Apostasy

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, Jethro, many, many Christians do NOT believe in the Bible as 100% literally right and neither do you. You don't for example go around killing people who work on the Sabbath (I hope).

You apparently don't know that the first covenant has passed away and the worship requirements in that covenant no longer condemn people. If you do not know this then you do not know Christianity as well as you should to be speaking about it.

Although I have stopped calling myself a Christian, just about all my close friends are devout Christians and none of them take the Bible as the literal truth. I have never met any intelligent person who does.

You would have to explain more in what you mean by 'literal' truth. There are things in the Bible that are figurative, and there are things that are literal. But it is all the truth. I don't reject anything in the Bible. You have to depart from mainstream Christianity to find 'Christians' who believe otherwise.

The danger in thinking that the bible is literally true is that you can not possibly follow it without breaking some pretty serious laws of man. That means that 99.9% of Christians do ignore (reject?) those parts of the Bible that really and truly do not make sense.

If you mean various first covenant laws are what are ignored by Christians today it is because we clearly understand the end of one covenant and the beginning of another as plainly taught in the Bible itself. But if you do not understand this, or even know about it, then you'll think we just ignore certain things in the Bible.

Did I judge you Jethro or did I say that God would judge you?

According to your understanding of 'judging' that you were using against me, you were judging me.

In any case, I am in that lovely position of not being bound by 'rules' that I do not accept are valid. That gives me an unfair advantage I'm afraid.

...For now.

It's a lovely position to be in now...but not at the Judgment.

Well, this thread is about apostates so you are entitled to your opinion. You may however be better advised to actually listen to an apostate rather than just guess what is going on in his mind.

But I told you at the beginning I learned what I know from talking to apostates.

People do not reject God Jethro, they very sadly lose their faith and that is what you simply fail to understand.

You've plainly demonstrated a rejection of the God of the Bible.

This is what I've been saying. People who 'can't believe' have somewhere along the line rejected some aspect of sin, righteousness, and the God who judges sin and righteousness, as taught in the Bible.

 

[Aardverk]

You apparently don't know that the first covenant has passed away and the worship requirements in that covenant no longer condemn people. If you do not know this then you do not know Christianity as well as you should to be speaking about it.

Let us start with the words of Jesus. To get as close to His words as possible, let's look at Young's Literal Translation: 5:18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. 5:19 Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. Matthew 5:18 YLT Now, I think we will agree that the meaning of those words is perfectly clear. Not the smallest part of the law will be removed from the law until heaven and earth pass away. Clear? The meaning is that it will never pass away because heaven is for eternity. Those are the words of Jesus but you can ignore them if you wish.

Now, let's look at where most Christians claim that those words of Jesus are over-ridden and the law has in fact been changed, despite Jesus's own words; Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-12. Let us start with Hebrews because that has already been mentioned in this thread. Hebrews is basically a letter. It is a letter written by an anonymous person and refers to what an apostle has told the writer. Clear? Not what Jesus said, what some un-named apostle said and this from an unknown writer! Does that over-rule Jesus? Of course it doesn't.

Now Jeremiah. At least we know something about him and he is to be respected. What he writes should be considered carefully. He writes in th efirst person, using the terms 'I' and 'me' to clarify that he was there, he heard things with his own ears. That's great, it should give us some confidence when we weigh up his words. Unfortunately, we then run into a major, major problem. Just before he explains the passing of the old Covenent, he stops writing in the first person and suddenly starts writing in the third person. He is most unlikely to suddenly change his writing style for that passage, the words are actually written by someone else and are suspiciously close to Hebrews. Given that they are talking largely about the priesthood - I will let you guess who wrote those words and why.

So, we have two unknown people contradicting Jesus and saying that the law has changed even though Jesus said that it will never change. Who are you going to believe? Jesus or some unknown writer? And why? Just because it is convenient?


Now, what about those words ascribed to Jesus in Hebrews. Have you thought much about what it actually says?
8:11 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Do you get it? "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest". When do you think that could mean Jethro? The only answer I can come up with is after the second coming. It is certainly not NOW is it? The majority of mankind still do not know Jesus. IF those truly were Jesus's words, he has been proven terribly wrong - so do you really think they are Jesus's words? No, they have been written by anonymous priests for their own ends. Or was Jesus really wrong Jethro?

I won't cover your other points as this post would be too long. Let me know if you would like me to comment further.

Final question to keep this clearly on-topic. If someone, a potential apostate, was wavering in his belief that there was really a new covenant, how would you support him? How would you convince him that we can ignore Jesus's words and accept the words of some unknown people instead?

 

[CalledToServe]

A lot of confusion stems from the fact that when Jesus and the apostles write about the law that they do not make the distinction between ceremonial and moral law. Ceremonial law covers everything associated with how the Jews worshiped God. Christ fulfilled this law by being the final atoning sacrifice. In the passages cited by Aardverk, Christ is stating that He did not fulfill or do away with moral law. He fulfilled ceremonial law that is found in the Mosaic covenant.

Now the tough part is deciding which of the 613 Mosaic laws fit in either of those categories. Does working on the Sabbath fall under ceremonial or does it fall under moral law? By Christ's own statements, He shows that it falls under the ceremonial law. Honoring your father and mother? That is under the moral law because of what Christ taught.

 

[Aardverk]

A lot of confusion stems from the fact that when Jesus and the apostles write about the law that they do not make the distinction between ceremonial and moral law. Ceremonial law covers everything associated with how the Jews worshiped God. Christ fulfilled this law by being the final atoning sacrifice. In the passages cited by Aardverk, Christ is stating that He did not fulfill or do away with moral law. He fulfilled ceremonial law that is found in the Mosaic covenant.

Now the tough part is deciding which of the 613 Mosaic laws fit in either of those categories. Does working on the Sabbath fall under ceremonial or does it fall under moral law? By Christ's own statements, He shows that it falls under the ceremonial law. Honoring your father and mother? That is under the moral law because of what Christ taught.

Yes, I agree with nearly all of that, and I won't nit-pick, there is indeed plenty of room for confusion between the two. However, consider just the ten commandments, 'Keep Holy the Sabbath', for example. Are we to assume that law has gone because it is a ceremonial law? I presume most people will say that it is still a law of God. If that is still a law of God, why not the law which tells us to kill people who work on the Sabbath - i.e. to keep it holy?

Consider also, 'Honor your Father & Mother'. Again, I guess most of us think that still applies but what about honoring ALL old people? We are told that we must stand in the presence of old people, i.e. we must honor them. Has that gone or does that still apply? If that has gone, why?

As a youngster I was taught always to stand when an old person arrives and always to give up my seat if needed. Now, as an old person myself, I can tell you that it virtually never happens. It has changed in the last 70 years as a matter of custom and practice, nothing to do with people ignoring the Bible. Many things change over the centuries and many for very good reason. We should not kid ourselves that things have always changed because of instructions from God. We do it, we develop. We have, for example, brought women back to their rightful place as the equals of men.

I don't really expect any answer, we are all just guessing.

 

[CalledToServe]

Yes, I agree with nearly all of that, and I won't nit-pick, there is indeed plenty of room for confusion between the two. However, consider just the ten commandments, 'Keep Holy the Sabbath', for example. Are we to assume that law has gone because it is a ceremonial law? I presume most people will say that it is still a law of God. If that is still a law of God, why not the law which tells us to kill people who work on the Sabbath - i.e. to keep it holy?

Consider also, 'Honor your Father & Mother'. Again, I guess most of us think that still applies but what about honoring ALL old people? We are told that we must stand in the presence of old people, i.e. we must honor them. Has that gone or does that still apply? If that has gone, why?

As a youngster I was taught always to stand when an old person arrives and always to give up my seat if needed. Now, as an old person myself, I can tell you that it virtually never happens. It has changed in the last 70 years as a matter of custom and practice, nothing to do with people ignoring the Bible. Many things change over the centuries and many for very good reason. We should not kid ourselves that things have always changed because of instructions from God. We do it, we develop. We have, for example, brought women back to their rightful place as the equals of men.

I don't really expect any answer, we are all just guessing.

How many Christians actually keep Shabbat? Not many since Shabbat is from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Christians use Sunday to worship which originally was the day dedicated to the worship of Apollo.

I would classify honor thy father and mother as being a moral law since Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5:1-2,"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

CalledToServe explained what law passed away very well.

Let us start with the words of Jesus. To get as close to His words as possible, let's look at Young's Literal Translation: 5:18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. 5:19 Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. Matthew 5:18 YLT Now, I think we will agree that the meaning of those words is perfectly clear. Not the smallest part of the law will be removed from the law until heaven and earth pass away. Clear?

Almost. You left out the other condition that must be met before the least part of the law could be removed--'till that all may come to pass', vs.18.

We know that whatever Christ was talking about that must happen before something could be removed, or pass from the law has in fact happened. How do we know that? Because much, much more than just a jot or tittle has been laid aside in the law, the law of animal sacrifice for sin. You'll find little disagreement among even the most diverse sects of Christianity that Christ's sacrifice effectively makes the various laws of sacrifice for sin no longer needed for atonement. As the writer of Hebrews says, we don't need them anymore. They have in effect been literally replaced by the blood and body of Christ.

So the law that you are so sure Jesus is saying will never change, even in one jot or tittle, has indeed changed, Christ's sacrifice on the cross being the fulfillment that allows the laying aside of much more than just a jot and a tittle of the law. Heaven and earth didn't pass away. The other condition Jesus laid down got met. No breaking of Christ's words here.

The meaning is that it will never pass away because heaven is for eternity. Those are the words of Jesus but you can ignore them if you wish.

Ignore them? No. Understand all that is written there? Yes.

Now, let's look at where most Christians claim that those words of Jesus are over-ridden and the law has in fact been changed, despite Jesus's own words;

I have never heard the argument among believing Christians that Jesus' words got overridden by another Biblical writer. Never.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-12. Let us start with Hebrews because that has already been mentioned in this thread. Hebrews is basically a letter. It is a letter written by an anonymous person and refers to what an apostle has told the writer. Clear?

Very clear...probably Barnabas, the close associate of Paul.

Not what Jesus said, what some un-named apostle said and this from an unknown writer! Does that over-rule Jesus? Of course it doesn't.

Correct. It does not overrule or contradict Jesus' words. In fact, Hebrews is where I go to explain the fulfillment that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 5 that allows the 'passing away' of the law of sacrifice. The author there explains that because we have been made forever and completely perfect before God through the blood of Christ there is no longer any need to go through the ceremonial law of Moses to do that which God has done for us through Jesus Christ. Christ's work on the cross effectively makes the sacrificial/ ceremonial law obsolete (unneeded). IOW, those laws 'pass from the law'.

Paul explains in his letter to Timothy that the law "is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane" (1 Tim. 1:9 NASB). And indeed it was. For it was the law through which men guilty of sin had to approach God repeatedly for cleansing from the sin guilt that the law itself could not remove. But it is not needed for righteous men who have been forever forgiven and made clean through Christ and who are legally, before God in heaven, no longer the murderers, and thieves, and wicked people they once were who needed the sacrificial system of the law of Moses for (repeated) atonement:

"...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthains 6: NASB)

Now Jeremiah. At least we know something about him and he is to be respected. What he writes should be considered carefully. He writes in th efirst person, using the terms 'I' and 'me' to clarify that he was there, he heard things with his own ears. That's great, it should give us some confidence when we weigh up his words. Unfortunately, we then run into a major, major problem. Just before he explains the passing of the old Covenent, he stops writing in the first person and suddenly starts writing in the third person. He is most unlikely to suddenly change his writing style for that passage, the words are actually written by someone else and are suspiciously close to Hebrews. Given that they are talking largely about the priesthood - I will let you guess who wrote those words and why.

Hopefully, now that this is being explained you can see there's no reason to entertain that conspiracy theory. The Bible is consistent through and through.

So, we have two unknown people contradicting Jesus and saying that the law has changed even though Jesus said that it will never change. Who are you going to believe? Jesus or some unknown writer? And why? Just because it is convenient?

Once a person knows the truth as I have just explained it there is no need for either conspiracy theories or convenient thoughts to explain it.

Now, what about those words ascribed to Jesus in Hebrews. Have you thought much about what it actually says?
8:11 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Do you get it? "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest". When do you think that could mean Jethro?

What it means is, in the New Covenant, every believer is given the Spirit of discernment. The common man no longer has to rely on the go-between of the various offices of teachers and elders to discern truth from error. John explains this in one of his letters:

"26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things..." (1 John 2:26-27 NASB)

You see, the problem in the first covenant was only selected people were appointed and placed in positions of spiritual leadership to lead God's people into obedience. When that system was corrupt, so became the people.

The only answer I can come up with is after the second coming. It is certainly not NOW is it? The majority of mankind still do not know Jesus.

All of God's people will know him for themselves and not have to depend on the go-between of the priesthood and elders of the nation who became so utterly corrupt and unable to lead God's people into righteousness. Even though we still operate under a hierarchy of offices and gifts, each member of the body of Christ can discern truth for himself and resist the corruption of misguided and godless people lording it over them.

IF those truly were Jesus's words, he has been proven terribly wrong - so do you really think they are Jesus's words? No, they have been written by anonymous priests for their own ends. Or was Jesus really wrong Jethro?

Hopefully now you can see how all these things truly are reconcilable and that they really do represent the truth that the church has been based on for all these centuries.

Final question to keep this clearly on-topic. If someone, a potential apostate, was wavering in his belief that there was really a new covenant, how would you support him? How would you convince him that we can ignore Jesus's words and accept the words of some unknown people instead?

I'm confident that I've cleared up the apparent problem of contradiction.

IMO, what the apostate has to hear is the truth about sin and the forgiveness of sin and how everything from Genesis, to the law, to Jesus on the cross, to the ministry of the Apostles are all parts of God's one plan to forgive and cleanse a people and take them as his very own. But it all starts with an honest acknowledgement of what God says is sin and our responsibility in it. And from there, an honest acceptance and reliance on what He did through Jesus Christ to wipe away that sin guilt and receive you as his own, and make you able to pass through the coming judgment without fear.

 

[Aardverk]

How many Christians actually keep Shabbat? Not many since Shabbat is from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Christians use Sunday to worship which originally was the day dedicated to the worship of Apollo.

Agreed, although I feel we should call it the Sabbath and not Shabbat for fairly obvious reasons.

Although someone is bound to disagree, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday at the insistence of Constantine to tie in with holy day of the other Roman religions. I don't know about Apollo but it was obviously Sol's day = Sunday. There is evidence to suggest that it was also Mithras' day of worship. Mithraism, which was part of Zoroastrianism which in turn was the forerunner of Judaism, was the major religion at the time with many similarities to Christianity; enough I fear for there to have been much conflation. For example, both had twelve disciples, a last supper, transubstantiation, dying and resurrection after 3 days etc. but these were fairly common events for many of the 'gods' before Jesus did the same.

Rather oddly to my mind, the Christian church has never changed it's holy day back to Saturday as it should be. The Sabbath always was and always will be Saturday. Sadly nowadays the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath, be that Saturday OR Sunday, is widely ignored by just about all denominations of Christians. Few people would think twice about mowing the lawn or washing the car etc on either a Saturday or a Sunday.

 

[Aardverk]

What it means is, in the New Covenant, every believer is given the Spirit of discernment. The common man no longer has to rely on the go-between of the various offices of teachers and elders to discern truth from error........ ....All of God's people will know him for themselves and not have to depend on the go-between of the priesthood and elders of the nation ...... each member of the body of Christ can discern truth for himself and resist the corruption of misguided and godless people lording it over them.

[My underlining]

I must congratulate you Jethro on doing a first class job of justifying your disregarding Jesus's words and following other, unknown author's contradictory statements instead.

Jesus didn't say "All of God's people will know him for themselves" or "every believer is given the Spirit of discernment or "each member of the body of Christ can discern truth for himself", He said,
"...they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest ..."
Your words are a sophistic interpretation chosen to suit certain people. You have made it the chosen few whereas Jesus said "they will all know me". Just think on it for a few years.

I have explained where your interpretation is shaky and with great regret I can go no further or I may be suspended or banned as I am dangerously close to the fundamentals of Christianity. I am not allowed by the TOS to say anything which may sound critical of Christianity. I have already been suspended once for something which I thought was trivial. All I can hope is that you will think very carefully about your insults to those poor souls who have doubts about their faith. Although you may feel it helpful to tell them they are evil, believe me, you are doing far more harm than good.

Please think carefully about the effect that you have on those people, it is just not helpful to be self righteous, especially as you probably do understand what I have told you really. You are interpreting the words of the Bible to suit what you want it to say. I have no doubt that you can accuse me of exactly the same but I do try very hard not to point at people and say, 'sinner, evil, etc'. I really do not think that is my place nor is it your place.

Many apostates return. All three of my sisters abandoned Christianity and all three of them have now returned to the fold. Would they have come back if people like you were telling them they were evil? I know them Jethro and I can tell you with much confidence that they would not have done so. How many people do you think YOU have alienated from Christianity?

 

[CalledToServe]

Agreed, although I feel we should call it the Sabbath and not Shabbat for fairly obvious reasons.

Although someone is bound to disagree, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday at the insistence of Constantine to tie in with holy day of the other Roman religions. I don't know about Apollo but it was obviously Sol's day = Sunday. There is evidence to suggest that it was also Mithras' day of worship. Mithraism, which was part of Zoroastrianism which in turn was the forerunner of Judaism, was the major religion at the time with many similarities to Christianity; enough I fear for there to have been much conflation. For example, both had twelve disciples, a last supper, transubstantiation, dying and resurrection after 3 days etc. but these were fairly common events for many of the 'gods' before Jesus did the same.

Rather oddly to my mind, the Christian church has never changed it's holy day back to Saturday as it should be. The Sabbath always was and always will be Saturday. Sadly nowadays the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath, be that Saturday OR Sunday, is widely ignored by just about all denominations of Christians. Few people would think twice about mowing the lawn or washing the car etc on either a Saturday or a Sunday.

Why are you against Shabbat being called by its proper name?

Sunday is the day of worship for Apollo because in the Roman pantheon he is the god of the Sun.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

[My underlining]

I must congratulate you Jethro on doing a first class job of justifying your disregarding Jesus's words and following other, unknown author's contradictory statements instead.

Justifying? I showed you what the Bible plainly says.

It's rational, it's coherent, it's consistent, it's reasonable, and it's logical. No interpretations are needed. It's impossible to derail what I shared. But if the bottom line to accepting what the Bible says means admitting you are evil and in need of salvation then it will be hard to acknowledge.

Jesus didn't say "All of God's people will know him for themselves" or "every believer is given the Spirit of discernment or "each member of the body of Christ can discern truth for himself", He said,
"...they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest ..."
Your words are a sophistic interpretation chosen to suit certain people. You have made it the chosen few whereas Jesus said "they will all know me". Just think on it for a few years.

I explained to you the problem that the anointing being given to all people instead of just the leaders and elders solves. You obviously didn't get it, or else you would not have responded the way you did. But, again, acknowledging what I said means ultimately that one must admit the truth of their sin guilt. If a person is not prepared to do that, they will resist the truth and not be able to see it.

I'm telling you...it all boils down to the issue of sin.

I have explained where your interpretation is shaky and with great regret I can go no further or I may be suspended or banned as I am dangerously close to the fundamentals of Christianity. I am not allowed by the TOS to say anything which may sound critical of Christianity.

Yes, this is a forum for believers, and I always wonder why people who vehemently resist Christianity come here, or even think they have a place here. It would be different if you were somehow seeking truth, even just a little, but it's clear you are here to dismantle people's faith in the Bible, not to somehow come to grips with it yourself. With all the freedoms you have to do and believe what you want there is no need for you to entertain your disbelief here. Really.

I have already been suspended once for something which I thought was trivial. All I can hope is that you will think very carefully about your insults to those poor souls who have doubts about their faith. Although you may feel it helpful to tell them they are evil, believe me, you are doing far more harm than good.

Me and Jesus, I guess:

"The world...hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil." (John 7:7 NASB)

I'm in good company. I'll be okay.

Please think carefully about the effect that you have on those people, it is just not helpful to be self righteous...

I already explained how it is not my righteousness that I have. Nobody has any righteousness of their own. Not me, not you, not anybody! We are by nature altogether selfish, evil, and unrighteous. That is why we need Christ's righteousness. But you have to admit you are wrong before you can have it. Why are you deaf to what I say? Why can't you admit you are not good by nature and need forgiveness and a new heart that seeks to serve God, not sin?

...especially as you probably do understand what I have told you really. You are interpreting the words of the Bible to suit what you want it to say. I have no doubt that you can accuse me of exactly the same but I do try very hard not to point at people and say, 'sinner, evil, etc'. I really do not think that is my place nor is it your place.

How else can someone accept God's forgiveness and be saved if they don't think they have anything to be forgiven?

Many apostates return. All three of my sisters abandoned Christianity and all three of them have now returned to the fold. Would they have come back if people like you were telling them they were evil? I know them Jethro and I can tell you with much confidence that they would not have done so. How many people do you think YOU have alienated from Christianity?

Did they come back to the Christianity that teaches the forgiveness of sin and the giving of a new heart and nature through the Holy Spirit? If not, then they did not really return to Christianity, but to a false counterfeit. The true facts of Christianity and the truth about the adamic, sinlful nature, and the righteous nature of Christ are a plain read in the Bible.

Isn't it interesting that even with all this other discussion it comes back to this issue of sin and evil? I'm telling you, people reject the gospel because they simply cannot accept what the Bible says about sin guilt, and God's justice in holding man accountable for it. Don't you realize you've been proving my point over and over?

Come to your senses, man.

 

[Aardverk]

Justifying? I showed you what the Bible plainly says.

You have that back to front. I showed you what it said and you interpreted it to suit yourself.

Yes, this is a forum for believers, and I always wonder why people who vehemently resist Christianity come here, or even think they have a place here. It would be different if you were somehow seeking truth, even just a little, but it's clear you are here to dismantle people's faith in the Bible, not to somehow come to grips with it yourself.

Certainly the forum is primarily for Christians but not exclusively for Christians. You also ignore the fact that there are 200 major denominations and hundreds of smaller groups all believing different things and all calling themselves Christian.

Do please note that I have NEVER in this thread or any other thread, criticized Christianity or in any way tried to convert anyone to my beliefs. Indeed, no one on this forum has any idea what I believe because I have no wish or intention of telling people that my beliefs are right and their's are wrong. That would be arrogance.

If you read carefully, you will see that the only thing I have ever criticized is peoples, prejudice, bigotry, hatred and negative behavior towards their fellow man. I have generally stopped short of saying to anyone that they are behaving in an evil or obnoxious way but I dare say people sometimes read between the lines.

I would also like to point out, for similar reasons I never post in apologetics. I only ever post in general talk, politics and current events. This thread happens to be in General Talk and I have done my best to tell you what a drastically negative effect you are having on people with wavering faith. If you want to ignore that and carry on calling people evil, that is, sadly, up to you. I just hope you can live comfortably with your conscience for the rest of your life. I simply do not believe that God wants Jethro to alienate people and drive them away.

 

[stovebolts]

So, we have two unknown people contradicting Jesus and saying that the law has changed even though Jesus said that it will never change. Who are you going to believe? Jesus or some unknown writer? And why? Just because it is convenient?

Aardverk,
Unless your Jewish trying to live under the 613 laws, your not going to correctly identify with what Jesus said in Matthew 5. In essence, Jesus was correctly interpreting the law from Matthew 5 - 7.

Most people don't understand covenant either and they misapply Jer 31. The new covenant simply puts the laws in the worshippers heart, not on tablets of stone. This is why Jesus can say that we will worship in Spirit and truth.

The law does many things, but when it's in our hearts it has the power to transform our lives because it forces us to look at things differently. We cannot keep the law, even if it's in our heart, yet Jesus not only kept the law perfectly, he also paid the price for our sins as his blood was the blood of the new covenant, which was poured out for the forgiveness of sin for many.

 

[stovebolts]

Agreed, although I feel we should call it the Sabbath and not Shabbat for fairly obvious reasons.

Although someone is bound to disagree, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday at the insistence of Constantine to tie in with holy day of the other Roman religions. I don't know about Apollo but it was obviously Sol's day = Sunday. There is evidence to suggest that it was also Mithras' day of worship. Mithraism, which was part of Zoroastrianism which in turn was the forerunner of Judaism, was the major religion at the time with many similarities to Christianity; enough I fear for there to have been much conflation. For example, both had twelve disciples, a last supper, transubstantiation, dying and resurrection after 3 days etc. but these were fairly common events for many of the 'gods' before Jesus did the same.

Rather oddly to my mind, the Christian church has never changed it's holy day back to Saturday as it should be. The Sabbath always was and always will be Saturday. Sadly nowadays the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath, be that Saturday OR Sunday, is widely ignored by just about all denominations of Christians. Few people would think twice about mowing the lawn or washing the car etc on either a Saturday or a Sunday.

The only place the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday is in the minds of the misinformed.

We worship on Sunday, the first day of the week because that's the day Jesus tomb was empty. Also, the good Jewish Christians were at the synagog on Saturday. Acts 20:7 shows the first century church meeting on the first day of the week to break bread.

 

[Elijah674]

Aardverk,
Unless your Jewish trying to live under the 613 laws, your not going to correctly identify with what Jesus said in Matthew 5. In essence, Jesus was correctly interpreting the law from Matthew 5 - 7.

Most people don't understand covenant either and they misapply Jer 31. The new covenant simply puts the laws in the worshippers heart, not on tablets of stone. This is why Jesus can say that we will worship in Spirit and truth.

The law does many things, but when it's in our hearts it has the power to transform our lives because it forces us to look at things differently. We cannot keep the law, even if it's in our heart, yet Jesus not only kept the law perfectly, he also paid the price for our sins as his blood was the blood of the new covenant, which was poured out for the forgiveness of sin for many.

GRRRR! ;) No, we fail & 'sin', but is not Phil. 4:13 & 2 Cor. 12:9 TRUTH???
You know as well as 'i' do that it is not any one time sin that finds one [NOT MATURING] to be safe to save. Nah. 1:9 But it is the OPEN PRESUMPTIOUS one + one ='s 2 & on & on until the Holy Spirit is Grievced & Quenched away. Psalms 19:13 is known sin done on purpose over & ove again until it LEADS TO RE: TOTAL APOSTASY. Case in point? Rev. 17:1-5's whole folds!

And the Re: Apostasy one time Christian guy??Why does he not start up a house church? He seems to me so far to be crying over spilt milk? If God can't change these ones teaching very false doctrines what chance do we have?? Read Eze. 9 for who only will be saved

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I have done my best to tell you what a drastically negative effect you are having on people with wavering faith.

Did it ever occur to you that for some people who don't know God yet the truth has a negative effect? Is it a rule that truth has to be pleasant and palatable or it isn't truth? Why must we change the truth to help people feel good about truth they can't bring themselves to accept? How does that help people have faith--faith that saves? Tell me.

If you want to ignore that and carry on calling people evil, that is, sadly, up to you. I just hope you can live comfortably with your conscience for the rest of your life.

What is sad about it? It's wrong just because you don't like what the Bible plainly says? You're certainly entitled to accept or reject what the Bible says, but for some reason instead of just doing that and walking away, unbelievers and apostates have to change what the Bible actually says. Why is that? Why can't they just admit what it plainly says and just say, "no thanks" and walk away without trying to change what it says or means? This is where your expertise can help the rest of us understand this peculiar trait of unbelievers and apostates.

I simply do not believe that God wants Jethro to alienate people and drive them away.

God wants Jethro to tell the truth, not placate people with falsehoods and half-truths that won't prepare them for the coming Judgment. What good is it if I tickle people's ears just to see them condemned in the Judgment? What reward is there in that for me? Paul uses this very argument in 1 Corinthians 3 to help prove to them that he was telling them the truth and that the false teachers they had embraced were not preparing them for the Day of Judgment.

 

[Aardverk]

The new covenant simply puts the laws in the worshippers heart, not on tablets of stone.

I have no great objection to that interpretation. It allows everyone to believe whatever they want, which is indeed the situation we have in the world. What we certainly do not have is, "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" and that, Jesus said, would be the situation after the new covenant.

 

[Aardverk]

Why are you against Shabbat being called by its proper name?

My first language and the language of this forum is English. I grew up using the words, 'The Sabbath', not Shabbat, Shavath, Shabbath etc. I never saw any good reason to change from 'The Sabbath' as most people, when they follow the commandment to, 'Keep holy the Sabbath', recognize it as Sunday. I do realize that, strictly, that is wrong but I am, on this issue, quite happy to go along with the vast majority. My local church is locked all day on Saturday!

In much the same way, I do not call Moscow:Moskva or Москва́ and I don't call Athens: Athína, Athine or Athēnai etc. etc.

 

[Aardverk]

The only place the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday is in the minds of the misinformed.

I agree Mr Bolts but most of us following the Commandment to 'Keep holy the Sabbath' treat that as Sunday. Many of us work just as hard on a Saturday as any other day of the week and are therefore breaking that commandment but trusting God will recognize that we are all a bit confused by the practise of the church.

I can not put my hand on the appropriate reference but my memory says that the day of worship was changed at Constantine's insistence. It certainly changed at around the time of the first council of Nicea, I would suggest as part of the quid pro quo of Christianity being decriminalized. Another possibility is that the Biscops were trying to insert clear differences between Christianity and Judaism (same with the 'new covenant'). The last thing they would have wanted was for Christianity to have been seen as some sort of junior version of Judaism. Easter Sunday could simply have remained as a special day, just like every other Feast day.

 

[CalledToServe]

My first language and the language of this forum is English. I grew up using the words, 'The Sabbath', not Shabbat, Shavath, Shabbath etc. I never saw any good reason to change from 'The Sabbath' as most people, when they follow the commandment to, 'Keep holy the Sabbath', recognize it as Sunday. I do realize that, strictly, that is wrong but I am, on this issue, quite happy to go along with the vast majority. My local church is locked all day on Saturday!

In much the same way, I do not call Moscow:Moskva or Москва́ and I don't call Athens: Athína, Athine or Athēnai etc. etc.

I agree Mr Bolts but most of us following the Commandment to 'Keep holy the Sabbath' treat that as Sunday. Many of us work just as hard on a Saturday as any other day of the week and are therefore breaking that commandment but trusting God will recognize that we are all a bit confused by the practise of the church.

I can not put my hand on the appropriate reference but my memory says that the day of worship was changed at Constantine's insistence. It certainly changed at around the time of the first council of Nicea, I would suggest as part of the quid pro quo of Christianity being decriminalized. Another possibility is that the Biscops were trying to insert clear differences between Christianity and Judaism (same with the 'new covenant'). The last thing they would have wanted was for Christianity to have been seen as some sort of junior version of Judaism. Easter Sunday could simply have remained as a special day, just like every other Feast day.

Summation of your argument is Man's Commandment>God's Commandment.

EDIT: Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

 

[Aardverk]

GRRRR! ;) No, we fail & 'sin', but is not Phil. 4:13 & 2 Cor. 12:9 TRUTH???
You know as well as 'i' do that it is not any one time sin that finds one [NOT MATURING] to be safe to save. Nah. 1:9 But it is the OPEN PRESUMPTIOUS one + one ='s 2 & on & on until the Holy Spirit is Grievced & Quenched away. Psalms 19:13 is known sin done on purpose over & ove again until it LEADS TO RE: TOTAL APOSTASY. Case in point? Rev. 17:1-5's whole folds!

I do find your reference to 1 Corinthians 12:9 interesting. I would go back a little further though and read all the way through from 12:6-12 and see that the message is that we are all given something different. Some for example may be given skill and knowledge and others may be given wisdom. That raises the interesting notion that I personally may have vast knowledge and skill but no wisdom I know you didn't say that but it is an interesting idea that people could latch onto. Some may see it as analogous to the strange claim that education is bad for you and turns you into a democrat. It won't surprise you that I do not accept either idea.

However, it does not get us very far away from, "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest". It is a bit of a stretch to interpret, "they will all know me" as "they will have false gods and completely wrong beliefs" i.e. the majority of the world are still not Christians 2000 years after the new covenant is said by some to have come into force.

I'm afraid most of your post is too cryptic for me. I'm certainly not going to try to re-interpret Revelations!