The Day of Atonement

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


  1. Whoa! :wow: I read your post with interest, and even some respect, until I hit the line from the 'Lamsa' translation. That couldn't be any farther in meaning from the historic translations -- which agree with each other except in insignificant, stylistic ways.

    "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." NASB

    "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" NIV

    "There remains therefore a rest to the people of God." NKJV

    And the literal Greek:

    "Then remains a sabbath rest to the people of God." (Nestle)

    NONE of those translations, 'averaged' from historic manuscripts, have the force of "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." That's just embarrassingly fabricated.

    Heb 4:9 follows an argument about how the Jews could not enter God's rest, but that a 'Sabbath' rest was yet to come (the Sabbath law had been around quite a while -- why was this rest described as yet to come if it's the weekly Sabbath?) for those who put their trust in Christ and cease from their works. The Sabbath was a type, like everything else -- even the Sabbath God kept in Creation was about ceasing from His works.

    The NT flows like the Mississippi toward grace and rest from works, but you won't let them go. What's as disturbing as the Lamsa reference is the way you want to pile burdens of lawkeeping on people, under penalty of punishment based on our 'sinfulness' in daring to trust Christ for our salvation. We're always twisting the Bible (pot calling the kettle, huh?) and damned to hell if we don't agree with your position that the law is essential. If that's your thing, fine. Have at the law. But have at ALL of it, or none of it.

    This Lamsa thing reminds me of the Watchtower Translation -- a rewrite of the Bible to de-emphasize the parts JWs don't like, like John 1:1 which, in their book, says Jesus was 'a' God.

    I often wonder why people like Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy's disciples), SDA (Ellen White), Mormons (Joseph Smith), and -- apparently -- whatever you are, can believe that the whole world has had it wrong for 4,000 years until their 'prophet' came along in the 19th/early 20th century with the true message, hidden so long, and revealed only to their group. Lamsa's 'manuscripts' were like Smith's golden plates. No one ever saw them.

    Here's some Internet scoop on Lamsa.

    "There are four fossils of Aramaic language left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41]. To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34]. In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34]. Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel — of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.

    We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So — except for these four fossils ^ that are left embedded in the text of Mark — the answer is no! There are no Aramaic texts. And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” — they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in."
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. What Fred is trying to do here is to blur the distinction between the law of Moses and the moral law of Ten Commandments to bolster his argument that the feast days are required to be kept by Christians.

    Hebrews 4:9 is speaking of the faith and privilege it is for the people of God to rest on the day God designated as His Sabbath day. Rest is a blessing and a privilege not a work as Fred is trying to sell it. The context itself of Hebrews 4 is faith and as you noted, ceasing from works as God did.
     

  3. The whoever I am is a Christian, I hold the beliefs taught by Christ and the early Church of God.

    I hope this can clear up any questions you may have, it addresses Paul's difficult to understand scriptures.


    http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/Appendix_Z_Pauls_Difficult_Scriptures.pdf


    Have a blessed Sabbath
     
  4. BTT
    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.

    Question-begging.


    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?
     
  5. I hope this can clear up any questions you may have, it addresses Paul's difficult to understand scriptures.


    http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/Appendix_Z_Pauls_Difficult_Scriptures.pdf
     
  6. Don't be sorry, what I posted answers everything you posted.
     
  7. No, it doesn't.

    It's a commentary from a horrible translation of scripture. If they can't even get the text right, how much of a mess do you think they're going to make of its meaning?

    It's a mess of confused "thought" which either doesn't address it, or gets it wrong.

    Here's an example. They say:
    “For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision
    is nothing; rather, the keeping of God’s commandments is essential” (I Cor. 7:19). He further explained
    how he reached out to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, in preaching the gospel. But never at any time
    did he proclaim that the laws and commandments of God were no longer in effect for himself or the
    believer
    : “Now to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under law, as
    under law, that I might gain those who are under law; to those who are without law, as without law (not
    being without law to God, but within law to Christ
    ), that I might gain those who are without law” (I
    Cor. 9:20-21).​

    Now, St. Paul clearly is describing a law that is separate and apart from the law of circumcision in the 1Cor 7:19 quote, since he is CONTRASTING circumcision, which he says is meaningless, from keeping "God's commandments." after all, wasn't circumcision one of God's commandments? No, he is saying that we need to live the Gospel commands.

    Here's a hint: just highlighting PART of a passage in bold doesn't mean that you can ignore the part you didn't highlight.

    Your leaders claim "But never at any time
    did he proclaim that the laws and commandments of God were no longer in effect for himself or the
    believer." This is quite demonstrably false, IF you read ALL of scripture, and believe all of scripture. For example:

    Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,
    Ro 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
    Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

    Ro 7:1 Do you not know, brethren--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
    Ro 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
    Ro 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
    Ro 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
    Ro 7:5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
    Ro 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

    Now, what does your quote from 1Co 9:21 mean?

    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.
    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.

    Paul is simply saying that he's NOT under the OT law, but rather under Christ's Gospel law. He's not an anti-nomianist, but this is a NEW testament, as prophesied by Jeremiah.



    Notice how Paul says that we WERE under the law? PAST TENSE!! Now, we are no longer slaves (under the Law), but adopted sons & daughters!!!

    Ga 3:23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.
    24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
    25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
    26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
    Ga 4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;
    2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
    3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
    4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
    5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

    This about sums it up (and shows that your quoted text is wrong):
    Ga 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.

    Now, whether or not Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, this letter also testifies against your beliefs:
    Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

    Again, I'm sorry that you can't think for yourself.
     
  8. Mushinto

    Mushinto Master Member

    7,556
    4
    Kind of like some Christians posting in a thread about a Jewish Holiday, which I may add, they do not understand.
     
  9. Oh really? Last time I read lev. 23. God said they are "My Feasts". " Feasts of The Lord"

    Now it's kinda crazy to say they are the Feasts of the Jews, when Lev. 23 states they are for the children of Israel, not just the Jews whom make up only 2 1/2 of the tribes of he children of Israel.
     

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

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus