.
This deserves more discussion:
This guy's hold on people after all the false prophecies and teachings is so sad and a lesson. Many in the COGs think to themselves, "He is a nut. We're not like that."
Yeah, not quite. But you still follow the teachings of a man, HWA, who made false prophecies and teachings. And make no mistake, many of your beliefs are based on Armstrong's teachings and not direct teachings from the Bible.
Just a few of Armstrong's false teachings not in the Bible that require little argument to rebut:
1) Our doctrine (or being in select organizations) makes us real Christians. No, According to the BIBLE, Faith in Christ's atoning blood is what makes one a real Christian. Please show me where more than faith is required.
2) You must understand the supposed meaning of the holy days to be a real Christian. No, this is all Armstrong. The Bible simply does not state anything of the sort. Before Sinai and after Christ (for new believers) there is no evidence of this teaching. Yet despite this, groups like COGWA require not just observance but yet even more indoctrinated belief of the MEANING of these days and bluntly states, "Without an understanding of the holy days you are not called." Sad.
3) The real church will be called "The Church of God". These groups actually believe that having that name is a prerequisite to being a legitimate church. First off, "Church of God" is incorrectly translated into English from the Greek "Ekklesia Theos" which means "those of God's who are called out". It's a description, not a title of an organization.
Further, the term "church" draws from the greek "kurikon" maybe passing through the Germanic "kirche" (which was not itself used before the 8th century). "Church" more directly came from the old English "cirice" and "Circe" who btw was a pagan greek goddess, but maybe that is neither here nor there. But, still, neither of these terms were used before the 13th century. And "church" itself was not used until the late 16th century. King James had the Bible translated in 1611 and set forth several rules for translation to support terms used by the Anglican "Church" one such rule was that the term ekklesia be translated as "church" rather than the more accurate "assembly" or "congregation" or "called out".
So, what we have is a doctrine of the COGs that would indicate no one was a true group of real Christians until they used the term "church of God" which never occurred until the 17th century. Further, there are pagan elements to the etymology of the term "church". Shame! Further still (and painfully silly for most Christians to read), this argues against the ridiculous COG claim that their "church of god" goes back to the time of Jesus. How could it, if they must be called "the Church of God"? The COGs actually hang onto this false English translation as a doctrine.
Strangely enough this ridiculous doctrine actually led to my further questioning of the COGs. I agree the whole thing is silly, but it is a doctrine.
Sorry, longer than I intended. There are many more false and silly doctrines, but I think the three above are indefensible if you claim your doctrines are from the Bible and not fully founded on the doctrine of Herbert Armstrong.
Great breakdown!! Thank you for this true and simple explanation.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, the author should modify his Post to more accurately describe which COGs are being discussed. Specifically, it is the Armstrong Churches of God that are being discussed. I have been a longtime reader of the Bible Advocate published by the Church of God, Seventh Day grandparent to today's ACOG splinters (otherwise known as the dead Sardis era to those who grew up in WCG). To the best of my understanding and belief, the Church of God, Seventh Day does not adhere to the three Armstrong doctrines/teachings discussed by the author and is truly not like Dave Pack's Church.
ReplyDeleteNEO with his Trump Derangement Syndrome and obsession must be distraught over Liz Chaney's trouncing defeat in yesterday's primary. :)
Richard
To answer your where is it that more then faith is required?
ReplyDelete"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
James 2:26 KJV
So you need faith and works or else your faith will be dead. And you have work out your own salvation with fear and trembling
The presence of Faith requires works. But, generally not the works the COGs seem to limit them to. It was a mighty work when one stood in his faith before all and proclaimed “Jesus is Lord” rather than the Roman pronouncement of “Ceasar is Lord”. Proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” often was a capital offense but it inspired others, perhaps more than the commitment of warming a seat on Saturday.
DeleteI’m being sarcastic to make a point not to sneer. All of us that attended cogs are very familiar with the verse, but the cogs applied that scripture to things like the sabbath or not eating pork rather than works like true religion (visiting widows and orphans in their need) that flow out of faith and repentance.
If repentance and the fruit of the Spirit is not present in one who proclaims faith then it is probably a false or just a very new faith.
God knows. But faith alone is all that is necessary because the verse says there is no faith if there are no works. Faith alone.
The cogs don’t understand faith because they seem to think it can be just words, but faith is a miracle that the Lord grants.
Claims of faith are a different thing.
It's obvious that the commanded Holy Days in Lev 23 show a outline of God' salvation plan.
ReplyDeleteAnd Christ is the center of all of them. Jesus is the sacrificed Lamb of the Passover. He's the chief corner stone of the new testament Church of Pentecost. Christ is the King of kings returning to establish His Kingdom in Trumpets and resides in Jerusalem during the Kingdom of God on Earth for the Feast of Tabernacles.
You have to be blind to all the scriptures that cover this awesome plan for mankind.
Yes, Dave is a nut! Nuff said.
ReplyDeletePoint number 3 is spot on.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘real’ church of God has to be named as such.
That is why these groups all have the ‘name’ in their ‘logo’ with a ‘Continuing, Philadelphia, Living, United etc etc etc’ to denote their individuality or more to the point their differences and their intense dislike for each other.
Quite bizarre.
And completely in contrast to the gospel message and that which the apostles taught.
The division in Armstrongism is a shameful witness against them.
Anon 2:32,
ReplyDeleteSince it is so obvious and since it is a necessary doctrine, why didn't Moses mention this fuller meaning of the Holy Days in his writing of Leviticus? Why didn't any of the prophets break down the fuller meaning of the Holy Days? Why didn't Jesus or the apostles do the same? According to the Cogs, this was apparently all part of the Gospel but it was not mentioned. Were the Apostles blind too to not teach this?
If so necessary an understanding, why were Abel, Seth, Noah, and Abraham not apprised of this? Why were they not even apprised of the Holy Days at all, let alone the special meaning they have for the plan of mankind?
Look, every Christian in the world knows Christ is our Passover, and that we must eat of the bread of Life (though the cogs ignore the Sunday wave sheaf). Most every Christian is aware that the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost. The Last Trump has been used in Christendom and literature for centuries (F of Trumpets) symbolizing the Return of Christ. The COGs are wrong about Atonement, but most Christians recognize that Christ both died for our sins and removed our sins far from us (Christ symbolized both goats of Atonement). Most/many Christians teach Christ's Millennial reign and the final Judgment of man.
The Holy Day plan as taught by Armstrong is not correct, but Christians by and large understand all the concepts that supposedly Armstrong alone had eyes to see. Actually others have noticed the parallels but teach it differently than Armstrong.
I never got why we had a feast day that focused on the devil (atonement). And I always wondered how the sacrificed Lamb fit into the Armstrong eschatological (I didn't know that term as a kid) timeline. The answer is that the timeline as taught by Armstrong was wrong. You can't have Christ return as King (Trumpets) and then be sacrificed at the same time Satan is being put away (Atonement). Sorry, that doesn't work. I can see another explanation but it requires a different view of atonement and one very different from Armstrong's. It's pretty obvious and probably held by many that have considered it if not influenced by Armstrong's incorrect teaching.
So, why do you suppose the full meaning of the Holy Days was never taught explicitly in the Bible? I mean Armstrong and the COGs have defined who would be over the economy (Joseph), who would separate and relocate the races (Noah), and who would be over construction (Job). Why wasn't a similar detail given? Why was Armstrong the "first to recognize it"?
Maybe because Armstrong was wrong. Maybe because it can be meaningful to draw some analogies but not make it a doctrine. MAybe because you can be called without "understanding" the meaning of the holy days as taught by HWA and COGWA and the other cogs.
Jim @ 5:34:00 PM PDT
ReplyDelete‘Maybe because you can be called without ‘understanding’ the meaning of the holy days as taught by HWA ……’
I believe you are correct there Jim.
Many are coming to Christ without ever hearing of HWA or the cog movement.
And many, many are coming to faith in the Muslim world as well.
The gospel of Christ is once more going into Israel, as ‘home grown’ ministries have being raised within the holy land.
Doing what Armstrongism could never achieve.
As we read, ‘Is the spirit of God constrained’.
‘The work’ as Armstrongism likes to proclaim is invisible unknown and unheard of by the vast vast majority of humanity.
And in spite of that, the gospel is being proclaimed more than never. Contrary to what some believe, God is not dead.
The term ekklesia had a well established meaning that predates its use in the NT. It was a kind of town meeting or public assembly that had decision making powers. The First Century Jews would have understood it in that sense. Their ears would not have heard "church of god" but "town meeting of god." That has a more functional, operational, civic ring to it. So the term "church" with all of its sacral meaning would not be a direct translation of ekklesia in that time the NT was written.
ReplyDeleteAnd theos is an ancient Greek term that referred to whatever gods the Greeks had to hand. I think the sound of what is translated as "church of God" to the First Century Jewish ear was something like "town meeting of our particlar god." Theos was a generic and required some qalification to bring it into the Christian sphere. "Church of God" would have a different sound and impact from the Hebrew "Beth El" which is not generic. As pointed out, "church of god" is a descriptive phrase and not an denominational brand name and this can be seen by considering the meaning and derivation of its terms.
The Armstrongist view is like saying that for bread to be real bread it must be designated by the English translation of "artos" (konine Greek for "loaf of bread") like in the NT. If it is not called "loaf of bread,: its not true artos. If you say slice, bun, bagel or matzo you have slipped into theological falsehood. "Come worship with us - we are the only denomination that eats real whole wheat loaf of bread."
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Nisan 14: Passover, 1st day of UB; Nisan 15: NTBMO feast, one day!; Nisan 14-20: 1st of 3 feasts (Ex 23:14-16); Pentecost: 2nd feast, Sunday, 50th day; Tishri 1: a sabbath of noise, in Hebrew not called a feast and a trumpet or cornet is not mentioned; Tishri 10: not called a feast, is a sabbath; Tishri 15-21, FOT, the third feast; Tishri 22: 8th day, a sabbath not a feast, not the last great day of John 7:37 because that day is within a feast = Tishri 21. Lev 23:2 with the word "feasts" is mistranslated, should be "appointed or fixed times", are both feasts and sabbaths.
ReplyDeleteIt seems it should be known when and what are the days before attempting to begin to understand a Holy Day Plan. Herbert Armstrong WAS wrong.
Dr Bob's church has much better curtains.
ReplyDeleteThe name on the sign out front is irrelevant. Anyone can put anything on the sign, that doesn't make them part of The Church.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly want to think that you are part of The Church by your comments about faith. It is also abundantly clear from those comments that you don't understand what faith is.
Your day will come.
Jim, Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 4:38:00 PM PDT, wrote, in part:
ReplyDelete"...If repentance and the fruit of the Spirit is not present in one who proclaims faith then it is probably a false or just a very new faith.
God knows. But faith alone is all that is necessary because the verse says there is no faith if there are no works. Faith alone.
The cogs don’t understand faith because they seem to think it can be just words, but faith is a miracle that the Lord grants.
Claims of faith are a different thing..."
******
As an aside, and not that it matters, there was a Jim from Arizona, I used to know, with a last name beginning with Mul...; however, that is immaterial here. Jesus said: "love one another!"
Regarding your post, beyond the words "Faith alone," I suggest your most important thoughts were: "...God knows...the Lord grants."
IOW, faith alone isn't enough unless God knows and grants that faith, which is a fruit of His Spirit, and not something inherently of "self," something that one thinks one chooses to have independent of God.
God has lots of fruits to share; does He not?
God grants one repentance/change; does He not?
God, by His Spirit (Romans 8:9), also produces works (Eph 6::10) in those He knows and grants repentance to (Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25). Why not? He is running His own plan of salvation to save all humanity and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels.
Some talk about Jesus and believing; however, God also enables belief in those He is working with (Phil 1:6):
"And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," Eph 1:19
And God does draw one to Jesus; does He not?
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44, 65
People just mouthing words doesn't "cut it." Well, IOW, as you wrote: "...The cogs don’t understand faith because they seem to think it can be just words, but faith is a miracle that the Lord grants..." God, the LORD of hosts, has lots of miracles to grant, but it's His will be done: His timing. One does not choose to think they "give their heart to the Lord," and it's a done deal; however, God has His own plan to work out. And that word "draw" in John 6:44 means "drag."
Does God do a lot of "dragging," like snagging an unsuspecting fish with a naked hook attached to an unbreakable string from water into a boat, and succeed with saving those He chooses to call: the ones to be drawn/dragged since the days Jesus walked this earth?
And will God succeed with calling "the rest" of humanity (Hint: Matthew 25:34)?
Time will tell...
John
I don’t disagree John. Btw, I’m not the Jim from Arizona.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say faith alone it is in the sense of Hebrews 11 which defines faith and then gives examples. In all the examples a great faithful action was taken. And each time it was “by faith”. Nothing else is described there which is why I am comfortable saying “faith alone”.
Though insulting and seeming to relish his ominous response, Anon 5:07 seems to recoil at the term “faith alone” but like many things the definition and a fuller understanding of the intent helps.
I have never met anyone who said they themselves could do anything they want as long as they have faith that Christ died to cover sin.
That is obviously not a repentant or faithful approach. The COGs had a habit of creating strawmen of non-cog Christian beliefs in order to knock them down, but it also resulted in cog members having a false or undeveloped understanding of what many Christian beliefs entail that don’t adhere to cog beliefs.
8:03 writes:
ReplyDelete“Tishri 1: a sabbath of noise... Tishri 22: 8th day, a sabbath...”
This is misleading and technically wrong. In regard to Tishri 1, 15, and 22 the word is “shabbaton”.
The word transliterated for the seventh day of the week is “shabbath”.
A shabbaton is not a sabbath - the “on” implies a diminutive. A shabbaton is not as holy as a sabbath.
The WCG was known for its booklets, such as “What do you mean... SALVATION? To call these books would be misleading. The suffix “let” implies a diminutive.
8:03 also writes:
Tishri 22: 8th day... not the last great day of John 7:37 because that day is within a feast = Tishri 21.
Not necessarily a right conclusion.
The passover must be killed on the fourteen of Nisan, with the 1st day of Unleavened Bread following on the fifteen.
Mk 14:12a On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb
Lk 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
"the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Ordinarily this would mean the 15th of Nisan, the day after Passover... However, the added phrase, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb," makes it clear that the 14th of Nisan is meant because Passover lambs were killed on that day (Ex 12:6). The entire eight-day celebration was sometimes referred to as the Feast of Unleavened Bread..." (Walter W. Wessel & William L. Lane, Mark, NIVSB, p.1522).
Jn 19:31 on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a great [megale] day,)
Jn 7:37 In the last day, that great [megale] of the feast
(According to John the first day of unleavened bread - a shabbaton, by the principle of “gap-filling” - fell on a shabbat in the year Christ died).
“(244) Upon the fifteen day of the same month ... the law enjoins us to pitch tabernacles in every one of our homes...
“(245) as also that when we should arrive at our own country, and come to that city which we should have for our metropolis, because of the temple therein to be built, and keep a festival for eight days... that we should carry in our hands a branch of myrtyle, and willow...” (Antiquities of the Jews”).
Josephus refers to the FOT as an eight day festival.
"The Sukkah [must be used all] seven days. How is this [to be understood]? When a man has finished his [last] meal, he may not dismantle his Sukkah. He may, however, remove its furniture from the afternoon onwards in honour of the Last Day of the festival" (Sukkah 4:8b).
In the Mishnah the eighth day is called "the Last Day of the Festival".
It is suggested that John 7:37 may refer to the eighth day by convention/common use in the time of Christ.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
"Day extends indefinitely without interruption because darkness never comes" (Robert H. Mounce, Revelation, NICNT, p.397) - one ‘great’ day.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt (Gk. skenoo = tabernacle) among us..." (John 1:14).
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man THIRST, LET HIM COME UNTO ME, AND DRINK. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow RIVERS OF LIVING WATER" (John 7:37-38).
"... Then I, John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God ... and I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell (Gk. skenoo = tabernacle) with them... And he that sat upon the throne said... I WILL GIVE UNTO HIM THAT IS ATHIRST OF THE FOUNTAIN OF THE WATER OF LIFE freely" (Revelation 21:1-3,5-6).
I also suggest that the shabbaton of the fifteenth pictures the Millennium and the shabbaton of the twenty-second pictures what is sometimes called the eternal rest. The last day being the ‘goal’ of the plan of God - God and Jesus Christ tabernacling with “men” - what a great day!
