Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rosh Hashanah and the Second Coming
The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/20/06 | Michael D. Bugg

Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-541 last
To: jude24; Diego1618; topcat54
Diego: I think you are just caught in the trap of the "Catholic Sabbath"

Jude: You say "Catholic" like it's a bad thing.

I'm as critical of the Romanists as the next Protestant, but they didn't get everything wrong. They still worship the Trinitarian God.

And as Topcat pointed out, the "holy catholic church" exists on earth and is made up of all true believers. And for 2,000 years the vast majority of those believers have held to a Sunday sabbath at the beginning of a new week, a new covenant and a new life in Christ.

501 posted on 10/01/2006 12:55:52 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
it can be shown conclusively that the Early Church did "not" ignore them.

Absolutely true; they didn't "ignore" them; they said that if you kept the Jewish sabbath, it was "an admission that [you] have failed to receive the gift of grace". That was 200 years before Constantine, BTW.

See my post #495.

502 posted on 10/01/2006 1:02:10 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Campion

I'll give you five bucks for your tagline!


503 posted on 10/01/2006 1:06:29 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
Note the progression. Paul goes to Ephesus and finds some disciples (not in the synagogue). He preaches the fullness of the gospel to them and they are baptized (again, not in the synagogue). Then he enters into the synagogue to reason with the apostate Jews. After they refuse to listen to the gospel, he leaves and continues his ministry among the believing Jews and gentiles in "school of Tyrannus". The apostate Jews are left in their synagogue to continue to worship according to old covenant shadows.
Again, more proof that synagogue worship is not the worship of Paul and the other disciples.

Well somewhere along the line you switched the topic from "sabbath observance" to "synagogue worship".

Sabbath observance can take place in a synagogue, in a house, or down by a river:

Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

No synagogue. No jewish ceremonies, but coming together on the sabbath.

The question has always been whether or not the sabbath was observed by Christians. The answer is of course it was.

Paul believed in the sabbath of God. To state otherwise goes against his word in God inspired scripture:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Jesus believed in the sabbath, created through him and for him:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

Luk 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Again, a prime opportunity for Jesus, God in the flesh, to state to his followers that the sabbath is no longer in effect. Does he? Nope, he AFFIRMS the sabbath by reminding us that he IS the LORD of the sabbath. He is reminding them, and us, that it is HIS sabbath, his creation.

And as previously pointed out, there is not one hint of controversy in scripture about a decision to NOT observe God's sabbaths.

You have tradition and culture on your side. Fortunately I have a commandment of God, the testimony of Jesus Christ, the testimony of Paul and scripture on my side.

504 posted on 10/01/2006 1:15:32 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
LOL. Now why would you want a tagline from a Sunday-worshipping Franciscan Catholic nun? Well, actually she's a several-times-a-day, 7-days-a-week Franciscan Catholic nun, but I digress.

Then again, maybe I don't. Have you ever reflected on the fact that it's the Catholics, perhaps more than any other Christian group, who believe in sanctifying all of time? You can call us Sunday worshippers, and we certainly believe that that Sunday Mass is not optional, but most Catholic parishes have Mass every day, and all Catholics are encouraged to hear Mass every day. That includes Saturday.

Not to mention the sanctification of time by the celebration of the Divine Office (aka the "Liturgy of the Hours").

Christians aren't called to be just Sunday worshippers. They aren't called to be just Saturday worshippers, either. "Pray constantly," Christ said.

505 posted on 10/01/2006 1:20:21 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Campion
KU: Then, I ask, is Sunday worship scriptural or was is created by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Campion: Yes

That a way to Testify, brother! It would be nice for those of us debating you to know exactly what your position is. Since I am in the "sola scriptura" crowd, I know that the Scriptures say Sabbath only. What crowd are you in. Capmion? Please, profess you faith, Campion, for all to see. Sabbath scriptural or created by the Apostolic succession?

506 posted on 10/01/2006 1:23:02 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Well, actually she's a several-times-a-day, 7-days-a-week Franciscan Catholic nun, but I digress.

As we all are , my good friend. [Worshipers, not nuns, LOL]

Christians aren't called to be just Sunday worshipers. They aren't called to be just Saturday worshipers, either. "Pray constantly," Christ said.

We were told to "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy" and it was to be our sign to differentiate us from the Nations [Exodus 31:17]. Yes, we all pray constantly, every day....but God still maintains his Holy Sabbaths and we are to celebrate them.

Seven fifty?????

507 posted on 10/01/2006 2:55:00 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"There is nothing in the language restricting remembering Him to Pesach."

Indeed, I think that the practice of frequently partaking (at the Agape meals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#The_Agape_feast ) can be clearly inferred from Paul's instruction to the Corinthians.

"Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without discerning the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact, that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died"
(1 Cor 11:27-30).


508 posted on 10/01/2006 3:28:42 PM PDT by Fithal the Wise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Fithal the Wise; Carry_Okie
Since Buggman wasn't going to be around a lot this weekend, I'll try to supply the biblical case as to why the Lord intended the symbols of the bread and wine to be only partaken of on Passover.

To begin, we need to begin with Passover itself. Passover, though a feast of the Lord, is not a sabbath:

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.

Num 9:2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.

Num 9:3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.
Num 9:4 And Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, that they should keep the passover.
Num 9:5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

It of course has it's origin in Israels flight from Egypt:

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Now as you know, this is a clear type of the sacrifice of Christ.

This ceremony was performed every year, once a year, on Passover....sometimes. However, Passover is so important that God said that the Passover could be taken again if someone could not take it the first time:

Num 9:6 And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day:
Num 9:7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?
Num 9:8 And Moses said unto them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.
Num 9:9 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Num 9:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD.
Num 9:11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
Num 9:12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

So there are two times a year when God said that the Passover could be taken. BTW, this may explain why God created passover as a holy day, but not as a sabbath.

The main point is that each person took it ONCE a year.

God could have just as easily have commanded each person to observe it every day, or every week, or every month, but he didn't. It was (then) a reminder of an event that happened at a certain date in God's timetable.

Fast forward:

Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mar 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Mar 14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
Mar 14:19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
Mar 14:20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
Mar 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Once again, we find the Passover being taken once a year. However, Jesus, the messiah, now gives new instructions about HOW to celebrate not only passover, but his death.

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this.

So the precedent for Godly remembrance of events is once a year, on the anniversery of the event. We do that today for practically all major events. Recently we had the 5 year "remembrance" of 9/11. There were public ceremonies that are not held except at the yearly remembrance. Christ is asking us to commemerate his death, on the holy day that he died on, Passover.

If you forget that some churches take "communion" whenever basically that they please, then the logical conclusion from reading scripture and understanding the holy days of God would be that the passover is taken once a year.

Now about this verse:

(KJVR) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

This doesn't mean "Take it as often as you want", "eat it as much as you can". If it did, then the proper course of action would be to constantly be eating the passover. It means, "every time you take it".

"The Message" puts it quite nicely:

(MSG) What you must solemnly realize is that every time you eat this bread and every time you drink this cup, you reenact in your words and actions the death of the Master. You will be drawn back to this meal again and again until the Master returns. You must never let familiarity breed contempt.

Or:

(GNB) This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

When the passover is not taken at the proper, God ordained time, then it ceases to be the passover that God commanded and instead becomes a manmade tradition, prone to being taken unworthily.

I hope this helps....

509 posted on 10/01/2006 6:00:36 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Since Buggman wasn't going to be around a lot this weekend, I'll try to supply the biblical case as to why the Lord intended the symbols of the bread and wine to be only partaken of on Passover.

Thank you Douglas.....very succinct and well thought out.

510 posted on 10/01/2006 6:08:36 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Thank you Douglas.....very succinct and well thought out.

Thank you diego, it was a good study and I hope it helps explain it to our friends.

511 posted on 10/01/2006 6:13:31 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; DouglasKC; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
This plainly says they kept both the Sabbath and their 8th day. If only they had a whole Bible like we do today...

You are misreading Barnabas and reinterpreting his words apart from the historical setting.

Jesus rose on the first day of the week, which Barnabas also refers to as "the eigth day". Only historical revisionists will find the ECF teaching that Jesus rose from the dead on the last day of the week. He did not. He rose on the first day, and the church universal has always recognized this fact by establishing Christian worship on the first day according to the tradition of the apostles as recorded in Scripture.

512 posted on 10/02/2006 6:23:54 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
The question has always been whether or not the sabbath was observed by Christians. The answer is of course it was.

You keep saying this, but yet you cannot point to any Scripture that shows baptized Christians, both Jews and gentiles, in a Christian worship setting on the last days sabbath of the Jews. The fact that Paul was able to find a place where people gathered on the old covenant sabbath to pray does not enjoin Christians to worship on the sabbath of the Jews. We have already shown it was Paul's custom to seek them out on their worship places in order to convert Jews to Christ.

It was also Paul's custom at one point to have his hair cut off to take a vow in order to not be falsely accused by the apostate Jews. Have you made this your custom as well? Should all Chrisians cut off their hair when they take a vow?

Nowhere do we see baptized gentiles observing new moons or annual feast days of the Jews.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law

Since you are so sure that Matt. 5:17,18 authorizes the keeping of the last day sabbath, and since none of your old covenant sabbatarian friends has chosen to answer my challenge, why don't you take a crack at this list:

Do you bring your grain offering to the local priest (Lev. 2:1)?

Do you bring your tresspass offering to the local priest (Lev. 5:6)?

Do you avoid temple worship when you have a "discharge" (Lev. 15:2)?

Do you get your tonsorial fashions approved by a priest or rabbi?

Do you have your sons circumcised by a rabbi?

Do your women bring a purification offering to the priest after bearing a child (Lev. 12:6)?

Do you bring your skin ailments to the priest for adjudication (Lev. 13:4)?

Do you bring cases of adultery to a preist to be tried by "bitter water" (Num. 5:19)?

Until you can honestly answer these questions about old covenant practices, your quote of Matthew 5 to support the old covenant sabbath rings hollow.

513 posted on 10/02/2006 6:47:25 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
When the passover is not taken at the proper, God ordained time, then it ceases to be the passover that God commanded and instead becomes a manmade tradition, prone to being taken unworthily.

Christians do not celebrate the passover. We celebrate the Lords' Supper on apostolic authority. That's what Paul called it after all. If he wanted to use the word "passover" to describe the gathering of baptized Jewish and gentile believers around the bread and wine, he would have done so.

Of course that would have been confusing, since God commanded that old covenant passover be celebrated by the shedding of the blood of animals. He also specified that uncircumcised gentiles were not allow to participate in the passover. (Speaking of Matt. 5:17,18, there is no command from God to allow uncircumcised gentiles to partake of the passover.)

So Paul was not so confused as modern judaistic worshippers, and he understood from the Lord Himself that what the church was doing was not a Jewish passover, but a Christian Lord's Supper, made universal and appropriate for people of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

"In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as (gr. hosakis) you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor. 11:25,26)

The practice of the early church was to do this frequently, certainly more often than once a year.

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42)

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

When Paul conducted the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, it was nowhere near the date of passover as far as we can tell.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16)

It was typical of the early church that whenever they came together to receive instruction from the apostles and elders, to engage in the Lord's Supper and prayer. This is the simple pattern of gospel worship.

Christ is our passover (1 Cor. 5:7). We no longer observe in the shadowy pracitces of the old covenant, since the reality of Christ's finished work and the new covenant as dawned. We live in the age of Messish, the "age to come". We have put off the older fleshly worship forms, and worship Christ anew in the simplicity of the gospel.

514 posted on 10/02/2006 7:21:53 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
the passover that God commanded and instead becomes a manmade tradition

Tell us how you conduct a "passover" without introducing manmade traditions like the apostate rabbis?

515 posted on 10/02/2006 7:26:03 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Jesus rose on the first day of the week

This is where most of your false doctrine originates. You cannot find any scripture that will substantiate this claim. It is spurious and illogical.... and can be scripturally proved to be in error.

516 posted on 10/02/2006 7:49:58 AM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC; kerryusama04; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
"Jesus rose on the first day of the week"

This is where most of your false doctrine originates. You cannot find any scripture that will substantiate this claim.

"Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." (Mark 16:9)

Mark 16 is pretty clear on the subject, unless you are predisposed by your theology to htink otherwise.

But just in case you do not believe the plain words of this text of Scripture, let's look at another:

Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ... He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' And they remembered His words. ...

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. ... But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened,. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. (Luke 24:1,6-8,13-15,21,22)

Without twisting the plain words of Luke, we see that on the first day of the week (lit. "the first of the sabbaths") the women arrived at the newly empty tomb. The "two men in shining garments" they encounter remind them of Jesus' owns words that He would rise from the dead "on the third day" following His crucifixion. Later in that same first day of the week (v. 13), two of the disciples have an encounter with Jesus and they recall the story of the crucifixion, and how that very day was "the third day" (v. 21) since these things surrounding the crucifixion happened.

The plain reading of this text is that Jesus rose on "the third day", which happened to be the first day of the week as recorded in Luke.

There is no way to twist out of that conclusion.

And so because of these facts the universal church from the days of the apostles onward has celebrated and worshipped the triune God on the first day of the week, according to the Scriptures, not according to the shadows of the Jews.

517 posted on 10/02/2006 8:57:15 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC; kerryusama04; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
No, I do not admit that. I would like to see the scriptures

First of all, your error is in trying to equate the universal practice of the church from the 1st century onward whereby we rightly worship the triune God on the first day of the week rather than the last day (which was the custom of the Jews) as a "Catholic" doctrine. It is not.

Some of the most vocal anti-Romanists from the protestant magisterial reformers to modern day fundamentalists are all united in first day worship based on apostolic authority.

When you can get 99.9% of all Christians to agree on something, that is probably more than a accident.

The notion that "the Papacy had indeed fulfilled Daniel 7:25" is based mainly on a poor interpretation of Daniel 7 and of whom is it speaking, to whom it is applied, and when it is applied.

And it's a poor excuse for reading the NT practices as if there we merely rabbinic Judaism Part II.

518 posted on 10/02/2006 9:13:45 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
When you can get 99.9% of all Christians to agree on something, that is probably more than a accident.

Amen.

519 posted on 10/02/2006 9:22:06 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; Campion
it was to be our sign to differentiate us from the Nations [Exodus 31:17].

Just curious, which of the twelve tribes are you descended from?

520 posted on 10/02/2006 1:20:55 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
was to be our sign to differentiate us from the Nations

But that's your fundamental error. The Old Covenant was about differentiating the Jews from "the Nations". The New Covenant is about absorbing "the Nations" into the one People of God, the New Israel, the Church.

521 posted on 10/02/2006 1:32:36 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Since I am in the "sola scriptura" crowd, I know that the Scriptures say Sabbath only.

You may "know" that, but that doesn't make it true.

522 posted on 10/02/2006 1:34:04 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
"Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." (Mark 16:9)

"Now when he rose, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." [Mark 16:9]

There is no punctuation in the original Greek....remember?

Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ... He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' And they remembered His words. ...

Where does this verse say he resurrected on the first day of the week? All it says is that he is not there!

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. ... But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened,. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. (Luke 24:1,6-8,13-15,21,22)

Two men are traveling on Sunday.....indisputable! The Greek word for "since" used here actually means "away from" which is closer to the English "after". Translators erred because they chose to make this verse less cumbersome in the English. Instead of saying "But surely also together with all these things, it brings a third day away from which all these thing occurred." They more properly should have said:

Today is after the third day since these things were done. In fact, the Syriac New Testament from the Peshitto Version says, "And lo, three days have passed since all these things have occurred."

And so because of these facts the universal church from the days of the apostles onward has celebrated and worshiped the triune God on the first day of the week, according to the Scriptures, not according to the shadows of the Jews

You are correct in that the Catholic Church has established it's Sabbath as Sunday, but where you go wrong is by saying it is scripturally factual. It is false doctrine and is easily shown to be so.

523 posted on 10/02/2006 4:05:21 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
You keep saying this, but yet you cannot point to any Scripture that shows baptized Christians, both Jews and gentiles, in a Christian worship setting on the last days sabbath of the Jews.

First of all, you misrepresent scripture by saying that the sabbath is the "sabbath of the Jews". Holy scripture calls the sabbath the sabbath of God:

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Now you can continue to try and marginalize it by calling it what it is not, but like it or not (and you don't) it is a commandment of God.

By the way, do you believe it is a sin to violate any of the ten commandments?

The fact that Paul was able to find a place where people gathered on the old covenant sabbath to pray does not enjoin Christians to worship on the sabbath of the Jews.

Three points.

First, the sabbath gathered on in the new testament was the new covenant sabbath.

Second, as pointed out, it's God's sabbath, not the Jews.

Third, the scriptures that Paul reasoned out of, the word of God, clearly and specifically point out that the sabbath was to be observed by those who worship God. There is no question about it scripturally and there was no question about it in biblical times. God enjoins us, in the bible, to observe his sabbath. It's that simple.

As pointed out (and not addressed or refuted by you) there is not one hint or shred of controversy that shows that anyone in biblical times ever stopped observing God's sabbath. I can show you one of God's commandments to observe his sabbath in scripture. The onus is on you to produce one shred of biblical evidence that sabbath observance has been done away with or transferred to any other day.

We have already shown it was Paul's custom to seek them out on their worship places in order to convert Jews to Christ.

We've already seen that this is your theory to explain why Paul, gentiles, greeks and others were observing the sabbath and why it is so frequently mentioned.

And I've quoted you the words of Paul himself (something you clearly can't refute) that shows that he believed in the observance of the sabbath:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Since you are so sure that Matt. 5:17,18 authorizes the keeping of the last day sabbath, and since none of your old covenant sabbatarian friends has chosen to answer my challenge, why don't you take a crack at this list:

You know, reading your list of scripture, it just occurred to me that you don't know exactly what the "old covenant" consisted of. Let me show you the heart and soul of the old covenant:

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

You're misunderstanding of the covenants and how the Levitical priesthood relates to the old and new covenant is your major source of confusion. It's almost pointless to discuss it with you because you're apparently ignorant about many aspects and need to do some study. I would suggest starting with Mount Sinai and studying Exodus to see what God encompassed in his covenant with Israel. I would then study WHY he later added sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. Finally, I would study Hebrews to see exactly how these relate to the new testament.

It will be challenging to you because you have a preconceived notion of what has changed between the new covenant and the old covenant that is not scriptural. You'll have to toss aside your suppositions and actually study the word.

I've got an extremely busy week coming up and will be out of town observing the feast of Tabernacles starting on Wednesday. I'll have broadband in my hotel room so I'll attempt to put together a post that may shed some light on the covenants of God.

Some resources:

Jesus' Teaching on God's Law

The Covenants...kind of lengthy, but well worth the study.

524 posted on 10/02/2006 4:07:46 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
Christians do not celebrate the passover.

Sure they do. If you're not, then you're not honoring or obeying God by observing his passover, one of the days he commandmended his followers to observe:

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.

You're also disoboeying God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, and not following the practice that he did:

Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passove

You're also not following the example of Paul, who said emphatically to keep the passover:

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

We celebrate the Lords' Supper on apostolic authority. That's what Paul called it after all.

You should be taking the Lord's supper on the day that the Lord instituted his supper and the day he himself took it, Passover.

Of course that would have been confusing, since God commanded that old covenant passover be celebrated by the shedding of the blood of animals. He also specified that uncircumcised gentiles were not allow to participate in the passover. (Speaking of Matt. 5:17,18, there is no command from God to allow uncircumcised gentiles to partake of the passover.)

Again, you're confused about this because you don't understand Hebrews or the covenants. Study study study.

The practice of the early church was to do this frequently, certainly more often than once a year.
"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42)

The phrase "to break bread" can and often does mean to eat a meal and not always to eat the Lord's supper. For example:

Act 27:34 Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
Act 27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
Act 27:36 Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.

Not the Lord's supper, but the breaking of a fast.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)
When Paul conducted the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, it was nowhere near the date of passover as far as we can tell.

Ummmm...does it say that they ate the "Lord's Supper"...or does it say that they broke bread? It says that they came together for a meal (on what we would call Saturday night),after the sabbath. This is a common jewish practice and a common practice of many sabbatarian churches. For proof of this:

Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

The young man broke bread, he ate, to get his strength back. There is no church service on Sunday here. It's merely a tortured attempt to justify sabbath breaking. It's fellowshipping, sharing a meal, following the sabbath. The point of the story was to point out the miraculous incident of Paul bringing the young man back to life, not to prove some mythical church service.

525 posted on 10/02/2006 4:31:30 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Just curious, which of the twelve tribes are you descended from?

I'm not sure if I am descended....but if not, I'm positive that I've been adopted.

How about you?

526 posted on 10/02/2006 4:40:09 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Campion
The Old Covenant was about differentiating the Jews from "the Nations".

Actually the Jews (Judah) were only one tribe of the Nation of Israel. Judah had eleven other brothers and when Jacob gave the blessings [Genesis 48:1-14] the tribe of Joseph became two. Later on, after Mount Sinai, the Levites became a priestly portion of each tribe thereby bringing the total tribe count back down to twelve.

The covenant was given to all of the Israelites. There is much confusion in this regard and many prophecies are directed to both Israel and the house of Judah (Jews).....separately and jointly. If you do not make the distinction you may be attempting to place prophecy and future events on the wrong people....in the wrong place....at the wrong time.

527 posted on 10/02/2006 5:19:42 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Campion
KU04: Since I am in the "sola scriptura" crowd, I know that the Scriptures say Sabbath only.

Campion: You may "know" that, but that doesn't make it true.

Having not found Sunday worship in the Bible, I then turned to my church at the time for proof:

John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D.: "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible, and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about 15 centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." Faith of Millions, pp. 543 and 544.

Now, please Campion, take a poisition on the debate or please stop pinging me.

Is Sunday Scriptural or did the Holy Catholic Church invent it?

528 posted on 10/02/2006 7:48:58 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; DouglasKC; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; jude24
Since you are so sure that Matt. 5:17,18 authorizes the keeping of the last day sabbath, and since none of your old covenant sabbatarian friends has chosen to answer my challenge, why don't you take a crack at this list:

TC, we don't answer you because it just adds unnecessary volume to the thread. The answer has been posted so many times that I just figured you weren't going to read it anyhow.

Mar 14:58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Your incredibly non-linear leap from "no more temple" to "no more law" has me sitting here shaking my head in pity. Instead of being an S.A., I will ask straight forward. Is homosexuality a sin and why?

529 posted on 10/02/2006 8:20:05 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; topcat54; DouglasKC; Diego1618; whipitgood; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ...
Is homosexuality a sin and why?

Ditto beastiality and incest, neither of which is reiterated in the NT.

My apologies for not returnign last night as planned; I had a sick roomate that I was seeing to. I haven't had a chance to catch up on the thread yet, so bear with me while I do so. I've got to do some actual work over here, so I can't devote all of my attention to the thread yet.

530 posted on 10/03/2006 7:02:12 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618
I hope this helps....

First, I want to thank you for having taken the time on my behalf to adress the question I posed to Buggman. It is appreciated.

I am quite familiar with the citations you posted (as I would hope you would have surmised), however, they are all particular to Pesach, about which we have no differences. Still, the post did not address my understandings of the citations I posited as to how they might be incorrect or the general coherence of the conclusion they incorporated. Indeed, one can easily take a quite different logical inference from some of it than what you have concluded, sic,

This ceremony was performed every year, once a year, on Passover....sometimes. However, Passover is so important that God said that the Passover could be taken again if someone could not take it the first time:

IOW, it is so important to accomplish the purpose of the sacrament, that its date is less important than the necessity of its accomplishment. Please hold that thought.

In my post positing the question, I hadn't made the comment that it is quite possible that the Sabbath is still to be celebrated as originally, but that communion was to be celebrated independently. From what I can discern from the history, such would explain the origins of "the Lord's Day" in the first place.

At the time of the early church, it is quite clear that Christians (both Jewish and Gentile) were meeting in existing synagogues. As other have pointed out, the Gentiles had to meet the normal standards for Gentile purity as are cited in Acts. It would not surprise me a bit that the desire to celebrate a kiddush and hamotzi in the name of Y'shua would have bred division and contention within a Synagogue, indeed, it would be an eventual demarcation as Gentile Christianity grew. Thus, in the name of using an existing facility, the latter might celebrate it on some other day, the Lord's Day.

If I had to guess at the single issue that gradual split of Christianity from Judaism in Rome and elsewhere within the First Century Diaspora, that would be it, just as it is today. Such is indication both of the existence of the practice, and the point of divergence. Obviously by the mid Second Century, the practice of celebrating the Lord's Day independently had been inculcated into Christianity as we know it now, with the Sabbath and the Law tragically falling into disuse. I have no idea whether this is a historically accurate conclusion, but the circumstantial evidence would seem to confirm the early existence of the practice of communion more frequently than on just Pesach.

Were what you suggest a true restriction during that apostolic period, one would think that someone would have taken issue with the practice. Of such I can find no record, which, given Paul's Pharasaic background is an equally strong indication.

When the passover is not taken at the proper, God ordained time, then it ceases to be the passover that God commanded and instead becomes a manmade tradition, prone to being taken unworthily.

Obviously not, although I would not have used a word such as "unworthy;" we all are, but I somehow don't think that the practice of the deed is sufficient to qualify the heart.

Thanks again.

531 posted on 10/04/2006 10:03:48 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Actually the Jews (Judah) were only one tribe of the Nation of Israel. ... The covenant was given to all of the Israelites. There is much confusion in this regard and many prophecies are directed to both Israel and the house of Judah (Jews).....separately and jointly

Trying to discern your theology here.

Are you saying that only descendants from the single tribe of Judah are "Jews"?

532 posted on 10/10/2006 9:30:42 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04
Trying to discern your theology here. Are you saying that only descendants from the single tribe of Judah are "Jews"?

In the eleventh chapter of I Kings we see God saying to Solomon that he will take the Kingdom (Israel) and give it to a subordinate.....but he will leave one tribe with his son for the sake of David, Solomon's father. Chapter 12:19-24 shows that the tribe was Judah as the rest of the Kingdom went to Jeroboam except....additionally, the tribe of Benjamin.

At that time the Levites (the Priests) were not considered a land owning tribe as they ministered to the other tribes....so after these events took place the Southern Kingdom, Judah, consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin....with their share of the tribe of Levi.

The Northern Kingdom, Israel, consisted of the other ten tribes.

See also II Kings 17:18. At that time Benjamin, the portion of Levi and the tribe of Judah were called collectively....Judah. You will find the "Jews" (Judah) at war with Israel in II Kings 16:1-6 and II Chronicles 11:1. The Northern Kingdom tribes were never referred to as Jews....only Israelites. You'll find some of these folks in the New Testament in 1 Peter 1:1-2....those with the foreknowledge of God.

When God dispersed the Northern Kingdom to Assyria [II Kings 17:6] they never came back. In verse 24 you'll see that the King of Assyria repopulated "Samaria" with pagans from Babylonia and you'll understand now why Christ told his Apostles to stay out of there [Matthew 10:5-6]. In fact this is where the infamous Simon Magus and his Babylonian religion came from [Acts chapter 8]. This is the religion he palmed off on the Romans......and they bought it!

The two books that speak of the return from captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah, only speak of the captivity of Judah to Babylon....not Israel to Assyria. You will find no mention of any tribe except Judah, Benjamin and Levi in these books.

Bottom line.....All Jews are Israelites.....not all Israelites are Jews.

533 posted on 10/10/2006 2:48:22 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; topcat54; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; ...
Hi OC. Sorry to have to put you off, and I appreciate your patience and the tone of your freepmail.

First, let’s deal with the issue of what it meant to “break bread” together in the context of first-century Judaism: It literally meant simply to share a meal, to eat at the same table. So what? you ask. Well, there was a cultural issue that we are not sensitive to today which was very important to the Jews then: “Breaking bread” with someone was a sign that you had full fellowship with them, that you regarded them as one of your own. This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).

As the Sadducean priesthood became progressively more corrupt, the Pharisees began distancing themselves from the Temple—not to the degree that the Essenes did, of course, but nevertheless to such a degree that when the Romans destroyed the Temple, the Pharisees were the last sect standing. (In fact, the name Pharisee, P’rush, means “separated one” in Hebrew, and many scholars believe this referred at least in part to their separation from the Temple.) Now, very few of the Jews were actually Pharisees, but they nevertheless commanded great respect for their knowledge of and strict adherence to the Torah, and their theology permeated Jewish society in numerous ways.

One of the most important teachings of the Pharisees was that as the Temple had become corrupt, the family dinner table was to be regarded as the altar of God, the food set upon it the sacrifice, and the patriarch of the family its priest. As a result, ritual purity at mealtimes became an important part of Pharisaical practice—this is why they harassed the disciples of Yeshua for not ritually washing their hands before eating (Mat. 15); this was tantamount, in their tradition, to desecrating the altar of the Temple by approaching when ritually unclean.

Of course, not everyone in the Jewish world followed the Pharisees’ complex rules of ritual purity. As a matter of fact, it was pretty rare even in Judea—the Galileans were considered real hicks and half-Gentile in their practices because they tended to completely ignore the Pharisees. (There’s an old tradition about a rabbi who was sent to Galilee. In eighteen years, he was asked only two questions about the “right” way to keep the Torah; consequently, he pronounced that wickedness would surely come from that area.) As a result, the Pharisees were very careful about who they invited over for dinner, almost always restricting themselves to their own order. In the first century world where “breaking bread” with someone implied social and spiritual union with them, this was tantamount to saying that nobody else was a true Jew.

That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)—at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).

So then, look again at Acts 2:42, and imagine those commas in slightly different places: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” What is the significance of this? Remember that there were both Pharisees (15:5) and Sadducees (6:7) among the believers, as well as Judeans, Galileans, and even Hellenized Jews—all eating together, all partaking of one table and one fellowship. Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!

Therefore, Luke is not using “breaking of bread” to refer to the modern concept of the Lord’s Supper, but to show his audience, which was cognizant of these societal realities, just how close all the believers were in the Messiah Yeshua. This is also why Sha’ul ripped Kefa (Peter) publicly when he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 1)—it was tantamount to announcing that the Gentiles weren’t really saved in the sense that the Jews were saved, and was in danger of splitting the Church right down the middle.

Okay, on to the second issue:

One would think that such included His expectation to be remembered. So why would there be proscription against breaking bread and remembering His new covenant? It would seem unlikely.

I didn’t say that there was a proscription against the practice; I said that “the entirety of the Lord's Supper was originally meant to take place within the context of the Passover Seder.” A proscription would suggest that I thought everyone needed to stop right now. Not at all. Beth HaMashiach celebrates the Lord’s Supper once a month, and I keep it with the inmates I minister to every other week.

However, we also celebrate the Passover, and we understand what is now called the Lord’s Supper within its context. In effect, each Supper is a mini-Passover, a time of remembrance in anticipation of the Feast. If one were anticipating a banquet, one might have a small snack or two earlier in the day to tide him or her over until dinner, but would we then say, “I’ve already had my meal, so I’ll skip the feast my host has prepared for me”?

I remember a church I attended for a time some years before I became Messianic. Even then I was uncomfortable with the way they did the Lord’s Supper: They served leavened bread. Even then, I knew that was tantamount to saying that the Lord had sin. Not that they intended it that way, of course, but having removed the Supper from the context of the Seder, they were ignorant of the symbolism.

Another result of removing the Supper from the context of the Seder has been to create a new mysticism in place of pure Christianity. Since the supposed proof-text for no longer keeping the Passover was Col. 2:16-17, and yet Yeshua had commanded that the Supper be kept, the Church developed a doctrine of “sacraments” which were supposedly better than the ceremonies of the Torah: Otherwise, they’d have to admit that they were simply trading one set of shadows for another, and would have no reason not to keep the former in obedience to the command of God—which would result in their being persecuted for being Jews. Of course, that required coming up with a way to justify these sacraments as being ontologically greater. In the end, a bunch of mystical baloney was piled on top, like Transubstantiation, as the “proof.” Had the Church kept the Seder in the Supper, recognizing that both it and the other ceremonial commandments were physical ways of reflecting the spiritual reality, I don’t think that mysticism would have ever entered into the equation.

So by all means, keep celebrating the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him throughout the year—but don’t neglect the Passover, of which the bread and cup are but two small threads of a much richer tapestry of symbolism pointing directly to our Lord Yeshua and His work on the Cross. My own practice, which is obviously not binding on anyone here, is to slip in a little tidbit about the rest of the Passover amongst the liturgy of the Supper, such as explaining why Yeshua did not drink the third cup of the meal, the Cup of Redemption, or how the matzah (unleavened bread) is pierced, striped, and bruised just as our Lamb was.

In the end, there is nothing wrong with a little extra tradition—in fact, it’s inevitable. No one would argue that a church’s annual pot-luck dinner to celebrate its founding was legalism or forbidden because it “isn’t specifically authorized by the New Tesament,” so long as said church wasn’t trying to impose that dinner as a universal standard or that it didn’t violate Scripture in some other way (no annual orgies allowed). By the same token, there is nothing wrong with these additional “mini-Passover Suppers,” provided that they don’t become a matter of salvation or judgment, and are observed and understood within the context of the real Passover.

534 posted on 10/10/2006 3:42:35 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I really enjoyed reading your post on the Seder. Raised Baptist, and newly Anglican, I have attended two Seders at a Messianic congregation. I so enjoyed it, and you are correct, there is much more to it than just the bread and the wine and it was such a moving experience that I was in tears. Lovely post.
535 posted on 10/10/2006 4:28:01 PM PDT by ladyinred (RIP my precious Lamb Chop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Thank you for your post. We concur on most of its content, but differ in a couple of minor points as to wording or degree.

With regard to breaking bread, I was well aware of the social significance of such at the time, but your elaboration on the topic with its numerous tie-ins taught me quite a bit more, so thank you.

This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).

Y'shua ate with sinners, as long as they were repentant. As you know, He regarded the penitent sinner as greater in heaven than the legalistically righteous. So perhaps that would be better worded as, 'Sha’ul tells us not to eat with an unrepentant brother'? Food for thought. :-)

Interesting your bit of history on the Pharisee/Saducee split and how that led to a more dispersed form of worship. It clearly reinforced the modern synagogue, without which the loss of the Temple might more likely have been far more destructive to Judaic worship.

That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)— at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).

I doubt that was uniformly true. Certainly in the case of Nicodemus it was, but in others, it seems as likely that it was for the purpose of scrutiny.

Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!

This was a really insightful point, thank you, demonstrating how destabilizing Christianity had to be in a world of rigid class distinction.

Therefore, Luke is not using “breaking of bread” to refer to the modern concept of the Lord’s Supper, but to show his audience, which was cognizant of these societal realities, just how close all the believers were in the Messiah Yeshua.

Clearly this is your conclusion and it is very well supported, but I don't think the case quite as definitive as your choice of words suggests. It surely includes all the factors you mention, but does not exclude the possibility that it included communion as we know it. I do appreciate the thought that went into it.

I had obviously misunderstood your earlier post, thinking that it implied exclusivity to celebrating the new covenant only at Pesach, which, as you have said, is not what you do. It is, what our congregation UMJC does, so please forgive my remission in assuming your practice was similar. We entirely concur about the role the Lord's Supper should play in our assemblies with other believers and I especially applaud your prison ministry.

On a side note, what did you think of my point about the Shema and the New Covenant? I haven't heard it articulated before, but it struck my heart like a bolt.

I have more to ask at a later time, particularly as regards correct interpretation of "perpetual" or "forever" as regards old covenant feasts in terms of Hebrew versus Greek and the impact that distinction has upon the general discussion we see on this thread and others about the Law.

Later!

536 posted on 10/10/2006 5:09:40 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
So perhaps that would be better worded as, 'Sha’ul tells us not to eat with an unrepentant brother'?

Correct. Perhaps I should have said "the actively sinning brother."

