Keep the sabbath holy

[wil]

It would be interesting if you could expand on your "view of Jewish law" in the context of the sabbath..

Not a Jew, I have the same view I have of Hindu tradition, or Bahai, or Buddhist, or even Orthodox Christian... It is their beliefs...

But as I said...I don't have a problem with anyone's...unless they actively infringe on rights of others (you know, like my country does)

 

[2ndpillar]

I was taught as a kid, yeah we know that but the Jews already had Saturday, so we took Sunday to be different and then Muslims came along and made it Friday.,

In Unity we think the sabbath is your holy time,.not the day is your Sabbath... Whatever time you take to commune, give thx, becomes a sabbath (just as thoughts become prayers)


https://amredeemed.com/sunday-decep...F_fiwSrrR45TmSATvR3auIY_9xA50K2KDwLHCT5vnucPs

Yeshua was of the tribe of Judah (Jew), and kept the Sabbath, the 7th day. The Catholics and Protestants, being daughters of Babylon, who follow the false prophet (Matthew 7:15) Paul, and the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17) Peter, and following the instituter of their mother Roman church, Constantine, and follow his decree of keeping the day of his sun god, which was Sunday. Constantine was simply the 7th head of the beast of Revelation 17, and his followers carry his mark (Revelation 13), and those followers of the false prophet and those with the mark are destined for hard times (Revelation 14:10). The "Jews" were persecuted by the heads of the beasts of Revelation 17 for keeping the 7th day. The "Christians" mostly carry the mark of the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17). Good luck with the consequences of that move.

 

[Cino]

The "Christians" mostly carry the mark of the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17). Good luck with the consequences of that move.

But the Revelation to John is a Christian book, multiheaded beasts and all.

 

[RJM]

I go with The Christ:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 11:28-30&version=KJV
Matthew 11:28-30

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

 

[2ndpillar]

But the Revelation to John is a Christian book, multiheaded beasts and all.

The "Christian" canon, dates back to the pagan feast of Astarte/Easter, in the year 367 AD, included in a festal letter written by the Catholic bishop of Alexandria, who was a purveyor of the pagan concept of the Trinity during his participation in Constantine's setting up the standards for his Roman church at the Council of Nicaea, in the year 325 AD. As for the book of Revelation, a primary leader of the Protestant movement, Luther, tried to exclude the book of Revelation. Probably because the book of Revelation is a book that puts the daughters of Babylon in a bad light, and rejected the false prophet Paul (false prophet), whose false gospel of grace was a cornerstone of Luther's beliefs. If you look to Matthew 13, you will find that the "tare seeds" (words of Satan), are mixed with the good seed. We are now at the end of the age, whereas the tares, the fruit of the tare seeds will be gathered out "first" and burned. (Matthew 13:30) It is best to flee from the daughters of Babylon.

 

[RJM]

Paul (false prophet), whose false gospel of grace was a cornerstone of Luther's beliefs.

What is the true gospel, in your belief?

 

[2ndpillar]

What is the true gospel, in your belief?

The gospel of Yeshua is the kingdom of heaven, which entails keeping the commandments of God. It is much like the constitution of the U.S. Without the constitution, there is no unified kingdom of the US. Trying to replace the US constitution with progressive ideas, leads to death and destruction. The kingdom of God is exemplified by power and spirit. The daughters of Babylon have little or no power or spirit because they lack the light and truth that sets men free. The attractiveness of the false gospel of grace is that if the followers follow the lie of Satan, that they can determine between good and evil, or between right and wrong, they "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). Undermine the US constitution, and you undermine the power and spirit of the nation, and let the fox into the chicken house, the same applies to the commandments of God. "The many" either repent of following the false prophets down the path to destruction, or they continue down the path of destruction (Matthew 7:13). Now would be an appropriate time to repent.

 

[RJM]

The gospel of Yeshua is the kingdom of heaven, which entails keeping the commandments of God. It is much like the constitution of the U.S. Without the constitution, there is no unified kingdom of the US. Trying to replace the US constitution with progressive ideas, leads to death and destruction. The kingdom of God is exemplified by power and spirit. The daughters of Babylon have little or no power or spirit because they lack the light and truth that sets men free. The attractiveness of the false gospel of grace is that if the followers follow the lie of Satan, that they can determine between good and evil, or between right and wrong, they "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). Undermine the US constitution, and you undermine the power and spirit of the nation, and let the fox into the chicken house, the same applies to the commandments of God. "The many" either repent of following the false prophets down the path to destruction, or they continue down the path of destruction (Matthew 7:13). Now would be an appropriate time to repent.

So do you accept the Gospel of Matthew? You have referenced it several times. What about the other three Gospels? Do you accept Jesus was The Christ? I am genuinely interested.

 

[wil]

@wil -

Your source is wrong. Sabbath does not derive from the Hebrew word for seventh. It derives from the Hebrew word meaning to rest.

I recognize that as Jew and a rabbi, even though not Orthodox, my view of Jewish law is significantly at variance with the low opinion you and others have expressed here. So be it.

How can I have a low opinion of that which I am not aware?

 

[RabbiO]

How can I have a low opinion of that which I am not aware?

I thought we got passed this a couple of months back, my friend.

Oh, before I forget, like everyone else here I am both glad and much relieved to see you posting again.

 

[wil]

I thought we got passed this a couple of months back, my friend.

Lol...we may have...

N thanx

 

[RabbiO]

I thought we got passed this a couple of months back, my friend.

Spellcheck doesn’t work if you correctly spell an incorrect word. I’ll get past it.

 

[2ndpillar]

Matthew the tax collector was apparently a first person witness to the testimony of Yeshua, and as a tax collector, he could read and write. You need two or three witnesses to confirm any matter according to Yeshua, who quoted Scripture in this decree. These would necessarily be first person witnesses. According to the unknown author of Luke, supposedly a comrade of the false prophet Paul, he was not a first person witness, but wrote a historical second hand account. As for Mark, he apparently was a comrade of Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, which is not a vote of confidence for him. As for John, he also was supposedly a first person witness, although a good portion of his writing was his testimony, and not a direct witness of the testimony of Yeshua. The testimony of Yeshua was simply the unlocking of the OT, and any supposed statements from him written in the NT need to be in lock step with the OT. The tare seed or chaff, depending on the writing, all needs to be scrutinized as it is mixed in with the wheat, and will in the end, be burned off. Until it is burned off, one needs to test everything.

 

[RJM]

Yeshua was simply the unlocking of the OT, and any supposed statements from him written in the NT need to be in lock step with the OT. The tare seed or chaff, depending on the writing, all needs to be scrutinized as it is mixed in with the wheat, and will in the end, be burned off. Until it is burned off, one needs to test everything.

Ok. But was Yeshua The Christ? Has Christ's sacrifice ended the need for blood sacrifice?

Where it used to be that sacrifice meant the sacrifice of a valuable animal from the flock, offered willingly to God, it degenerated into the mere ritual of blood upon the altar. The original meaning was lost. Did the Cross of Christ correct that?

 

[Thomas]

The "Christian" canon, dates back to the pagan feast of Astarte/Easter, in the year 367 AD...

A popular meme, but quite wrong.

Marcion of Sinope left the first record of a proposition to define a Christian canon (c. 140AD).

After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy.

A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus (130-202AD).

Origen of Alexandria (184–253AD) was familiar with the 27 books of the NT, though there were disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings.
His canon included the current NT except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. He included the Shepherd of Hermas, which was later rejected.

In his Easter letter of 367, Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria gave a list of books that would become the NT, using the phrase "being canonized". Athanasius included the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in his OT canon, omitting the Book of Esther.

331AD, Constantine commissioned 50 Bibles. Little is known.

There is no evidence among the canons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon

... the pagan concept of the Trinity

Another popular, but quite erroneous meme.

 

[2ndpillar]

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened by Constantine to settle the Trinity dispute. The 50 copy bible was compiled by Constantine's personal cleric, Eusebius, an early leader of the Arians, 6 years after the Council of Nicaea. The joke is that the Arians were against the Trinity doctrine. Constantine didn't care about religion per se. His title of Maximus Pontifex was derived from the pagan leadership, and continues on into the realm of the Roman pope. His only concern was the unification of the empire. The only historical evidence of the 50 book edition was that it contained a book not included in the 367 AD NT canon. As for former followers of the false prophet Paul, their desires for a canon would have fallen into the same box of tare seeds as did that of Athanasius in 367 AD.

 

[Miken]

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened by Constantine to settle the Trinity dispute. The 50 copy bible was compiled by Constantine's personal cleric, Eusebius, an early leader of the Arians, 6 years after the Council of Nicaea. The joke is that the Arians were against the Trinity doctrine. Constantine didn't care about religion per se. .

It was not the Trinity that Arianism opposed. The Trinity concept was not well defined at the time and gets only short shrift in the Nicene Creed of 325, which includes in the list of beliefs 'And in the Holy Spirit'. The Constantinople Creed of 381 is considerably more detailed relative to the Holy Spirit. This is the one that is called the Nicene Creed although not developed until half a century later at Constantinople.

There was still no really well-developed concept of the Trinity until Augustine's De Trinitate in the early 4th century. To say that Arianism was non-trinitarian is to commit an anachronism. Arius taught that Jesus was created in time and was not co-eternal with the Father, which is not compatible with trinitarianism. But there was not yet a well-formed trinitarianism.

The danger than Arius posed to the Empire is an interesting topic but not right now. You are right that Constantine did not care about religion per se, only the violence and unrest arising from religious disputes. (Boy, imagine that happening!)

 

[2ndpillar]

It was not the Trinity that Arianism opposed. The Trinity concept was not well defined at the time and gets only short shrift in the Nicene Creed of 325, which includes in the list of beliefs 'And in the Holy Spirit'. The Constantinople Creed of 381 is considerably more detailed relative to the Holy Spirit. This is the one that is called the Nicene Creed although not developed until half a century later at Constantinople.

There was still no really well-developed concept of the Trinity until Augustine's De Trinitate in the early 4th century. To say that Arianism was non-trinitarian is to commit an anachronism. Arius taught that Jesus was created in time and was not co-eternal with the Father, which is not compatible with trinitarianism. But there was not yet a well-formed trinitarianism.

The danger than Arius posed to the Empire is an interesting topic but not right now. You are right that Constantine did not care about religion per se, only the violence and unrest arising from religious disputes. (Boy, imagine that happening!)

The "Nicene Trinitarian" religion was declared the legitimate Imperial religion on 27 February 380 by Theodosius, and it was later on the 26 November 380 that he expelled the non-Nicene bishop. It was in May 381 that Theodosius summoned a new ecumenical council at Constantinople to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of the Nicene orthodoxy. At that time the "third person" was defined as the "Holy Spirit". The strings were in the hands of the Roman emperors, and the puppets were the disruptive leaders of the church. All was done in the scheme of repairing empire unity. The other leg of the table was that Constantine inserted the image of the Trinity, the cross, into the Roman narrative, following the battle of Milvian Bridge, whereas, he had a vision of a cross in the sky, and according to the original version, was told by his sun god to go out and conquer under this sign, which was the sign of his sun god. A year later Constantine minted a coin with the image of his sun god with a written conquering message. This is why Roman armies and their successors, such as Spain, went out following a banner in the shape of a cross. The Trinity and the cross are images of the beasts (dictators) of Revelation 17, and spread through the messaging of the false prophet Paul and his followers. Those following the dictates of the beasts, and the false prophet will apparently drink from the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10).

 

[RJM]

Constantine inserted the image of the Trinity, the cross, into the Roman narrative, following the battle of Milvian Bridge, whereas, he had a vision of a cross in the sky, and according to the original version, was told by his sun god to go out and conquer under this sign, which was the sign of his sun god ...

Christ’s crucifixion was mentioned by Tacitus around AD116. Link to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

“ …The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:

(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,

(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and

(iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea …”


Tacitus did not like Christians, so he had no reason to make up anything. Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor from 306 to 337. So he did not invent the crucifixion or the cross?

 

[Miken]

The "Nicene Trinitarian" religion was declared the legitimate Imperial religion on 27 February 380 by Theodosius, and it was later on the 26 November 380 that he expelled the non-Nicene bishop. It was in May 381 that Theodosius summoned a new ecumenical council at Constantinople to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of the Nicene orthodoxy. At that time the "third person" was defined as the "Holy Spirit". The strings were in the hands of the Roman emperors, and the puppets were the disruptive leaders of the church. All was done in the scheme of repairing empire unity. The other leg of the table was that Constantine inserted the image of the Trinity, the cross, into the Roman narrative, following the battle of Milvian Bridge, whereas, he had a vision of a cross in the sky, and according to the original version, was told by his sun god to go out and conquer under this sign, which was the sign of his sun god. A year later Constantine minted a coin with the image of his sun god with a written conquering message. This is why Roman armies and their successors, such as Spain, went out following a banner in the shape of a cross. The Trinity and the cross are images of the beasts (dictators) of Revelation 17, and spread through the messaging of the false prophet Paul and his followers. Those following the dictates of the beasts, and the false prophet will apparently drink from the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10).

Theodosius was not repairing any schism. He declared Nicene Christianity as the official state religion of Rome and anyone declaring a different flavor of Christianity to be the right one was in trouble. What exactly this Nicene Christianity consisted of was not decided until the following year. This was not a reconciliation move. This was a ‘my way or the highway’ statement. And the highway could lead to some really bad places. The 381 Creed was just that a Creed, not a detailed theology. It was something short enough to memorize and to declare on demand as a sort of Pledge of Allegiance.

There is no mention of persons in either form of Nicene Creed. That does not appear until De Trinitate in the 5th century. The 381 Creed is still compatible with subordinationism. The Son is begotten by the Father, although eternally and not created in time as Arius claimed. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son, although that trouble making phrase may not have been original). The Son is said to be of the same essence as the Father. Not consubstantial as Augustine translates ὁμοούσιον into Latin. This allows thinking that the Father and the Son are the same thing, rather than consisting of the same kind of thing. But that is what Augustine wants to be the case. One of Auguastine’s objectives was to dispose of the still strong hint of polytheism in seemingly having three Gods.

The Milvian Bridge vision in the sky sounds very much like something that Eusebius invented years after the fact of that military victory. Or are you saying that there really is a Sun god that can aid in military success? Coins minted following that battle depict Constantine and a sun god side by side. It is not unusual in Roman and other cultures to attribute victory to divine aid. It is both an expression of humility of piety and at the same time a statement of divinely granted authority, Constantine was definitely not a Christian at that time. He favored Christianity as a political move to reduce the power of the old-guard pagan nobility who were happier when there was a divided empire and less powerful emperors. Constantine did not submit to being baptized until he was dying. Having to live a Christian life is not compatible with exercising total power as Emperor, something Theodosius discovered to his regret years later.

The crucifixion of Jesus and the imagery of the cross as an important symbol in Christianity appears as early as Paul in the mid 1st century and many times afterward in Christian writings. I was raised Catholic and have read extensively on early Christianity. Never have I seen any mention of the cross being thematically connected with the Trinity. It also does not make sense. Why would the crucifixion of the Son be connected with the Trinity? A very misleading image and reminiscent of the Patripassian heresy argued against by Origen in the preceding century and which never had many followers anyway.

Revelation is a big topic but how you are wrong is not for today and we are already far astray from the topic of this thread,