Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
You wrote: "Did Y'shua celebrate Easter ?"
Yes, He did. Jesus most certainly celebrated His resurrection. Easter is not a pagan holiday for Christians anymore than pants are a pagan thing because no self-respecting Jew ever wore them in the ancient world and only pagans did. Even the PROTESTANT translators of the KJV knew this and used the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
"Of cause not. It is a Pagan feast.
Did Y'shua celebrate Passover ?
of cause He did ; He commanded it.( Leviticus 23:5)"
But we are Christians and no Christ denying Jew would celebrate the resurrection of Christ. We celebrate Christ's resurrection. In English and German speaking countries that day is called Easter. It is a happenstance of language. If we lived in France or Poland or Russia and called it the Pacha you would have no argument at all. You are dependent upon the long forgotten import of a word that no one uses in the way you assume. You argument is laughable.
"Was it not to celebrate one of His commanded Feasts i.e. Passover?"
No. The Eucharist is not part of Passover. Don't believe me? Ask a Jew: "Do you pass out bread and wine and call it Christ's body and blood?"
"Or have you superseded the Holy Word of G-d with a Tradition of man?"
No. I just am not a foolish Judaizer who has forgotten that you were defeated by Christ's Church in the time of the Apostles. I am an orthodox Christian. You're just a wannabe.
Call me what you want I guess, but I'm not a member of any protestant organization and I don't invest enough authority in the Catholic church to even think that a reformation of it is or was the answer to religious woes.
I also wouldn't say that I'm sola scriptura. I definitely recognize that Christ taught that teachers were needed:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But I also recognize that there are false teachers:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
The proper response to false teachers is an appeal to the authority of scripture:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
So call it what you will, I guess.
v998>Yes, He did. Jesus most certainly celebrated His resurrection
It occurs on the day following the Shabbat following Passover. Someone could confuse it with Sunday. It is when the best of the harvest is offered to the L-rd. It is the day Y'shua rose to be the First-fruits offering to His Father for the rest of mankind. It also begins a period of the counting of the Omer. The feast is Shavuot: the day the Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Shavuot is a mandatory Feast for all Torah believing Jews to be in Jerusalem. Y'shua's disciples were gathered as commanded when the Ru'ach HaKodesh descended on them. How do you read the description of the feast of First-fruits in Leviticus 23: 15-16 ?
b'shem Y'shua
This will end after seven weeks and a day or fifty days ( Pentecost in the LXX ).
You wrote: "Call me what you want I guess, but I'm not a member of any protestant organization and I don't invest enough authority in the Catholic church to even think that a reformation of it is or was the answer to religious woes."
I'll call you what you are: Protestant. Words and their meanings matter.
"I also wouldn't say that I'm sola scriptura. I definitely recognize that Christ taught that teachers were needed:...But I also recognize that there are false teachers:"
But you're one of them. If you don't stand with orthodoxy then you aren't orthodox.
"The proper response to false teachers is an appeal to the authority of scripture:"
The proper response to all error in all things is truth. The Church is called the pillar and bulwark of the truth by St. Paul. The Church is the proper guardian and interpreter of the scripture -- not you.
"So call it what you will, I guess."
You guess. Gee, you have to guess when you have the Bible?
You wrote: "How do you read the description of the feast of First-fruits in Leviticus 23: 15-16 ?"
It doesn't matter how I read it. I am not a Jew, and Jewish feasts are no longer operative since the old Mosaic law has no hold on Christians. Ever hear of the New Testament?
"It occurs on the day following the Shabbat following Passover."
Not at issue here.
"Someone could confuse it with Sunday."
You're the only one confusing things here. Not me.
"It is when the best of the harvest is offered to the L-rd."
Duh!
"It is the day Y'shua rose to be the First-fruits offering to His Father for the rest of mankind.It also begins a period of the counting of the Omer.
This will end after seven weeks and a day or fifty days ( Pentecost in the LXX ). The feast is Shavuot: the day the Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Shavuot is a mandatory Feast for all Torah believing Jews to be in Jerusalem.Y'shua's disciples were gathered as commanded when the Ru'ach HaKodesh descended on them."
Great. All irrelevant to what we're discussing here, but great. I asked you for evidence that pagan teachings were incorporated into Church teachings. Do you have that evidence with supporting documentation yet? I think you don't. Am I right?
Okay, whatever.
But you're one of them. If you don't stand with orthodoxy then you aren't orthodox.
Okay, whatever. I guess.
The proper response to all error in all things is truth. The Church is called the pillar and bulwark of the truth by St. Paul.
Says you:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
I believe God is the pillar and ground of truth and I believe that's exactly what Paul was saying.
The Church is the proper guardian and interpreter of the scripture -- not you
I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth.
You guess. Gee, you have to guess when you have the Bible?
lol. Good one.
Abba
Father,
King of the universe
I pray, send your Ruach HaKodesh
to breath on the soul of vladimir998
and remove the scales from his eyes that prevent him from seeing all
the Holy Word of G-d.
Breathe on vladimir998 and draw him nearer to you.
I pray that if it be your will have him come to know your Son
I ask these things in the
Holy Name of Your Son
The Word of G-d:
B’Shem Y’shua haMashiach
Amain and amain
You wrote: "I believe God is the pillar and ground of truth and I believe that's exactly what Paul was saying."
But that wasn't what he was saying. Read the passage YOU posted again:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church. That's what St. Paul says.
"I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth."
And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to get it right. Trust Christ then.
Xenia,
God did breathe on me. That's why I can actually write GOD. G-O-D. God. I know God well enough that I can actually spell out God.
I pray that one day you will come to know God well enough that you won't be afraid to write out God.
Although I personally believe him to be speaking of God, there is a variety of opinion on the subject. I don't have a problem at all with the the church of the living God being the pillar and ground of the truth. What I don't believe is that the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is the church of the living God being spoken of.
"I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth." And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to get it right. Trust Christ then.
By definition, that's true. Anyone who has God's spirit is a member of his church and is led into the truth.
You wrote: "Although I personally believe him to be speaking of God, there is a variety of opinion on the subject."
Oh, please. Post the variety of opinion (from reputable scholars and commentators please).
"I don't have a problem at all with the the church of the living God being the pillar and ground of the truth."
Wow, you actually have no problem agreeing with the inspired word of God?
"What I don't believe is that the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is the church of the living God being spoken of."
Okay, that's a completely ahistorical view, but we'll put it aside for the moment. The point here is that St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth and you can barely bring yourself to believe it is true. That's a problem for anyone who claims to be a Christian.
"By definition, that's true. Anyone who has God's spirit is a member of his church and is led into the truth."
Your understanding of such things is incomplete to say the least. Protestants disagree on basic doctrines. ALL Protestants. Doesn't that imply that no Protestant, or at leats few Protestants, by your definition, could be a member of the Church or have God's spirit in them or have been led to the truth?
Notwithstanding your rather sarcastic objections, there is surely a diversity of opinion among scholars as to the meaning of the phrase.
From Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
The pillar and ground of the truth - Never was there a greater variety of opinions on any portion of the sacred Scripture than has been on this and the following verse. Commentators and critics have given senses and meanings till there is no meaning to be seen. It would be almost impossible, after reading all that has been said on this passage, for any man to make up his own mind. To what, or to whom, does the pillar and ground of the truth refer?
1. Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, etc., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Gal_2:9.
2. Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of God; and that ï̔ò åóôé, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to Èåïò, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, Who Is (ï̔ò åóôé) the pillar and ground of the truth. How God may be fitly termed the pillar and ground of truth, requires no explanation.
3. Others think that the words should be understood of the Church of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative ç̔ôéò åóôé, which is, must be repeated immediately after åêêëçóéá, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; Which (Church) Is the pillar and ground of the truth. That is: The full revelation of GodÂ’s truth is in the Christian Church. The great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure. Formerly the truth was but partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and comparatively dark prophecies; but now all is plain, and the full revelation given; and the foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the incarnation, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit.
4. Lastly, others refer the whole to ôï ôçò åõóåâåéáò ìõóôçñéïÃ, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favored by the arrangement of the words in the original.
From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
The pillar and ground of the truth - There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that “the church” is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh. Bloomfield remarks on this: “It is surprising that any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the latter method.” The more natural interpretation certainly is, to refer it to the former; and this is supported by the consideration that it would then fall in with the object of the apostle. His design here seems to be, to impress Timothy with a deep sense of the importance of correct conduct in relation to the church; of the responsibility of those who presided over it; and of the necessity of care and caution in the selection of proper officers.
From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:
the pillar and ground of the truth--evidently predicated of the Church, not of "the mystery of godliness" (an interpretation not started till the sixteenth century; so BENGEL); for after two weighty predicates, "pillar and ground," and these substantives, the third, a much weaker one, and that an adjective, "confessedly," or "without controversy great," would not come. "Pillar" is so used metaphorically of the three apostles on whom principally the Jewish Christian Church depended (Gal_2:9; compare Rev_3:12). The Church is "the pillar of the truth," as the continued existence (historically) of the truth rests on it; for it supports and preserves the word of truth. He who is of the truth belongs by the very fact to the Church. Christ is the alone ground of the truth in the highest sense (1Co_3:11). The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. But the truth as it is in itself is to be distinguished from the truth as it is acknowledged in the world. In the former sense it needs no pillar, but supports itself; in the latter sense, it needs the Church as its pillar, that is, its supporter and preserver [BAUMGARTEN]. The importance of Timothy's commission is set forth by reminding him of the excellence of "the house" in which he serves; and this in opposition to the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1Ti_4:1). The Church is to be the stay of the truth and its conserver for the world, and God's instrument for securing its continuance on earth, in opposition to those heresies (Mat_16:18; Mat_28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part. Rome falsely claims the promise for herself. But it is not historical descent that constitutes a Church, but this only, to those heresies (Mat_16:18; Mat_28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the intermediate; the "ground," or "basement" (similar to "foundation," 2Ti_2:19), the final support of the building [ALFORD]. It is no objection that, having called the Church before "the house of God," he now calls it the "pillar"; for the literal word "Church" immediately precedes the new metaphors: so the Church, or congregation of believers, which before was regarded as the habitation of God, is now, from a different point of view, regarded as the pillar upholding the truth.
Not really. It matters very little as to whether or not God is the pillar or bulwark, or his church is. It's practically the same thing to those believe that God's church isn't an organization, like the Roman Catholic church, but instead is a called out body of believers whose members transcend manmade institutions.
Your understanding of such things is incomplete to say the least. Protestants disagree on basic doctrines. ALL Protestants. Doesn't that imply that no Protestant, or at leats few Protestants, by your definition, could be a member of the Church or have God's spirit in them or have been led to the truth?
I've told you, despite your attempt to label me as such, I'm not a protestant. I agree that protestanism in general is in confusion. but it's my belief that a great number of people will eventually be led to the truth. Most of this will occur during the great tribulation:
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
and later at the great white throne judgement:
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
You're merely proving my point. I am sure Protestants disagree to the tenth degree on what the plain words of scripture mean. Duh!
The TEXT OF SCRIPTURE says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth so, of course, Protestants have dozens of different opinions many of which deny the obvious. It is in the best (earthly) interests of Protestants to deny any and all scripture which ever give any authority to the church except in the most general and least enforcible ways.
Look at the sources you quoted, for instance. The usual cut and paste CD commentaries. Wow, thanks for stretching yourself by looking at an ancient source! LOL! Did you even try?
You wrote: "Not really. It matters very little as to whether or not God is the pillar or bulwark, or his church is."
What? Only someone who ignores reality could say something like that. If THE Church happens to differ from your sect then it matters a great deal if we're talking about the Church or God here. That point should be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone.
"It's practically the same thing to those believe that God's church isn't an organization, like the Roman Catholic church, but instead is a called out body of believers whose members transcend manmade institutions."
Your paragraph is built upon a whole series of assumptions:
Assumption 1: God's church wouldn't be an organization. Really? It was in the NT so why wouldn't it be now?
Assumption 2: The Catholic Church (and please note the correct name) is like any other religious organization. Really? How many nearly 2,000 year old Christian "organizations do you know?
Assumption 3: The Catholic Church is manmade. Really? In reality here's no logical reason to think it is manmade. Manmade institutions rarely if ever last 2,000 years.
Assumption 4: The Catholic Church as an organization with human members cannot transcend "manmade institutions" or time and space. Really? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly the Church transcends all manmade institutions already. Nothing compares to it whatsoever. Also, you tacitly assume that an organization with human members cannot transcend time and space. It can when it is founded by God.
“I've told you, despite your attempt to label me as such, I'm not a protestant.”
I have made no effort whatsoever to label you. YOU ARE A PROTESTANT. To acknowledge the truth of that requires no effort on my part whatsoever.
“I agree that protestanism in general is in confusion. but it's my belief that a great number of people will eventually be led to the truth. Most of this will occur during the great tribulation…and later at the great white throne judgement”
I think many people are continuously being led to the truth. The truth, however, is only part shown and known in Protestantism.
Oh boy. You asked for commentaries that showed that there were disputes about the verse because you didn't believe that there was. I posted, not one, but three sources from reputable biblical commentaries (and there are many more)and then your response is to belittle me and my sources.
I'm done with you so feel free to get in the last word.
“Oh boy. You asked for commentaries that showed that there were disputes about the verse because you didn't believe that there was.”
No. This is exactly what I asked for: “Post the variety of opinion (from reputable scholars and commentators please).”
You didn’t post anything from reputable sources. Adam Clarke? Robert Jamieson? Albert Barnes? Notice, all of these are Protestant sources from more than a century ago. All three go out of there way to avoid anything even remotely Catholic sounding in their interpretations. How reputable could that be? The fact that these men are so commonly used among Protestants does not make them reputable. How about the Early Church Fathers?
“I posted, not one, but three sources from reputable biblical commentaries (and there are many more)and then your response is to belittle me and my sources.”
Because your sources are not that reputable. They are merely sectarian.
“I'm done with you so feel free to get in the last word.”
Yeah, you’re done alright.
Do you have evidence from BEFORE the Protestant Revolution of the sixteenth century that the Church was NOT commonly viewed as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
If you're under the impression that what he posted is anything other than aberrance and heresy when one is talking about the Christian faith, you would be doing yourself a major favor by getting up to "discernment" speed HERE.
5,250 words that I agree with completely. Great post, Douglas. You may find it interesting that I came to many of these same conclusions through independent study.
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.