First Century Christianity:
Putting Together the Available Evidence
Over the ten plus years of this blog's existence, I have put together a narrative about what happened within the Christian community of the First Century. To be clear, my narrative is very different from the one put forward by Herbert Armstrong, his successors, and most Sabbatarian Christians. And, although my narrative draws upon the evidence provided by Scripture, Josephus, the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Catholic scholars, modern Biblical scholars (like Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, etc.), secular history, and Roman Catholic scholars, I believe that the narrative provided here is unique and distinctive from the ones provided by all of them individually. In short, I do NOT believe that the available evidence supports the narrative of a Christianity hijacked by Gentiles or pagans, or a Church imposing its beliefs on a diverse and growing movement (NO grand conspiracy theories here).
According to the Gospels, Christ appeared to a small, core group of his disciples after his resurrection and told them to carry the message of his kingdom to the ends of the earth (a message that focused on the salvation that was available to all through him). Moreover, as the Gospels make very clear, an important part of that message was the fact that God had resurrected Jesus after the Sabbath, during the dark portion of the Jews' first day of the week - the one that the Romans called Sunday (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1-2, and John 20:1). Nevertheless, it is the "Acts of the Apostles" which recounts the story of what happened within the movement during the first four decades of its existence. From this historical narrative (in conjunction with the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John), we can piece together the story of what was really going on within the movement.
Thus, the narrative begins with a small group of people who were wholly Jewish in their ethnicity, religion, and culture. Like Jesus, it is important to understand that these original disciples of his were observant Jews. In other words, they were accustomed to observing the Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean, etc.. In short, they were familiar with Torah and had always employed it as the standard for their lives. Moreover, it is clear that this continued to be the case throughout the first decade of the movement's existence. Indeed, the book of Acts portrays a rather insular group which had little interest in expanding outside of the Roman province of Judea.
According to the Gospels, however, this was not what God and Christ had in mind for the people of the New Covenant. After all, Jesus had told his disciples at the conclusion of his own ministry: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20, ESV) Indeed, the inertia was so strong within the early Church, that we are informed that Peter was given a special vision to accept Gentiles into the movement (Acts 10). Interestingly, just prior to this event, we are informed that a Jew named Saul (who had been enthusiastically persecuting Christ's disciples) was converted and welcomed into the Church (Acts 9:1-30). This man, of course, went on to become the Apostle Paul - the apostle to the Gentiles.
Initially, the book of Acts informs us that Paul preached in synagogues around the Eastern Mediterranean provinces of the Roman Empire (Acts 13 and 14). Eventually, however, there was a backlash against Paul and his associates within the Jewish community, and the Gentile audience for their message increased over time. Now, as more and more of these non-Jewish people came into the Church, some of the Jewish Christians became disenchanted with the fact that these folks weren't observing the tenets of God's Covenant with Israel (as outlined in Torah). Sure, they had accepted Christ, had been baptized, and received God's Spirit; but they were ignoring circumcision, the Sabbath, and a host of other commandments. These circumstances enraged some of the Jewish Christians within the Church (mainly those who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees).
Hence, we read in the fifteenth chapter of Acts: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'" (Acts 15:1-5, ESV) Clearly, the question before the gathering was: Will the Gentile believers be required to adopt the tenets of God's covenant with Israel?
The account continued: "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" (Acts 15:6-11, ESV)
Notice first, that Peter spoke "after there had been much debate." This was NOT an easily settled question. Obviously, both sides of the debate recognized that the stakes were high - that the theological questions which this debate had engendered went to the very heart of the nature of the new faith. Next, Peter pointed out that God had already made the decision to give his message to the Gentiles, draw them into his Church, and given them his Holy Spirit. Then Peter reminded his mostly Jewish audience that Christ had been the only Israelite who had ever successfully borne the yoke of Torah. As a consequence, Peter concluded that BOTH Jews and Gentiles "will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus."
In the account, Peter's remarks gave Paul and Barnabas the space they needed to recount the story of what God had used them to do among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). When they had finished, we are told that James addressed the assembly (Acts 15:13). He began by reminding them about what Peter had told them about God making the decision to make these Gentiles part of his people (Acts 15:14). Next, James pointed out that the prophets of old had predicted that David's heir (Christ) would make it possible for Gentiles to seek the Lord (Acts 15:15-18). According to the account, James then concluded his remarks with his own judgment of the matter: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20, ESV) The account in Acts ends with the assembly writing a letter to the Gentile Christians which encouraged them to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:22-29) In other words, they gave them a short list of things that would distinguish them from the Gentiles around them and make them less likely to offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. They would NOT, however, be forced to become Torah observant Jews.
Now, although Acts gives us the impression that this settled the matter, we know from Paul's letter to the Galatians that some of the Jewish Christians continued to advocate for Gentiles to obey the commandments of Torah. Even though almost two thousand years have elapsed since Paul wrote this epistle, his anger and frustration with those Jewish Christians is still palpable. In the letter, Paul recounted the story of his and Barnabas' trip to Jerusalem. He wrote: "because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Galatians 2:4-10, ESV) Once again, the leadership among the Jewish part of the Church are portrayed here as accepting Paul and Barnabas and their work among the Gentiles.
Even so, Paul went on to give an account of a previous confrontation he had with Peter over his hypocritical behavior in front of those Jewish Christians who advocated Torah for Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14). For Paul, these folks were clearly NOT to be appeased - this went to the very heart of his message about salvation through Christ. He wrote: "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Galatians 2:15-21, ESV)
For Paul, Gentile Christians trying to obey Torah was akin to a freeman submitting to slavery. He summarized his position: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:1-6, ESV) Paul believed that Christ had fulfilled Torah, and that any Christian (Jew or Gentile) who was actively trying to be justified before God by obeying the Law had effectively severed him/herself from participating in salvation through Jesus Christ!
So, this was the situation within the Church about twenty years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Over the previous twenty years, there had been a large influx of Gentiles into the Church - people who had little to no familiarity with Torah and no tradition of practicing its tenets. Nevertheless, there was still a substantial group of Jewish Christians - both within Judea and in the synagogues of Gentile cities around the empire. Within that camp, there was also a small but vocal group of people who continued to believe that Christians were obligated to obey the commandments of Torah (Sabbath and Holy Day observance, circumcision, clean and unclean, etc.).
Within the Church as a whole, there were also a number of elements of the faith that had become universal (practiced by both Jewish and Gentile Christians). For example, both the Gospels and Paul's epistles make very plain that things like baptism, the Eucharist, and Christ's resurrection were held in high esteem by all. Indeed, in this connection, both the writings of the New Testament and of the people who immediately followed the apostles (the so-called Ante-Nicene Fathers), affirm that Sunday was a day highly regarded by ALL Christians by the close of the First Century. It was, after all, the day upon which Christ had been resurrected, and the Church had been founded (Pentecost). Moreover, as I have pointed out many times over the years, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans, it became physically impossible to observe the tenets of Torah in the manner prescribed by those writings. The old priesthood ceased to function. The Law of the Central Sanctuary was now defunct (there wasn't any Temple). Over the years that followed, Jews were forced to reimagine and reinterpret Torah in the light of their new circumstances.
