Posted on 12/21/2002 11:21:49 AM PST by DouglasKC
True but gifts, singing and fellowship are also used in both the Old Testament and New Testament. I don't recall mention of them being allowed only at certain times.
My question to you is this: Do you believe that it is permisssible to practice that which was banned due to idolotry?
Idolotry is wrong period. However, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.
Really? Thanks for explaining that to me.
As you have stated, I do understand what you are saying and agree with it to a great extent. On the doctrine of the Biblical instruction, I agree. But, you forget that I am an atheist.
As far as Christian doctrine is concerned, I think you make the mistake of using tactics of condemnation and not those of conviction. Have you the ability to understand the difference?
And please friend, the bold, italic and capitilization combinations are just too hard to read. Do use them, but more sparingly, as to make the text easier to read.
I will also refer you to Christ's message to the seven churches. Read them carefully. Christ also defined His Church in the Gospels - - 'Wherever two or more of you are gathered for my namesake, there shall I be in your midst...' This is the Church as defined by your God.
Be careful of the condemnation tactic, it lends no credibility to your argument and does not edify others' understanding. It only makes you appear as one who lusts after ecclesiastical authority.
Ah ha! So that storm was YOUR doing eh? All I know Dallas, is faith is an amazing thing. We do things in accordance with the faith we have been given and I think in proportion to it. Giving in the Spirit of the Lord is always a good work because it is an exercise of faith...even little things like socks (and I shouldn't even call that faith little), as long as it is given freely in the Spirit of Truth and not some other spirit or for the sake of any ceremony or tradition that only seems to be true. Otherwise the tradition begins to rule the heart and mind to give and not the Lord himself.
I well understand the difference between condemnation and conviction. The devil condemns falsely but conviction is what happens when the Word hits a sinful heart that should repent. Jesus Christ said:
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Under your definition above, you would probably say he used "tactics of condemnation." He did not and neither do we. We just quote Him. The Word itself, has the authority of G~d Himself. When the Word of G~d finds no place in them, people often try to "shoot the messenger." They crucified Jesus Christ and said He was of the devil. He promised that they would do the same to His followers. His true followers are those who do what He says. When people refuse to abide by His Word, He gives them over to blindness. It may well be that the Holy Spirit is calling to you personally (because you see some things). Consider it. :) One false doctrine in the church is that people cannot be cast away so that think that gives them license to sin. Because they embrace that false doctrine it is as though they have a bag over their head blinding and deafening to the truth. It is a demonic stronghold in their minds.
>Christ also defined His Church in the Gospels - - 'Wherever two or more of you are gathered for my namesake, there shall I be in your midst...' This is the Church as defined by your God.
Your one verse definition of who is a Christian doesn't cut it because it ignores that fact that many who say they are Christians are hypocrites. So one hypocrite and one true Christian standing side by side does not define who is His true church. A broad definition of who is a Christian would be anyone inside a church, yet similarly you can be in a garage and not be a car. Jesus said that one would be taken and one left behind. A hypocrite is defined in Greek as "a dissembler, one who disguises or conceals himself behind a false appearance." The L~rd can tell the difference between true and false and judges each man according to his works. If a man does evil, he is an evildoer. If a man is unfaithful to his wife, he is an adulterer. If a man worship idols, he is an idolator.
Jesus fed the thousands the loaves and fishes who were there for the blessings, yet all but a few left him when He said you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. They didn't understand what He meant about entering into His life and walking in holiness so they departed in unbelief.
I would say "not much". They stopped doing animals sacrifices as the new testament clearly states that was Christs role. The Levitical priesthood was done away with because Christ is now the high priest. Those are the two biggies. They certainly didn't stop celebrating the scriptural holy days and turn to pagan days. That didn't happen for another couple of hundred years or so.
Just as an aside on this, if anyone is brave enough...look up the Satanic Bible on the internet and examine which holiday is the highest holy day in Satanism.
Why not go ahead and tell us. I'd be interested inknowing but have too many other things to do at the moment.
Number one was the individuals birthday. It shows a honor of self, one of the tenants of Satanism. That's almost a direct quote from the Satanic bible.
I've got news for you: Christianizing Christmas was dedicated to destroying Christianity...
I am certain that I never stated that the absence of Christmas in the bible made celebrating it a sin. That's an absurd propostion on it's face. Thanksgiving is an acceptable holiday because it was created for the express purpose of giving thanks to God.
The roots of Christmas are undoubtedly and clearly pagan and bible forbids God's people from participating in pagan ceremonies. It's a form of idol worship. Putting other god's before God. Pagan gods in this case.
God being a just and loving God sanctified and blessed certain days, holy days, that were to be used to honor, commemerate, learn and fellowship with him. These are the days that he gave to us in the bible. The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Sounds a bit like the party I attended earlier tonight.
lol..yup been to plenty of those myself in my life. Things don't change much.
Thanks for the kind words. The first step in overcoming is to be able to clearly see the situation...you're much further along than some other folks... :-)
The power to condemn is not yours. While I do agrre with you on many levels, this is where I draw the line with you sir.
-
The devil condemns falsely...
What is the "Devil" ???
I will refer you to someone who had a greater knowledge of the Bible and it's language than any human in history - - Thomas Hobbes:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Also consider this, from Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1668:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness
[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine,...
I have read the King James Bible extensively. You are attempting to interpret it based on no knowledge of the original language. Pay attention to this:
"Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality..."
I challenge you to find a Biblical scholar who would dispute this. They cannot honestly say otherwise. I say you make great errors in some of your interpretations, although I do agree with your general perspectives on the issue here.
A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim. This is the primary definition from the American Heritage Dictionary. The etymology of words are often different than their definitions.
Are you a pagan Egyptian, pagan Greek, pagan Roman, pagan Celt, etc., etc., or an atheist like myself???
Be careful, this is a subject I have a lot of knowledge of...
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Also know that if you claim to be a "witch," I'm ready for that one too:
Controversy over the origin of the word witch is valid when one considers the etymology of the term in other languages: venifica (Latin), hexe (German), streghe (Italian), etc. Only in it's English form has the word assumed a benign origin: wicca, purportedly meaning "wise."Any debate must center on recent claims that advance a positive and socially acceptable meaning for a term that has in all ages and most languages meant "poisoner," "frightener," "enchanter," "spell-caster," or "evil woman."
Anthropologists have shown that even in primitive societies, notably the Azande, the definition of witch carries malevolent connotations. Therefore, are we to assume that the only "good" witches in the world were English witches? This, however, becomes difficult to accept when one considers the term wizard, which stems from the Middle English wysard = wise, versus the Old English wican = to bend, from whence witch is supposedly derived. All in all, it seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to legitimize a word that probably originated by onomatopoeia - the formation of a word that sounds like what it is intended to mean!
Please be clear in your words.
Clearly stated and accurate.
-
The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Your approach to this debate is much more instructive. I tend to chide 2sheep a little, because he takes such a condemnation approach to the issues. Yours is more from a perspective of conviction.
-
The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Likewise, "morals" are entirely man created. Morality is a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If you are following Christian doctrine that is based on the Scripture, you are supposed to be led by the conviction of the Holy Ghost, not by the man made idols of "morality."
"Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good."
They needn't have fretted over it. Hope my reply isn't too confusing for you.
They were never forbidden by God. Other practices were. Some of those practices are common in Christmas celebrations.
REPEATING A DIRECT QUESTION: My question to you is this: Do you believe that it is permisssible to practice that which was banned due to idolotry?
Idolotry is wrong period. However, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.
Go read Jeramiah 10.
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.