canon of Scripture is comprised in these books." Then follows a list of the books which includes Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and it closes with these words: "In these 44 books is comprised all the authority of the Old Testament." Inasmuch as these books were regarded by the church at large as ecclesiastical and helpful, and Augustine had given them canonical sanction, they rapidly gained in favor and most of them are found in the great manuscripts. "
All this talk about the obvious faults of the apochriphal books is missing the point. The church recognized the Cannon of scripture, they did not determine, nor empower these books in anyway. Just as the protestants continue to recognize the traditional books using the same process and guidence as the councel did.
You keep turning the key, but you don't move forward...
I understand that and applaud your honesty.
So many here are more interested in arguing over what size camel could be put through the eye of the needle, rather than understand the simple facts of our faith.
Those same simple facts lost and misconstrued by a Church that has a vested interest in its monopoly and deception.
There is no Scriptural command NOT TO celebrate Sunday as the day of Resurrection either. And as for doing away with Passover, for the 100th time, we *do* celebrate Passover--only this is the Passover of the fulfillment, not the Passover of the promise. Our Savior celebrated Passover in the Jewish way because He was not risen yet. Once He rose, what Moses prefigured became a fuller reality.
And I say again, it was *not* all of the early Churches in the East which had Easter on 14 Nisan. It was the bishops of Asia, i.e. Asia Minor--what we would now consider Turkey.
And you still haven't answered why, when John's disciples dealt with the Easter Sunday people, they agreed to disagree *without condemning the practice. They did not say it was unscriptural or wrong or apostate. Yet you somehow feel free to condemn the Easter Sunday as total apostasy. You are lording more authority over Christendom than St. John's disciples did--and I need hardly had that you have incomparably less authority to do so.
LOL
Cronos, isn't it funny, that the term Sola Scriptura is not found in the bible?
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.