Now that would be very cool.

BTW, you need to learn to not bite when bait is thrown out there.

MM

lil of both hehe.

Ornery I know.

KFC POSTSED #203

AD posts:

AD,

Let's discuss what v. 27 means taken in full context St.Mark 2: 23-28. My understanding of v. 27 is that all mankind should honor the sabbath which is the 7th day following 6 days of work as a day of rest and giving glory to God and v. 28 sums it all up..."so, the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath."

Here is the entire passage:

23 One sabbath he (Christ) was going through the grain fields and as they made their way His disciples began to pluck ears of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to HIm, "Look, why they are doing is not lawful on the sabbath?" 25 And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the presence, which is not lawful for anyone but the priest to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" 27 And He said to them, "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath."


So, here Christ defends 2 things...in the previous passages He defends His disciples failure to fast and here their breaking the sabbath by "plucking the ears of corn" because of their hunger. This is a scandal to the Pharisees as the plucking of corn is listed under the 39 activities forbidden on the sabbath. It was regarded as a 'work of reaping". The dispute leads to the Pharisees being told that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.

V.28 is something of Christ's teaching with authority and His free, sovereign behavior is revealed. He had often overridden sabbatical precepts which were exceedingly important to the Jews and strictly observed. From this a claim of Jesus emerges. He testifies to being "Lord of" which the early Church understood and recognized and connected with an earlier statement that the Son of man has the power to forgive sins on earth 2:10.

The Bread of the Presence consisted of 12 loaves or cakes placed each morning on the table in the sanctuary as homage to the Lord from the 12 tribes of Israel. The loaves withdrawn to make room for fresh ones were reserved to the priests.

Abiathar's action anticipates what Christ teaches here. Already in the Old Testament God had established a hierarchy in the precepts of the Old Law so that the lesser ones yielded to the main ones. This explains why a ceremonial precept, such as this one was, should yield before a precept of Natural Law. Similiarly, the Commandment to keep the sabbath does not come before the duty to seek basic subsistence.

The Catholic Church teaches this passage underlines the value of human person over and above economic and social development. The social order and its development must always yield to the good of the person since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around as the Lord suggested when He said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. The social order requires constant improvement: it must be founded in truth, built on justice, and enlivened by love. (And as a sidenote: I'd say that some of our civil laws fail miserably at this.)

Finally, in this passage, Christ teaches God's purpose in instituting the sabbath: God established it for man's good, to help him rest and devote himself to Divine worship in joy and peace. The Pharisees, through their interpretation of the Law had turned this day into a source of anguish and scruple due to all the various prescriptions and prohibitions they introduced.

So the correct meaning of the sabbath was made for man is that the sabbath was established for not only man's rest but also to allow him to give glory to God.

By proclaiming Himself, "Lord of the sabbath", Christ affirms His Divinity and His universal authority. Becasue He is Lord of all, He has the power to establish other laws, as Yahweh in the OT.

So, because Christ is God, He has every right to say that He is Lord of the sabbath. Christ restores to the weekly day of rest its full, religious meaning. It's not just a matter of fulfilling a number of legal precepts or of concern for physical well-being..the Sabbath belongs to God, it is one way suited to human nature of rendering glory and honor to the Almighty. The Chruch, from the time of the Apostles onwards, transferred the observance to the following day--the Lord's Day--in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.

As a Messianic Jew the "Son of man" should be of great interest to you. The origin of the messianic meaning of this expression is found in Daniel 7:13, where Daniel, in a prophetic vision, contemplates "one like the son of man" coming down on the clouds of Heaven, who even goes up to GOd's throne and is given dominion and glory and royal power over all peoples and nations." This was fulfilled by Christ's Ascension into Heaven. This expression appears 69 times in the Gospels where Christ prefers it to other ways of describing the Messiah such as the son of David, etc. thereby avoiding nationalistic overtones those expressions had in the Jewish minds at the time.

A second sidenote:

The next chapter following this has an other sabbath story, this time one of Christ healing on the sabbath.

AD POSTS:



Sorry, of post 203, AD, while you did some good sleuth work on "the first day of the week and the morrow, you have come to the wrong conclusion about when the meeting on the first day of the week...I believe it was Sunday...based on the "breaking of the bread"


First of all, what do we know from the couple of previous verses. That St.Paul was in Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in 5 days he and St.Luke went to Troas for 7 days. The Azymes or days of Unleavened Bread are the week when the Passover is celebrated. The Christian celebration of the Resurrection (Easter) and the Jewish Passover fell on the same days. St. Matt. 26:2,17. It is possible that the date can be fixed by this which is done several times in Acts by means of the Jewish calendar 2:1; 12:3; and 27:9.

Here's V. 7----- "And on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul talked with them intending to depart on the morrow and prolonged his speech until midnight."

V. 7 is the first reference in Acts to the Christian custom of the community meeting on the first day of the week to celebrate the Eucharist 2:42; 1Cor.10:16 (which Christ first spoke of as I am the living Bread, and at the Last Supper had told them to "do this" commemmorate in of Him). We can see how this day was celebrated as the day of the Lord on which the early Church assembled together to worship Him. The special character of the day is also shown in 1Cor. 16:2 and Rev. 1:10. Going back to v. 6:4 gives us more of a clue it was our Sunday for it was a day of the ministry of the word, the preaching of salvation, and the eucharistic meal, the breaking of the bread, were all part of the weekly celebration.

I believe that at the death of Christ, when the Temple veil was split from top to bottom, the observance of the Sabbath was abrogated as well as the other Old Covenant Hebrew rites and ceremonies. These disappeared at the coming of Light and Truth which is Jesus Christ. The Jewish Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Apostles. They consecrated the first day of the week to the divine worship and called it ‘the Lord’s Day”. St.John in Apocalypse 1:10 mentions the Lord’s Day and the Apostle commands collections to be made “on the first day of the week”.

The practice of the Christian assembly (the early Mass) dates from the beginnings of Apostolic times. Acts. 2:42-46; 1Cor.11:17. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful “not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another.” Heb. 10:25. There are many, many writings of the Church Fathers that tell how Tradition preserves the memory of an ever timely exhortation : Come to the Church early, approach the Lord and confess your sins, repent in prayer....be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.....We have often said: this day is given to you for rest and prayer. This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad.”


From this we learn that from the days in Troas, the Lord’s Day was kept holy in the Church. Creation is ordered to the Sabbath ,the day to be kept holy to the praise and worship of God. Just as the seventh day of the Sabbath completes the first Creation, so the “eighth day” Sunday, the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead, is celebrated as the “holy day” by Christians-----the day on which the “new creation” began. Thus the Christian observance of Sunday fulfills the Third Commandment to remember and keep holy the Sabbath day.

On this passage the Latin version according to St.Bede translates "on the Lord's Day, the first day after the sabbath, when we gather together to celebrate our mysteries."

What I find amzing is the quick to post response and not paying attention to the reply. Let me ask the board this question....Why you defending Rome and her pagan sun worship instituted as christianity without understanding in ancient times christians were sun worshippers,they kept solarice high days as holy,just like ancient Israel did when they went and got themselves divorced from the covenant.
See the Redeemer came to restore not just the House of Jacob/Judah but the House of Joseph/Ephraim Israel back to covenant along with anyone else who wanted to partake in this precious offer of Redemption from the King of All Israel.

Most are quick to defend their christian sect without ever really studying the root of said church,this is what got me excommunicated,I went to studying and asking questions and refused to sit down and shut up like the pastor and part of the congregation wanted me to do. I know what I speak is truth for the pastor was also a ex seminary instructor,and we talked alot behind closed doors,and through those discusions he realized he was a roman pastor not a israelite pastor like covenant proclaims,and was made uncomfortable so to get his comfort zone back he created a lie.

So lets get honest here anyone really truly believe the roman lie that the apostles taught a fake gospel of lies and deciets,or do you believe the scriptures which honestly instruct you in the ways of the Kingdom and that the Apostles taught the same gospel as the Redeemer.
Pastor Terry

No. There was never a "new Sabbath." Sabbath has always been seventh day. The first day of the week or Lords Day was never referred to as the Sabbath. It's not treated as such or have such rules and regs attached like the Sabbath of old did. While I used to be a legalist about Sundays I know now that there is certain freedoms in Christ and this is one of them. Everyday should be a "Sabbath" to us. Everyday we should be resting in Christ. That was the WHOLE IDEA when he said, "come to me you who are heavy laden, I will give you rest."



forgive me for being too tired to refute you properly AD but I'm moving tomorrow and will be unable to do much clear thinking for the next week. But here all I can say is you are being very influenced by Sabbath Day Keepers and I cannot, nor did the early church see this in the whole of the NT and being an Adventist and baptized into that faith when I was 15 I know all the angles. I agree with much of what you said about what was going on in the Jerusalem Council up to the point where you are discounting the ...."and the law" in v24.

I would suggest you do a thorough reading of Romans and Galatians which refutes the whole idea of us still being under the law.

The reason they were meeting on Sunday night was because they had to after working all day. Just like in our day (or used to) Sunday's everything was closed especially when I was a kid. So we would work on Saturdays. It's the same here. They would have to abstain from work on Sabbath because the culture in that day demanded it. This was the early church, it took a while for these changes to take place. For a Jew coming into the faith this would have been a huge step of faith to worship God on a Sunday night and leave the Sabbath behind.

You can see very clearly from Acts 15:24 that it mentions both the Torah (law) and circumcision although circumcision was the hot topic of this conversation, I agree. You can't really separate one from the other. The circumcised kept the law.

Maybe when I get to where I'm going I'll be able to answer you more on what you have written AD (if you want). I know you are very sincere here. I have not doubt, and it may be a point where we'll have to agree to disagree? I have a very dear friend who is an Adventist and we just usually stay away from this (and election) topics more for here than me because you know me....I'll talk about this stuff till the moon turns blue....  

AD posts:

I love reading Acts 15 becasue it describes how the first Council at Jerusalem was held, the subject matter discussed, and the significance of the decision arrived by it. This is significant The Council of Jerusalem was the first Apostolic decree and has become the prototype or pattern of all succeeding official pronouncements of the General Councils through today. Just as today, to give finality to the decision, a written decree was sent to the Church at Antioch, "which when they read, they rejoiced for the consolation" that no barriers, such as circumcision, were to be put in the way of their salvation. Antioch is named as the first church becasue the mission to the Gentiles originated there. It was here too that the quarrel first arose about the question of circumcision.

The first Council at Jerusalem had rendered the Church's first dogmatic pronouncement something that God had already decided.


From #204



The Judaizers had brought unrest and complication into the churches. Here, the question, dispute and dissension arose between the Jewish and Gentile Christian converts the Gentile Christian's freedom from specific parts of the Old Law.


The Council at Jerusalem clearly separates itself from the activities of the Judaizers for we know the final decision was taken by only "the apostles and the elders". The Council's decision is attributed first and foremost to God, the Holy Spirit. And this sheds a fundamental light on the early Chruch's understanding of herself. She lives by the mystery, the "power' of the Holy Ghost who had been promised her by the Risen Lord, 1:8. Only in closest union with the Holy Spirit so the Church authorities receive their own authority and effectiveness in deciding matters of faith and morals.

Why O Why do you all abstain from reading all of Acts 15 and in context?
The verse christo's abstain from is the part about the people were attending the syngogues on the Sabbath to learn the Torah of Moses and the Council deemed there decision was right,for by putting a few commands on the new convert they had the privalage of learning every Sabbath more about being a Holy People.
Caught many of a seminary trained phoney on this chapter and blew all they learned out of the water all because they did not go study for themselves but allowed another paid phoney to lie to them on the context.
Pastor Terry

Let’s take a look at the preposition used in Acts 20:7

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Used in this context the definition for ‘upon’ is: immediately or very soon after.
The Strong’s Greek translation of ‘en’ is in agreement here with definitions of: in, at, upon.

This remains consistent to what I presented earlier about this being Saturday evening after sundown.

I appreciate you educating me more about the Eucharist but I fail to see how it pertains to the text here.

Terry, I'm probably not the one to give you advice here but here's what I have to offer. You may take it or leave it.

I'm sure you've noticed that your comments haven't been discussed nor really replied to.

You come across as a 'shock jock evangelist.' I'm not sure if I just made up this expression but it seems to be what I see as a suiting description of the character you portray.

When you don't give background or provide additional information to support your comment you appear to be trying to get a rile or spark an emotional response from those of us who read through condescending remarks you are being first of all very rude and seem to be more concerned about condemning others rather they showing them where they are wrong. This tactic may work in speaking or other arenas but I know on JoeUser this isn't the type that is welcomed.

The cool thing about JoeUser here is you don't have to have XYZ credentials to be listened to. Quite the contrary, my experience here is that everyone starts out with a clean slate and over the course of time you build up credibility among the readers.

The reason I see people attacking your credentials is your eagerness to wave them and say, 'because of these you should listen to me.' This is the second part of the description I am using for you. Many evangelists are more concerned about telling others what THEY have to say rather than having a basic conversational exchange.

The ideas that you present are intriguing but your delivery in my opinion needs lil adjustment.

I say this because I would like to know more about what you are saying here but you can't just leave us baseless from where you get this idea.

Just my thoughts.

KFC, I am a Jew. I know Israel had the Sabbath BEFORE the SDA even thought to exist. You seem to keep forgetting that I am a Jew NOT SDA.

Some KEY differences:

I keep the Feasts – SDA do not
I keep the Biblical Kosher Laws – SDA do not (they are vegetarians?)
I live according to Torah – SDA do not
I live by the Biblical Calendar –SDA do not
I do not observe Christmas – SDA do
I do not observe Easter – SDA do
I celebrate Resurrection day on the 3rd of Matzot (18th of Abib) – SDA do not
I celebrate the Rosh Chodesh (the first light after the new moon) – SDA do not
I pray for the peace of Jerusalem – SDA do not
And more differences that I could list.



Did you read what I wrote? Your subjective supposition has no basis.



I’m not arguing that they can’t be separated but as I stated earlier it is a subject of Salvation through circumcision and keeping the law that was NEVER true. It only comes through repentance. Please allow me to re-emphasize verse 24.

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: - Acts 15:24

The JC are telling the congregation in Antioch that they didn’t give such a commandment that corresponds with what the two gentlemen in verse one were saying.

…Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. –Acts 15:1

Subject is whether circumcision is the path of salvation. The JC disagreed saying that they never commanded this.

Lula, I don’t see the Jerusalem council separating themselves from Torah. It seems to me that they were separating themselves from the two gentlemen’s preaching in verse 1. Please note that in my response to KFC (Post #224).


Good discussion though.

I know I come off to strong,never thought of myself as an evangilist much less a shockjock,the reason I put forth my credentials not because I want people to listen to me but to think about doing what I did study the scriptures out for themselves.

As we look at Yahshua's Canon (Hebrew Scriptures), we must examine its foundation through the study of history, culture, and language. Yahshua did not come to create a new religion. Yet we have received one. In fact, we have thousands of different sects of Christianity, over 1500, all claiming "authority" by his name. Let us examine some undeniable facts that will go a long way in proving this point:
Yahshua was an Israelite of the tribe of Yahudah from his birth until his last day upon the earth.
Yahshua was a Hebrew Rabbi (a teacher).
Yahshua's only Canon was based upon "Israelism," found in the Tanakh: Law-Prophets-Writings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Yahshua never renounced "Israelism;" he did not join or create another, nor form a new religion. To do so would have been a great sin.
Yahshua was never a Christian.
Yahshua adhered to the Festivals established by Yahweh in the Tanakh.
Yahshua adhered to the Sabbath, and kept it as it was originally designed to do.
Yahshua's Apostles were Israelites, they never renounced their "Hebrew roots."
Yahshua's Apostles required converts to adhere to all of the applicable Israelite Commandments.
The Canon of the Apostles was the same Canon that Yahshua used.
The Apostles did not see the need to make any changes in the Israelite Canon even after Yahshua's death.
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/Yahshuasbible.htm

See I get my information not only from history but the scriptures also,how many know that Christianity is a state run religon,it is a religon that was practiced throughout the roman and european empires through force,if you did not keep christianity but practiced the hebrewness of the scriptures you were put to death.
See every command was not only given to the house of Jacob but also to the House of Joseph,we now call the house of Jacob,Judah,and the house of Joseph we call Israel,both houses had the same commands and they were not roman or grecian in any manner.
Matthew 5:17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

See Yahoshua himself told us we must rise above the torah teachers by be doers not speakers of the word.

1 Timothy 1:5 The purpose of this order is to promote love from a clean heart, from a good conscience and from sincere trust. 6 Some, by aiming amiss, have wandered off into fruitless discussion. 7 They want to be teachers of Torah, but they understand neither their own words nor the matters about which they make such emphatic pronouncements. 8 We know that the Torah is good, provided one uses it in the way the Torah itself intends. 9 We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral - both heterosexual and homosexual - slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11 that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God. This Good News was entrusted to me;

Acts 15:19 "Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat."

See the decision was one of not forcing conversion but teaching and instructing on how to grow in the newness of what they were reborn into being Israelites,just like joining a church they do not force all their doctrines down your throat at first,they take baby steps so you can catch up with the rest of the congregation so you can be one with them,so you can understand what the sect you joined is all about.
Mark 6:2,On Shabbat he started to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They asked, "Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom he has been given? What are these miracles worked through him?

57 times in the N.T. the Sabbath/Shabbat is mentioned and all 57 times showed how Messiah and all the Apostles kept Sabbath,and the Apostles and the converts kept the feast days of Israel.

So if I came off gangbuster style I apologize,its that I talk to so many in different depots of faith and on a open forum I can get to be to much for those who are in doubt about the truth of the christian/mithra system of rome go to your search engines and look for the truth.
Pastor Terry

Thanks AD for further explaining where you are. I'm sorry if I insinuated in any way you were an Adventist, although I knew you were not. I just saw some commonality. While your listing of the differences is interesting it's not all exactly true. Two that come to mind first off is they DO pray for the Peace of Jerusalem and as far as I know they DO NOT celebrate Easter. We never did. They are NOT in attendance on that day. That was one of the reasons I asked how you could celebrate Resurrection Day if your observations were on Saturday.

I agree wholeheartedly your recalling the background of Easter and I'm well aware of the connection with all false pagan activities that stem from Nimrod.



You said the first day of the week starts at Sundown on Saturday right? So the first day of the week could start at say 6pm Saturday night and go until Sunday night at sundown...according to Jewish timing.

Now it says in Acts they met on the first day of the week (could fall anywhere between Saturday Night and Sunday Night)and continued to past Midnight. So this midnight could be Saturday Night at midnight or Sunday night at midnight right?

So that's according to Jewish timing. Roman time started at daybreak. So according to the Romans the day started at 6 am and went until the next day at 6 am. So either way this first day of the week looks like Sunday and could very well be Sunday night.

Since Luke was a Gentile and the writer of Acts, I'm assuming he meant first day of the week (Sunday) as we read in the gospels....after the last Sabbath the first day of the week brought the Resurrection and that it may have started after the workday.



But it's more than that AD. While the main subject was circumcision, as you say, it was made very clear that it was the NOT keeping of the law and circumcision that they were upset over. Twice in that chapter it mentions BOTH circumcision and law, not just circumcision. It's also made quite clear what was asked of these new Gentile converts to adhear to and it was NOT the law. And like I said it goes with the rest of the NT when Paul says we are NOT under the law but are under grace.

Hey KFC, thanks for the response. I'll respond later.

How is the move coming along?

AD,

Let's see if our discussion of the Jews keeping the Torah after they converted is cleared any by examining St.Paul's teaching to the Ephesians 2: 11-22.

Eph. 2:11- 22

“Therefore, remember, that you once, the Gentile (heathens) in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those who by reason of what is called circumcision, an operation in the flesh done by hands---12 that you at that time were without Christ, far from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the promise-laden covenants, without hope of the promise and God in this world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He is our peace, who has made both one, by breaking down the dividing wall of the barrier, the enmity, in His flesh, 15 by making void the law of commandments contained in decrees, with its rules and regulations, in order that He might make the two in Himself a new man, making peace. 16 and reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, killing the enmity in Himself. 17 And he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, 18 for through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Let’s focus on the meaning of v. 13-16. The Jews and Gentiles become one in Christ is the great overwhelming fact that fascinates St.Paul. Here, St.Paul explains that Christ has along with the Law removed the enmity. He says that “Christ is our peace”. St.Paul speaks first about the cause of division which the bringer of peace has to remove in order to make one out of two separate things.

He speaks of the dividing wall which is a barrier holding them apart which he calls enmity. Notice, he speaks also of the Law with its multitude of precepts. It is obviously considered as the basis of this enmity and therefore it must be abrogated.

The existence of this enmity is attested by a huge number of ancient texts. The Jew could feel only abhorrence for the uncircumcised. Israel alone had been chosen and Israel alone had kept itself pure, at least in principle, from the horrors of the heathen world, idolatry, licentiousness, and the shedding of innocent blood. In face of this corrupt and corrupting heathen world, there was only one thing possible...separation, inward and outward isolation. and the horror felt at the heathen world was part of this inward separation. It was also sustained by a great portion of the express declaration of God’s will, the Law, which with its innumerable precepts, especially about the clean and unclean, claimed so completely the life of the law-abiding Jew, that living along with non-Jews was not possible.

God’s plan to attract mankind to Himself and to re-establish peace included the election of the Jewish people, from whom the Messias would be born, and in that Messias, all the nations of the world would be blessed. Gen. 11:3. He is in fact, called the Prince of Peace, Is. 9:6, Mic. 5:4, However, many Jews had come to regard their election in such a narrow-minded way that they saw it as creating a permanent barrier between themselves and the Gentiles. Some rabbi’s of our Lord’s time despised and even hated the Gentiles. The separation between the two peoples was reflected in the Temple wall which divided the court of the Gentiles from the rest of the sacred precincts. Acts. 21:28. The real roots of separation lay in Jewish pride at being the only ones to have the Law of God and keep it by scrupulous attention to countless legal niceties.

It is understandable that this contemptuous attitude, this markedly exceptional position among the nations, was countered with corresponding hatred. The Law was the bulwark which divided them. If the Law was done away with, the division and the enmity was eliminated.

The Law, however, came from God, and was given in view of binding men in love and obedience to God its author. How was the Law to be abolished without lawlessness taking its place? God found a way. He abolished the Law by causing His Son to fulfill it once for all, to fulfill it far and wide, and away beyond its claims---not in a series of individual performances, but by means of what was the meaning and intention of the Law: obedience and love.

This is what was accomplished and given its unsurpassable expression in the death of the Lord on the Cross. This is what St.Paul means when he says that Christ “in His flesh...(abolished) the Law”---not its meaning, but the Law “with its rules and regulations”.

And Christ has fulfilled this Law in his role as the second Adam, which means for the whole of mankind. From now on there is to be only one way to God, to enter, by faith, and sacrament, into Jesus Christ’s fulfillment of the Law which surpasses anything we could think of as worthy of God and beneficial to mankind.

I'm extremely tired so if I sound like I'm not making sense...I'm probably not...hahah I just think I am.

Hopefully in a few days I'll be back to myself and back on JU rather than just a quick check like it's been the last week or two.

One thing tho.....I'm loving the weather down here. Back in shorts and tees and loving every minute.

231 posts...damn I wish I could churn out an article that collects that many.

~Zoo

Hi Moderateman, (nb. this is NOT a come-to-Jesus-comment.)

Having spent some time listening to lectures by Dr. Donald Carson and I recommend you do, you will find that most of these so called great questions have been long since dealt with. The problem is that often the books that deal with them are so old and out of print, that unless one is actually a Professor in this particular field, with access to a good library, one is pretty much going to get no more than a dribble of information from internet resourses. (A lot of it is unbalanced and off at a tangent...not to say that some Prof's don't do just that...hehehe)

I recently completed a series dealing with this topic and you would not be unwise to get Dr. Carson's commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Hebrews. (He is a specialist in OT in the NT.)

Put in another way, there is way too much information that needs to be covered and if I had not retired from the Theological debates (I am still extricating my cloven hooves) I might have made the effort of replying, but to be honest it is quite heady stuff. (Which requires that one read MANY BOOKS...not just the old cut 'n paste stuff, staple diet of the uninformed).

Shalom,
Erik.

ps. I have found his work, profoundly insightful (for an Evangelical hehehe) WWW Link (10. Use of the OT in the NT & 3. Sacred and Sure...were pretty well researched lectures...) I am still working through 'The So-Called New Pauline Perspective Critiqued' - (17) ... it is really meaty stuff but well worth the effort. This one is probably a good one to download... (3 lectures) ... “Hard Texts: Why Does Hebrews Cite the Old Testament Like That?” Lectures at Southern Seminary (18)

It's easy Zoo, just go to Infidels.org

They specialize in overturning everything Christian, sort of the bruised heads of the Internet. Who knows you might be able to hit in excess of 666 a day.

.A.
  

Or, Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me ...whoops, I forgot.... and the sacrament.' Yeah, don't you just love those modified texts.

.A.
 

So good to hear from you....

Warm weather, palm trees swaying, shorts and tees, huh, you lucky duck! Relax on a lounge chair and take a power nap...then you'll be ready to roll...  

I have been reading the core postings that follow MM and I have found I cannot believe that some posters haven't even read their own excuse to be lawless instead of lawful. I have read postings where someone tried to show the error of the state run christian system and someone will defend romanism real quick and never even read their own excuse to follow the liar instead of the torah keeper.

Let me ask this question without snide remarks,I would like truthful answers,how many have actually studied the roots of their sect,how many have studied the rites of christianity and mithra and have found they are the same religon under guise of a fancy name?
Pastor Terry

Lula posts:

AD posts:

AD posts: # 224

KFC POSTS:

Hi AD,

Thankfully, my fall cleaning is just about complete and I'm getting into the Thanksgiving time groove.

Re: keeping the Torah, I'd say that KFC has succinctly summed it up. Beyond that, you may want to consider my reply #229 concerning St.Paul's teaching to the Ephesians.

AD POSTS:

LULA POSTS:

AD POSTS:



AD POSTS # 204:

This is how I see the Council of Jerusalem's decision and the way it was applied:

Acts 15: 22-29 concern the Jerusalem Council's final decree incorporating St.Jame's suggestions. The Apostles and elders of the Church say in v. 28 that their decision is the decision of the Holy Spirit Himself. In summation, the decision was guided by God so we know it was the correct one.

It is the Apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, who designate the people who are to publish the Council's decree, but it is the Apostles and elders themselves, (the Hierarchy), which formulates and promulgates it. The text contains two parts--one dogmatic and moral (that's v. 28, guided by the Holy Spirit and forever more unchangeable),and the other is disciplinary v. 29. (which can be changed).

The dogmatic part speaks imposing no burden other than what is essential and therefore declares the pagan converts are free of the obligation of circumcision and of the Mosaic Laws, but are now subject to the Gospel's perennial moral teaching on matters to do with chastity. Again, this part is permanent Gospel and therfore permanent Catholic Chruch teaching becasue it has to do with a necessary part of God's salvific will it cannot change or be changed. Period.

The diciplinary part of the decree lays down rules of prudence which can change, which are temporary. It ask Christians of Gentile background to abstain, in charity (love) towards their brethren, Jewish Christians, from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood and from meat of animals killed by strangulation. The effect of the decree means that the disciplinary rules contained in it, although they derive from Mosaic Law, no longer oblige by virtue of that Law, but rather by virtue of the authority of the Church given by Christ to His Apostles, which has decided to apply them for the time being.

What matters is not what Moses says but what Christ says through the Holy Spirit to His Church. St.John Chrysostom wrote: The Council seems to maintain the Law in force, because it selects various prescriptions from it, but in fact it suppresses it, because it does not accept all it prescriptions. It had often spoken about these points, it sought to respect the Law, and yet establish these as coming not from Moses, but from the Apostles through guidance of the Holy Spirit.