I also suggest that the shabbaton of the fifteenth pictures the Millennium and the shabbaton
ReplyDeleteThis is a reasonable suggestion, but outside of the COG premise that the sequence of the holy days matches the historical events in the plan of God, there is scant Biblical evidence to back that up. However, the best evidence comes from Numbers 29:12-32, where the number of bulls sacrificed is reduced by one each day of the feast. Since those in covenant with Christ do not need animal sacrifices, this shows an increasing number of the population during the millennium that is accepting Christ as the sacrifice for their sins. Interestingly, there is still a good number left unconverted at the end of the millennium; perhaps this is the group that Satan deceives when he is released from the pit.
As an aside, Numbers 29:12-32 pertains to the Old Covenant. There is a change for the New Covenant: instead of 70 bull burnt offerings decreasing over the seven days there will be 7 bulls per day giving a total of 49 prescribed for the NC FOT; instead of 2 ram burnt offerings per day under the OC there will be seven per day, same total as for the bulls; also instead of 14 lambs per day under the OC no lamb burnt offerings are prescribed for the NC; there is no change in the male goat purification offerings (Eze 45:23 & 25).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:44 wrote, "I also suggest that the shabbaton of the fifteenth pictures the Millennium..."
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that the OT does not mention nor depict the millennium. The idea of 6,000 years of man's rule followed by 1,000 years of the reign of Jesus thus creating a connection to the Sabbath is traditional rather than Biblical. Hank Hanegraaff points out that the term 1,000 years just meant a long time in ancient Greek rather than a round figure. It was like saying a "gazillion" in modern parlance. Both the Trinity and the Millennium are not mentioned in the Bible. But the evidence for the Trinity is overwhelming and the evidence for a Millennium is scant to the point of being vaporous.
What we do know from scripture is that Jesus will come and reign on the earth for a very long time. And the Elect will reign with him as priests. This concept is packaged by apocalyptic Millerites as 1,000 years because that gives gravitas to the idea of keeping the Sabbath. So packaged, it can then be connected neatly to the tradition attributed to Elijah or whomever. It also exalts the Law of Moses and obscures the fact that Jesus is our Rest. Jesus just doesn't ever seem to get traction among apocalyptic Millerites.
********** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO writes August 18:
ReplyDeleteThe saints who reign with Jesus in the millennium will be a kingdom of priests (in the Greek it does not actually say "kings and priests") who will carry out priestly functions. I think teaching is one of those priestly functions although one could make an argument that Jesus will do all the teaching.
Part 1
Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
The priests, and by extension the Levites, will teach the religious fundamentals to the people of Israel during the Messianic Age, not the saints.
One of the function of the saints is "reigning".
Before looking at "kings and priests" or "a kingdom, priests" in Revelation, Exodus 19:6 provides the background:
Ex 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom [mamlakah] of [italics] priests [kohen] and a holy nation
Ex 19:6 a kingdom [mamlakah] and [italics] priests [kohen]
mamlakah kohen
"... "mmlkt khnym, "a kingdom of [italics] priests," is pointed as a construct noun" [in the MT]" (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, p.42).
"Hebrew expresses the "of" (possessive) relationship between two nouns by what is called the construct chain. This grammatical relationship is created by placing two or more nouns side by side" (hebrew.billmounce.com/BasicsBiblicalHebrew-10.pdf).
"However, the unpointed Heb. text could be construed to mean "a kingdom, priests"... (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.42).
"There are four defensible Hebrew renderings... or (4) an "and" must be read here: "kings (and) priests"..." (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Exodus, EBC, Vol.2, p.417).
Exo 19:6a And ye shall be to me a royal [basileios] priesthood [hierateuma] (LXX).
1Pe 2:9a But ye are a chosen generation, a royal [basileios] priesthood [hierateuma], an holy nation
("The phrase is rendered idiomatically by the LXX version" (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.46).
The above is reflected in Revelation:
Rev 1:6 and made us a kingdom [basileia], priests [hiereus] to his God and Father
Rev 5:10 and you have made them a kingdom [basileia] AND [KAI] priests [hiereus] to our God.
"In declaring that Jesus made us a "kingdom and priests," John reminds his audience that salvation is not just what God saves us from (our sins, 1:5), but what he saves us for - for a destiny as his agents and worshipers (1:6)..." (Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIVAC, pp.71-72).
Rev 3:21b To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:.. and they lived and REIGNED with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:6b but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall REIGN [basileuo] with him a thousand years.
HELPS Word-studies: Cognate: 936 basileuo (from 935 /basileus, "king") – to reign as king, i.e. exercise dominion (rule).
"John adapts the wording slightly: a kingdom and priests (1:6). Although a "kingdom" normally meant a ruler's right to reign (Ps 1435:11-14), it sometimes meant the people over whom he ruled (105:13), and in this case implies delegated authority, as when Adam and Eve ruled creation for God (Gen 1:26-27). This kingdom will "reign" with Jesus (Rev 5:10; 20:6)..." (Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIVAC, pp.71-72).
Part 2
ReplyDelete"... John is thinking in terms of two privileges of the people of God rather than just one..." (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.47).
Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Melchizedek had the privilege of begin both a king and priest.
2Sa 5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites,
2Sa 5:7 ... David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
"When centuries later, Jerusalem fell into David's hands and became his capital (2 Sam. 5:6ff), he and his heirs became successors to Melchizedek's kingship, and probably also (in a titular capacity at least) to the priesthood of God Most High" (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p.124).
1Ch 29:22b Then they acknowledged Solomon son of David as king a second time...
1Ch 29:23 So Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David.
This psalm, which later came to be understood as Messianic, was most likely written by David for Solomon during their co-regency when David was to infirmed to rule.
1Ki 2:35 The king ... replaced Abiathar with Zadok the priest. (NIV).
2Ch 8:14 And he appointed, according to the order of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges, to praise and minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required: the porters also by their courses at every gate: for so had David the man of God commanded.
The Davidic dynasty, as temple builders and maintainers, and patron of the cult, are kings after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ as "son of David" not only inherited the kingship He also inherited the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.
Eze 46:2 And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate:
This is as far as an ‘earthly' Melchizedek king-priest can come to the inner court. But a ‘heavenly' Melchizedek' king-priest can come into the very presence of God (cp. Rev 7:15-17).
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the DARKNESS of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.
Ephesians 2:6 is a prolepsis - "Anticipating what is going to be, and speaking of future things as present" (Companion Bible, Appendixes, "Figures of Speech", p.12).
Lk 4:5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
Lk 4:6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.
The saints "wrestle" with the demons because the demons don't want the saints to take their place in the ‘heavenlies' and reign in their stead - the kingdom of light will replace the kingdom of darkness.
NEO writes:
ReplyDelete“Both the Trinity and the Millennium are not mentioned in the Bible. But the evidence for the Trinity is overwhelming...”
Cornelius Plantinga wrote the article on the “Trinity” for the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”. Looking at two of his comments he doesn’t appear “overwhelmed”:
“So one warily concludes that on balance the NT data presents and support a personal concept of the Spirit" (C. Plantinga, Jr., "Trinity," ISBE, Vol.4, p.916).
"In sum, the NT does testify to the Spirit's distinct personhood and divinity, but mutedly and ambiguously. The Spirit in the NT is personally less distinct than the Father and Son,, and His divinity less clearly stated; He appears as nearly transparent agent for God and Christ. One properly concludes that the NT is overall clearly binitarian in its data, and probably trinitarian" (C. Aplantinga, Jr., "Trinity," ISBE, Vol.4, pp.916-17).
“warily”, “mutedly”, “ambiguously” and “probably” are not all that encouraging.
Jn 14:28b I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
From the Athanasian Creed: "And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal".
But the question I have is, why does the “Holy Spirit” not get co-billing?:
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Rev 11:15b ... saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 20:6b they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ...
1 Cor 8:6 is often referred to as the NT shema. And here there is no room for the Holy Spirit.
8:03 writes: “Tishri 1: a sabbath of noise... Tishri 22: 8th day, a sabbath...” This is misleading and technically wrong. In regard to Tishri 1, 15, and 22 the word is “shabbaton”.
ReplyDeleteThe word transliterated for the seventh day of the week is “shabbath”. A shabbaton is not a sabbath - the “on” implies a diminutive. A shabbaton is not as holy as a sabbath.
*************************************
According to Biblehub.com, "shabbaton" is in 11 verses, is translated as "rest" where the phrase "sabbath of rest" appears, refers to the weekly sabbath in Ex 16:23; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3, refers to atonement in Lev 16:31; 23:32, and refers to the land sabbath in Lev 25:4,5.
“Only two (types of) days of the year are called Shabbas Shabbason - Yom Kippur and the weekly Shabbos. Their status, as described by this unique title, is clearly special in contrast to the mere Shabbason used for other holidays. However, the precise meaning of this double term requires explanation”.
ReplyDeleteThe above is from torahmusings.com/2012/09/sabbath-of-sabbaths - this may be interest to 7:48.
Following from the above, the late Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, understood shabbaton as an adjective, in the phrase Shabbat Shabbaton - the “on” suffix is characteristic of both abstract nouns and adjectives. He notes: “The construct chain sabbat sabbaton is a superlative, literally “the most restful rest” (cf: qodes qodasim, lit. “the holiest holiness” or “most holy”)...” (Leviticus 23-27, AB, Vol.3, p.1959).
Shabbaton stands alone as a noun only in regard to Tishri 1, 15, 22, and these days are also not called sabbaths. Of interest, the 1st and 7th day of UB and Pentecotst are called neither “shabbaton” or “sabbath”.
One Jewish-Christian appealed to John 19:31 to proof-text that non-atonement holy days are ‘sabbaths’ as he could not do so from the OT. But sabbath in 19:31 refers to the seventh day of the week.
Exo 16:23a And Moses said to them, Is not this the word which the Lord spoke. A SABBATH [SABBATA] REST [ANAPAUSIS] holy to the Lord (LXX)
Ex 16:23a And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is A COMPLETE REST [SHABBATON] [a] SABBATH [SHABBAT] holy unto the LORD
“... THE DISTINCTION between the weekly Shabbat and the annual Yamim Tovim [Good Days] IS CAREFULLY MAINTAINED [IN THE LXX] by the distinction between ‘Sabbaton' (as translation of ‘Shabbat') and ‘Anapausis' (as translation of ‘Shabbaton')...”
(messianic613.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/the-messianic-confusion-about-the-omer-part-v-the-appeal-to-the-septuagint
In the LXX above the “sabbath” is plural (cp. Ac 17:2). The convention from at least the LXX and in the NT was for the plural and singular to be used interchangeably, cp. Mt 12:1 with 12:2 and in reverse order, Luke 6:1 with 6:2.
"But sabbath in [John] 19:31 refers to the seventh day of the week".
ReplyDelete************************
YES! But die-hard Armstrongites will not agree. They can't accept that a high day can occur on the weekly sabbath. They can't accept Jesus died on Friday. They can't accept the 3 days/nights can be less than 72 hours, can be parts of day or night. They can't accept the darkness over the land Friday afternoon was one of the nights. They can't accept Jonah was in the fish less than 72 hours. They cannot accept that Nisan 14 was Monday in 31 AD. They can't accept that "midst" can mean "half" in Dan 9:27. But they can accept that the women, knowing that sooner a body is prepared the better, lolligagged [supposedly] all day on a Friday preparing spices and ointments to bring Sunday morning for a body dead for over 3 days.
jim, Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:02:00 AM PDT, said:
ReplyDelete"...When I say faith alone it is in the sense of Hebrews 11 which defines faith and then gives examples. In all the examples a great faithful action was taken. And each time it was “by faith”. Nothing else is described there which is why I am comfortable saying “faith alone”..."
******
Yes, there are numerous examples in Heb 11 and elsewhere in the Bible to illustrate faithful actions; however, I do not give any of the individuals involved credit, glory, honor for what took place in their lives. They are like pawns (not robots) of God, fulfilling God's will and purpose within God's Plan of Salvation.
Two examples: Enoch and Sara.
Heb 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Enoch wasn't translated anywhere by his faith, of and by himself; however, faith is a fruit of God's Spirit and Enoch was translated by God's Spirit, the power of God by the fruit of God's faith given to Enoch.
:11 "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised."
And Sara's faith: did her faith allow her to start having children again? No, it was a miracle God performed by the power of His Spirit and God's fruit of faith was given to Sara.
Both individuals, like so many others mentioned in the Bible, were the workmanship of God's hands leaving us an example of God's purpose/will in their lives. Their examples are for us as to what God can do by His Spirit.
Gal 5 mentions that faith is one of the fruits/gifts of God that God gives. God, by His grace, does it by measure:
"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." (Romans 12:3 and :6 says something similar, but in different words, but God does it by His Spirit!)
That is one reason I do not place any of those Heb 11 individuals on pedestals. They don't deserve any glory, honor and praise, because it belongs to God who does those works (Acts 15:18; Heb 4:3) in their lives.
Christ said of Himself He could do nothing, that the Father did the works in His life. The same is true of Enoch and Sara.
The Apostle Paul recognized who the source of faith was, and it wasn't the individual:
"Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
How does God do that today? I Cor 8:6 tells us: "But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."
Again, faith is provided by God, and it is nothing of self. The hirelings of the former WCG continue to tell us that you need to have faith: the faith of Abraham. They do not believe the scriptures:
I Cor 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
Too many strive to steal the glory that belongs to God, a real Worker, and take it to themselves, and then think they somehow are impressing God. Truly, all of the world is deceived.
Anyway, Jim, this isn't to convince you of anything or to get you to change your mind on that "faith alone;" you may continue to think as you wish. I'm just sharing some additional "food for thought" mentioned in the Bible.
John
* 3:40 writes:
ReplyDeleteThey cannot accept that Nisan 14 was Monday in 31 AD.
Just for the record, for me, Christ died on Friday, April 7, AD 30; and that most likely: Nisan 14 occurred on Wednesday, April 25, in AD 31; on Monday, April 14, in AD 32 - from U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Data - link expired - for first evening of visible crescent.
"Of attempts to determine the year of the crucifixion the most fruitful is that made with astronomy. According to all four Gospels, the crucifixion took place on a Friday, but whereas in the Synoptics that Friday is 15 Nisan; but in John it is 14 Nisan. The problem then that has to be solved with the help of astronomy is that of determining in which of the years 26-36 the 14th and 15th Nisan fell on a Friday. But since in NT times the Jewish month was lunar and time of its commencement was determined by observation of the new moon, this problem is basically that of determining when the new moon became visible. Studying the problem, Fotheringham and Schoch have each arrived at a formula by applying which they find that 15 Nisan was a Friday only in 27 and 14 Nisan a Friday only in 30 and 33. Since as the year of the crucifixion 27 is out of the question, the choice lies between 30 (7 April) and 33 (3 April)" (G. Ogg, Chronology of the New Testament, NBD, 2nd Edition, p.202).
Fotheringham has a different date for AD 31, but Parker and Dubberstein agrees with AD 30, 31, 32 above - see Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, p.363.
Da 9:27b and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice [zebah] and the oblation [minhah] to cease
"The words for "sacrifice" (zebah) and "offering" (minhah) are the regular Old Testament words for these concepts. The thought is that three and one-half years after the Antichrist makes covenant with Israel, he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease. This means that Temple sacrifices will have to be started sometime before this; and since at this time the Antichrist will insist they cease, it may be part of the treaty of three and one-half years earlier will have concerned permission to have them. At least a forcing of them to cease is out of keeping with an idea of a covenant still continuing, which means that the covenant, intended to last seven years, will be broken when only half its time has elapsed. That sacrifices will be made to cease by the person involved provides further evidence for his identification with the Antichrist. The observation was made in chapter eight that Antiochus Epiphanes was typical of the Antichrist, and it was there stated that he also took away Jewish sacrifices in his time..." (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.261).
"After about three and one-half years, for reasons not here explained [but implied from 9:26], the world dictator will see fit to break his own agreement with the Jews and prohibit the public exercise of their religion. Possibly he will feel secure enough in his autocratic position and the efficient operation of his secret police so that he can carry out all features of his original secret plan to impose an absolute dictatorship on all the people of his empire, especially the Jews. All pretense of religious toleration will be dropped, for the nagid ("ruler") will aspire to absolute authority and complete control over the life and thought of mankind. Then he will display himself as the incarnation of all divine authority on earth. As we learn from 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he will even go as far as to enthrone himself as the living embodiment of God on earth: "He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or worshiped, and even sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God"...” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel, EBC, Vol.7, p.117).