The Day of Atonement

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by FCoulter, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. To put it in a "nut" she'll sda are Sabbath keeping Protestants that are one of the many daughter churches of the RCC.

    I don't for the life of me understand why the Adventist jump into a thread and try to explain how to keep a day they don't keep.

    Shows just how screwy they really are.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    The irony is, all protestant churches have their genesis in protesting or leaving Catholicism. So, by your same logic you would be a daughter church of the RCC.

  3. Um NO I am NOT Protestant. I do NOT share the same beliefs or doctrines of the RCC.

    BTW the FIRST church in the NT was NOT RCC.

    I am glad, however, that you don't deny you as a Protestant are a daughter of the RCC.
  4. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    If you are not protestant, then you must be logically Catholic. As much as you try to be Jewish, you are not that either.

    Though your usual comments put me in mind of Revelation 2:9, "<sup> </sup>I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich!<sup class="crossreference" value='(S)'></sup> I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not,<sup class="crossreference" value='(T)'></sup> but are a synagogue of Satan."<sup class="crossreference" value='(U)'></sup> <sup class="versenum"></sup>
  5. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I am A Christian.

    Sorry you are so blinded to not know what that is.
  6. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    Prove it.
  7. rgregoryb

    rgregoryb Sapere aude

    Now that's funny :rofl::rofl:

    cause you sure aren't the example of a Christ like
    attitude in this forum, matter of fact you're quite the opposite you would make a good Pharisee. Actually you helped me realize that this whole tale you're telling about christianity is a myth. Because if there was a god, he sure wouldn't call the likes of you.
  8. Then I had you, and the SDA, wrong. I apologize. Shot my big mouth off without doing the homework.
  9. Brasso

    Millennium Member

    Yes, please go learn what that means.

    Mercy, not sacrifice refers to the idea that you are not sinning on purpose, thus requiring a sacrifice for your atonement. But rather, you live a life of obedience, relying on His grace to cover you on the points you misss.

    You are so far off in what you believe that it's really not evenworth the effort anymore to try and convince you with plain, black and white scripture. If you don't believe Moses, why would you believe Christ. It's you who are the Pharisee. Relying on your own works, or lack thereof, to save you. You live a faithless life. You rely completely on grace, which is wrong. It's grace that He died for you so you could be in covenant with Him. The rest is up to you live a life in accordance with His instructions. When you throw those instructions out, despite Him having said they were forever, it's the definition of FAITH-LESS. The justified shall live by believing every word that comes form the mouth of God. Not picking and choosing.

    When you can explain why God was wrong and didn't know what He was talking about when He called the Feast an everlasting statute, then we can talk. Of course you won't. Because you can't. But you call me a pharisee anyway and go about your business as if half the Bible doesn't exist, because it's easier to live by your own reasoning than Gods. But the day is coming. And you will finally understand. I look forward to that day when we can worship Him in Spirit and in Truth together.

    You are in good company though. There even seem to be some atheists that agree with your faithless faith.
    #29 Brasso, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012

  10. God is not wrong. You are wrong and making false accusations because of your flawed understanding.

    God made an everlasting statute. The piece you refuse to understand is that it was for the nation of Israel and not the Gentiles.

    The old nation of Israel is gone. It was destroyed along with the temple.

    You are going to argue that the nation of Israel is forever even though it rejected Christ. Paul speaks of the earthly Jerusalem as being in bondage for the same philosophy you are expounding.

    Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
    Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
    Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
    Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
    Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
  11. If you (and I allow for this possibility, however remote it appears) are a regenerated believer, why are you so damn hostile? That is NOT Christian. Muscogee called me proud and arrogant because I asserted historically orthodox positions, but I didn't attack people. This ^ is personal.

    Tabernacles will be kept eternally, and Jesus is the eternal 'Firstfruits' from the dead. None of this means we should be keeping the feasts as an expression of our redemption. There is no need to keep/observe Passover -- or Atonement -- ever again. The True blood that cleanses has been spilled, and accepted. If you want to be literal, and go back to goat's blood for Atonement, good luck with your salvation. The Bible couldn't be any more clear about the temporary nature of the Feasts as teaching moments. You seem to be advocating a legalist position, much like the Judaizers whose clock Paul cleaned in book after book.

    I'm all for free expression of religion, but I do take exception to corruptions of Christianity. So far, your attitude isn't commending your doctrine in a way that would make me believe you got your hands on the last piece of truth.
  12. Before I go any further, may I ask you one thing? Are you saying Paul didn't continue to keep Gods Feasts after Christ died?

    I'll wait on you to answer before I continue.
  13. Brasso

    Millennium Member

    Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles1 in the flesh, who are called &#8216;the uncircumcision&#8217; by what is called &#8216;the circumcision&#8217; made in the flesh by hands, Footnote: 11 Cor. 12:2.
    Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra&#8217;&#277;l and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
    Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1513;&#1506; you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

    Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household of Elohim,1 Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.

    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.

    I doubt any of that will make a dent in your theology, but there it is, in black and white. You are Israel. Grafted in. Not a new Israel. Part of what has already existed.

    Amo 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

    Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
    Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

    And I've showed you that the interpretation you insist on is wrong, several times.

    We will be keeping the Feasts during His reign. This is also in black and white. Even the new moons.

    Why would we not keep a Feast that He has NOT fulfilled yet? He tells us to keep Passover. Messiah Himself does this. Yet, you reject it. He tells us that not a single jot or tittle will pass from the Torah till heaven and earth pass away. You reject it.

    But who am I to judge another man's servant. Please forgive me. From now on I will try and refrain from posting here.
    #33 Brasso, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  14. I believe he had Timothy circumcised, and moved to dedicate him in the Temple. (This maneuver earned him a visit with Ceasar.) I'm not aware of any feast he kept beyond that, but if he did, it was because he was moving between Jewish and Gentile worlds, being "all things to all men, that [he] might save some." How could he write Galatians with such force, repudiating the ceremonial law (though not the moral law) as of any worth in the transaction of salvation?

    I'm open to this Theologicasl debate, but I chimed in here at all because the tone was off the charts. I won't accuse you of anything, so maybe we can be civil to each other.
  15. Paul sure did keep the feasts being as he was a circumcised Jew. This was a lifetime vow.
    He specifically says that the Gentiles are not to seek such a thing in several places.

    1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

    Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

    Same question to you. Why do you wish the Gentile believers to live as do the Jews?
  16. Vic, you are not able to see the difference between a "Jew" and the whole house of Israel.

    Once you do it will become clear.
  17. It could be you who has a misunderstanding of the whole house of Israel.
    The whole house of Israel consists of believing persons descended from Abraham and persons of faith not descended by flesh and blood from Abraham since Jesus died for them all. As Ephesians says, Christ's blood abolished the partition wall of commandments for the Gentiles.

    Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
    Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
    Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
  18. At least some of the time, yes.

    But he did it solely for the reason of evangelizing the Jews.

    He explains this quite precisely:

    1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.

  19. What, then, did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?

    The New Testament makes clear that certain SACRIFICIAL laws are no longer binding today. Paul calls them "a tutor" in Galatians 3:24. This ritual law, which is referred to as a "LAW," "was added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19). Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), the Ten Commandments (James 2:8-12). We see, then, that the Ten Commandments -- the "LAW" -- had to be in effect BEFORE the sacrificial law system was added -- as it was added BECAUSE OF transgression. The sacrificial system with its ritualistic rules is no longer necessary to be kept -- at the same time, it would NOT be SINFUL to keep it, while in the presence of Jews. Therefore, when Paul was with Jews, he would not offend them by refusing to keep their customs. He would not keep those customs, of course, when he was with Gentiles, as these customs or ritualistic laws are no longer binding. Paul DID make clear, however, that he DID teach and keep the spiritual LAW of God (Romans 7:14) that IS still binding, including ALL of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19).

    Notice how the "Nelson Study Bible" explains 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

    "Paul put his ministry of the gospel above his personal desires. He was willing to conform to the customs of other people, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to bring them to Christ. For example, in order to relate to the Jews in Jerusalem he made a Nazarite vow in the temple (Acts 21:23, 24). Around those who were under the Law -- the Jews -- Paul obeyed the Law. Around those who were outside the Law -- the Gentiles -- Paul did not observe JEWISH CUSTOM. Paul clarified this, however, lest anyone misunderstand his actions. He obeyed GOD'S LAW through obedience toward Christ."

    The New Bible Commentary concurs, referring to the ritualistic sacrificial law as the "Mosaic" law:

    "Paul has surrendered more than his right to personal subsistence. Though he is free from all men, i.e. in no sense bound by the standards or fashions of others, he is prepared to make himself a slave to all, and conform to their standards or fashions, providing no real principle is at stake, in order to win as many as possible... So when among Jews he acts as a Jew, conforming to their customs under the Mosaic law (Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:26), though as a Christian he himself is no longer obliged to keep that law (cf. Gal. 2:11-21). Similarly he is ready to identify himself with those who are not bound by the Jewish law, i.e. Gentiles; though he adds an important proviso. Gentiles not only disregard the Mosaic law [our comment: that part of the law of Moses that is ritual and no longer binding], but may also refuse to recognize any divine commandments [our comment: the Ten Commandments with its statutes and judgments -- including the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary and tithing laws]."

    Paul never taught others to sin, and he was careful that he did not sin, either. He would have never disobeyed God by breaking His law, only to "win" the Gentiles. He was NOT without God's law, although he did no longer preach as binding and mandatory physical circumcision or other sacrificial rituals, as those -- temporary -- laws had been abolished by God in the New Testament. At the same time, he did not offend his Jewish audience by violating their customs and traditions, as long as he could keep them without sinning against God.

    Finally, although he was not "under the law," he became as one "under the law," so that he might win those under the law. "And Lawlessness Will Abound..." the term "under the law" refers to its penalty. When we sin, the penalty of sin -- death -- is hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. Through the sacrifice of Christ, our repentance and our belief in and acceptance of His sacrifice, we can have forgiveness of our sins, that is, we won't have to die anymore. The death penalty is no longer hanging over our heads. In order to win those who had not yet accepted Christ's sacrifice, Paul became as one of them. He showed them compassion and sympathy, rather than condemning and offending them. He became as one under the penalty of the law, as he understood what it was like to live in sin, being cut off and separated from God.

    Paul never taught that any of God's abiding laws could be broken. He taught, "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation). Those who want to REFUSE to keep God's spiritual law, including the weekly and annual Sabbaths, twist certain Scriptures and invent arguments to justify their sinful conduct. They do this, however, "to their own destruction" (compare 2 Peter 3:14-16).
    #39 FCoulter, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  20. I already quoted 9:20 above. Maybe you should review it.

    1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

    Can you point out support for this assertion?

    Paul doesn't say "SACRIFICIAL laws" here. He says "the" law. Redefining terms whenever you want to is just special pleading.

    See? If you keep re-defining the term that Paul used just to suit your own beliefs, then you aren't following scripture at all; you're just following your own beliefs. Or Fred's.

    This shows explicitely that the dietary laws have been abrogated, since Paul ate with the gentiles.

    Yep, in their spiritual sense, as per Christ's commandments (i.e., the sermon on the mount, etc.)

    Yep. Obedience toward Christ fulfills God's Law.

    Who is it that is adding the "our comment" part that has no support from scripture?

    And, read it without the "our comment" parts -- it doesn't support your theory.


    Prove it.

    When Paul says:
    Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

    ... by your twisted definition, then, we must be under the penalty of grace. Doesn't make sense? I agree.

    What a lousy translation.
    Is this a purposeful distortion, or just done out of ignorance?

Similar Threads Forum Date
The Day of Atonement #2 fall feast Religious Issues Oct 5, 2011

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus