Leave it to an arrogant and narcissistic biblically uneducated Church of God leader to claim the Jews have absolutely no right to call their Seder the Passover. Only the true Church of God run by Bob Elijah Elisha Amos thief-Doubly Blessed, has that right.
Jewish Seder Should not be Called Passover and Early Christians kept the 14th not 15th as Passover
Tonight after sunset is the 15th of Nisan. Most Jews will claim to celebrate the Passover tonight, but Passover was actually last night
Only the enlightened in Armstrongism have the correct day and name. Its the never ending story of we have the truth and you dumb shmcuk's don't.
46 comments:
well, the seder is on the 15th, so it's not passover....
besides, the seder was developed by the rabbis after the destruction of the temple in AD70, because they didn't want the people to forget about their deliverance...
kinda ironic that in trying to preserve it, they missed.
So funny! It's like the old days of AM radio, and the Beatles! KRLA exclusive! We get to play this advance release first, because we are number 1! Hype. Pure unfounded hype is what we get from a religious movement founded by someone from the advertising world, and even the little micro-COGs perpetuate this unmitigated hype!
BB
But I thought "to the Jews were given the oracles of God?"? I can't tell you how many mud fights I sat through over when and how to keep the Passover, UB and the other Holydays. Stupid, stupid stuff. I got to thinking if the Deity can't explain this simple date easily and without controversy and you have to be a magician or numerologist of sorts to figure out prophecy, perhaps it's just folk making it all up.
Whether to keep the holy days or not and on what days is as clear as mud, else every Christian would be keeping them and on the same days. The number of people keeping the Hebrew/O.T. holy days as Christian holy days is small and shrinking. Some will argue that Gods church is small and starts as a mustard seed. But the rest of that analogy is that the mustard seed actually sprouts and grows. You would think that after all the years that the armstrongite churches have kept these days the number of people keeping these days would have greatly increased not decreased.
On the larger question, "does God exist?". You would think that if God exists and it was so important for our salvation to believe he exists and sent his son as a sacrifice so we could have salvation, that he would make it totally clear that he is real so that half the world that doesn't believe he exists would be won over by undeniable proof that he exists. Why is the existence of God so hard for many to see if he actually exists? Can you fault people for having doubts?
Can't sacrifice the paschal lamb until all of the leaven is out and that doesn't happen until noon on the 14th. Bob, you can find that in the old testament you love so much but fail to read it seems.
Also can't sacrifice at night only in the day. Only the fat of the days sacrifices is burnt at night.
That is also in the bible Bobby and Herb claimed to know so well.
But then his god HWA was also wrong so, it follows.
The night beginning the 14th was called a memorial of the death of Jesus but the actual passing over of death was at midnight on the 15th,
The churches of God claim to 'keep' the law but in actuality they do not even know the law.
for DCD:
John 6:44
The reason god made the rules so convoluted was to construct an extremely fine sieve, so that only the most discerning individuals could make it through. The process is like smelting precious metal out of low-grade ore. The coarse lumps of dross that nearly all of us consist of get dumped, still red-hot, into the slag heap, hissing and spewing fumes that give the impression of a lake of fire. The yield of "gold tried by the fire" is rendered all the more precious for the sweaty labor god performed to get it--and of course its extreme rarity.
So retired Prof, God is a respecter of persons despite claiming he is not?
Uneducated need not apply.
Is there an IQ test for salvation?
It seems the thief on the cross got in pretty easy though.
Yeah, anon, that thief on the cross presents an enigma, doesn't he? Sort of lends credence to Luther's idea that faith alone is enough for salvation, never mind all the good works one might perform, or all the calendrical rituals a scriptural obsessive-compulsive might observe.
Look at it this way. That line in the crucifixion scene may just be doing its job. It could be the very square of mesh in the holy sieve that filters out dross like you and me. Or me at least. Maybe you can seep through, but the interlaced enigmas of Holy Writ invariably stop me cold.
on April 24, 2016 at 8:22 AM
Ed wrote:-
"Why is the existence of God so hard for many to see if he actually exists?"
Probably because most people don't want to do as He commands through the pages of the Holy Bible. Eg. Who wants to follow "Exo_20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."? Anyone you know?
also:
"Can you fault people for having doubts?"
No, you can't, and for a reason that most find difficult to accept
ie:
"Heb_11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
'Diligently seek him' by keeping His commandments. Remember, He has already had one bad experience with one He knows - face to face. Will ANY of us be any different??
cheers
ralph.f
I suggest that Yeshua was aware that the thief on the cross had a truly repentant attitude. An attitude that would perhaps find him in the first resurrection.
(AMP) "Luk 23:43 And He answered him, Truly I tell you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."
cheers
ralph.f
from April 24, 2016 at 7:04 PM
ps. A study note from today:-
"Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Is John saying "Shew us the Father and we will believe (you)?
It is Yehovah that sets out the terms and conditions for our relationship with Him, not us.
cheers
ralph.f
ummm, paradise is the second resurrection...the thief will be in the second resurrection...the earth has been restored and everyone not in the 1st resurrection will be raised back to life, then they will have their opportunity for salvation.
Ralph reminds me of Jackie Gleason's Ralph Kramden character on The Honeymooners!-
He has a BIG MOUTH, can't shut up, and his BIG MOUTH is always telling everyone else they need to understand him.
But sadly and of course, in this case(and on this blog), THIS Ralph never admits to being wrong at the end of an episode.
I do see why the blog administrator is willing to deal with him, though, because his posts have the following positive attributes-
* Entertainment value
* Great examples of stupid Armstrongism
on April 25, 2016 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous wrote:-
"THIS Ralph never admits to being wrong...."
Please, please, point out instances where I am wrong, so that I can correct.
cheers
ralph.f
I just checked the Amplified Bible online and it does not move the comma from "you" to "today". Did you do that or does (AMP) refer to something else?
The word translated "Paradise" here refers to the status of the "just" between death and resurrection, if I recall my Hebraic lore correctly. Not to split hairs though, as its a positive for the person Jesus is speaking to in either case.
Anon, please don't insult Ralph. There must be many people who take solace in his posts and feel their lives improved. You and I might believe the improvement is all due to the placebo effect, but remember Ralph is not charging fees or asking for tithes and offerings. He's not committing fraud. Furthermore, even if the benefits you cite are the only ones, they are valuable enough to justify courteous treatment.
Ralph said:
"Please, please, point out instances where I am wrong, so that I can correct."
Okay, Ralph, since you asked so nicely, I will take you up on that.
On January 28, 2016 at 3:31 PM you said:
"I see BI as a very narrow term. I do believe that the US, Britain, Ireland, France. Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and others are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel, headed by Ephraim and Manasseh. There are just too many coincidental matters over time for me to think otherwise. Like everybody else, I believe what I want to believe. Hopefully, from my perspective, this is not a racial matter. There is only one race. Anonymous of January 28, 2016 at 8:58 AM made mention of evidence. Here is another use of that word:-'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'"
And not only that, you proceeded to double-down on your wrongness on January 30, 2016 at 5:42 AM:
"I just simply do not grasp the DNA "rejection" of so called 'British-Israelism' and am content to continue with my long held belief."
And not only that, you tripled-down on it on February 6, 2016 at 9:26 PM:
"...it is my right to accept [British Israelism] regardless of what others say and/or publish."
Yes, Ralph, I suppose it is your right. But in being so blatantly reckless with that right, you do give up any credible claims of being interested in what the evidence points to, or in being interested in correcting where you're wrong. You also give up any credible claim of not looking simple-minded. With Ralph, the existence of a preponderance of cited evidence is still an "absence of evidence."
Hey, you asked for it with all but the cherry on top. You got it.
on April 25, 2016 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous wrote:-
"I just checked the Amplified Bible online and it does not move the comma from "you" to "today". Did you do that or does (AMP) refer to something else?"
Most of the time, as in this instance, I copy and paste from my e-Sword bible study program. From there, the comma is located where it is found in my post. In any case I believe that is where it should be. Yeshua wasn't in "Paradise" until some 40 days later.
(AMP) does refer to the Amplified and I suppose I should have put that at the end of the quotation. I'll try and remember for next time.
cheers
ralph.f
on April 25, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous wrote:-
"The word translated "Paradise" here refers to the status of the "just" between death and resurrection,...."
I wonder if that's the place from where the Roman church gets 'Purgatory".
cheers
ralph.f
to Retired Prof
Many thanks for your moral support.
cheers
ralph.f
Please, please, please, Ralph, point out instances where you have been wrong in what you've written on this blog. The more the better!
Ok, I will not object to the objectionable Ralph any longer.
Thankfully, I know he will provide laughs in the future with his "serious" armstrongist "insights"
Oops, I just found a leaveny crumb in my couch cushion! I think it's Ralph's.
on April 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"ummm, paradise is the second resurrection...the thief will be in the second resurrection...."
How do you figure that?
cheers
ralph.f
Ed (April 24, 2016 at 8:22 AM)On the larger question of "does God exist?"...said:
"... You would think that if God exists and it was so important for our salvation to believe he exists and sent his son as a sacrifice so we could have salvation, that he would make it totally clear that he is real so that half the world that doesn't believe he exists would be won over by undeniable proof that he exists. Why is the existence of God so hard for many to see if he actually exists? Can you fault people for having doubts?..."
Salvation is not dependent upon one believing that God exists and sent His Son as a sacrifice, but your question was specifically: "Why is the existence of God so hard for many to see if he actually exists?"
Here is one reason:
"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive..." John 14:17
Jesus Christ knew it was not the time for the world (including both thieves hanging/dying beside Him at His crucifixion) to receive God's Spirit, which later will after that 2nd resurrection be poured out upon the world.
God's Spirit in one's life is very important. Thankfully, God is not a respecter of persons. He will yet deal with every man (e.g. Romans 12:3) before all is said and done.
Why is God's Spirit so important? So many reasons! Here's one reason: belief!
"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," Ephesians 1:19
No Spirit: no believe. The world follows another spirit (Eph 2:2; James 4:5; I John 3:8, etc.)
So no, we can't fault people, our brothers and sisters, for having doubts!
The thief mentioned in this thread will be in Paradise, here on earth, later. He died. Penalty (wages of sins) paid! Anyone for double jeopardy in that thief's life...in our own lives?
God intends to save all human beings, each man/woman in his/her own order, via only 2 resurrections (no need for a man-made, Satan-inspired, 3rd resurrection), and subsequently take/destroy Satan and his angels.
And time will tell...
John
He is where he is as Jesus intended, by virtue of his confession of guilt and recognition of Jesus' lack thereof. Even with having to fight for every exhalation due to crucifixion. Who are we to sit here and pass judgement on exactly where he is with finality?
errors for starters;
oops! On April 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM
I wrote:-
"Yeshua wasn't in "Paradise" until some 40 days later."
and claim impulsive thinking followed by impulsive writing for this error. Yeshua WAS NOT in Paradise 40 days later, He was in heaven at the right hand of His Father. On THAT DAY, the day of His death and the first of three, He was buried in a tomb before sunset. Who knows where the thief in question was later on that day.
"Paradise" is on this earth and some say it may (might) be found "Under the waters of the Persian Gulf"
My mistake, sorry.
cheers
ralph.f
Who is Yeshua?
Jesus Christ is the name God had placed in the NT.
No Yeshua anywhere.
Don't you just love these sacred names people and their self important secret knowledge?
on April 25, 2016 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"On January 28, 2016 at 3:31 PM you said:
"I see BI as a very narrow term. I do believe that the US, Britain, Ireland, France. Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and others are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel, headed by Ephraim and Manasseh. There are just too many coincidental matters over time for me to think otherwise. Like everybody else, I believe what I want to believe. Hopefully, from my perspective, this is not a racial matter. There is only one race. Anonymous of January 28, 2016 at 8:58 AM made mention of evidence. Here is another use of that word:-'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'"
So what is my error?
also:
"And not only that, you proceeded to double-down on your wrongness on January 30, 2016 at 5:42 AM:
"I just simply do not grasp the DNA "rejection" of so called 'British-Israelism' and am content to continue with my long held belief."
So, where is my 'wrongness'?
also:
"And not only that, you tripled-down on it on February 6, 2016 at 9:26 PM:
"...it is my right to accept [British Israelism] regardless of what others say and/or publish."
So, once again, where or what is my error?
We are all at liberty to express opinions. Can you prove anything I have posted is in error. Just saying that it is doesn't prove it.
BTW you seem to keep a pretty good record of peoples words. Are you the scribe for 'The Book of Life'? LOL x 2
cheers
ralph.f
OMG!
I looked at Ralph's touted link to the location of "The Garden of Eden", and it was one of the most stupid things I've ever come across!
Of course, the account of the "penitent thief" (or Dismas, if you prefer to attach a name for convenience) occurs only in Luke. Matthew and Mark both depict the two criminals insulting Jesus together. John calls them "two others" but records no conversation. Either Luke managed to be present at Golgotha, got the story of Dismas from someone who was present to hear the conversation, or the story was invented for some reason. Who knows?
on April 26, 2016 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous wrote:-
"Jesus Christ is the name God had placed in the NT."
With your following words are you suggesting that Jesus is NOT a sacred name?
"Don't you just love these sacred names people and their self important secret knowledge?"
Secret knowledge! I don't think so. It is very much public knowledge "The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus" as found "here in Wikipedia".
cheers
ralph.f
Ohhhh.. Wikipedia, that be all and end all of information and godly knowledge!!
Ralph you sure do like to twist things.
Your Yeshua and Yaway stuff is showing off what you believe to be secret gnostic info.
Well Ralph, if Wikipedia says Jesus Christ's real name is Yeshua I guess we all must bow down and accept it.
The US and Britain beliefs are interesting but they cannot be proven so it is a bad thing to use for doctrine.
Besides as Paul said, avoid endless geneaology and God has made of one blood all mankind.
Salvation is open to anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead.
on April 26, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"Ohhhh.. Wikipedia, that be all and end all of information and godly knowledge!!
Ralph you sure do like to twist things."
How about Merriam-Webster then? Is this more acceptable?
"Main Entry:Je-sus
Pronunciation:*j*-z*s, -z*z also -*z*s and -*z*z
Function:noun
Etymology:Late Latin, from Greek Iesous, from Hebrew Yeshua*
1 : the Jewish religious teacher whose life, death, and resurrection as reported by the Evangelists are the basis of the Christian message of salvation — called also Jesus Christ
2 Christian Science : the highest human corporeal concept of the divine idea rebuking and destroying error and bringing to light man's immortality"
also:
"....secret gnostic info."
What's that?
also:
"....if Wikipedia says Jesus Christ's real name is Yeshua I guess we all must bow down and accept it."
Can I rephrase your comment and say:- "....if Wikipedia says Jesus Christ's HEBREW name is Yeshua I guess we all must bow down and accept it"
and ask, is that what YOU would want to do?
cheers
ralph.f
The fact is Ralph, Christ's name is not given in Hebrew at all any place in the bible except for the name Emanuel.
His name is given in the Greek and written out in English as Jesus.
Frankly none of his apostles ever addressed him to his face by his first name, only as Lord, Master, etc.
The word yeshua used as a name is a guess.
One article says it better than I can:
The entire New Testament was written in Greek, and the word Jesus is the word that is used. It is not the Hebrew ×™ֵשׁוּעַ which is Yeshua. So, it is simple. Jesus is properly called Jesus.
Matt. 1:21, "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins."
Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Acts 4:10-12, "let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 “He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. 12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
Rom. 1:1, "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God."
Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone."
Rev. 1:1, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John."
As you can see, the New Testament uses "Jesus" as the name and not a Hebrew name. For people to say that Jesus' real name is Yashua or Yahusha or Yahushua, etc., is Jesus' real name is just a statement of pushing an agenda and not believing the New Testament text.
on April 27, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous wrote:-
"Christ's name is not given in Hebrew at all any place in the bible except for the name Emanuel."
I guess that depends on what bible you use. Yeshua is certainly not found in the AKJ nor the Amplified, both of which I have in my e-Sword program. However, I also have a book copy of the "Jewish New Testament", translation by David H. Stern, and in that, the only name for Jesus is spelled Yeshua. So, would you think that the name 'Yeshua' is only reserved for the Jews and not to be spoken by anyone else?
From the above mentioned translation:-
Mark 1.1 "The beginning of the Good News of Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of God
Acts 4:10-12, "then let it be known you, and to all the people of Israel that it is in the name of the Messiah, Yeshua from Natzeret,whom you had executed on a stake as a criminal but whom God has raised from the dead,that this man stands before you perfectly healed.
This Yeshua is the stone rejected by you builders which has become the cornerstone.
There is salvation in no one else! For there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by whom we must be saved."
also:
"For people to say that Jesus' real name is Yashua or Yahusha or Yahushua, etc.,...."
I'm simply saying that Yeshua is another of his names, as real as any.
also:
"....just a statement of pushing an agenda...."
What kind of "agenda"?
I understand that all who contribute to this blog are free to express their inoffensive thoughts and opinions without trying to "convert" anyone.
cheers
ralph.f
By that point, was the Judean populace even speaking Hebrew, or was that mostly a writtem language used by scribes of the upper-crust?
Maybe Ralph just dislikes saying "Jesus" because he thinks it sounds "evangelical", or even common. ;)
on April 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said:-
"Maybe Ralph just dislikes saying "Jesus" because he thinks it sounds "evangelical", or even common."
I don't dislike saying "Jesus". I just prefer using His original Hebrew name and, in Hebrew, it is a common name.
cheers
ralph.f
Good choice on the naming, Ralph.
For the same reason, whenever I meet somebody who believes his name is Roger, I call him Hrothgar, the original name in Old English and therefore the correct one.
Hebrew NT? Ridiculous. It was written in Greek and for a reason.
Yeshua is NOT common in Jewish circles and never was and I know whereof I speak on that. Yehoshua, which is Joshua,is found but not common even today but not yeshua which is a word .
Yeshu is a dismissive name (really an acronym) used by Orthodox today to refer to Christ.
You have no clue what his Hebrew name is. The only Hebrew name given for him is Emanuel. The name Jesus in Greek is specifically given in the NT.
The sacred name movement is a weirdness that separates Christians, like the silly calendar debates.
What kind of agenda? Self importance, ego, 'I have cool knowledge that you don't have", "Hey, look at me! I know a word in Ivrit! (there's another Hebrew word for you Ralph)
on April 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM
Retrired Prof wrote:-
"....whenever I meet somebody who believes his name is Roger, I call him Hrothgar, the original name in Old English and therefore the correct one."
Have any one complained so far? LOL.
cheers
ralph.f
on April 27, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"Hebrew NT? Ridiculous."
Why so?
also:-
" It was written in Greek and for a reason."
Can you mention what the reason was/is. Did you know that apart from being translated into English (and Hebrew), it has also been translated into "Kiswahili"
also:-
"Yeshua is NOT common in Jewish circles and never was and I know whereof I speak on that."
How is it you know whereof you speak on that?
Is it along the lines of:- "Self importance, ego, 'I have cool knowledge that you don't have",
cheers
ralph.f
from April 27, 2016 at 11:11 PM
ps. Do you read Greek? I don't. Nor, as a matter of fact, do I read Kiswahili but I understand there are many that do.
Cheers
ralph.f
Post a Comment