In short, at the dawn of the Second Century, what had formerly been a wholly Jewish institution had been transformed into a Gentile one. The Jewish roots and traditions of those original disciples were replaced by the new and universal elements of the new faith. The Ekklesia of God was no longer an appendage or sect of the Jewish religion. Instead, it was now composed mostly of non-Jewish people and was rapidly expanding in reach and popularity within the Roman Empire. There hadn't been any Grand Conspiracy or deception, just the natural evolution of a new faith centered on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
66 comments:
Beats the hell out of Simon Magus! HWA could have known so much better if he had only read Irenaeus. The truth was right there all along.
BB
Am I missing something here?
Matthew 19:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
AND Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
The context of the Acts 15 debate was, "the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5), i.e. Circumcision and the the law of Moses. The Torah is not the law of Moses but is the first five books of the Bible which contains the law of God and the law of Moses. The law of God is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) which were written on stone tablets by the finger of God (Exo. 31:8) and were kept in the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:2).
The law of Moses was written by Moses (Deut 31:24-26)and kept in the side of the ark whereas the stone tablets occupied the centre of the ark. The apostle Paul clearly mentions in Colossians 2:14-17 what we New Testament Christians should no longer observe, the law of Moses.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ."
The Bible says the handwriting of ordinances were nailed to the cross. These handwriting of ordinances contained food (the word meat there is food), drink, new moons, holy days and Sabbath days. What in the Bible contains all these elements? Let the Bible explain itself.
2 Chronicles 33:8 – “ Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses."
Now it’s clear the handwriting of ordinances of Colossians 2:14 were written by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:24-26. Colossians 2:14 says that the handwriting of ordinances was against us and that was nailed to the cross. So it is the book of the law containing the handwriting of ordinances that was nailed to the cross. Let’s be more specific. What are these meat, drinks, hold days, new moons and Sabbath days that Colossians 2:14 is talking about?
2 Chronicles 8:13 – “ Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, [even] in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles"
This is not talking about the Ten Commandments of God. It is talking about the three Feasts in the year, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks, and Feast of Tabernacles, and these are the three that only male circumcised Israelites could keep. These three Feasts contain all the elements we find in Colossians 2:16; Sabbath days, new moons, and holy days. And with these three Feasts, you had to eat a certain way, you had to keep the Sabbath at the start of the Feast and at the end. This is not the seventh day Sabbath. These are the Feasts that were nailed to the cross which were a shadow pointing to the substance of reality which is Jesus Christ.
If you continue to keep the Feasts, it means the death of Christ was not enough. It means you want to return to those things that point to sacrifices, that points to a substance. It was a shadow that pointed to Christ and it would be an insult to God and the plan of salvation of mankind to return to the shadow.
Part 2
The Jews were constantly attacking the new teachings of the New Covenant to encourage the Gentiles to keep the law of Moses, even to be circumcised, i.e. advocating to keep the Old Covenant. Paul was teaching the Gentiles in Colossae to understand that we have been set free from this burden of keeping the law of Moses which consisted of keeping the cardinal Feasts since Christ nailed these ordinances at the cross. It was no longer a requirement for Christians to keep the Feasts. That is why there are no instructions in the New Testament on how to keep the Feasts. The church of God only introduced keeping of Feast Days during HWA time and Peter warns about such teachings:-
2 Peter 2:1-3 – “ 1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:"
Keeping the Feasts is denying Christ who nailed the ordinances on the cross and bought our salvation through His blood. It’s an act of greed (covetousness) by the leaders of the church of God! So says the Bible. The apostle John was inspired by God to write the true attributes of a Philadelphian:-
Revelation 3:8 – “ I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”
The warning about denying Christ’s name was given to the Philadelphian era because it is during this era that the keeping of Feast Days was introduced. God knew beforehand about this great deception that would be introduced in this era and each individual who is called by God should prove this point because much is at stake.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Thanks for the excellent summation of the events of the early church, something quite different to the stories one was told.
One wonders what came after Paul had been executed in Rome, allegedly beheaded.
At the end of his life Paul was writing of his loneliness, how Demas (who was once close to Paul as we read in Colossians 4) had deserted because of a love of this present world and went to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone was with him.
Apparently only Luke was left near. His last days hounded by Alexander the coppersmith who did great harm.
With Paul dead one wonders about the events in the church and between the Jewish Christians and those who were from among the Gentiles and had no desire to live according to the Torah.
"The Jewish roots and traditions of those original disciples were replaced by the new and universal elements of the new faith."
That is a true statement. Many abandoned the original teachings and replaced them with a new faith, and they called it "christian" even though it was something different. We see how it has degenerated into the hot mess that is Catholicism and Protestantism today, adopting the very liberal left wing ideas such as homosexual marriage and women in leadership positions.
A remnant has remained true to the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, however, and The Church is still here, and will be when Jesus returns.
"...affirm that Sunday was a day highly regarded by ALL Christians by the close of the First Century. It was, after all, the day upon which Christ had been resurrected, and the Church had been founded (Pentecost)."
Actually, following the timeline in the bible shows us that Jesus was resurrected late on the Sabbath, just before sunset. The resurrection was not discovered until the predawn hours of the first day of the week.
Also, Pentecost is not on Sunday, it is on the first day of the week, which falls partly on Saturday and partly on Sunday of the Roman calendar.
Justifications for Sunday keeping have been debunked over and over, but the deception is so strong people simply accept it. God will change that at the proper time.
Anonymous 2:33 wrote (referring to a passage in Matthew 19), "Am I missing something here?"
Yes.
This is an excellent passsage for Armstrongists. The young man approaches Jesus and says "what good deed must I do to have eternal life." This is what Armstrongism is all about - qualifying for the Kingdom through works. The answer, of course, is that there is nothing that you can DO to get eternal life. You must trust in Jesus with faith to receive eternal life. Faith will then lead you to a new life but the new life of good is a product and not the cause. Jesus is the only cause.
Jesus then leads the young man down a logical path that demonstrates to him that there is nothing that he can do to get eternal life. The young man claims to have kept the law - like a self-assured Armstrongist. But Jesus then speaks in terms of perfection and quickly finds a standard the young man cannot meet. Jesus concludes that with man and the way that man sees things by doing works, it is impossible get eternal life. But with God all things are possible - the conferring of grace, not doing, brings life.
Further, the Commandments that Jesus mentions are all a part of the New Covenant. Although I think Jesus at the time was referring to the Law of Moses and the young rich man was under that law. So this is not a definitive proof that the Law of Moses is somehow still in effect.
The outcome: there is no salvation in deluding yourself that you are keeping the Law of Moses.
Scout
This is one of the more intelligent articles that has been posted here. The author actually pays attention to actual Christian history, instead of blindly believing in the false traditions handed down by the Adventists groups and some Protestants. I basically did the same thing about 30 years ago. My journey started when I saw an ad for a book on early Church history in a Lutheran newspaper. I brought the book, and my pilgrimage away from Adventism and Protestantism began in earnest. I read all the early Christian history I could. Every bit of it knocked down the foundations that both Adventism and Protestantism were built upon. Sabbatarianism was shown to be a fringe movement no matter what century it made its appearance in. And Protestantism unique ideas, such as being saved by faith alone, are easily proven to be an invention of the 16th century. And recent research on Luther, who gave us that faith alone idea, shows he was heavily influenced by gnosticism. So, I realized, if I was to stay a Christian, Adventism or Protestantism was no longer an option for me, neither was unbelief. The evidence showed the Catholic Church was the historical Christian Church. So I became Catholic.
No secret knowledge, no grand conspiracy. Just the faith, once for all delivered.
Also, consider if the truth was lost and Satan nearly destroyed the church, that would make Satan stronger than the Lord.
Actually, following the timeline in the bible shows us that Jesus was resurrected late on the Sabbath, just before sunset. The resurrection was not discovered until the predawn hours of the first day of the week.
>>> if one insists the bible is easily understood in this matter they are of course entitled to such view.
The 72 hour theory was around in the late 1800's, adopted by Armstrong in the 1950's.
The exact 72 hour theory doesn't have regard to the fact that Jews/Bible/scriptures/custom used a part of a day and night to denote the whole.
There is the inclusive counting method and this is uncontroversial - see example below.
And in Matthew the reference to Jonah need to be squared with Matthew's use of all three phrases: “in three days,” “after three days,” and ‘’the third day’’ . I think 8 times in all. All of these are equivalent to “on the third day.”
Thus, there are good grounds to reason that where Matthew uses “three days and three nights” this too can only be intended to be equivalent to “on the third day.”
- that is - if one wants to have consistency by the same author, Matthew.
And elsewhere in other Gospels etc there are some 12 examples where ‘’in three days’’ or ’’the third day’’ are used.
Interesting to note too that the Gospel according to St. Matthew has three verses identical with those in St. Luke;
- he statement that an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and shall have no sign given it but the sign of the prophet Jonah;
- the statement that the men of Nineveh shall stand up in judgment and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jcnah ; and
- the statement that the queen of the south shall rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the most distant part of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon.
A fourth verse in the Gospel according to St. Matthew which is not in the Gospel according to St. Luke, and that is the statement, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the
belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three'
nights in the heart of the earth."
Some have been perplexed by this and wonder why the difference. It has been discussed over time.
To cut a long story short given the overwhelming use some 20 times of terms such as those described begin to decide the matter. to some at least and their grounds are reasonable.
The expression in Matthew ch 12 just referred to - given that all other verses don’t have that structure but refer to “the third day” or “in three days” - cautions that we ought use verse 40 idiomatically. That is, not literally.
Recall, in Matthew itself there are about half a dozen usages which do not have the three days and three nights structure
one of many examples of counting method shown below:
Cornelius, the Roman centurion, received his vision at the ninth hour (Acts 10:3) and immediately dispatched his servants to Peter.
The next day at noontime they met Peter (verse 9).
Then, “on the morrow” they left Joppa for Caesarea (verse 23) and arrived the next day (verse 24) at the exact hour (the ninth) when Cornelius had received the vision (verse 30);
- interestingly the hours from the time of the vision to the arrival of Peter were exactly 72 hours.
But it’s observed Cornelius called it the fourth day (verse 30)., thus showing quite clearly an inclusive reckoning , that is the day on which Cornelius received the vision was counted as the first day and this was unaffected by the fact only three hours were left. The time Peter arrived was accounted the fourth day.
Cornelius Us
Vision Day 1 —
Friends come to Caesarea Day 2 Day 1
Travel to Caesarea Day 3 Day 2
Meet with Cornelius Day 4 Day 3
I often think of the Hindu term "lila" when I hear that sort of depiction of the big bad Satan that constantly complicates the acts of the Christian God. In Hinduism the term refers to the notion that the divine is content and just at leisure. Like a big Sims game.
9:11 said: "Also, consider if the truth was lost and Satan nearly destroyed the church, that would make Satan stronger than the Lord."
Satan has always been talked about more in the COG than Jesus ever has been.
Satan always has been the more powerful entity. God, not so much. Jesus, even less.
God wasn't able to keep the faith alive for 1,900 years until he decided to send Herbert to an Oregon library where it had been hidden.
Ever since then, the restored "word" has been torn asunder by hundreds and hundreds of splinter groups each proclaiming their own message. That is why we are left today with such blithering idiots as Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack, Alton Billingsly, and Ron Weinland.
Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments 1Cor 7:19 NABRE.
Those of you who want to throw out the sabbath and 3 feasts............should reconsider Acts 17:2-sabbath, 1Cor 16:8-Pentecost, Acts 12:3-days of unleavened bread, Zech 14:16-feast of tabernacles/ingathering.
Jonah would have to be swallowed by the fish at exactly sunup or sunset to be in the fish 3 daylight, 3 dark/night periods for 72 hours. The scriptures do indicate part or whole of day or night: possible the 3 days (hemeras) were either calendar days Nisan 14,15,16, or, Fri PM after the darkness ending about 3PM, Sat, Sunday AM a few minutes-Mark 16:2; the 3 nights (nux) were Fri PM a few minutes-Luke 23:44, Fri night, Sat night-maybe only a few hours or minutes??
scout
Matthew 19 >>>>The young man claims to have kept the law ...
Good points
- Despite claims to being an observer of the law for as far back as he can recall, Jesus challenges the ruler to realize that he had not met the requirements of the commandment after all. He appears to have failed in regard to not being covetous - or for having too great a love of riches?
In Matthew chapter 5 verses 19 Jesus gave the only and most important teaching concerning the place of the law in the New Covenant times.
- In His discourse in chapter 5 Jesus elevated the law to its utmost level - it becomes readily apparent that Jesus well knows all claimant law keepers fail.
In light of such failure to meet the commandments at any level - certainly at the one so elevated by Christ in this most illuminating chapter 5 of Matthew - then if there is no way of entering into life but by keeping the commandments we must all fail.
Hence, the only answer is that as nothing short will do God should keep them in me. Which I think is what Paul mean’s when he says: ‘’I live·; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me’’.
Wasn't the crucifixion done on a Wednesday-ish high holy day "sabbath" & not on the 7th day weekly "sabbath"? (not sure if that date's "Hebrew year" would have been 3793, or, possibly Hebrew year 3999).
"an important part of that message was the fact that God had resurrected Jesus after the Sabbath, during the dark portion of the Jews' first day of the week - the one that the Romans called Sunday (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1-2, and John 20:1)."
Wasn't it significant that Jesus made a big deal out His one sign He'd give? The sign of a 3 days/3 nights Jonah reference of grave? Why squeeze Easter onto all that, at all cost...
Only by some speakers NO2HWA. Some.
Bob Thiel absolutely shit a brick today over this post.
So rapidly he forgot to proofread!
God’s commandments. Not the Old Covenant. Not Moses.
You want God’s wrath to not remain on you? Listen to His Son.
“He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
John 3:31-36 ESV
You want to do the work of God? Listen to His Son.
“Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.””
John 6:26-29 ESV
And many other such verses…
The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist and John prepared the way for the Lord. Jesus is Lord!
Some views equate moral commandments - being the Ten Commandments - with God and everything else they say is assigned to Moses.
However, the ‘’law of Moses’’, as explained by experts in the Torah, is all the laws essentially in four books (as Moses is not in Genesis), and it includes the ten commandments.
As a written code it is called the ‘’book of the law of Moses’’ ( 2 Kings 14:6 ; the "book of the law of God" ( Joshua 24:26 ) . Deuteronomy wherein there is a restatement of the ten commandments in chapter 5 and 27 is described as ‘’the book of the law’’. See also Wikipedia for a good summation.
The fact that all this is still being argued just goes to show what a challenge the Bible is. We should keep the Sabbath because Jesus quoted some of the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19. Oh, no, we DON'T need to keep the Sabbath because Jesus didn't mention the Sabbath in Matthew 19. We should keep the Sabbath because Hebrews 4 says there remains a Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos) to the people of God. Oh, no, we DON'T need to keep the Sabbath because Hebrews 4 is talking about our spiritual rest in Jesus. We don't need to keep the Sabbath because Romans 14 says that one man observes one day and another man observes another day and each man should be convinced in his own mind. Oh, no, we DO need to the keep the Sabbath because in Romans 14 Paul was talking about fast days and not the weekly day of rest (and you know that sneaky old Paul: some folks twist his comments to their own destruction). We don't need to keep the Sabbath because of Colossions 4. Oh, no, we DO need to keep the Sabbath because Paul was saying the Body of Christ (the church) should judge us in matters such as weekly and annual Sabbath-keeping. We don't need to keep the Sabbath because of the Jerusalem conference. Oh, no, we DO need to keep the Sabbath because the prohibitions given to Gentiles at the Jerusalem conference pertained to idolatry. We don't need to keep the Sabbath because of Galatians 4. Oh, no, we DO need to keep the Sabbath because Paul would never refer to the Sabbath as a "weak and beggarly element". We don't need to keep the Sabbath because outside of the Gospels no instruction is given by Paul or other New Testament writers on how to keep it. Oh, no, we DO need to keep the Sabbath because Sabbath-keeping for Christians was just assumed and therefore detailed instruction was not needed. For every verse that says one thing there's a verse that says another thing. For every interpretation one way there's another interpretation the other way. It's all just confusion. The Bible itself tells us that God is not the author of confusion, but one would think that the Supreme Intelligence in the universe could give us clearer instructions. Now, assuming the Bible is in fact the Word of God and not the Word of Satan or the Word of Uninspired Men, is it any wonder that people seek out gurus to tell them what it all means? Is it any wonder that so many men and a few women have come along in the past 2,000 years claiming to unlock the secrets of the Bible? Is your guru Herbert Armstrong or one of his wanna-be imitators? Is your guru the Pope and the Catholic Church? Is your guru someone else? "Oh, no, no!" you say. "We shouldn't have gurus! We should read the Bible and decide for ourselves!" That sounds like fine advice, but what good does it do? All you find are contradictions and rival interpretations. I haven't given up on the Bible, but all I can see is that the bottom line is conscience. If we do the best we can with what we understand then I don't see how God can hold that against us.
Phinnpoy said:
"And recent research on Luther, who gave us that faith alone idea, shows he was heavily influenced by gnosticism."
Have you even read the New Testament, you know, the book that the catholic church burned people at the stake for translating into the common tongue of the day- and for good reason.
The New Testament is the greatest witness of the SCAM that the Catholic Church created concerning the priesthood and the power of a limited few to control not only your own salvation, but the very fate of your departed loved ones- 'when the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs'. They even changed the canon of scripture in response to Luther's expose.
Anonymous J'onn J'onzz said...
The fact that all this is still being argued just goes to show what a challenge the Bible is...
Yes it is confusing as exemplified by the sabbath. That it is a confusing issue tells us something important in my view.
I came across an excellent book called "Sabbath in Christ'' - by Dale Ratzlaff. A former SDA Minister. who left the organization because Adventism’s sanctuary doctrine (The 1844 Investigative Judgment) was found to be unbiblical and contrary to the new covenant gospel of grace.
He wrote a book on sabbath which I think most would find informative. Chapter 19 concerns Hebrews 4.
I managed to find a PDF version on line if you look around you can find it.
Preface 13
1. Sabbath Questions 15
2. The Seventh Day in Genesis 21
3. The Abrahamic Covenant 29
4. The Old Covenant 39
5. Shadows of Christ 61
6. The New Covenant 81
7. Jesus and Ritual Law 93
8. Jesus and Old Covenant Moral Laws 101
9. Jubilee Sabbath 105
10. Lord of the Sabbath 117
11. Sabbath Conflicts 129
12. The Paradox of Sabbath Law 141
13. Sabbath in Acts 151
14. Sabbath in the Epistles 157
15. New Covenant Documents and Signs 183
16. A Better Covenant 193
17. A Better Law 201
18. Jesus, the Law’s Fulfillment 225
19. The Rest That Remains 237
20. Righteousness Beyond the Law 249
21. Life in the Spirit 255
22. The First Day of the Week 267
23. Sabbath Fulfillment in Christ 281
24. Assembling and Resting 297
25. Sabbath Arguments 307
26. The Sabbath and Seventh-day Adventists 325
27. The Testing Truth 349
Jerry Gladson answers Ron du Preez on Colossians 2:16 361
Gladson References 390
Selected Bibliography 392
Scriptural Index
JJ: good lord, dude! Ever hear of a new invention called "the paragraph"?
"The fact that all this is still being argued just goes to show what a challenge the Bible is..."
Not to those that are called. To them it's clear. The rest will have an opportunity to understand it later.
Miller, you wrote, “Now, although Acts gives us the impression that this settled the matter, we know from Paul's letter to the Galatians that some of the Jewish Christians continued to advocate for Gentiles to obey the commandments of Torah.”
Thank you for providing the flow of events involving the First Century church. This was a critical time in the church but the historical data we have is spare. For this reason, some events must be understood by inference. The only way we know what the Colossian Heretics believed is by reading Paul’s counterpoints to their attack on the Colossian congregation.
I agree, in principle, with your statement I cited above but I think a finer point might be put on it. I don’t think it was “Jewish Christians” who were advocating Torah-keeping. I believe they were Jews who were trying to co-opt Christianity. They, perhaps, associated themselves with Christianity but had intentions that were non-Christian. And I believe that at the center of their movement was the assertion that salvation does not come through Jesus alone. Hence, they exalted circumcision and the Law of Moses. Circumcision in the flesh was the hallmark of the Abrahamic Covenant and in it salvation was rooted. But Jesus, the promised seed, brought salvation that completed the Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision became of the heart.
So, you can see that if you were an opponent to Christianity and wanted to create havoc in the First Century Christian churches, circumcision would be a good entry point. And it is an entry point that naturally leads to the Law of Moses and the depreciation of Jesus. Their anti-Christian Kerygma was that Jesus alone is inadequate for salvation but must be accompanied by Torah-keeping. So, they did not just advocate Torah-keeping, plain and simple, but advocated Torah-keeping as the pathway to salvation, along with are in lieu of Jesus.
We find this theme running down through the centuries among the various dissenters from Christianity. Some Millerite derived denominations of various flavors seemed to have a penchant for Arianism. As I understand, there are still ministers in these denominations that are Arian. Arians do not believe Jesus is the co-equal of God. They believe that Jesus is not co-eternal with God. Rather, he is subordinate to God in both economy and ontology. And theologies that maintain that Jesus is subordinate to God the Father are latter-day assertions that are ideologically similar to the belief of the Circumcision Party and other similar First Century movements.
Scout
Jesus was resurrected late on the Sabbath, just before sunset. The resurrection was not discovered until the predawn hours of the first day of the week.
.......................
Really confusing about what is alleged to be going on that end of week sabbath eve.
As guards are posted and stone in place Jesus is also resurrected. But we read of a bodily resurrection?
Not to those that are called. To them it's clear. >> good to know it's all known, Armstrongism trait was one of claiming to know the truth while rest deceived.
Much debate? You mean Peter didn't just pound the lectern and yell: "YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT!"?
Scripture #1
Revelation 12:17 – And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Scripture #2
Revelation 14:12 – Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
Scripture #3
Revelation 22:14 – Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
Scout, your perspectives on it being the Jews themselves who were attempting to counter Christianity during the ministry of Paul are both interesting, and logical. They were most certainly doing that in other ways in order defend their faith, and do damage control. I can even see the fervent ones believing that it was a necessary part of their duty to keep their fellow Jews from apostatizing to follow a man whom they considered to be yet another in a series of false messiahs. It most likely grieved them deeply that someone as powerful in the Jewish faith as Saul (Paul) would have "become deceived" and turned to the side of the people whom he had formerly believed were heretics. One can easily understand why they would make this man a target. It is also easy to see differences in opinion between Jewish Christians and Gentile ones, although the individuals plaguing Paul's ministry would have been violating the edict of James.
Speculation about dual paths to salvation (Law of Moses and Jesus Christ) raises questions with regard to "Abraham's Bosom". This was a place, a part of Sheol, in which the righteous dead rested, awaiting the day of judgment and passage into the next life. The Jews also believed that righteous gentiles (the ones who kept the laws of Noah) would also repose there awaiting judgment. Jesus references the differing places in Sheol (at one point in those beliefs there were four) and the barriers between them, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. It's how the Jews perceived salvation during the time of Jesus, and the beliefs in Abraham's bosom had evolved over time, being slightly different at the time of the second Temple from the those at the time of the first Temple. The concept of "soul sleep" appears to be a throw-back to the Sinai Covenant, much the same as are the laws of Moses and circumcision. Traditional Christianity today teaches that the righteous dead from ancient times, who rested in Abraham's Bosom" with Lazarus, were saved by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, by which the past present and future sins of mankind were forgiven.
Armstrongism has oft been described as a combination of (by kindly describers) or alternatively as a cross-contamination of, the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. HWA taught that there was always one standard for all of mankind, the eternal law and government of God embodied by the Law of Moses. Jewish tradition was that this was the eternal law for God's chosen people, the Jews/Israelites, but that righteous gentiles could attain salvation by adhering to the Noahide laws. To support his own beliefs and conclusions as to what constitutes the New Covenant, HWA had to actually fight scriptures, particularly those written in Greek, to make it appear that the New is actually the Old, the only difference being the introduction of Messiah. Isn't it amazing that people who have never been exposed to Armstrongism read the New Testament without being confused? They filter the Old Covenant through the New. HWA "corrected" the New Covenant by filtering it and modifying it through the Old.
BB
Sorry, I didn't respond earlier because Darlene and I had to go to Chicago for a medical procedure, but I do appreciate everyone who took the time to read the post and respond. I do believe that conscience is more important than comprehension to God. As for the focus on the commandments, once again, I believe that the Gospels are clear about the fact that our right standing with God is entirely attributable to Jesus Christ. Moreover, I also believe that the Ten Commandments are comprehended in the Two Great Commandments which he drew from Torah and gave to his disciples. For me, this is what John was referring to in the book of Revelation when he referenced those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus. Love does no hurt or harm to another; therefore, it fulfills the requirements of the Law. Finally, coming full circle, Christ did NOT say that comprehension would identify his true disciples - he said that LOVE would identify those who were truly his! He used as the identifier because he understood that the Holy Spirit guides and leads us. It does NOT force us to comprehend or ensure that we won't make mistakes in our theology - Our understanding is entirely dependent on the degree to which each of us yields to the Spirit's leadership.
The Law and the Promise
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It s extremely important to realize that Jesus fulfilled the law as He and the Father, the authors, visualized it, and not as any humans would anthropomorphically define it. He often did this with a sense of Godly humor, such as when he mixed spit and clay to heal the blind man on the sabbath, knowing that it violated the extra Pharisaic do's and don'ts which were added during the intertestamental period. To the Pharisees, that violated their prohibition against making building materials on the sabbath. The bogus corn harvesting rap on another occasion provided additional humor, as did the writing on the ground to expose those who wanted the young woman they caught fornicating put to death.
Of further note is the fact that the Pharisees would have considered everything they said and did as being perfectly normal. It was all customary as part of their established Second Temple culture. They resented the fact that another teacher was showing them and their followers a better way. I'm certain that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were all affected by bias confirmation, as they evaluated and processed everything that Jesus said and did. How could they not be??? Still, that was described as being the hardness of their hearts! Paul mourned it!
BB
I was part of the COG pit for 15 years and since coming out, I have learned a lot from here and from another site. I will no longer trust in men, but God's word as I see it and understand it, knowing that God has opened his spirit to all and in the end we will all be judged according to our faith and not our works. God is the ultimate judge and no man can judge but run his own race and hope that in the end his faith is enough to find eternal life. Let God be true and every man a liar.
"As for the focus on the commandments, once again, I believe that the Gospels are clear about the fact that our right standing with God is entirely attributable to Jesus Christ. Moreover, I also believe that the Ten Commandments are comprehended in the Two Great Commandments which he drew from Torah and gave to his disciples. For me, this is what John was referring to in the book of Revelation when he referenced those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus. Love does no hurt or harm to another; therefore, it fulfills the requirements of the Law."
Love does not hurt nor harm, do you believe false teachings cause harm? I sincerely ask in love - James 3:1
I also believe the Ten Commandments are comprehended in the Two Great Commandments, though I ask if you believe this then to what point? How many of the Ten are comprehended in the Two Great Commandments?
If you are teaching the Sabbath was done away with and Sunday is now the day of worship ( which is not Biblical ) making the Law null and void in 1/10 of the commandments, then do you really believe the the Ten are comprehended in the Two Great Commandments? How many laws are still valid?
I believe ALL TEN are included, not nine out of ten, not eight out of ten, ALL TEN. Sabbath was made for man, did God change His mind? - Numbers 23:19
I ask humbly and pray that you read Romans 3, carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully.
I do not say any of this in judgement, I have been deceived myself, greatly deceived - believing it was God's desire and will. Thank God for the humbling, a great and powerful humbling that I didn't even know I needed.
Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written:
“So that You may be proved right when You speak
and victorious when You judge.”
[Long post, if tl:dr]This is the same position the author of the article promotes every time on this site. That author has been challenged before on the "love god with all your heart and neighbor as yourself which takes care of everything" belief that according to him supersedes all things that that he the author does not want to do like the dismissing of the sabbath directives like do not be working or have others working for you during those periods.
He wrote in a previous thread that Jews might not make people work or work themselves, but the gentiles do not need to worry about that. Evidently, those who work for gentiles do not need the seventh day as a day of rest according to this teaching. There is no evidence found in scripture that this is directed by the Creator because it is obviously not.
Also, a review of his posts when challenged shows that he skips from one point to another thinking he can switch gears and prove the point yet, never providing a true explanation which will not come because it cannot be produced. Additionally, the commandments were for more than just Jews when they were given to mankind.
Additionally, regarding commandments such as those dealing with same sex relationships for example, he has commented on such relationships before. It is a true fact that avoiding such relationships as the commandments clearly show is in effect is loving one's neighbor and that it is not eleminated by the 2 great commandments on which the others including it are based. The commandments are connected to one another and to these 2 great commandments as the Messiah clearly says and those 2 do not eliminate the others.
If the op believes he is correct about the big 2 covering all, then any type of relationship where all in the party are "happy with it" has to be ok. It is their's to have and no one else has a say. They are loving each other as themselves in their minds and yes, there are those who are of that attitude in this matter as well as many other wrongful actions. All in the party think it is ok to do. That author may have provided his feelings on certain types of relationships before, but his feelings have nothing to do with the way one is to live and they are directives for no one.
The Creator of the universe is the one whose directives are to be followed and those who are chosen know, understand, and are working to get to the point where they do what those directives say always. Not some of them, but all of them. As James writes, faith is shown by works. Obviously, those works have to be in accordance with what the Creator says is the way, the truth, and the life. Otherwise, they show faith in something else.
[Long post - part 2]It is simple to put James 2:18, John 14:15, and Matthew 5:16-20 together along with I Corinthians 10:4 and then look for more information about that Rock in the Tanach and Torah more specifically to find out what the message of the Creator is.
There may be some who would not be upset by a same sex relationship and thus, think they are loving their neighbor as themselves if they are in or aware of such a relationship where all are happy. The scriptures clearly show that no matter what one thinks, allowing as permissible, accepting, and engaging in same sex relationships is not correct in any way ever. Since there are some who find no issue in such a relationship, it is necessary for the torah directives against such behavior to be in effect. A summary statement (2 great commandments) does not eliminate the other commandments as it is clear that some may not know that loving a neighbor as oneself entirely eliminates such activities as being good. However, one who understands the directives regarding such relationships can clearly understand the 2 great commandments.
Thus, this supposed love for the neighbor that someone believes is true is in fact entirely false and evil. Given the author of the threads belief, he has to accept that those just mentioned who believe they (all parties) are loving a neighbor in a same sex relationship with one another truly are correct in their belief. Thus, that author has to accept at least some same sex relationships as proper. He will try to wiggle out of this, but ultimately, he is wrong no matter what his feelings are. Look for more repetition with no proof, diverting to another topic, etc. in his replies and in the future if he continues to post. He remains by his current beliefs as he has stated them one who accepts at least some forms of relationships that the Creator says are abominable and whose punishment is death.
Nevertheless, the word of the Creator is correct. Always.
He writes in his article that with the temple gone, it is impossible to do that law stuff. It is not known why a believer is unable to observe a seventh day weekly sabbath or yearly feast day because the temple services are no longer with us, especially when he allows for jewish observance of such things as resting on the sabbath, not having others working for you on the sabath, etc. as he has posted before.
We see on this site and others the move from the stupidity of armstrongism to stupidity of the protestant type belief of loving your neighbor as yourself and god with all your heart which allows him in his mind to eliminate the directives that he does not want to observe like protestants will do and which I saw occuring back through the years myself.
In addition, knowing the seventh day is the correct day of rest versus moving to another day is no better when one is doing other things that are wrong. Herb's way was no better than all of the other false religions. The belief held by some that were in that and still observe the wrong things that were taught and which were enforced is no better than any other wrong religion. They are all dead.
This is the typical way of humans that the Bible shows to those who understand. People pick and choose what they want to do from the directives of the Creator and they also in many cases add requirements that they submit are commandments of the Creator (i.e. law) even without saying so directly while those supposed commandments are simply traditions and thus, people who believe them to be required are acting in an evil way.
In fact, those who participate in these actions just described are liars. Some of them really do not understand what they are doing as many are called and few are chosen. Regardless, untrue statements are not truth (i.e. they are lies) and those who do not speak the truth whether they know what they are doing are lying.
In summary, it is likely that that these lies will continue. As has occurred previously, he will ignore, come up with tangent arguments that do not address the matter, and continue providing the same responses in an attempt to deflect challenges to his belief because he cannot provide responses that disprove the truth. He will not directly dismiss the arguments as he simply cannot. He will just feel like he is doing so.
As noted previously, it is likely that he will try to submit in his dissertations (of denying the directives of the Creator) that loving one's neighbor as oneself (along with loving the Creator with all one's heart) takes care of everything and while he says he has expressed his feelings on same sex relationships here in the past, his feelings have nothing to do with the directives of the Creator and when compared to what the word of the Creator says, is clearly not loving with all one's heart.
In short, he says the big 2 cover it all while the Creator who explained those 2 great commandments when he was on earth as a human just like us said that not a bit is changing until heaven and earth pass and all is fulfilled which obviously means that the commandments are based on those 2. Since the passing of heaven and earth and fulfillment of all things scripture shows will occur obviously have not happened, the excuse that there is no temple so we cannot do anything except the big 2 is clearly evidence of stupid is as stupid does.
It is easy to see what is happening and it will likely continue.
Please be more specific when writing Jesus "fulfilled" the law. Do you mean ended the law or magnified the law? Or do you have another definition? If so, expound.
Byker Bob 11:02 wrote, “Armstrongism has oft been described as a combination of (by kindly describers) or alternatively as a cross-contamination of, the New Covenant with the Old Covenant.”
Good to hear from you.
Rather than “cross-contamination”, I would use the word "conflation". At one time I collected information on some of the early apostasies from Christianity. I was struck at how many advocated the Law of Moses – in line with your point I cited above. I have lost this data and will have to find it again. But I remember the Ebionites, for example. They believed in Jesus and had a Christology as a part of their beliefs. But they also believed that the Torah must be kept. And, of course, they believed that Jesus was simply a human being and denied most of the doctrines that pertained to him such as the Virgin Birth. The Cerinthians were similar. They believed in Jesus in a fashion. But they also advocated Torah-keeping. I believed they also used some of the Ebionite writings. The Cerinthians also denied the fact that Jesus was God. They asserted that he was just an ordinary man. Then they had a Christology that asserted other ideas about him. But Cerinthus required his followers to strictly observe the Law of Moses in order to attain salvation.
After a while, you see a trend:
1. An odd Christology.
2. An assertion that the Law of Moses is required for salvation.
3. The derogation of Jesus by denying he is the full source of salvation.
I categorize the Arians along with the various sects that follow this model. And Arian viewpoints figure prominently into some of the Millerite denominations. Apparently, this model works well – it is repeated over and over again. In some cases, the Arianism is somewhat veiled. The idea that Christ is co-equal with the Father is simply denied without a lot of discussion.
Like Old Neo used to say, “What goes around, comes around.”
Scout
After reading Anon 5:53:00 PM, I'm getting sentimental- how I miss good ol' Spanky!
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/02/jesus-christ-fulfilled-hebrew-scriptures.html
The books were not written for us to just use what we want, Romans 4 is a continuation of chapters 1, 2 and 3, like all of the epistles. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.. It is clear in the scripture, and God does not contradict himself. We have to read the letters linearly to understand the whole message and get out of the mindset of a little bit here, there etc. which was taught and gave men their power of the people. We have to accept that God is watching us all, whether we do what he wants, and knowing what His will is, and much more. We study to show OURSELVES approved unto GOD, not men. We are not on this earth to prove who is and who is not right. God will Judge. I believe the two commandments are crucial and God knows that time will be the ultimate enemy for us all, with the many interpretations, commentaries, and false ministers, prophets trying to tell you that salvation is through them or some sort of organisation. All I know is, if you keep the Sabbath, or Sunday or whatever day, I will not judge, I know that Saturday is the day God had called the Sabbath, and that is was the day He rested, and also the Day he gave to Israel to be a sign and was a mark for them. All that was destroyed in 70AD and up to now, men have made it a burden on people, but God knew this, and knew man could not be saved by the law. He made things simple, not saying we become murdering, idol worshipping adulterers, you all are old enough to understand what I am saying. Love God and keep his commandments as Solomon says. Don't Judge, don't condemn, and let's love one another as He loved us. This is not a competition, we are here on this earth to co operate and be like the ones that enter into His joy , when He says, you have been faithful in a few things... or when He says to the sheep, when you done the least of these things to my brethren, you do also unto me, these are the entry requirements, not keeping law, and that will not gain you entry as Christ is the one who opened the door for us all, and that we can by our own selves gain salvation in the simplicity laid by Christ.
Abraham Justified by Faith
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has discovered?
Rom 4:2 If Abraham was indeed justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Rom 4:4 Now the wages of the worker are not credited as a gift, but as an obligation.
Rom 4:5 However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4:6 And David speaks likewise of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
Rom 4:7 “Blessed are they whose lawless acts are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.
Rom 4:10 In what context was it credited? Was it after his circumcision, or before? It was not after, but before.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but are not circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
Rom 4:12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
The Promise Realized Through Faith
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world was not given through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
Rom 4:14 For if those who live by the law are heirs, faith is useless and the promise is worthless,
Rom 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may rest on grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
Rom 4:17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.
Rom 4:18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”
Rom 4:19 Without weakening in his faith, he acknowledged the decrepitness of his body (since he was about a hundred years old) and the lifelessness of Sarah’s womb.
Rom 4:20 Yet he did not waver through disbelief in the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
Rom 4:21 being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised.
Rom 4:22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Rom 4:23 Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham,
Rom 4:24 but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Rom 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.
Agree. The regular commentators on here do not understand fully. They have one foot in and one foot out.
I think you are on to something, Scout, with the apostasies being coupled with Arianism. I was somewhat shocked when prominent people in the splinters began teaching the "One God" theory (new name for Arianism). Sir Anthony Buzzard was one of the leaders of this sub-movement, and I believe Ken Westby was as well. As I became aware of it through some of the other blogs and forums and learned more about it, I said to myself, "These people! When will it stop? They are doing the same thing to Jesus that they did to the Holy Spirit!"
BB
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/05/from-against-heresies-book-iv.html
Robert Owen 2:09 wrote, “…God has opened his spirit to all and in the end we will all be judged according to our faith and not our works. God is the ultimate judge and no man can judge but run his own race and hope that in the end his faith is enough to find eternal life. Let God be true and every man a liar.”
I suggest you reconsider this statement. Christians are not judged by their faith. The faith they have residing in them is the faith of Christ. It is not their own human faith which is small and worthless. It is faith that comes through Christ living his life in us through the Holy Spirit. [There is some controversy as to whether the Greek phrase “pistis Christou” means “faith in Christ” or “faith of Christ.” I believe the weight to evidence supports the latter]. We are saved by grace through faith but the faith is the faith of Christ not ours. We may have an inclination to believe God but I believe God also engenders that in us and that it stems from the fact that we are created in his image and his purposes are intelligible to us.
Christians are rewarded according to their works. This is the only thing I know of from scripture that requires some final decision-making concerning the lived life of Christians. This is not judgment leading to salvation but to various rewards in the resurrected life. Works are a product of salvation not a cause of salvation. Works are correlated with salvation but are not the means of salvation.
Scout
Thank you Scout, my English and my grammar is not brilliant. Works, yes good one, and thank you for highlighting. What is works? Does it mean that we keep the whole law, keeping the Sabbath in its purest form, or holy days, clean and unclean meats? Or is it when my brother is in need of food or clothing, and it is in my power to help, or not? Will I pray for him, or tell him to go fast and pray, or do I help him in his time of need. The book of James is clear and I know what works are and we can show our faith by our works which is love towards our neighbour. The things I do in private, prayer, fasting, alms etc are between me and God. I just simply see what I understand and God will be the judge, not you or anyone and when I am taken out of context, no fault of you, maybe the way I write, then you clearly do not understand the road or where I am coming from. I wish all here all the best and I am not here to tell you, I just see it as I see it. I am not here to argue, debate, or be in competition with anyone. God see and know and as a father, grandfather myself, i know what I would want from my children and grand children, and I would not want to restrict them in any way to live life, but would want them to be kind, loving, merciful, caring etc.
I will "cherry pick", determine from scripture which law to obey today. Laws with, under, the Levitical Priesthood (LP) are now removed, including tithing. But others are valid now: unclean meats, lunar calculations of the Jewish Calendar, the weekly sabbath, three festivals, sex laws of Lev 18, 20, others that in principle love God and others as yourself. There is no law against cherry picking.
No, Robert Owen, I think you have underscored an important point here. Armstrongist thought sometimes sees the concept of "works" as simply equating "obedience to the law". Which I do not think was the author's intent.
No, 8:40, we all cherry pick every day of our lives. There is something wrong with hardsetting one's cherry picks and teaching them as the only path to salvation. That's what the HWAcaca was all about.
Robert Owen 7:46
Works are behaviors and actions. This is in contrast to the state of mind or state of heart. Both faith and repentance are states of mind or heart. Helping the elderly neighbor lady bring her groceries in is a behavior or action. Shouting "Unclean!" as you approach people if you have a skin outbreak is a behavior.
States of mind or heart lead to actions and behaviors. Faith and repentance both lead to good actions and good behaviors.
Salvation is granted on the basis of faith or state of mind or heart. By grace through faith. Rewards in the resurrection life are granted based on good works.
The problem with the Circumcision Party, the Ebionites, Cerinthians and others similar cults is that they believed that keeping the Law of Moses (works) led to salvation.
While these ideas are simple, they were the subject of great controversy in the early church. And there are denominations now that don't believe this and have made theological shipwreck.
Scout
Not saved by works, eh?
Well, why did Jesus say to Peter, "you have no part with Me (i.e., have no salvation) if you don't keep the footwashing service"?
Is that salvation by works?
What about baptism? If you have faith but refuse baptism, will you be saved?
Is baptism then salvation by works?
A true Christian's thoughts/actions/behavior will reflect the fact that he/she has been saved. A good tree will produce good fruit. Even so, he/she will stumble on occasion. If we say that we (Christians) have no sin, we make God a liar and the truth is not in us.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Like the epistles of Paul, Armstrongites tend to misunderstand and/or twist the epistle of James. Actually, James' epistle supports the thesis of my posts about Christ's condensation of God's Law into two commandments. Context, context, CONTEXT:
James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
It's hard to get at the truth with soundbites. Proof texting is a dangerous exercise in trying to understand Scripture. This passage is entirely consistent with both Scout's and my statements above.
You seem to be inserting Armstrongist thought into your Bible. Jesus did not say if you do not keep foot washing service. This isn’t about a religious ritual, but rather what the plan has been all along. Jesus Christ cleanses us, purifies us and makes us holy. Something no person can ever brag about doing themselves…
This is what He said:
“Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.””
John 13:8 ESV
The original disciples didn’t understand what Christ was doing that night. They did. Eventually. Jesus was foreshadowing the cleansing He was going to do the next day. If you are not cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, then you have no part in Him. His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness and cleanses our conscience from dead works.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:9 ESV
“how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
Hebrews 9:14 ESV
“Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.””
John 13:7 ESV
If Christ is in you you are doing works and keeping the commandments and awaiting your salvation when you become immortal.
Anonymous 12:18 wrote, "Well, why did Jesus say to Peter, "you have no part with Me (i.e., have no salvation) if you don't keep the footwashing service"?
This was a special ceremony for the disciples. It is an action of Jesus and not works done by the disciples. Very likely it symbolizes the cleansing force of the Holy Spirit who is frequently compared to water. This ceremony is not available in its physical aspects to us. Jesus, to my knowledge, has washed nobody's feet since this occasion related in the Gospels.
Anonymous 12:18 also wrote, "What about baptism? If you have faith but refuse baptism, will you be saved? Is baptism then salvation by works?"
I believe most Christian churches hold that Baptism is not required for salvation but should be undertaken if at all possible. The Thief on the Cross was not baptized. If you refuse baptism, you probably are not with the program and can't expect much. Moreover, baptism is not something you do. It is something that you submit to. And the church and its ministry conduct the ceremony. Baptism does not cause salvation. Jesus does. Baptism is a symbolic statement.
I believe there are Restoration Movement denominations that believe in what is called "baptismal regeneration". They do believe that baptism is one of the requirements for salvation. I know that there are issues with their exegesis but I have not looked into it myself.
Scout
Lonnie concludes his post on the first century with, "there hadn't been any Grand Conspiracy or deception, just the natural evolution of a new faith centered on the person of Jesus Christ".
Sounds good, but with the scriptural description of both the human heart (Jer.17, Rom.8:7) and this corrupt world system (John 7:7), can anything really be considered organic and purely natural in its evolution?
At the conclusion of his ministry, Paul in Acts 20:28-31 delivers a sobering glimpse of things to come in the future, and it's not all peaches and cream.
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves . . for I know this, that after my departing shall grevious wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock. Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch and remember . .".
If Catholic tradition and history means anything, they claim their beginnings with Peter as the first pope, followed by Linus, 67 AD, Anacletus, and Clemens rounding out the first century. Ignatius of Antioch uses the term "Catholic church" in 110 AD just 10 years after the death of the apostle John, which was about the time the church founded by Jesus Christ was in full transition to a well oiled machine of this world system, with its unique beliefs and non scriptural traditions.
At present, the church founded by Jesus Christ has splintered into 41,000 differing denominations, with more being added day by day, all claiming to be organic and genuine, having evolved from the first century.
Moving forward, by the time we reach the end of the final age, Scripture reports
false Christs and false prophets (Matt 24:24),
the whole world deceived and wondering after the Beast (Rev.13:3),
and the complete failure of the human race and destruction of this world system by the returning Jesus Christ (Rev, 11:15, 19:11-21) to restore (apokatastasis) all things from a state of ruin (Acts 3:19-21).
This is not conspiracy theory, but the natural evolution of sinful man and the love of money and power!
BP8,
As usual, you make some good points. I think that many men have arisen in the ranks of Armstrongism who have been deceived and have actively sought to deceive others. Unfortunately, this is part of the future as prophesied in Scripture (and it isn't confined to the Armstrong Churches of God). I certainly have NOT swallowed the Roman Catholic version of history "hook, line, and sinker" either.
The Lord was talking about feet, not the soul, 3:34. And they were already clean. Can't you read John 13? It was an example for us to follow, a commandment that He instituted with the penalty that "you have no share with Me" if you don't do it. And I know you people don't like commandments. And it's not Armstrongism but directly from the Lord.
You people who like to twist the Scripture, consider Col 2:16 again. You want to have Paul turn the sabbaths and holydays into useless shadows, yet what about the eating and drinking part? Maybe Paul was doing away with breakfast, lunch and dinner, turning them into a mere shadow of the future when we will be eating angels' food? No?
3:46, the festivals and sabbaths weren't nailed to the cross. Why then were the apostles keeping the Sabbath soon after? Because they weren't familiar with the future apostle's theology (Paul's)? Nonsense.
Miller seems to think everything went just smoothly for the faith into the 2nd century. Obviously he wasn't one of those martyred for the faith during that time. Paul said that grievous wolves would come in and tear the church up after his decease. (Acts 20:29)
9:56, even if Acts 10:3-30 supports inclusive numbering, it doesn't contradict the plain facts of Mt 12:40 that He was in the grave for 3 full days, unless you want to provoke God by changing it to suit your doctrine.
Right, 8:07, the resurrection is confusing because some truths were suppressed. The gospel accounts don't completely agree because they were doctored (changed) just enough to present some confusion over what happened, but enough evidence exists. We know from Mt 12:40 that He (his body) was in the grave for 3 full days from late Wednesday, meaning the resurrection occurred on late Sabbath. There is documentation to support this. The gospel accounts show that the tomb was open while it was yet dark, meaning that He was already out. The guards witnessed when the angel came down to roll back the stone. (Mt 28:2) The poor translation of Mt 28:1 brings some confusion as to when this occurred. This allowed the Lord to come out bodily after the 2 angels unwrapped Him. (Jn 20:12)
2:09 says we are not judged according to works? What? You've never read Rev 20:12?
The Cambridge Dictionary for “minute” reads:
“A1
one of the 60 parts that an hour is divided into, consisting of 60 seconds...
A2
used in spoken English to mean a very short time:
Hang on/Wait a minute - I just have to get my bag.
Just a minute - I'll be with you when I've finished this.
I won't be a minute (= I will be ready soon)...”
From the above a “minute” can be used literally (A1) or idiomatically (A2).
Mt 12:40 so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Mt 16:21b and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mk 9:31b and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Lk 9:22b and be slain, and be raised the third day
The “third day” is a Hebrew idiom for “the day after tomorrow”.
Lk 13:32b and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
This Hebrew idiom is incorporated in Jesus’ saying in Luke 13:32.
The implication of the “third day” idiom used by all the Synoptics is that Matthew 12:40 can not be understood literally. Just as the third day” is an idiom so is “three days and three nights” (sunrise to sunrise days).
That “three days and three nights” - not three nights and three days - can have an idiomatic sense can be found in Jewish literature:
“It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, day and night each are a term, and part of a term is like the whole...” (sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.9.3).
“Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi: (Circa 70 CE-circa 135 CE) Mishnaic sage. (chabad.org)” hence a near contemporary of Matthew.
A modern example of counting parts of time:
“... in Canada and the U.S.A. a child is deductible for income-tax purposes at the full year rate even if he or she was born at 11 p.m on December 31” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.381).
Lk 24:21b today [Sunday] is the third day since these things were done.
In Hebraic reckoning, Friday is the third day from Wednesday, Saturday is the third day from Thursday and Sunday is the third day from Friday.
1 Co 5:7b For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Lev 23:10b and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
Lev 23:11 And he shall elevate [henip] the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall elevate it.
That Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the third day from Friday, implies that the sheaf of firstfruits was to be reaped and elevated on the first working day after the Sabbath, to commence the barley harvest. Jesus fulfilled typology - passover and firstfruits; in between He also kept the fourth commandment - “and rested the seventh day” (Ex 20:11).
Other uses of “third day” idiom:
Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes,
Ex 19:11 And be ready against the third day:
Lev 7:16b it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:
Lev 7:17a But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
Lev 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
Post a Comment