Posted on 03/22/2013 10:51:40 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Easter customs mix pagan myths, rituals, symbols and practices with just a little truth. What's wrong with this picture?
Link to YouTube video:
Thanks for your comments. I am in full agreement that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday (not Friday) and rose sometime BEFORE dawn on Sunday. Technically, it was still the sabbath, but Scripture says in many places that Jesus rose on the "first day of the week":
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. (Matthew 28:1)
When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. (Mark 16:9)
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. (John 20:1)
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. (Luke 24:1)
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
The women did not go early on the Sabbath to the tomb, but early on the "first day of the week". The first day of the week was never the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week). There were, however, other days that were also called "sabbath" days, such as the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of the Firstfruits, etc., those were the "extra" sabbaths that week of Christ's crucifixtion. Where some people get the wrong impression that Jesus died on Friday, is because Scripture says the soldiers went around breaking the legs of those crucified with Jesus so that they died before the Sabbath started and, since the Sabbath is Saturday (the seventh day of the week), they say he died on "good Friday". But we know that there was a "special" Sabbath that week in addition to the regular Saturday Sabbath.
I disagree that Christians are "supposed" to meet for worship on Saturdays and not Sunday. The Saturday Sabbath was an ordinance between God and the Jews, like circumscision. As Christians, we are not under the laws of Moses but under grace. The law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, to point out our sinfulness and total inability to keep the perfect law of God and to point us to His mercy and grace. We are sanctified by the offering of Christ, once for all, and not by our own righteousness. The first Christians, many who were Jews, continued to keep Sabbath, but it was not an ordinance insisted upon the Gentiles as the first council of Jerusalem said.
The Apostles.
... but, without question, Almighty God has ALWAYS commanded "holy men of God" to write his word and they wrote what they were "moved along by the Holy Spirit" to write.
Feel free to cite a single verse where Jesus commanded His Apostles to write a single word. In fact, in Mark 16:15 Jesus commanded His Apostles to preach, not to write... yes, the dreaded spoken testimony. If it was meant to be as you describe it, don't you think a few more than three of the Apostles would have written? Yet, we have only the writings of three Apostles in the Bible.
In one place, St Paul says that he longs to see the Thessalonians personally to build up what is lacking in their faith (1 Thess 3:10)... he didn't write to them to build them up and he didn't assign a reading list. He needed to be there in person to preach to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, St Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to keep away from those who do not follow the traditions he brought. In 2 Thess 2:15, St Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter. In 1 Cor 11:2, he commends the Corinthians for holding fast to the traditions he brought them.
I think when people say things that de-emphasize the Sacred Scriptures, they do so to place a human organization above the word of God.
Ironically, we are not de-emphasizing Scripture by elevating the Church. Why? Because Scripture elevates the Church... 1 Tim 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Why is the Church the pillar and support of the truth? Because Scripture is not self-illuminating (Acts 8:30-31). Individuals interpret Scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture doesn't hold everything (John 20:30 and John 21:25). The Canon of the Bible doesn't even hold everything Scripture records to be Scripture... St Paul references letters not included (1 Cor 5:9-11 and Col 4:16). St Peter resolved the question of the gentiles without reference to Scripture (Acts 15). St Paul admonishes his readers to hold to the Apostolic Tradition he brought, not Scripture (2 Thess 3:6).
Jesus did give authority during His ministry. He gave it to His Apostles; principally among them, St Peter. Recall that Jesus specifically gave St Peter the authority of binding and loosing in Matt 16:19... and not just on Earth but in Heaven as well. Why? Because Christ's Kingdom is One. There is not an Earthly Kingdom and a Heavenly Kingdom separated. We are joined and confess in our Creed the Communion of Saints. By what authority did Christ bestow His Own Authority on St Peter and the Apostles? He is the Son of David and sits on the throne of the everlasting Davidic Kingdom. Hearken back to Isaiah 22:22... here we have the commutation of authority from a deposed Prime Minister to the new one. What is the symbol of this authority? The keys of the House of David that what he opens will not be shut and what he shuts will not be opened. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
... Scripture. It really is the only OBJECTIVE and infallible authority we have.
And yet the defining characteristic of those who follow this one, objective infallible authority is disunity and division. Each denomination puts forward a pope of their own in the person of Luther, Calvin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Billy Graham or Joel Osteen who tells them what Scripture really means. Christ knew we needed such an authority so He Himself gave us an anchor of His own choosing. He gave the Church His authority (Matt 18:17).
Sometimes Catholics take heat for naming our churches after saints. Our detractors reference 1 Cor 1:11-13. These criticisms horribly miss the mark, though. We are One Catholic Church. Catholic mean universal. It is in all places and all times. It is the unity of Heaven and Earth. We follow the Deposit of Faith given by Christ in Sacred Tradition for the understanding of Sacred Scripture. It is Christ's Church He promised to build (Matt 16:18).
Not so in the Protestant world. Each denomination is a division and each founds its Gospel on the teaching or school of men. The Lutherans follow Martin Luther, the Calvinists follow John Calvin, the Anglicans follow the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc ad infinitum.
May the God of all wisdom grant you His Grace. Good night.
The Apostles.
... but, without question, Almighty God has ALWAYS commanded "holy men of God" to write his word and they wrote what they were "moved along by the Holy Spirit" to write.
Feel free to cite a single verse where Jesus commanded His Apostles to write a single word. In fact, in Mark 16:15 Jesus commanded His Apostles to preach, not to write... yes, the dreaded spoken testimony. If it was meant to be as you describe it, don't you think a few more than three of the Apostles would have written? Yet, we have only the writings of three Apostles in the Bible.
In one place, St Paul says that he longs to see the Thessalonians personally to build up what is lacking in their faith (1 Thess 3:10)... he didn't write to them to build them up and he didn't assign a reading list. He needed to be there in person to preach to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, St Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to keep away from those who do not follow the traditions he brought. In 2 Thess 2:15, St Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter. In 1 Cor 11:2, he commends the Corinthians for holding fast to the traditions he brought them.
I think when people say things that de-emphasize the Sacred Scriptures, they do so to place a human organization above the word of God.
Ironically, we are not de-emphasizing Scripture by elevating the Church. Why? Because Scripture elevates the Church... 1 Tim 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Why is the Church the pillar and support of the truth? Because Scripture is not self-illuminating (Acts 8:30-31). Individuals interpret Scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture doesn't hold everything (John 20:30 and John 21:25). The Canon of the Bible doesn't even hold everything Scripture records to be Scripture... St Paul references letters not included (1 Cor 5:9-11 and Col 4:16). St Peter resolved the question of the gentiles without reference to Scripture (Acts 15). St Paul admonishes his readers to hold to the Apostolic Tradition he brought, not Scripture (2 Thess 3:6).
Jesus did give authority during His ministry. He gave it to His Apostles; principally among them, St Peter. Recall that Jesus specifically gave St Peter the authority of binding and loosing in Matt 16:19... and not just on Earth but in Heaven as well. Why? Because Christ's Kingdom is One. There is not an Earthly Kingdom and a Heavenly Kingdom separated. We are joined and confess in our Creed the Communion of Saints. By what authority did Christ bestow His Own Authority on St Peter and the Apostles? He is the Son of David and sits on the throne of the everlasting Davidic Kingdom. Hearken back to Isaiah 22:22... here we have the commutation of authority from a deposed Prime Minister to the new one. What is the symbol of this authority? The keys of the House of David that what he opens will not be shut and what he shuts will not be opened. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
... Scripture. It really is the only OBJECTIVE and infallible authority we have.
And yet the defining characteristic of those who follow this one, objective infallible authority is disunity and division. Each denomination puts forward a pope of their own in the person of Luther, Calvin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Billy Graham or Joel Osteen who tells them what Scripture really means. Christ knew we needed such an authority so He Himself gave us an anchor of His own choosing. He gave the Church His authority (Matt 18:17).
Sometimes Catholics take heat for naming our churches after saints. Our detractors reference 1 Cor 1:11-13. These criticisms horribly miss the mark, though. We are One Catholic Church. Catholic mean universal. It is in all places and all times. It is the unity of Heaven and Earth. We follow the Deposit of Faith given by Christ in Sacred Tradition for the understanding of Sacred Scripture. It is Christ's Church He promised to build (Matt 16:18).
Not so in the Protestant world. Each denomination is a division and each founds its Gospel on the teaching or school of men. The Lutherans follow Martin Luther, the Calvinists follow John Calvin, the Anglicans follow the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc ad infinitum.
If the Bible was meant to be the sole authority from the beginning you would think Christ could have made more copies available. I mean, if the basis of faith is each person reading his own Bible and memorizing verses, then we didn't actually have a Church until Gutenberg made the copying process faster than your average 100 Catholic monks. Of course, that would have to mean that the first 1,500 years after Pentacost don't count as Church history.
May the God of all wisdom grant you His Grace. Good night.
No, he taught them the truth through the authority of his own testimony. In 1 Thess 3:10, we find St Paul desiring to come and teach the Thessalonians personally. His letter was not enough and he didn't assign others as a reading list. Think about it... St Paul spent weeks and even years in these congregations instructing them. There is no way his letters contain all that he taught just as the Gospels don't contain all that Jesus said and did (John 20:30 and John 21:25).
You must be a freemason, right?
Strange question. You're free to read my profile. I'm pretty open about my convictions.
Surely you realize that what you have proven is the total absurdity of your premise!
Ummm... No.
Firm in your dedication to an illogical POV is what shows.
The fact that he had a desire for personal contact in no way indicates that his letters in any way lacked the full message.
You seem to demonstrate a desire to believe in the existance of mystic secrets, and other nonsense that Yeshua denounced. There is no Oral tradition in the Earthly ministry of Yeshua Ha Mashiach; that is what he most denounced.
Sounds like whatever needed to be preserved in sacred Scripture, HAS been preserved in sacred Scripture.
If your church teaches anything that contradicts Scripture, then it is NOT a pillar and support of the truth. Being a pillar and support of the truth does not mean it has carte blanche to INVENT the truth - something the Roman Catholic Church has done repeatedly, though they certainly aren't alone in that error. Without the Scriptures, we would have NO assurance about what is or is not the truth. Human beings are notorious for playing power games and history is rife with it in the "church". When Scripture talks about the church, it doesn't mean one, institution that calls itself "THE" church, but it is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ composed of ALL believers from every part of the world at all times AND not even one member is unsaved. You certainly can't say that about the RCC, can you? No church can say that, either. So, no matter who someone follows or doesn't follow, the Scriptures ARE the record of Christ's teachings on earth and the further revelation he gave after through the Holy Spirit.
It is a strawman to pretend that, because some people "interpret" Scripture incorrectly, it means Scripture is insufficient. Sure, the church is supposed to be where the truth is found and taught, but it takes far more than an insistence of being the church. We were given the Scriptures so that we could KNOW what the truth is and God preserved it for us so that anyone who claims to be teaching God's truth can be confirmed by Scripture. God said through the prophet Isaiah:
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:20)
And Paul stated:
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (I Cor. 14:7)
The Apostle John said:
Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. (I John 2:7)
To imply that, since Jesus never "commanded His Apostles to write a single word", that it means the written word has no power or purpose or that the Apostles who God used to write the New Testament were not doing so under the command of God, is ridiculous. What do you think the history of the OLD Testament's example meant to them? Unto the Jews were given the "oracles of God", Paul said, but that didn't guarantee that they could preserve the truth of God without those oracles (writings). No, we have the sacred writings for a SPECIFIC reason, and that is so that we may know the truths God has revealed. NO church, no matter its purported history, can be in authority over God's word.
You mentioned Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians to follow his "traditions" and to stay away from those who don't, yet in that very same chapter he said:
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (II Thess. 3:14,15)
Sounds to me like there was authority in the WRITTEN word. Have a blessed Lord's day.
Sounds like whatever needed to be preserved in sacred Scripture, HAS been preserved in sacred Scripture.
Yes. However, Scripture Itself records that not everything is written (John 20:30 and John 21:25).
If your church teaches anything that contradicts Scripture, then it is NOT a pillar and support of the truth.
True.
Being a pillar and support of the truth does not mean it has carte blanche to INVENT the truth - something the Roman Catholic Church has done repeatedly, though they certainly aren't alone in that error.
An example for our discussion, please?
Without the Scriptures, we would have NO assurance about what is or is not the truth. Human beings are notorious for playing power games and history is rife with it in the "church".
Then it's a darn good thing this Church which plays fast and loose with the truth did away with Scripture so they wouldn't be found out! Oh wait. That didn't happen? You mean this Church is actually the one institution in the whole world which faithfully preserved the Scripture intact throughout the ages. Could it be, then, that that which seems contradictory may simply be the result of disagreement from those who reject the teaching authority of the Church? Likely.
When Scripture talks about the church, it doesn't mean one, institution that calls itself "THE" church, but it is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ composed of ALL believers from every part of the world at all times AND not even one member is unsaved.
Christ prayed that we might be one in faith. We are in the Catholic (universal) Church and maintain that unity with 13 other Churches who maintain communion with Her and with the historical Church back to Christ in unchanging doctrine and dogma. Where we are not one in faith is in the fractalized Protestant denominations where they reject the authority of the Church and claim unity against all obvious observations. There isn't one body and one bride where the members of the body and the bride are not in one accord.
It is a strawman to pretend that, because some people "interpret" Scripture incorrectly, it means Scripture is insufficient.
It is indeed! But it isn't my straw man. I never said this. Scripture is sufficient in its role. However, to give it sole authority is to deny the Holy Spirit Who Christ promised would teach us all things (John 14:26). If you close revelation with Scripture then we have been adrift for nearly 2,000 years with no further revelation of God. This isn't in keeping with Christ's promise. Scripture is like a textbook. It is correct and unerring. However, we still need a teacher to fully comprehend the subject matter (Acts 8:30-31). Christ promised us the Holy Spirit and the Church has been taught and led from the beginning. Remember that St Peter did not cite Scripture when pronouncing that the gentiles did not have to circumcised under the Law in order to partake of the New Covenant with the Jews (Acts 15). He did this of the authority given him by Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a model for the Church... to recognize the truth and teach through the Spirit even on issues for which there is no Scripture to directly consult.
To imply that, since Jesus never "commanded His Apostles to write a single word", that it means the written word has no power or purpose or that the Apostles who God used to write the New Testament were not doing so under the command of God, is ridiculous.
I agree! Good thing I didn't imply that...
No, we have the sacred writings for a SPECIFIC reason, and that is so that we may know the truths God has revealed.
More specifically, we have the sacred writings because they tell a specific story... the story of our fall and redemption. Again, there is more that Jesus said and did than what was recorded. What was recorded was so we would know of the revelation of God.
Sounds to me like there was authority in the WRITTEN word.
Yes... but WHOSE? St Paul's. St Paul is writing through the authority given to him as an Apostle of Jesus. Look at the Epistles and you should see a common trend among them... they are not a catechism of the faith. They don't touch on every subject... not even close. They are narrow in focus and deal with areas of concern where the churches needed reproof, encouragement, or clarification. In them, you witness the authority of the early Church for by them the Apostles kept unity of faith to a common witness. Their testimony of faith was comprehensive... their Epistle was narrowly instructive.
Yes, of course I read it closely. There is the Word of God, the WORD who was with God and IS God and was made flesh - Jesus (John 1) and there is the word of God, which is the truths God has revealed to mankind. The word of God which is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17) and cannot be chained (2 Tim. 2:9). For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12) Whether these truths are spoken or read, they ARE the word of God. I know that whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4). I do not believe that God would have omitted anything from the written word that was binding upon a believer's soul. The Apostles certainly had a special gift and power and they DID rely on the written word (the Old Testament) to bolster their preaching about Jesus being the promised Messiah. Think how futile that might have been for them had God not preserved all those books of Moses and the Prophets that spoke of him. That's how they KNEW Jesus was THE Christ! Their teaching to the early church was written down so that there would be a rule of faith to go by and it had authority and power because it came from the Holy Spirit. So no matter if someone could read or not, there was a standard by which truth could be measured. The time between the resurrection and the last of the Apostles died, the Scriptures were being written. After John died, new revelation ceased.
Yes. However, Scripture Itself records that not everything is written (John 20:30 and John 21:25).
Not everything Jesus DID was written, John said, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25) "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book." (John 20:30) BUT..."But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) Why do some people forget about that verse? Would John have left out anything that would help us believe? Why do so many use this one verse to try to make the Bible say the church can decide anything is "tradition" and must be obeyed, when it's not even saying that?
An example for our discussion, please? (inventing 'truth')
Of the many to choose from, these few come to mind:
Bodily assumption of Mary. Perpetual virginity. No other children for Mary and Joseph. Praying to departed saints. Purgatory. Indulgences. Sacrifice of the Mass. Not interested in carrying on a discussion on all these, just giving examples of things I think the Catholic Church invented outside of Scriptural warrant and in which they claim belief is mandatory to be saved.
Then it's a darn good thing this Church which plays fast and loose with the truth did away with Scripture so they wouldn't be found out! Oh wait. That didn't happen? You mean this Church is actually the one institution in the whole world which faithfully preserved the Scripture intact throughout the ages. Could it be, then, that that which seems contradictory may simply be the result of disagreement from those who reject the teaching authority of the Church? Likely.
It's not a secret that the Catholic Church DID try to stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people. It's also no secret that, at certain times, reading the Bible was forbidden by non-clergy. It is GOD who has preserved his word. He used men but even if no man was found faithful enough to do so, he would have STILL preserved it. "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matt. 5:18). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.", Jesus said. (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." (Isa. 40:8) Let's not forget that when we say "church", not everyone presumes the Roman Catholic Church. Even when the RCC was unfaithful to the Bible, there were STILL Christians who honored it and kept it.
Christ prayed that we might be one in faith. We are in the Catholic (universal) Church and maintain that unity with 13 other Churches who maintain communion with Her and with the historical Church back to Christ in unchanging doctrine and dogma. Where we are not one in faith is in the fractalized Protestant denominations where they reject the authority of the Church and claim unity against all obvious observations. There isn't one body and one bride where the members of the body and the bride are not in one accord.
Hmmm...what is it that separates those 22 (actually) other churches? Is there doctrinal unity with the Orthodox churches? They believe it is y'all that have strayed from the truth of the faith. It's getting tiresome explaining that all these "Protestant" denominations - the ones that remain faithful to Scripture - ARE unified in the major tenets of the faith. In fact, on most of them there's not much air between what Protestants and Catholics believe on the major doctrines of the faith. It was those extra-Biblical doctrines that caused the Reformation and the split before that with the East. Not only that, but saying you have unity and actually proving you do are two different things. How do you classify the cafeteria Catholics? Count them out when you talk about your unity?
Asserting that Catholic doctrines and dogmas are the same ones that were taught in the early church is not true. MANY have changed and many were unknown for centuries or longer in the church. The Catholic Church DOES invent doctrines not held by the Apostles, which disproves the claim to submission to their authority. The authority the Apostles were given by Jesus was not something they could hand down who would then hand it down and so forth. Whatever authority existed was one of the passing down of the message. There was no succession of Apostleship.
However, to give it sole authority is to deny the Holy Spirit Who Christ promised would teach us all things (John 14:26). If you close revelation with Scripture then we have been adrift for nearly 2,000 years with no further revelation of God. This isn't in keeping with Christ's promise. Scripture is like a textbook. It is correct and unerring. However, we still need a teacher to fully comprehend the subject matter (Acts 8:30-31). Christ promised us the Holy Spirit and the Church has been taught and led from the beginning. Remember that St Peter did not cite Scripture when pronouncing that the gentiles did not have to circumcised under the Law in order to partake of the New Covenant with the Jews (Acts 15). He did this of the authority given him by Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a model for the Church... to recognize the truth and teach through the Spirit even on issues for which there is no Scripture to directly consult.
The Holy Spirit is within each and every believer and was promised by Jesus to lead us into all truth. He illuminates God's truths to our hearts. The leaders within the churches (local churches) have the gift of the Holy Spirit to BE preachers and evangelists and teachers...to the edification of the members of their church. That's why Paul instructed the Corinthians on the proper protocol for handling disputes among members. Peter did have the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said would "bring to their remembrance everything he had taught them" so that they could evangelize and plant churches and ordain elders to pastor the new believers, teaching them the SAME truths Peter had received from Christ. Now that we have the Bible, all those teachings are there and a good pastor should have an intimate knowledge of them so that he can teach and disciple others. It's a different ball game now than when Peter lived. He was on the ground floor building the church up through the power of the Gospel along with the others. The "model" for the church is to use what God has provided for us, his sacred revelation recorded in Holy Scripture. Whatever the church teaches, whatever makes up the rule of our faith, is found in the Scriptures. I can't think of even one area that the Bible doesn't address in some way. Though their epistles were narrowly instructive, together they make up the rule of faith. God forgot nothing.
We have the word and the WORD of God. Praise HIS name!
Certainly it's true! But nonetheless Christ tells us to remember his death and even has a specific holy day to do that, Passover. He never specified or created a day to commemerate his resurrection. That was done by man centuries after his death.
His sacrificial death IS the ONLY reason we even have a hope of resurrection:
Col 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled
Col 1:22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—
Without his death there would be no new covenant and no resurrection:
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Romans 5 and 6 are great testaments to why he had to die and the role of his death in the lives of Christians.
Commemorating Christ's rising from the dead is why the first Christians began meeting on the first day of the week.
This didn't happen in biblical times. The primary reason why some later abandoned the holy days was to distance themselves from whatever "looked" Jewish. There was a strong anti-Jewish prejudice in Rome due to a series of Jewish revolts against the Roman empire. Many found it expedient NOT to do anything that might mark them as a Jew. The result was that some began keeping days other than what was commanded in the bible and began to create justifications for doing so.
w00t! w00t! : ) Trust YHWH not man. But I will warn you, once the scales start slipping off of your eyes, it is impossible to put them back on.
Technically, it was still the sabbath, but Scripture says in many places that Jesus rose on the "first day of the week":
No, technically it can be either. The Sabbath ended at sunset on Saturday. But in large part, your proofs do not establish that he rose on the first day, but rather that the tomb was empty well before dawn on the first day. However Mark 16 seems to be quite specific (as well as a couple more I could point out). So you have reason to believe your position is sound.
And I need not defend Diego1618 - He has fleshed out his position many times hereon, and by the math, he is right too...
So how can both be true? In fact, both can be true - The gloaming belongs to both days, and to neither. So this argument may well be defining the very moment that he arose.
As a proof, I will offer the idea that Yeshua was functioning as high priest from the moment of his mikvah by John the Baptist... He had no need to be baptized, he was following all righteousness. If one studies the matter one will find the mikvah is an instrumental ritual at the consecration of a mission or appointment wrt priestly duty. Each action performed by Yeshua must be examined in the light of priestly significance (not only, but as an aspect, as several aspects apply to his life and ministry). Therefore, one must look at the things the high priest did wrt the passover, and we should see those things played out in Yeshua's actions (and if one studies it, one certainly will).
For the purpose of this discussion, the salient thing is the 'marking of the sheaves'. After the sacrifice of the perfect lamb, the high priest goes into seclusion in the ground beneath the Temple. He remains there until the end of the Sabbath just prior to the first fruits offering on the first day. He rises up (still consecrated, can't be touched) precisely in the gloaming, in order to mark the sheaves which will be left standing until dawn, when they are cut, processed, roasted, and offered as First Fruits. The point being that Yeshua would have risen too, in order to mark the sheaves precisely as the sun set.
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
As an aside, this is a serious proof against a Sunday sabbath. It is an ancient Jewish tradition to gather together after the Sabbath to 'break bread' together, and may well be why Protestants are so fond of potluck dinners... the time-frame here is Saturday evening, after dark (which is the first day).
I disagree that Christians are "supposed" to meet for worship on Saturdays and not Sunday.
It isn't 'meeting for worship' that is on point. It is the keeping of the Sabbath. You may meet to worship every and any day.
The Saturday Sabbath was an ordinance between God and the Jews, like circumscision.
The Sabbath day was given in Eden, and was sanctified for all time. No one has the right or warrant to change it at all.
As Christians, we are not under the laws of Moses but under grace. The law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, to point out our sinfulness and total inability to keep the perfect law of God and to point us to His mercy and grace.
Yet Yeshua specifically commanded to DO and to TEACH the Torah. In the light of that (which is inescapable) your interpretation must necessarily change. The followers of Yeshua are defined as those who keep the commandments of YHWH and have the testimony of Yeshua. How then can your statement above (which is true btw) fit into that?
Well..........that's another problem. It doesn't!
Translators would like you to believe their "Main Stream" bias.......but the Greek says something altogether different. Think about it. The "Church" wants a special day because they don't want the Romans to confuse THEM with the Hebrews (early second century) so they begin worshiping the day after the Sabbath. Now....they need a reason so they invent a "Sunday Resurrection" by changing the word "σαββάτων" from its plural Greek meaning of "Sabbaths" to mean "week" (singular). Then....for good measure they insert the word "day". So here's what you end up with:
King James: [Luke 24:1]Now upon the first day of the week (σαββάτων), very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
The italicized words, are of course inserted by translators as they do not appear in the original Greek. Here's how "Robert Young" (a lifelong student of Hebrew and Greek) translates the same verse in his "Young's Literal Translation:
"And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others] with them,"
He was a "Scottish Free Church" Presbyterian (19th century) but insisted his translation remain true to the literal original language. He is also the author of "Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible" found in most theological libraries. Why would he say the word "σαββάτων" meant Sabbaths (plural) and the rest of the Catholic/Protestant translators call it week (singular)?
The Church had an agenda to convince the folks Yeshua rose on Sunday morning. It's really no more difficult than that. There is not one passage in the New Testament that will say that He rose on the first day of the week. They all say Sabbath (Saturday) morning.....early before sunrise (if you read the Greek). In fact....the Greek word for week (EBDOMA) does not even appear in the New Testament. It appears in the Septuagint twice [Genesis 29:27-28][Daniel 9:27]..........in Greek, of course.
Now the obvious question. Why is "σαββάτων" plural?
"Seven sabbaths were to be counted from the Feast of First-fruits or Passover. Consequently, these came to be known as "First Sabbath," "Second Sabbath" etc., down to the seventh. And according to Julian Morgenstern, former President of Hebrew University, this practice continued in Galilee till the time of Christ or the Common Era. It is still observed by some groups in Palestine today. Thus, there was an annual date known as "First Sabbath," just after Passover." [page 230..... The Life of Christ in Stereo]
You, of course find this in [Leviticus 23:15-16]
[...] but it was not an ordinance insisted upon the Gentiles as the first council of Jerusalem said.
Better study that council again. according to the verdict, they already have Moses being preached to them in the synagogues. And the question on point is whether the gentile adult males need to be circumcised in order to be saved. The circumcision of baby males continues to this day throughout the Christian community. So what? Did they fail to pay attention to that verdict, or is our interpretation today full of leaven? Best go see what the Torah has to say.
There is the Word of God, the WORD who was with God and IS God and was made flesh - Jesus (John 1) and there is the word of God, which is the truths God has revealed to mankind.
Here is our fundamental difference... there is no separation between Jesus and the Word. HE IS THE WORD in all ways. There are many examples where Christ is speaking first-hand through the words written by men. Consider the fact that all of Jewish history is Jesus's history ("out of Egypt, I called my son... this was true of the Jews and it was also true of Christ following the death of Herod"). Here's a great example, though... on the Cross, Jesus cried out "My God, My God. Why have you abandoned me?" Most Protestants with whom I converse see this as proof that Jesus became our sins and God can't look on sin, so Jesus was alone. There is another way to see it. Jesus didn't have much breath available to Him. Every word He spoke required Him to pull Himself up by His nailed Hands and stand up on His nailed Feet... a physical requirement to speak. It was agonizing and, as close as He was to death, very difficult. This is why Christ said seven things from the Cross. One, seven is a holy sign of the Covenant with God but two, it was all He had left to give. Anyway, Jesus was teaching us even then on the Cross. From our perspective, He was celebrating the Holy Mass and this cry was His homily. It hearkens back to the Psalms and is the most unique opening of any passages of the Bible. Just as you and I could say, "Four score and seven years ago..." and know the rest of the quote by heart, so could the Jews do that with the Psalms. Read Psalm 22 with an eye toward Jesus speaking first-hand from the Cross. You can see it begins in tragedy but it ends in triumph. God did not abandon Jesus on the Cross. What God saw was an obedient Son doing His Holy Will.
The Apostles certainly had a special gift and power and they DID rely on the written word (the Old Testament) to bolster their preaching about Jesus being the promised Messiah.
Yes, just as the Church relies on Holy Scripture today. When the Gospel was spread, the Apostles told their listeners to search the Scriptures to see the truth of their message. What Scriptures? There wasn't a New Testament yet. They were instructing their listeners to see how Christ fulfilled all that was prophesied. The testimony of the Apostles was new. The Messiah had come. What He promised and what He fulfilled was known.
So let's talk about the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). This council of the Apostles was called to deal with the issue of circumcision for the gentiles. There was a great disagreement among the Jews that if "salvation is from the Jews" the gentiles must be part of God's circumcision covenant with Abraham to participate. There was no consensus of thought between the Apostles. Acts records that there was a great discussion... until St Peter spoke. He didn't quote Scripture. He spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to build the Church with a doctrine not known until that time. It didn't contradict Scripture but there was no source for him to cite. He spoke from the authority given him as an Apostle and he was heard as the one who was given special grace to speak on behalf of all of the Apostles (Acts 1). This is how the Church still functions. Through careful prayer and reflection, it comes together to understand the instruction of the Holy Spirit promised to them by Christ to teach them all things. Not everything is included in Scripture... if it were, it would be so voluminous as to be unsearchable. Scripture records the story of our fall and redemption. The Church has had to fill in the "gaps" when confronted... as in the Council of Jerusalem.
After John died, new revelation ceased.
I know you don't see it but this statement says that since then we have been abandoned by the Holy Spirit. This is not so and would not fulfill Christ's promise to be with us always.
Why do some people forget about that verse? Would John have left out anything that would help us believe?
I don't leave anything out. That verse says exactly what I've been telling you... that only those things which help you see the identity and purpose of Christ were written. Certainly, as God Incarnate, EVERYTHING that Jesus did and touched was made holy. I know I would hang on every word which came out of His mouth. Over His 33 (or so) year life, and certainly during His three year ministry, more could be written than the short synopsis of the Gospels. If what we have in the Gospels is every word He ever spoke, He would have been better known as the silent prophet. He would have said very little for months on end!
Why do so many use this one verse to try to make the Bible say the church can decide anything is "tradition" and must be obeyed, when it's not even saying that?
The Church does not teach that anything is tradition. There are traditions (like the colors of the liturgical calendar, the placement of candles around the altar, the courtesies shown to bishops) and then there is Tradition (with a capital T). We observe the former because we have a common heritage. We observe the latter because it is the instruction given by Christ to the Apostles for understanding Scripture and the whole of revelation. Scripture is not contradicted by the Church, It is illuminated where It is not self-illuminating. If Scripture were self-illuminating, there would not be disagreement among believers on Its meaning!
Bodily assumption of Mary. Perpetual virginity. No other children for Mary and Joseph. Praying to departed saints. Purgatory. Indulgences. Sacrifice of the Mass. Not interested in carrying on a discussion on all these, just giving examples of things I think the Catholic Church invented outside of Scriptural warrant and in which they claim belief is mandatory to be saved.
I prefer to handle these one at a time... these posts are getting WAY too long! For a more comprehensive answer, I offer this post... some conversations repeat on this forum. If posts were editable, I would go back and amend a few things slightly (like point out that Elijah was bodily assumed in Heaven on a flaming chariot, for example) but I think it suffices. Feel free to click on my name below for more conversations I've linked for more understanding of the Catholic perspective.
This whole discussion comes down to a question of authority. Who had it? Who has it now? How is it exercised? During the lives of the Apostles, it's abundantly clear they had the ecclesial authority. By what other right could they define doctrine for the whole Church to follow (Acts 15)? Scripture is clear that someone must be in charge... from the time of Abraham over his tribe, to Moses over the nation of Israel, to the judges, to King David... someone had to be in charge to keep the people on the straight and narrow. Even among the Protestant denominations, it takes leadership and teaching authority to keep unity of faith.
So the Apostles had authority. Could their authority be conferred on others? What was the first thing they did after they lost one of their number (Judas)? They sought the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for filling his office (Acts 1). Again, the Church follows this model down to today. If it has authority to illuminate Scripture and teach what is not explicitly clear, then it has the authority to define doctrine (as St Peter and the Apostles did at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15)
It's not a secret that the Catholic Church DID try to stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people.
It's also not a secret that before the printing press Bibles were copied by hand... by Catholic monks in monasteries. Bibles were a precious scarcity and the copies were made that churches would have them to share... especially during Mass. Repeatedly, Scripture notes that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Until Bibles were produced in quantity with the printing press, this hearing was done during Mass on Sundays. That's the reality for 75% of Church history! Rather than have the monks churn out Bibles in every language, the people were taught a common ecclesial language in Latin so that all could read the same Scripture and participate in the same liturgy. Therefore, Bibles were really only available to the learned of people and kept for safe-keeping by the Church and in the churches.
It's also no secret that, at certain times, reading the Bible was forbidden by non-clergy.
And you don't see any wisdom in that? Again, the Bible was only accessible in written form to the clergy and those others who understood the language. In an age of illiteracy, that was a small minority. Those who claimed wisdom outside of the Church and sought to twist the language of the Bible did so to their own destruction in accordance with 2 Peter 3:16. There is only Christian unity where there is unity of faith. That requires a teaching authority in the Church to explain what is mysterious and define what is hidden.
It is GOD who has preserved his word.
And it is God Who has preserved the Church to do His Will. This is a key piece... the Scripture can't DO God's Will. God's Word goes out and will accomplish its purpose... but its purpose isn't clothing the naked or feeding the hungry. That is the job of the Church. In that purpose, there must be shepherds to guide the faithful. God gave those to us in His Clergy.
Hmmm...what is it that separates those 22 (actually) other churches? Is there doctrinal unity with the Orthodox churches?
We are one in faith. However, there are variations in voice. For example, the Maronites are charged with keeping the Aramaic language alive in the liturgy. Each church is unique but we are united in communion of faith.
It's getting tiresome explaining that all these "Protestant" denominations - the ones that remain faithful to Scripture - ARE unified in the major tenets of the faith. In fact, on most of them there's not much air between what Protestants and Catholics believe on the major doctrines of the faith.
True. We do agree on a vast majority of the faith. I thank God for that.
It was those extra-Biblical doctrines that caused the Reformation and the split before that with the East.
This is ahistorical. Martin Luther was the catalyst and political power was the engine. German princedoms latched on to the major heresies of the day as a means to differentiate themselves from the Church and thereby inflame the religious furvor of their peoples in the accomplishment of political ambition. That is why Christianity made war on each other. NO WHERE are we admonished to make war on one another... whether Catholic or Protestant. As you said, we share 95% of a common faith. As a side note, though, the issues you cited above (except for indulgences) were not an issue for Martin Luther.
How do you classify the cafeteria Catholics? Count them out when you talk about your unity?
They count themselves out. This is a perspective which separates Catholic from Protestant and it goes back to the question of authority. If the Church is Christ's and the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, then its edicts must be followed. To put aside parts of the faith with which you disagree is to not be in communion with the Church. There is unity for those who remain in communion. Those who do not are not really Catholic. We don't seek a Church which agrees with our Will, we are to conform our wills with Christ through the ministrations of His Bride.
The Holy Spirit is within each and every believer and was promised by Jesus to lead us into all truth.
The Holy Spirit is a person with a Will. He was promised to the Church through the Apostles but has certainly operated outside of that to those open to Him.
He illuminates God's truths to our hearts.
And yet there is no unity of faith to those who trust solely in private revelation. You would certainly expect that one Spirit, speaking with one voice, would give a consistent message. However, the message from the Protestant denominations is anything but consistent. See here on this very thread the disagreements among Protestant brethren who supposedly follow the same Spirit and truth! Private revelation has occurred and has been tested by the Church and it has enriched the Church. There are many, though, who exemplify 2 Peter 3:16.
The leaders within the churches (local churches) have the gift of the Holy Spirit to BE preachers and evangelists and teachers...to the edification of the members of their church.
And what man or body of men certifies the Spirit in these pastors who disagree with each other? Jesse Jackson is a reverend... just sayin'...
It's a different ball game now than when Peter lived.
Wrong! It's the exact same ballgame. That's why the Bible remains relevant to us today... we are still the same and still in need of the same Grace. God gave us the Church with the Spirit passed in succession through its ministers to continue the saving work of Christ.
The "model" for the church is to use what God has provided for us, his sacred revelation recorded in Holy Scripture.
And yet Scripture lifts up the Church as the pillar of the Truth and the one to settle discipline on its members. You still haven't dealt with 1 Tim 3:15.
I can't think of even one area that the Bible doesn't address in some way.
It didn't deal with the proper method of welcoming the gentiles in the age of the Church. St Peter and the Apostles had to discern the answer to this question through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit not in scrutiny of Scripture. Along the way, there have been many more... but you reject these because you can't find them explicitly written in Scripture. That is the circular logic you apply to the Church.
We have the word and the WORD of God. Praise HIS name!
And we have only the Word of God. His Name be praised indeed!
Sorry but have to disagree with your point here. Read a little further in Acts 15:
Act 15:13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
Act 15:14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
Act 15:16 'AFTER THIS I WILL RETURN AND WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, WHICH HAS FALLEN DOWN; I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL SET IT UP;
Act 15:17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, EVEN ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, SAYS THE LORD WHO DOES ALL THESE THINGS.'
Act 15:18 "Known to God from eternity are all His works.
James made the determination that Peter spoke truly, but he also verified that what Peter said was completely consistent with scripture. They didn't just allow someone to say something without having a scriptural basis. In this case he referenced Amos but there were many scriptures that foretold that gentiles would be granted the holy spirit of the Lord. The bottom line is that Peter wasn't doing anything on tradition or his own authority but instead looked at scripture and determined whether what was happening was scriptural or not. It was in this case.
No one has even remotely suggested that gentiles aren't called to be part of the plan of salvation. This is a straw man. I think you were trying to prove that St Peter's assertion that gentiles need not be circumcised was based in Scripture... your citation above doesn't discuss this. Can you try again?
It wasn't about whether gentiles needed to be circumcised or not. It was about whether or not gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved.
Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
The answer was obvious to all after hearing testimony that of course gentiles could be saved without being circumcised. They then used scripture to verify that GENTILES were to be saved. They interpreted this with the obvious meaning...that God promised in the old testament that uncircumcised gentiles would be saved.
Obvious? Wow... where were you when the Apostles needed your wisdom? You see, you know these things because you have been taught through the wisdom of the Church. The Church in its beginnings didn't think this was all so obvious, though. Let's read of the discussion in its entirety...
Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”There was great dissension and discussion over the issue and there was no authority outside of their own as the Church for them to consult. Just as you have done by saying "it was obvious" but offering no Scripture to show the Will of God, they had to discern among themselves through the Spirit to "add" this doctrine for the edification of the Church. Nothing here says that the gentiles weren't expected to be saved. In fact, St Peter reminded them of his mission to the gentiles. The discussion was regarding the process the gentiles should follow... did the gentiles have to first essentially become Jews? Scripture didn't tell them. The Holy Spirit did. They promulgated a binding new doctrine for all the faithful through their authority as Apostles, not leaning on an authority of Scripture.6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
As Douglas has indicated........the question was, "Should adult Gentile converts be required to undergo circumcision to become part of the New Testament Church." The faction of Pharisees (led by James) [Acts 15:5][Galatians 2:12] felt they must.....according to the Law of Moses. Well.....what did Moses have to say about that?
Moses didn't say much about circumcision but received instructions from Yahweh in two different places [Exodus 12:48] and [Leviticus 12:3]. The part that the Pharisees were having problems with was obviously the first passage:
48And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Paul and Barnabas were celebrating Passover in Antioch and were allowing uncircumcised, adult, Gentile converts to participate. If this were not the case then the Pharisees would have no special problem with Gentile converts coming into the Church. It was only this qualification that had anything to do with the "Law of Moses" [Acts 15:5]. They (The Pharisee faction) insisted that these adult, male Gentiles undergo circumcision for this.....and only this reason. It was this demand by the circumcision group that caused the entire Council to be convened [Acts 15:2]. This was the only question at the council.
Peter spoke of significant things.....how the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles (without circumcision) [15:8] and how no distinction was evident [15:9]. He also related a physical condition that the Apostles, the Pharisees nor their fathers had been able to bear.....they were all circumcised as infants.
To understand just what Peter was getting at let's look at [Genesis 34:13-17].
13And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister: 14And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us: 15But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised; 16Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. 17But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.
All of the men of the city consented to be circumcised and Simeon and Levi (brothers of Dinah) killed them all [34:25] while they were recovering....still in agony....and unable to defend themselves. This is what Peter was referring to......"what we nor our fathers had ever been able to bear".....and we should not ask it of adult, male Gentiles who wish to join with us in our worship.
The discussion was regarding the process the gentiles should follow... did the gentiles have to first essentially become Jews? Scripture didn't tell them. The Holy Spirit did. They promulgated a binding new doctrine for all the faithful through their authority as Apostles, not leaning on an authority of Scripture.
I think they did rely on scripture.....and then used common sense. I also believe that new born Gentile babies were routinely circumcised for health reasons. I'm sure their parents were encouraged by the Apostles to maintain this custom. Adult, male converts continued to be excused for obvious reasons.
DouglasKC and boatbums,
Do you agree with Diego 1618’s analysis here?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Since the gist of this discussion was refuting your contention that Peter and the Apostles determined what was truth outside of Scriptural warrant - essentially making doctrine of their own authority - I think Diego1618 demonstrated that the Apostles HAD to rely upon Scripture even in the new church age. They certainly could not decide anything contrary to God's word already revealed, could they? The epistles Peter and the others wrote, that made up the bulk of the New Testament, enscripturated new truths revealed by the Holy Spirit and they became partnered with the sacred revealed word of God already given. THIS is now our standard for knowing the "whole council of God" and all of Scripture is what determines our "Rule of Faith".
The charisma the Apostles had been given directly by Jesus was NOT something they could hand down nor could others pass it on to their choices. Peter even spoke about the requirements for becoming Apostles when they decided upon a replacement for Judas Iscariot. Only the "truth" is what is handed down and those upon whom were hands laid, by ordination, had the responsibility to ensure the church remained the pillar and buttress of that truth. No mandate was given to "invent" truth and no new Apostles were named by them. Any church that presumes to ordain its own "Apostles" does so without God's say so. Any church that presumes to ordain "new" revealed truth also does so without God's okay. We have the Bible so that we CAN know what to believe.
Our faith does not stand in the wisdom of men (I Cor. 2:5, 43; I Thess. 2:13; Gal. 1:11-12).
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (I Cor. 14:37)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3)
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (I Cor. 4:6)
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.