It clearly reinforced the modern synagogue, without which the loss of the Temple might more likely have been far more destructive to Judaic worship.

Exactly. Personally, I believe that God set up the split to insure that some manner of Torah-observant Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple.

I doubt that was uniformly true. Certainly in the case of Nicodemus it was, but in others, it seems as likely that it was for the purpose of scrutiny.

Oh, certainly; but look past the scrutiny (which in and of itself was not a bad thing--they had to be careful of Messianic pretenders) and to the underlying relationship in comparison to Yeshua's relationship with other groups. Do you see Yeshua interacting with and trying to correct the Sadducees, the Essenes, or the Zealots the way He did the Pharisees? No. This suggests that of all the groups, He felt the closest kinship with the Pharisees.

The only time He interacts with the Sadducees, its in declaring Himself to be the Messiah in the Temple, to take the Pharisees side on the matter of the Resurrection, and to be put on trial for heresy.

The only time He interacts with the Zealots is to take Simon the Zelot on as a disciple--but we have no indications that He shared any theology or politics in common with them, or that He addressed them in numbers.

The only time He mentions the Essenes, the "Children of the Light," it's to criticise them for closing themselves off from the world and refusing to so much as conduct business with anyone who did not live up to their high standards of righteousness (Luke 16:8).

But with the Pharisees, He interacted on a regular basis, debated on their level and using their hermeneutics, and kept their rigid standards of righteousness and cleanliness enough that they on several occassions invited Him into their homes. The fact that He goes after them for sins and hypocrisies that He doesn't even mention in other groups is not an indication that they were more corrupt, but that they were closest to the truth in their teachings, and He wanted to bring them to the other side by dealing with the problems of pride and hypocrisy. "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Mat. 23:3).

Some have looked at this and gone so far as to say that Yeshua was a Pharisee. I don't think so, at least not formally. He did not come to be the Messiah of the Pharisees, but the Messiah of all Israel, and therefore eschewed formal ordination into any sect. But I do suspect that if He came to one of His churches sans His Glory today, most would be wondering what the heck an Orthodox Jew was doing there.

This was a really insightful point, thank you, demonstrating how destabilizing Christianity had to be in a world of rigid class distinction.

Absolutely right. If you read the book of Acts carefully, you'll notice that the objection to Sha'ul's ministry was rarely on the basis that he proclaimed the Messiah--it was on the matter of the Gentiles being brought into salvation (cf. Acts 22, and notice exactly what sets the audience off in vv. 21-22).

It surely includes all the factors you mention, but does not exclude the possibility that it included communion as we know it. I do appreciate the thought that went into it.

Okay, turn that around: What evidence is there that Luke was referring to the Lord's Supper in that passage, given that the nominal meaning of the idiom "to break bread" means to share a meal?

We entirely concur about the role the Lord's Supper should play in our assemblies with other believers and I especially applaud your prison ministry.

Thanks, that's much appreciated. My own congregation is not formally associated with any of the major Messianic "denominations" out there. We have two sister congregations in the area, Beth Adonai and Hope of David, with whom we have formed the Messianic Alliance of Metro Atlanta, which gives us all accountability outside of our congregations on matters of theology and practice. However, since we didn't start out as part of a larger association and are all still young congregations (Beth HaMashiach is only three years old, and Beth Adonai only a few years older) a lot of issues that are mostly settled in the UMJC or MJAA are still being worked out.

On a side note, what did you think of my point about the Shema and the New Covenant? I haven't heard it articulated before, but it struck my heart like a bolt.

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to skip over that. I liked it very much--especially since the Sh'ma is intimately connected to the observance of Passover:

And it [the observance of Passover] shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD' law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.
(Exodus 13:9)

And thou shalt bind them [the words God has commanded us] for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
(Deuteronomy 6:8)

From this, I take the binding of God's words upon our hands and between our eyes to not primarily refer to the wearing of the Tefilin (Phylacteries)--though that is certainly one way to keep the command in part--but to doing and looking upon things that continually remind us of God's grace and commands. Celebrating the Passover is the first example of keeping this command given, but observing the Lord's Supper more often also qualifies. Putting a mezuzah on the door and hanging a picture with a quote from the Psalms in the house both keep this command.

Now, if keeping the Passover is so intimately tied to keeping the Sh'ma, which Yeshua Himself quoted as being the most important commandment (Mark 12:27-30), one wonders why certain Christians here rebel against keeping it--especially since its such a fun and joyous way to obey God.

I have more to ask at a later time, particularly as regards correct interpretation of "perpetual" or "forever" as regards old covenant feasts in terms of Hebrew versus Greek and the impact that distinction has upon the general discussion we see on this thread and others about the Law.

I look forward to it. Shalom and L'shannah Tova.

537 posted on 10/11/2006 9:15:06 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Okay, turn that around: What evidence is there that Luke was referring to the Lord's Supper in that passage, given that the nominal meaning of the idiom "to break bread" means to share a meal?

No more than the other way around. The Bible is full of such "superset/subset" problems. In this case, “breaking bread” includes both regular meals and the Lord’s Supper because there is insufficient hard information to reduce the superset. The accumulation of the archaeological record is doing a great deal to resolve these open issues.

This thread was a wonderful example of how little progress is usually made to determine and accept what can or cannot be definitively claimed, despite enormous effort. The posters defend positions that ultimately rest upon assumptions arising out of belief without acknowledging those limits. IMO, this failing arises out of pride, fear, anger, collective identity… you know, the usual denial that we are all brothers studying the word in search of truth. It takes maturity to admit what you don’t know, and diligence to discover what you cannot know.

Rudolph Carnap, a philosopher, posed the idea of applying symbolic logic and set theory toward proving a problem was unsolvable, whether because of insufficient data or by virtue of the design of the question. Such is a great contribution to knowledge. It tells you where to look for more information, and where not to bother until you have it. If you don't have it, there is then an identified intersection of perhaps opposing hypotheses. Unfortunately, people don't want to relegate their religion to having bases in faith, even when they acknowledge such is its most essential attribute!

Sad, isn't it?

Now, if keeping the Passover is so intimately tied to keeping the Sh'ma, which Yeshua Himself quoted as being the most important commandment (Mark 12:27-30), one wonders why certain Christians here rebel against keeping it--especially since its such a fun and joyous way to obey God.

For the same reason so many Jews regard accepting Y'shua as Messiah as worse than professing Atheism: a combination of historically accumulated bigotry arising out of the unwillingness to accept G-d's plan. Gentiles recoil over what they see as a subservient role while Jews (many of whom are Khazari) expect acknowledgment as the "chosen." Jew vs. Gentile, the Lord's Supper v. Shabbat (as if the two were in opposition).

Shaul addresses these roles in Romans, and, IMO, he chose some rather misunderstood metaphors to describe the relationship. Have you read Mark Nanos' book on Romans? It is seldom a Reformed Jew makes such a contribution to Christianity, although I disagree with some of his conclusions as a matter of emphasis.

The issue of temporal perpetuity I raised in the last post may be the undoing of many a hard position, offering perhaps the best opportunity I’ve seen toward synthesis between the tripartite branches of theology (Judiac, Messianic, and traditional Christian) represented on this thread. This fellow does a pretty good job with it.

538 posted on 10/11/2006 10:10:39 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
No more than the other way around. The Bible is full of such "superset/subset" problems. In this case, “breaking bread” includes both regular meals and the Lord’s Supper because there is insufficient hard information to reduce the superset. The accumulation of the archaeological record is doing a great deal to resolve these open issues.

That's true. One of the problems in interpreting the nuances of Scripture--and I say the nuances because the main points are all crystal clear--is that the Bible is a "high context" document: It assumes a common bond of language, idiom, culture, and experience between the writer and the reader, and consequently leaves a lot of things unexplained. The more we learn about the first century, the clearer many otherwise obscure passages become.

In this case, since Luke does not clarify the statement to mean anything more than what "breaking bread" would generally mean to a first-century audience, I think the wiser course is to say, "We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."

The posters defend positions that ultimately rest upon assumptions arising out of belief without acknowledging those limits.

Exactly. If one assumes--rightly or wrongly--the correctness of any doctrine, it's easy enough to find passages which support that position. The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority. We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.

The same problem poses a particular challenge in properly interpreting Sha'ul's letters. In every case, with the possible (not definite) exception of Romans, Sha'ul was writing to deal with some problem in the church in question. We do not have the message sent to Sha'ul which would explain the full context of his letters. We try to figure out the context by the clues in the letters and the information we have in Acts and in some of the ECF (who don't always have the full picture themselves).

It's therefore foolish beyond belief to build doctrine primarily out of Sha'ul's letters. I'm not denying their authority--heck, I quote him all the time--nor their insight. But they were never meant to be used in place of the Tanakh; in fact, other than Romans, they were never meant to be used by those who had not received Sha'ul's verbal teaching first. It's hardly surprising that even within fifteen to twenty years after being written, they were being misinterpreted and misused: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:15-16)

If I were to publish a translation of the Bible, I would put the Tanakh in Jewish order, and I would also reorder the NT: I'd put John before Luke in the Gospels, because John was written to suppliment Mark, and Luke and Acts are two parts of the same work. I would put Yochanan's (John's) epistles first, followed by Kefa's (Peters), then Ya'akov's (James) and Y'hudah's (Jude). Then I'd put Sha'ul's epistles, followed by Hebrews. Revelation I'd leave in the back since it is obviously meant to serve as the bookend along with Genesis.

The reason is not to slight Sha'ul, but because I've come to believe that his "hard to be understood" words should only be studied once one already has a grasp of the rest of Scripture, and because the "least of the apostles" (1 Co. 15:9) should not overshadow those who walked with the Lord Yeshua personally, nor His brothers who ran the Jerusalem Church. At least this way, people would have to pass through the other apostles on their way to misinterpret Paul.

Unfortunately, people don't want to relegate their religion to having bases in faith, even when they acknowledge such is its most essential attribute!

Sad, isn't it?

Very. Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.

For the same reason so many Jews regard accepting Y'shua as Messiah as worse than professing Atheism: a combination of historically accumulated bigotry arising out of the unwillingness to accept G-d's plan.

Yep. Both sides have been guilty of predominantly defining themselves by what the other isn't and of expelling those who have tried to bridge the gap.

Have you read Mark Nanos' book on Romans?

Not yet, but I will. Thanks for the recommendation!

This fellow does a pretty good job with it.

Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to read and think it over.

God bless.

539 posted on 10/11/2006 12:50:47 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
It assumes a common bond of language, idiom, culture, and experience between the writer and the reader, and consequently leaves a lot of things unexplained.

Hence study of Hebrew, Greek, and history. Yup.

"We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."

Much of what is called "doctrine" is really based on premises taken on faith. Methinks we could do with a lot less of it. In that respect, Messianism has been a very good thing for both Judiasm and main line Christianity. Lacking a body of doctrine, we reconsider everything in light of new information rather than interpreting and incorporating new information in terms of fixed constraints (the former being the bigger problem).

The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority.

Given the number of necessary assumptions in interpreting Biblical text, I'm not terribly sanguine about how achievable is "proof." A lot of very smart people have been working on that stuff for a very long time. See "Carnap."

We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.

As I suggested, given the perhaps temporal nature of "perpetual," "stone" may not be the rock we think it is. The potential for a definition in a translation to change things can be truly awesome in scope.

I prefer to say that, lacking absolutely definitive information, I have prayed about it and from what I can tell the Lord wants me to observe keep the Sabbath. I love Shabbat; it's the highlight of our week. It's been good for our family as coincidence with G-d's Laws would confirm as they were before the time of Moshe.

"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"

A most apt citation. It is the human condition.

If I were to publish a translation of the Bible,

Aggggghhh! Not another translation! I'm having enough trouble finding anything in Stern's. :-)

I do appreciate the rationale.

Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.

Salvation is available to the retarded, the insane, or the disabled. An idiot can be saved, if we come to the Kingdom of G-d as a little child in faith. Our study is more a matter of the talents, for we have been blessed.

540 posted on 10/11/2006 1:45:44 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

,(: >)


541 posted on 11/09/2006 12:02:51 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-541 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson