Posted on 04/10/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC
I do not doubt any of your comments here; but there STILL has been no SCRIPTURE presented that shows any change, merely ancedotes about what was or was not observed.
I’m not even sure what you are trying to get at. Do you not believe we should observe the Lord’s Supper, we should only observe once a year or what?
Why the second; of course!
Just like it ALWAYS was!
I'd think that this would appeal to you as well; considering how that you are seemingly a bit paranoid about Christian 'rituals' that are NOT in Scripture.
"As oft as ye do it..." indicates ONCE a year to me!
Quite honestly I had not considered, or heard of, that perspective. I’ll have to do more study on that. From the writings of the Apostles it would “seem” that the Lord’s Supper was observed on every weekly meeting of the church in different areas.
20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Discerning the body... HMmm....
One must realize that the LAMB that they are eating represents WHAT???
THIS drink and THIS bread.
When you come together... HMmm...
It is obvious that what was being eaten here is a full meal; is it not?
How has it been so diminished to be a sip of wine/grape juice/water and a scrap of bread?
It’s my opinion that ‘communion’ has been ‘received’ WAY too often and that the mere familiarity of it has reduced it to a ritual.
A ritual that is used to even ‘bash’ some of the partakers of it with feelings of ‘unworthiness’, without even explaining what it is that would MAKE a person unworthy!
Matthew 5:23-24 (King James Version)
Matthew 5:23-24
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
How many folks toss their tithe, offering, gift into the plate, box, or basket without thinking, every week, and still are ticked because Sister Mary failed to say how good the cassarole was that they brought to the last pitchin.
You know.....I hear this silliness a couple of times a year and have yet to have a legitimate explanation of this.
The command from James was [Acts 15:18-21] Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Where does this say the Dietary Laws were done away with? I go nuts trying to see the connection. Can someone explain it to me?
Then they use this: [Acts 15:28-29] 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
What in the world does this have to do with [Leviticus 11]......God's Dietary Laws? James is speaking of the Halakha Laws found in [Leviticus 17 and 18]. James is telling the Gentile converts to do the same thing that Moses told the Israelites to do. How is this doing away with anything?
Acts 10. It may not be in your Seventh Day Adventist Bible.
Sorry....no cigar. Acts 10 does not even remotely suggest such a thing.
Revelation 18:2] And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
This is sixty years after the resurrection and at least fifty years after Peter's visit to Cornelius. Why on Earth would John be referring to an "edible bird" (in your opinion) as unclean?
I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist......and as far as I know, they do not observe the Dietary Regulations of [Leviticus 11].
You're batting "0"!
Oh....by the way. It wasn't against the law to heal on the Sabbath.....either. [Mark 7:1-13] It was against the traditions of men (Pharisee's)(verse 8).
You're really batting "0" now!
I didn’t write the Bible. I’m just telling you what it says.
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
I know that. You didn't have to tell me you didn't write the Bible.
Many folks, like you.....have misconstrued what is actually being said here. Did Yahweh actually command Peter to eat any kind of meat he desired? No! Yahweh was illustrating Peter's attitude toward his fellow man.
The sheet being lowered had all kinds of unclean and "common" meat (meat that had become ceremonially defiled). Peter had never eaten this type of meat and was very aware that he shouldn't eat it now. The passage, indeed....shows Peter not eating any of this "Unclean" meat. He couldn't have anyway...... since it was a vision.
Jump to verse 17: Peter is still in doubt, wondering what the meaning of the vision was. Verse 19 tells us his mind was still thinking about it when the Spirit told him three men were looking for him with a message from Cornelius.
Peter finally realizes what it was all about and tells everyone else what happened. He says, "Yahweh has shown me that I should not call any man (not meat) common or unclean (verse 28). The vision was a means for Peter to see his own hypocrisy in dealing with his fellow man....especially Gentiles and had it then revealed they were eligible for salvation as well (verses 34-35).
Here are the major points for [Acts 10]:
1. Even in a vision Peter still refused to eat common or unclean meat.
2. He said he had never done so which proves that Yeshua certainly did not teach the Apostles to do this. It was now about ten years after the resurrection.
3. Peter was told not to call any man unclean....because of this vision.
4. He was not told to quit calling certain types of meat unclean!
5. Peter learned here that Yahweh is not a respecter of persons and nothing was said in regards to changing the Dietary Laws.
I’m just telling you what it says. Argue with the Bible, not me.
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
Now my friend. We know that Yeshua didn't tell the Apostles it was O.K. now to eat buzzards, swine and shrimp because we never see Him do that. Yahweh never says it in scripture as well....but you insist that the Spirit told Peter these animals were no longer unclean (verse 15).
Do I have your story right?
O.K. Let's go see John again. [Revelation 18:2] And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Here's the Greek: kai ekraxen en iscui fwnh megalh legwn epesen epesen babulwn h megalh kai egeneto katoikhthrion daimonwn kai fulakh pantoV pneumatoV akaqartou kai fulakh pantoV orneou akaqartou kai memishmenou
#169. akathartos (ak-ath'-ar-tos)impure (ceremonially, morally (lewd) or specially, (demonic)) foul, unclean.
Now let's take a look at [Leviticus 11] from the Greek Septuagint:
1 kai elalhsen kurios pros mwushn kai aarwn legwn 2 lalhsate tois uiois israhl legontes tauta ta kthnh a fagesqe apo pantwn twn kthnwn twn epi ths ghs 3 pan kthnos dichloun oplhn kai onucisthras onucizon duo chlwn kai anagon mhrukismon en tois kthnesin tauta fagesqe 4 plhn apo toutwn ou fagesqe apo twn anagontwn mhrukismon kai apo twn dichlountwn tas oplas kai onucizontwn onucisthras ton kamhlon oti anagei mhrukismon touto oplhn de ou dichlei akaqarton touto umin 5 kai ton dasupoda oti anagei mhrukismon touto kai oplhn ou dichlei akaqarton touto umin 6 kai ton coirogrullion oti anagei mhrukismon touto kai oplhn ou dichlei akaqarton touto umin 7 kai ton un oti dichlei oplhn touto kai onucizei onucas oplhs kai touto ouk anagei mhrukismon akaqarton touto umin
Here's the English for the first seven verses:
1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Come let us reason together. Why would the spirit inspire John (60 years later) to write this word (the same word he inspired Moses to write) if he had told Peter that these animals were no longer unclean?
Here is the eighth verse: 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Nothing changed from the Old Testament to the New regarding the Dietary Laws. Only the traditions of men changed!
“the same word he inspired Moses to write”
It’s not the same word. One is on Greek and the other on Hebrew.
I’m just telling you what it said, that’s all. God told him he could eat the unclean things.
Then....why didn't Peter eat? Why did he question this command? Why did he continue to think on it until he was contacted by the agents of Cornelius?
It is the same word. The authors of the Septuagint called it the same as the Apostle John. The word is AKATHARTOS. It means unclean!
Tell me...."Appy"......do you think it would be alright for John to be sitting on the beach at Patmos....cooking this buzzard for lunch [Revelation 18:2]? This unclean bird? Do you think Yeshua would agree with you on this matter?
C'mon....all you need to say is....."you were right and I was wrong". It will do wonders for your peace of mind.
The Dietary Laws of [Leviticus 11] are still in force. As I said....the only thing that has changed is the "Traditions of Men"! You can have the last word.
Let’s let the Bible have the last word:
Act 10:14-16 MKJV
(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.
(15) And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.
(16) This happened three times, and the vessel was received up again into the heaven.
We already agree that our calendar is wrong, off by anywhere from 2 to 16 years, depending on who's doing the reckoning, and further in error because of the absence of a year zero.
The more fundamental point is that God did not intend us to mark His years by the birth of Jesus.
If He had intended this we would have a Biblical fixing of the date.
Further, the day of Jesus' birth is unremarkable as all men are born.
However, very few return from the dead, that event is remarkable, and it is the defining moment of Christianity, the very moment of proof that his sacrifice was not in vain. And the Bible gives a precise reference for when this happened!
Clearly this was the date the calender was supposed to start!
For extra points, this makes our calender off by anywhere from 17 to 33 years. That makes this something like Holy Year 2000 to Holy Year 1983, giving us anywhere from 1 to 17 years to get our affairs in order before the real end of the millennium...
Yes, that's my theory too...if there's 2000 years allowed for man and if it starts as the death of Christ then you're right, there's not much time left. Because of calendar changes I personally believe he was born in 4 BC. If he died at 33 years old then we have until the year 2029 or thereabouts.
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.