Let me ask you a question. Did Jesus observe the feasts?

double

YES!

Go ahead......ask your next question.....  

If Jesus kept the feasts... as well as most of the Jews in the area.

Why would they need to 'remind' them to keep the feasts? Seems redundant to me.

Because Jesus HAD to keep the feasts. The whole idea was he was born of a woman to keep the law perfectly. Only HE could be the sacrifice for the rest of us. His rightesousness, his perfection is imputed to us. We WERE imputed with the sin of Adam and now we are imputed with the rightesousness of Christ.

The Apostles kept the feasts as was their habit, before the temple was destroyed...but I'm not sure how long they did so actually. They used the opportunity to preach Jesus as Jesus himself did in John 7:37 and 8:12.

If you read those two accounts and understand about the Feast of Tabernacles you'd see he was applying their feast to him as the manifestation of it. The Water and Light Ceremonies were very important elements to this feast.

It wouldn't be redundant remember because now the Apostles were turning towards the Gentiles. They wouldn't know much about the Jewish Feasts per se anymore than we would know about other's celebrations and traditions. We may have a general idea only. It was very clear in the OT book of Lev 23 that the Jews were to celebrate these feasts and that each one individual feast pointed to Christ....only they didn't know that at the time. Only later did all this make sense.

Take the US today. Would it be redundant to explain to a new 'christian' convert that Christians worship on Sunday and keep Christmas and Easter?

No.  It wouldn't be redundant because nowadays there are many who have no idea what Christmas or Easter is really all about. 

As far as Sunday..... same as I mentioned above....they may have a general idea..."oh Christians go to church on Sunday" but have no idea where or why that is so. 

 

 

 

Here in the US?

Yep. I had a girl working for me who was about 19-20. She had NEVER heard of Jesus. She knew a bit about Adam and Eve (name only) and had never heard of Noah. I'm NOT kidding. She told me she didn't know you could just go to any church. She really thought you had to be born into one or invited to one to attend.

If you doubt this, ask anyone who's ever watched Jay Leno when he goes on the street and asks Biblical Questions.....people on the street in NY have NO idea who's who and what's what.

One of my really best friends told me a story about five years ago about how she was setting up the Nativity with her kids explaining what each piece stood for. Standing nearby was her new sister-in-law listening to the story. After the kids left the room she told my friend she had NO idea that's why we celebrated Christmas. She thought it was all about good will, joy and just celebrating the season.

Yep, in the good ol' USA. I was just told the other day there is another country (can't remember which) who send more missionaries out than we do. I'm thinking we need to keep our missionaries here.

*cough* Pagan holidays *cough*

"In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations."

""Christmas – An Ancient Holiday", The History Channel, 2007.

""Saturnalia", The History Channel, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

 

mwkidd65 posts: #54

KFC POSTS:


MWKIDD65 and KFC,
I offer post #75 as a complete refututation of these assertions.

KFC POSTS: #15

KFC POSTS #69

KFC,

Well, the many who believe this need to get a better grip on history. Constantine signed the Edict of Milan ending the persecution of those who adhered to the doctrines and practices of the early Catholic Church.

Perhaps a short review of what was going on within religions at the time of the Roman Empire would be helpful. The Greeks and Romans had many gods, some considered the emperors themselves to be gods. And there were the mystery religious cults from Egypt,Babylonia, Persia, etc. which promised to rescue men from the pueritlity of the traditional Greco-Roman cults. The early Church refused to worship their gods instead preaching one God and one true faith, not only for themselves but for the whole world. WHile Judaism was a legal religion, Christianity wasn't and many suffered martyrdom. Pagan persecution went on until the year 313, when the emperor COnstantine granted the early Catholics liberty to worship and for this the Church is greatly indebted for Constantine made it possible for the early Church to come out of her catacomb existence.

All during this time, Constantine remained the emperor ratifying and enforcing Roman law while the Church administrated her 7 Sacraments, Holy Mass, etc. and continued her God given mission, "Go therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." They were two entirely distinctive realms working together for the benefit of both. The Edict or Constantine didn't bring the Church into existence and neither did it mean the empire dominated the Church.

It was through the Constantine that the FIrst Council was called at Nicea in 325. This was prompted by Constantine's desire for political and religious peace within the empire which was totally disturbed by the Arian heresy. While Constantine attended the Council in his official Imperial position at its opening, he didn't preside in its deliberations, nor did he ever take part in its discussions and determinations.

Because of effective missionary work and government support, Christianity further spread in size and influence throughout the empire. It became as important in the western part as in the eastern part. In 392, the emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. At the same time, he banned the old Hellenistic and Roman religions.



According to my daughter's secular history book, regarding the cross, it says, " According to legend, in 312 as the Roman general, Constantine, led his army to battle a flaming cross appeared in the sky and beneath it in fiery letters appeared the Latin words, In hoc signo vinces: "With this as your standard you will have victory". Apparently becasue of this vision, COnstantine ordered his soldiers to paint the Christian symbol of the Cross on their shields,. When his army won the battle, Constantine credited the victory to the Christian God."




KFC, who believes this tripe? Do you?

This theory about Constantine and the supposed influx of paganism into the Church might be called the standard Fundamentalist history...not backed up by any facts, Biblical or otherwise.

If there is one thing that is for certain is that Christianity had no appeal for the pagan world which is why for centuries they treated it with hatred and persecution. Christianity wounded the pride of pagans by asking them to worship a crucified Jew. Christianity attacked pagan morals, demanding of them that they should hate that way of life. It was war to the death and either Christianity or the pagan world had to go under. The obstacles were immense and the means at the disposal of Christians were inadequate at least from today's pov. The only force which can account for this expansion is given in the Acts of the Apostles. It was the power of the HOly Ghost promised and sent by Christ. It was the Holy Spirit who strengthened them and enlightened the minds of those who heard them. It was the HS who moved their obstinate wills to embrace the lofty doctrines and moral obligations binding upon Christians.

Yes Lula...I believe it. You would not because your Catholic books are telling you otherwise. Ishtar was a Babylonian goddess....I showed you scripture in Jeremiah and Ezek and you disagree....end of story....Tammuz is even mentioned. Who is Tammuz? I gave you a very good credible link which you have not commented on...instead relying on your Catholic books for information. ....or is it Catholic Answers? Of course this Ishtar/Tammuz stuff would be very offensive to the Catholics and it would enter territory which would make them a bit uncomfortable. I don't necessarily want to but if you keep throwing Catholic Answers at me, I feel I have to mention this.

I ignored your last two comments thinking you'd get the hint. So you come back with it again so I have no choice but to be honest with you.

The truth is Lula, Constantine and Rome kidnapped Christianity from the true believers and mixed it with paganism and that's why we have paganism mixed in with the CC and our holidays today. Martin Luther had to come from "within" the Church to kidnap back the Word of God to give it back to the people. If it were not for him, we would all be Catholics today and never even own a bible.

Basically the more Rome killed the Christians and threw them to the lions and burned them at the stakes, the more would crop up. That's what Jesus meant when he said the gates of hell wouldn't have his church. It's not the CC Lula. It's true believers who make up the church. It's not an organization. Satan knew...if you can't kill them, join them. That's what he did. He mixed the wheat with the tares and it was a brilliant move on his part. Still going on today. He's put leaven in the dough.

Isn't Mary called the Queen of Heaven by the Catholics? Did you not read in Jeremiah where the pagans were worshipping the Queen of Heaven....way before Mary was even born? It's all over the place about Nimrod/Tammuz/Ishtar. I'm surprised you can't find anything on this. Did you try just googling it if you don't believe me?

There is but One, Infinite God and only one religion of God's making. That religion was the religion of the Israelites (biblical Judasim)and it contained potentially, Christianity, the religion that displaced it. In biblical Judaism, "the only religion in the days before Christ, there was the Promise, Christ and the family of David from which the Christ was to come, and did come. Biblical Judaism contained a priesthood of Aaron, and Mosaic sacrifices, in pre_Christian times, that the Old Testament would be displaced, as it has been, by a priesthood without genealogy, and a "clean oblation" in place of the bloody oblations of old. This is why Catholics hold Catholicism, with its Christ-instituted priesthood and sacrifice (which is what He was doing when He said this) to be Judaism full-blossomed.

Christ our Lord, on the day before He suffered and died on the Cross, at the Mass of the Last SUpper, instituted the sacred and holy Eucharist, the perpetual memorial of His Passion, to be offered day by day through the ministry of His Apostles and through their successors, His Catholic priests.

[

  

I wholly agree Ishtar was a Babylonian goddess: AD did a good job describing that earlier. From Ishtar came eggs symbolizing fertility. I got all that. No problem.


You said:




What you need to do is show in Jeremias and Ezekiel that "We get "Easter" from the Pagan god "Ishtar."

Making the ridiculous leap to Nimrod, the Tower of Babel, Tammuz, and Ishtar being called the queen of heaven, etc. will not do....for those have nothing to do with Easter or the celebration of it.

In my post #75 I said where the Christian liturgy of Easter comes from:

The Christian liturgy and Easter festival springs from the feast from biblical Judaism. The paschal lamb slain by the Israelites was typical of Christ and as the Christ risen as we say on the third day, in English, "Easter" has been retained.

And yes, our Easter feast days happen to fall in the spring season. But Babylonnian mythology and false honoring of Ishtar had nothing to do with this. We are honoring the Risen Christ, not spring, not fertility, not eggs, or bunnies.

I took the time to check out the entire context of Jeremias and Ezekiel and couldn't find anything that even remotely relates to Easter or the celebration of it. I said so in posts #74 & 75 which you chose to ignore. Now I ask you to refute them.

Here they are to make it easier since they are on the previous page:

Lula posts: #74



AND POST #75:

KFC POSTS:

This is not truth but only a very stale assertion with which Catholics will no doubt be confronted as long as there is an organized opposition to the Church.

The truth is you have exchanged Christ's truth for Luther's lie.

KFC POSTS:



Ah, reiterating what came from Luther's rebellion once again? He was wrong and therefore you are wrong.

Scripture says that "the Church (not Protestant churches or a body of believers) is the pillar and foundation of truth."

Christ identified His Church by appointing St.Peter as His first vicar. Christ said, "Blessed are thou, Simon bar-Jona..and I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.."

Did not the angels at the tomb speaking in the name of Our Risen Lord, instruct the women: "Go, tell His disciples and Peter," indicating clearly that St.Peter was more than a mere disciple, that he was still the rock destined to give the firmness of infallibility to the Church and to fill the office of confirming his brethren as his successors? Christ kept His solemn promise of giving the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

A third time Jesus manifested Himself to His disciples after He had risen from the dead,He said to Peter, "Feed My lambs!", a second time, "Feed My lambs!" and in a 3rd place, "Feed My sheep!". In plane words receive the power of the keys, the power to exercise world and time-wide jurisdiction over My whole fold. So, under Christ's personal headship, Simon Peter as His vicar on earth under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, is for all time to be the human instrument to make the Church indefectibly "the pillar and foundation of truth"...Yes, Simon Peter, our first Pope living on in his successors. Benedict XVI is 265th currently sitting on the chair of St.Peter.

You are claiming that the Church of the first three centuries was one of "true believers" and only after legalization through Constantine became mixed with paganism. But how can this be? The Catholic Chruch is the one Simon Peter was made first vicar, the same one that began to function on the first Pentecost day. So, if what you say is true, then you're saying that Christ was wrong for He declared that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Chruch (not churches, not a body of believers). Such a declaration would be a grave offense for Christ is Truth Personified, was, is and ever will be free from error. The historic continuity of the Catholic Church, from the time the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles in the Upper Room until today, proves Christ to have been right, to have kept His promise when He said His Chruch would have an unbroken existence until the consummation of the world. The Catholic Church is Christ-established, not Constantine-established.

One fellow's books I do read is Patrick Madrid, a former Protestant who came home to the Catholic Chruch. He's been there, done that as an anti-Catholic Protestant.

In one chapter he explains how he thinks God deals with Protestant rebellion. He looks to Scripture and he sees that sometimes God gives those rebellious exactly what they ask for. He first points out the Jews complaining to God that they are tired of eating manna and want meat. God provided more meat than they could handle. Read Numbers 11:18-20. The people recognized their ingratitude and repented, but unfortunately within a few years they were once again straying from God.
Another is a story of the high divorce rate society has...same true of Israel...they wanted their own way and God allowed them to have it allowing them to sink into apostasy. In the end God gave them a taste of their own medicine...the very same..He divorced Himself. Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:8.

Madrid believes something similiarly happens with the Protestant rebellion against the Catholic Church. If God spoke now as He spoke in Numbers 11, He might say, OK, you want a different church. I'll give you a different church. In fact, I'll give you so many different churches you won't be able to count them all. Isn't this exactly what's happened? God has given the Protesters what they wanted and much more. one long continuous line of protesters: Protesters protesting against the Catholic Chruch and protesters protesting against their fellow protesters. This plague of Protestantism has spawned thousands of quarreling sects. Is this God's plan of one faith, one baptism, one fold, etc. KFC, or a dismal failure?

KFC POSTS: 87

TOVA7 posts:



The Blessed Mother Mary is not only is called Queen of Heaven, we Catholics believe she is Queen of Heaven. Why? Becasue the Blessed Mother Mary is undoubtedly in Heaven, and Jesus is King of Heaven. Since Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords, it is certain that His mother, Mary rejoices in queenly dignity.

I see you try real hard to connect Catholic reverence calling her Queen of Heaven to the pagans worshipping the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, whom they called "queen of heaven"....thus the insinuation that Catholics worship Mary. So, here's my answer....

If by worship you mean that Catholics consider Mary to be a goddess, that they imagine her to have powers of a Divine nature, and that therefore we Catholics bestow upon her honors such as heathen pagans bestow upon their female divinities, the answer is emphatically NO.
That would be a violation of the law of God.

We Catholics have always given special honor to the Blessed Mother Mary becasue God honored her above all others by bestowing upon her the highest dignity, the divine maternity. Here status accounts for the attention we pay to her. Instead of detracting for the love of Christ, devotion to Mary increases our love for Him. The devout defender of Mary is ever the strong defender of the divinity of Christ, her Son. Love for Mary, Queen of Heaven, the masterpiece of God's creation, by its very nature leads us to the love of Christ. He cannot be jealous of the praise we give her for every one of her privileges and perrogatives are His own free gift. Is the artist jealous of the praise you give his masterpiece? or the author of his book?




To your second question, yes, I remarked in one of my posts about such. I know Jeremias relates the pagans were worshipping the Babyononan goddess Ishtar, whom they called the "queen of heaven". I also note that all six of my Bibles quite properly never capitalize "queen of heaven" as you do.

Sorry Lula, I don't buy it.

It's one thing to think well of Mary. She was blessed among women, no doubt.

It's a whole nuther can of worms to offer up prayers to her, or to "ask" her to intercede. We pray to Jesus because HE ISN'T DEAD...we aren't communing with the dead when we pray to Him.

Mary was a blessed but otherwise ordinary human being, who died an ordinary human death. She is dead. In heaven? Yes, but dead all the same, no matter her current status in heaven.

We are not to commune with the dead. Ever. No matter how wonderful they were.

Jesus is alive. It is no act of necromancy to speak with Him.

Everytime you offer up prayer or supplication to a dead woman you are violating God's law about communing with the dead.

Lula, these were humans, not gods. Jesus was the only God among them.

Peter didn't just run away from Christ, he ran and DENIED him three times.

Imagine if you watched your best friend be arrested and beaten, then you denied him/her three times before they were put to a horrible death.

If he/she lived and called for friends, you who denied her three times would not count yourself among them.

Jesus knew Peter.

When he requested his friends he specifically asked for Peter or else Peter would not come, thinking he was no longer in the group of friends since his betrayal.

This is confirmed when you see how Peter acts when he is first reunited with Jesus, and Jesus must reassure him he is still loved.

Sometimes in the study we can lose sight of the fact that these were ordinary men, with ordinary problems, and ordinary reactions. You don't have to read anything into Jesus calling Peter specifically because common sense explains it well.

Do you believe a person must be Catholic to get to heaven?

I did.  I gave you a link that I said could explain it in detail.  Did you check it out?  I agreed with everything in it.  Instead of me writing it all out....it was done already.  So why should I sit here and write all this out Lula when it's done for me?   I again say, go back and check out that link that explains it. 

This pagan celebration was in the springtime.  Tammuz was the god of Vegetation and he was worshipped along with Ishtar in the Spring.  Do you remember reading in scripture that they made little cakes for her?  Have you ever thought about where Hot Cross Buns come from?  Little cakes with crosses on them? 

"and the women said, When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"   Jer 44:19

queen of heaven is not  in caps in my bible either Lula.  I just capped it earlier in my response to you as habit of capping a title thing.  My mistake.  What does that really matter anyhow? 

 

The Pagan celebration somehow got mixed in with our Passover/Resurrection Celebration and the two have been linked from then. 

 

ok.  The problem is Luther was right on.  The Just Shall Live By Faith.  He understood what the CC was teaching and what the bible was teaching and the two were not matching up. 

Church is most definitely a body of believers.  Christ was AGAINST the religious leaders of his day.  He had no intention of setting up another Phariseeic institution.  He had no intention of setting men up over others like the CC has done.  They were all supposed to be united and of one accord.  Brothers and sisters in Christ.  The Church is "ekklesia" and means..."called out ones."  It's not about a pillar, pope or creed.  It's followers of Christ.  Period. 

we've been thru this a million times so I won't go far except to acknowledge this is your mantra verse....I understand that....but what about in the same chapter (Matt 16) when he rebukes Peter and calls him Satan? 

How about Paul when he had to rebuke Peter to his face in the book of Galatians because Peter was in denial of five very important church doctrines? 

Christ is the rock...NOT Peter.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Constantine was Rome.  He and the Roman officials were killing the Christians.  He stopped it and took over the Christians from there on in.  Rome kidnapped Christianity and made it an empire.   A very very rich empire at the expense of the poor and down trodden. 

Yes, the CC made Peter their foundation AFTER Constantine.  There is no proof that Peter started any CC.  He died in Rome.  So didn't Paul.  So didn't alot of Christians.  It actually says in scripture that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles...not Peter.  Peter stuck pretty much with the Jews.    So there is no link we can see in scripture of this. 

Christ isn't wrong.  He was absolutely right.  The gates of Hell cannot prevail against his church. The more they killed the Christians....then and now.....the more cropped up.  The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the faith.

 It's not a denomination tho.  It's his followers.  He is the head and his followers are his body.  We are his hands and feet.  It has nothing to do with denomination.  Protestant, Catholic or otherwise.  Nobody has the right denomination here on earth.  There's no such thing.   The CC wasn't persecuted.  They did the persecution.  They were the power and might on earth for a very long time.  They ruled politically and religiously. 

There's no doubt Satan is involved in this Lula.  Absolutely agree with you on this.  But we are looking at this thru different lenses.  I'm saying the CC is just as bad as any of the Protestant churches might be.  Satan is ALL about religion.  He loves religion.  Christ was not a religious person.  He was all about having a relationship with his creation.  God said all thru the OT....it's your hearts I want....not your sacrifices.  They were going about doing their empty sacrifices and celebrations with hearts of stone towards God. 

When I see the Catholics (or any Protestant) go to their half-hour mass to make themselves feel good and then go about their sinful lives during the week I want to throw up.  They are fooling themselves.  But God will not be mocked.  He doesn't care about man-made religion.  He's searching the hearts and minds of his people no matter what church door they enter. 

In the last days...Christ said...."behold I stand at the door and knock , if any man will open the door I will come in."    It's pretty bad when Christ has to knock on the door of his own church to be let in.  He's left standing outside waiting.   The church should be centered around the teachings of Christ.....sadly they are not and when he comes back, boy is he gonna be mad. 

 

If I implied that ALL Americans know about Christians keeping Sunday. I was saying in general. Maybe it is limited to the areas I have lived in but I have YET to find someone who DIDN'T know what day Christians meet on.

No, I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is we have about 70% of people today unchurched.  We cannot assume they even know the exact reason Christians worship on Sunday anymore.  I don't think it's limited to any specific area although maybe in the bible belt a greater % would have the answer.   

They may know what day.... but they may not know the reason and not even put it together with the Resurrection at all.    Ask around to those in your area....."why do Christians worship on Sunday to begin with?" 

Okay, I see now. I'm not talking about the 'reason' they worship on Sunday but just the fact that they know they go to church on that particular day of the week.

My point is this. Although many may not know the 'reason' but they do know the DAY of the week they go to church. Note the difference?

Don't you find it interesting that the ONLY references to the first day of the week is Paul either breaking bread or continued to preach before he left a community?

AD posts:

KFC POSTS:

I'm not so sure the Apostles kept the feasts for according to St.Matt.12:1-6, 15:11-14, Christ dispensed His disciples from the Mosaic Law but the crowds to whom He preached could not as yet be dispensed. He instructed them to obey all that the legitimate interpreters of the Law told them to do, 23:3.

Christ fulfilled the dogmatical, ethical, ceremonial and prophetical part of the Law or prophets. Having fulfilled the Law He superceded it with His commandments. He spoke at the Last Supper of what He requires St.John 15:10-12, and just before His Ascension, He instructed the Apostles to continue His teaching in its fullness: Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." So the Mosaic Law was binding on all Jews until Christ's sacrificail death. Then, having been fulfilled, it came to an end.

There was a lot of confusion and controversy over what was still in force amongst the early Christian communities. This insistence of the Apostles that the Mosaic Law was of no more force led to controversy Acts 15. We had a discussion about this a while ago.

Ceremonial laws like that of circumcision, those of the Levitical priesthood, and of the Jewish feasts and special foods, are explicitly abrogated. The judicial or civil laws implicitly come to an end with the destruction of the temple and Jewish state in 70AD, succeeded by the kingdom of Christ in the world. Those moral laws enjoined only by the Mosaic Law with its promises and sanctions also ceased. Since the Mosaic Law had been abrogated, it is no longer binding even on Jews according to Gal.3:28; 5:6 and Hebrews 8:13. Acts 11:2 and Romans are examples of the persistant efforts of St.Paul to distinguish the salvation that comes through grace from the requirements of the Old Law.

To misread St.Paul is to misread a great deal of history of the Church. The Old COvenant is the COvenant of circumcision Acts 7:8. The struggle between the Law and the New COvenant began during CHrist's public ministry which began at the wedding feast of Cana, but the old mental habits lingered. Acts 10:45; 11:2-3. The Epistle to the Romans is a defense of the new Christian doctrine of salvation against the objections from Israel the chosen people of the Old who had rejected that doctrine as an innovation contrary of the Law of Moses.

All of these explanations from St.Paul refer only to the abrogation of the Mosaic Law. They don't say that we are saved by faith alone, that we need not keep the Ten Commandments, not do good works, nor meet the conditions laid down in the New Testament for our salvation.