The Politics of the Message, Part 8 – The Cross
November 14th, 2007 by Sean
In order to start talking about the cross we must go back in time before rappers starting wearing cross necklaces, before contemporary songs about the cross became popular on Christian radio, before the great hymns about the blood were composed, before the crusaders used it as a standard in their “holy wars,” before the churches began to see it as a symbol God’s love towards humanity, back to the time of Jesus when the cross already had a meaning attached to it. “As everyone in the Roman world knew well, the cross already had a clear symbolic meaning; it meant that Caesar ruled the world, with cruel death as his ultimate, and regular, weapon” (Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans, by NT Wright).
The cross was a hated symbol of foreign power. The Romans ruled through raw violent force. In fact, there were over a dozen would-be messiahs that began movements around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. The regular punishment for anyone who sought to rebel from the imperial authority was to be crucified. This was a public demonstration and deterrent which humiliated the so-called messiah and struck fear and nausea into all passers by. As we have seen in earlier posts on this topic, the Roman Empire was not a place where religion was separated from politics. The various forms of polytheism at the time had no trouble incorporating Caesar as a god or as a son of God. Thus, the cross, as the symbolism (and means) of Caesar to use his power made both a political and religious statement.
So when Jesus of Nazareth went up on the cross with the sign “King of the Jews” posted above his head (in three languages) it becomes clear that he was being executed for political reasons. He is a claimant to the Jewish throne (an idea that is at once very religious and very political). From the perspective of the public, or better yet from the perspective of the soldiers at the base of the cross, Jesus of Nazareth is just another would-be messiah who was foolish enough to buck the system and has justly suffered the wrath of the rightful “Lord and Savior,” the true “Son of God”–Caesar.
Yet, there is another perspective that needs considering–the divine one. Through this one horrendous, unjust event everything got flipped upside-down. In competition with the raw power of violence symbolized in the Roman cross is the raw power of love that permeated Jesus even while being tortured. The cross was used by God to accomplish the greatest act of love in recorded human history. Through the powerlessness of Jesus’ crucifixion all the power of Rome was broken and a new way emerged. God had destroyed the fear of the cross through Jesus to such a degree that the followers of Jesus would later face inconceivably brutal tortures and death fearlessly. The prime symbol of mortality which said to the world “life is cheap” was changed by God into a symbol of immortality which now said to the world “life is of infinite value.” Through the weapon of Caesar to defeat, Caesar was defeated by the rightful “Lord and Savior” the true “Son of God” who was shown to be triumphant in his resurrection three days later.
I think we can easily see that “flip” today. When anyone sees a cross – instantly we think of Jesus / Christianity. That is a total co-opt of a previous logo. As Sean stated the cross meant brutal death at the hands of Rome as a criminal. That intense change of meaning is practically unheard of. It would be like taking the Nike “swoosh” logo and making it the brand image for Martha Stewart’s home and garden. Just a total change. Now the cross means life and salvation (albeit through the death of one).
And that is one of the revolutionary aspects of God. He is entirely capable of working through any circumstances to get the results he desires. He works through a torture and killing device in the life of Jesus to grant forgiveness and promises to the world that isn’t even looking for it.
Because it is one of the revolutionary aspects of God, it became one of the aspects of his new people “Christians”. They gladly accepted torture and death as witnesses – because it made them more like the Messiah that conquered through death. It meant that they too would rise to life as he did, that they would overcome – even through death.
Today death is still considered the final arbiter of men. The game ends when you die. Yet, Christians have let the truth of the crucifixion of the Messiah change their view about death, because now there is something beyond death for them. And now life means something entirely new as well. Because we aren’t living in light of a coming death, but in light of a coming life.
“That intense change of meaning is practically unheard of. It would be like taking the Nike “swoosh” logo and making it the brand image for Martha Stewart’s home and garden.”
Or like taking a sacred symbol and turning it into the symbol of fascism and mass death.
Good point, Karen. Yet it is easier to spoil a sacred symbol than it is to make sacred a spoiled symbol and that is exactly what God did. It kind of speaks to his limitless power.
Indeed. I was at the Princeton Art Museum today, and saw a remarkable painting by Ilya Repin, a Russian late 19th and early 20th c. artist, called ‘Golgotha’. (I can’t find a picture of it online, or I’d provide a link.) It showed two crosses with men hung on them, far up at the top of a large canvas. Across the bottom of the canvas lay a third cross, on the ground, with the inscriptions still attached. There was no Jesus, just blood stains on the cross and a pool of blood on the ground. There were three feral dogs, drawn to the blood. In the background was a building in the mist, with a single lamp burning in its entryway, the only visible source of light in the painting (of course representing the light of the world). Seeing that cross on the ground was stunning: it was an incredibly powerful and moving work of art.
The cross of Christ was the act of believing God which Jesus willingly gave His life for the Word of God.
it was never a material thing that represented false gods.
The cross you must bare is the same act of believing God.
it is not something you can wear or hang upon your wall.
the cross which you worship is nothing but an idol which God hates.
evil men formed this from their own hands
robert,
The cross was a material thing, but it didn’t represent false gods. I don’t know of anyone claiming it did. At worst it represented death and Roman political power, as Sean pointed out. And that is the point he was making – what was a symbol of death has become a symbol of victory over death.
As for wearing a cross, it depends on the heart of the person wearing it, since there is nothing unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14). To some it may be an idol, while to others it is indeed the symbol of Christ’s suffering and death, and what those accomplished. You should take this into consideration before you accuse anyone of worshiping idols.
i havent accused anyone but God has.
take it up with Him.
there is nothing made by man that can symbolize anything of God.
wake up
symbols, traditions and mans appointed holy days are not of God, they are of man and glorify man as a god.
God’s word is his only symbol
you should read what God Loves and Hates before you go to correct him. it is written throughout the Word of God and confirmed by Jesus
take that into consideration
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God
And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them
For all the gods of the people are idols: but the Lord made the heavens
The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
this is just a few times
and you justify the cross by one thing which meant that there is no- thing of itself unclean till man pollutes it with his own imagination.
Cross of Christ was the act of Jesus not the act of the romans or as mentioned was not a material thing. if you were a roman then it would be offering of sacrafice to your god.
the Cross of Christ was his greatest gift to mankind. THE BELIEF THAT GOD WAS TRUTH
There is nothing in the Bible that says this. There were many God-ordained things in the Old Testament that symbolized things of God. And in the New Testament (especially Rom. 14) we are told that different people regard things differently, and as long as they regard them to the Lord we are not to judge.
The verses you quoted establish that God hates it when people make idols out of things that are man-made. But does that mean that anything man-made is automatically an idol? Obviously not, since He even instructed men to make the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all the things that go with them. What makes something an idol is not who made it, how it was made, or what it was made of. What makes it an idol is when a person worships it instead of God.
You also said that “there is no- thing of itself unclean till man pollutes it with his own imagination.” That’s not what the verse says. It says, “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Rom. 14:14 – I should have quoted the whole verse.)
The point is that it is not the thing itself that makes it an idol, it is what somebody does with it, namely, worshiping it. If someone worships a cross (or anything else), then to him it is idolatrous. But if someone wears a cross as a symbol of their commitment to and love for Jesus, to him it is a godly symbol.
The physical cross itself is neither good nor bad; it depends on what meaning and significance one attaches to it. You said, “if you were a roman then it would be offering of sacrafice to your god.” But since I’m not a Roman, to me it isn’t. Read Romans 14 again. None of us has the right to judge.
you have no need to quote whole anything except if it was the whole Word of God. i hold to the whole truth not just parts.
the cross was a pagan symbol long before Jesus and was made a part of the christian religion to attract pagans just as sunday worship, christmas and easter. wearing a cross or using it as a symbol of love is not supported by the Word of GOD.
it is the same as the star of david which had nothing to do with David
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided [3] unto all nations under the whole heaven.
Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon
But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
the cross was made unclean when it represented the stars which man has worshiped long before even Abraham. it was used by all pagans before Jesus and was used by pagans after Jesus. it was the early churches that made it a symbol of Jesus to bring in pagans so they would worship them as men of gods.
The Cross of Christ was the act of believing God was the Truth and represents an act of belief from the time God revealed to Jesus that he would die to the time of his death. If he didnt believe God he would have fled.
You’re not holding to Romans 14 in this case.
This is simply not factual. I would suggest researching the history of these symbols, but it’s clear your mind is made up and you will just believe what you want to believe. Further argument would only detract from the message and point that Sean was making in his original post. I’m just glad God looks at the heart.
why would you say it is not factual when if you research roman,chaldean,babalonian,egyptian history you will find that the cross represented worshiping false gods.
the fact is Christ was not even hung on the cross, the word cross is a result of bad translation.
there is a few places where it is told what Christ was hung on still in the NT.
satan brought this thru man’s need to have something they can see to believe
when God ask you to believe in what you can not see.
God is the truth not man
It depends on whose history you read. Check out this article for another viewpoint.
From the main page of the same web site:
I’ll say it again. There is nothing that is evil or idolatrous in and of itself. It only becomes idolatrous when someone uses it that way, but the same object can be a genuine and godly symbol to someone who sees it that way.
“But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” – Rom. 14:10
i stand not in judgement of you or anyone.
i stand in Gods judgement for it is truth.
you use the words of man to justify
i use the Word of God.
you sir have attack me without cause because i speak of the truth which you can not accept.
history repeats itself when we ignore it
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. [1] 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved [2] are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. 14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: 15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. 16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him. 17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) 18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: 19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) 20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. 21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. 22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. 23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified.
As you read there was no roman that found fault in Jesus therefore the method the jews would require would of been hang him from a tree not a cross.
the cross was a symbol of false god and no jew would allow or scream out this to be done to another jew
Thank God for preserving some of the true word
Deuteronomy 21
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed [3] of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance
Joshua 8:29
And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day.
Joshua 10
26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening. 27 And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave’s mouth, which remain until this very day.
Esther2
23 And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.
Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 10:39
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Luke 23:31
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
Acts 13:29
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
you will also find that Jesus was taken down from the tree that eve because that was the law that Joshua spoke of in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and it was not because of the Sabbath. you will also find that Jesus rose on the third day after which was the Sabbath before the dawn of the first day.
Matthew 27 and 28
robert,
I’m not attacking you. I’m simply pointing out that when you make a statement like, “the cross which you worship is nothing but an idol which God hates,” you’re passing judgment on people whose hearts you don’t know. I’m not using man’s words to justify anything. I’m using God’s words (in Rom. 14) to point out that there is nothing unclean of itself. There’s no need to quote the hundreds of verses that condemn idolatry – I do not argue that point. The point is, what constitutes idolatry? And as I have said repeatedly, it has to do with one’s heart. The same thing can be an idol for one person and not an idol for someone else. There is no Biblical basis for a mass accusation against everyone that chooses to wear a cross as a symbol of their faith.
PS – scholars are divided as to whether the cross on which Jesus was crucified was a straight stake or had a cross piece. A case can be made either way. And whichever it was doesn’t change the fact that many Christians wear a cross in the traditional shape because for hundreds of years it has symbolized Christ’s sacrificial work. That’s what it means to them, and so to them it is not idolatry. I urge you to read Rom. 14 and take it into careful consideration.
then they need to be told
this is about their salvation not their feelings and if you be a man of God it is also your job.
christ was hung on the tree not a stake or cross.
the cross is the worship of god the sun and a stake is an upright phallis
this is like having an argument with a trinitarian where they use one verse to justify Jesus a god when there is a hundred verses that says he isnt.
you act like the Word of God is about man and his feelings.
well its ALL about GOD.
i have read rom 14 and understand it fully
why dont you take the whole Word of God into very careful consideration
This is like having an argument with a brick wall. I’m done.
what you dont understand was the first Adam lost the right to the Tree of Life in the Garden and the second Adam restored the Tree of LIfe by becoming it in the Garden.
this is what GOD offers to all that believe
robert,
please be respectful…Mark is not your enemy, he is a fellow brother in Christ, who alone, among all of us, took the time to talk to you about your strange cross theory.
how have i been disrespectful or claimed him as my enemy.
he called me a liar but i forgave him, he judged me but i judged him not.
this has nothing to do with him , i dont even know him
and whats so strange about the truth
were the verses i quoted strange.
is it strange to use the law which God gave to Moses to understand how the jews would carry out their death sentence of Jesus and why Jesus had to be removed before night.
is it strange that in Acts, Luke ,Galatians and Peter support Deuteronomy 21:22-23 on how Jesus died.
it was the jews that cried out the method to execute Jesus.
when proving and reproving always reprove with the Word of God. there is no proof for the cross and if you use the history of these symbols you will understand that no jew would use them to execute anyone especially another jew.
God has preserved enough of the written word to provide the basis for the truth and has written in the hearts of true believers the whole truth
robert,
please stop double and triple and quadruple posting…i have had to repeatedly edit your posts (inserting a line between multiples) so they don’t monopolize the last 7 comments board. If no one replies to the last thing you said, then just relax. You don’t have to keep adding more things.
I , like Mark, have no interest in arguing with you as to whether or not Jesus was crucified on a cross. Each reader of this blog chooses which discussions to participate in, and this is not something I want to talk about. Maybe others do.
The purpose i was sent here was not for argument, it was to bring the truth.
i realize that this is not my site to monopolize and i will repect your rules
I am sorry but this just came light
seems that others also see.
while i may not agree wholy, it is still same conclusion
There certainly IS biblical proof of what our Sovereign and Savior was nailed upon, and it wasn’t an upright pole! A major misconception is the tradition of an upright cross planted on a barren hillside. Tradition says that the instrument of impalement was a “cross”, from the Latin crux, but is this supported by the scriptures? Let’s investigate. “Patibulum” is Latin, and therefore not in the original text. Throughout the scriptures the term “stauros” is used.
What is a stauros?
4716 stauro,j stauros {stow-ros’} • from the base of 2476; TDNT – 7:572,1071; n m • AV – cross 28; 28 • 1) an upright stake, esp. a pointed one 2) a cross 2a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves 2b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent
This does not, however, conclusively prove that it was either an upright stake or a beam fastened to an upright stake. There is no question that the object that Yah’shua carried and was finally nailed to was a stauros, or beam of wood.
But why is there no mention of another supporting beam? Either Yah’shua was nailed in a totally vertical position to a single beam with his wrists fastened directly overhead by a single nail, or with His arms outstreached to prevent extending breathing. Which way is it?
An important clue
In the evangel of John, chapter 20 & verse 25 we read this:
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Sovereign. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
The word translated nails is haylon, and is the plural of haylos. [h[lwn noun gen masc pl , from h-loj, ou m nail - f/Mss.UBS4-NA27] The Greek reads: tu,pon tw/n h[lwn, literally, pattern those nails.
This indicates there were two nails, thus an extended horizontal position, however, if His arms were extended there would have had to been a second object to support an upright position. If Yah’shua was nailed to a stauros, a beam, Exactly what was that other object that the stauros fastened to? What does the biblical record state?
The common misconception is that each crucifixion was a separate empalement depicted by three separate stakes/crosses, which is a presumption of tradition and not of biblical record. This, however, presents a major problem of sequence.
First, we believe that Yah’shua was in the middle:
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death: 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. (Lu 23: 32)
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Yah’shua in the midst. (Jn 19:18)
But when it came time to break the legs of those being crucified there was a change in order where Yah’shua is no longer in the middle.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Yah’shua, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: (Jn 19: 32-33)
How did Yah’shua move from the middle to the end? Did the soldiers skip Yah’shua and come back to him to break his legs? Or did the soldier break the legs of each as he came to them? How is it that the soldiers came to the two criminals first, but to Yah’shua last?
The answer can be found in the fact that Yah’shua and the thieves were not on crosses, but on a tree in a garden!
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. (Jn 19:41)
The Elohim of our fathers raised up YahwehShua, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree (xulon). (Act 5: 30)[Act 10:39;13:39; Gal 3:13)
Not only was Yah’shua crucified in a garden area, but the scriptures clearly show that He was impaled to a LIVING TREE!
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (xulon), that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pe 2:24)
“Tree” is defined in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance as: 3586 xu,lon xulon {xoo’-lon} • from another form of the base of 3582; TDNT – 5:37,665; n n • AV – tree 10, staff 5, wood 3, stocks 1; 19 • 1) wood 1a) that which is made of wood 1a1) as a beam from which any one is suspended, a gibbet, a cross 1a2) a log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs 1a3) a fetter, or shackle for the feet 1a4) a cudgel, stick, staff 2) a tree
However, this “xulon” was used of a LIVING tree!
For if they do these things in a green tree (xulon), what shall be done in the dry? (Lu 23:31)
“Green” is from the Greek word “hugros”, meaning ” full of sap – LIVING!
SECB: 5200 u`gro,j hugros {hoo-gros’} • from the base of 5205;; adj • AV – green 1; 1 • 1) damp, moist, wet 2) full of sap, green
Therefore, we see that the stauros, or beam, was fastened to a living tree rather than an upright post as tradition erroneously postulates.
Why should this be a living tree in the middle of a garden, rather than the more common artificial upright post? Because…it is particularly significant that the tree of life is a “xulon” in the midst of a (garden?) paradise…
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the ekklesia; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree (xulon) of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of YAHWEH. (Rev 2:7)
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree (xulon) of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. …Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree (xulon) of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev 22:2,14)
Yah’shua was impaled in a garden on a living tree. Thus it was fitting that YahwehShua (His higher eternal name), Who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, give up His life on a Tree in the midst of the garden so that mankind could partake of Him and His Tree of Life in the garden of paradise!
Solving the mystery – There can be no doubt that the upright object which Yah’shua was impaled to was a living tree (c.f. De 21:23). Since, however, there were three impalements to the living tree there would have been a circular “Y” configuration, forming a triangle r on the tree. This explains how Yah’shua could have been “in the midst” and “last” at the same time, which depended on the angle of approach from within the garden. Those who were in audience were in front of Yah’shua, therefore seeing him as being in the center. But the Roman soldiers were off to the side, and approaching from the side would bring the soldier to the first criminal, then walking around the back of the tree away from the crowd he would then come to the second criminal, then proceeding to the audience side of the tree he would finally come to Yah’shua!
Hi robert
hmn …. who sent you here? did that person indicate that there was no truth to be found here and that you needed to bring it to this blog?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“did that person indicate that there was no truth to be found here and that you needed to bring it to this blog?”
No wolfgang
it was because there was truth found here but most have stopped seeking more of it.
did Jeremiah plant the very tree that was in the garden that Jesus was hung on.
was that rod of an almond tree Aaron’s rod?
Jeremiah 1
10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.
11 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. 12 Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.
The Menorah represents an almond tree ,Aaron’s rod, tree of life and also the tree which Jesus was hanged.
and is the symbol for the Lamb of God as seen in revelations.
the cross is satan’s biggest deception
rev1
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;
rev4
5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
rev5
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
seems its not only me who thinks the cross is the mark of the beast.
http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/6/8/7/16878/16878.htm
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00211
_And he causeth all both small
and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right
band or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that
had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name_; that
is, the mark [Cross], or the name [Greek: LATEINOS], or the number thereof
[Greek: chxs], 666. All others were excommunicated.
the cross and sunday worship represents the sun god who represents all 36 lessor gods of pagianism
http://historical.benabraham.com/html/babylonian_solar_cult.html
«The ancients claimed that God works by mathematics. Their religion was a conglomeration of religion, astrology, alchemy, physical and mental science, and mathematics. Ancient astrology divided the starry heavens into 36 constellations. These were represented by different amulets called “Sigilla Solis,” or the sun seal. These amulets were worn by the pagan priests, and they contained all the numbers from 1 to 36. By these figures they claimed to be able to foretell future events. These amulets were usually made of gold, yellow being the sun color. While being carried, these amulets were wrapped in yellow silk, as it was thought that the bearer would thus receive the beneficial powers believed to emanate from the jewel.»
They reveal the veneration the ancients had for the sun-god. On the front side of No.1 we see the god of the sun standing on the lion. This indicated the sun’s position in the constellation of Leo during the hot days of August. On the back is inscribed “Nachyel,” meaning “intelligence of the sun,” and in 36 squares are arranged the numerals 1 to 36 (see table 1) in such a way that adding the numbers of any column either horizontally or vertically, and also the two diagonals crossing the square, the total is the same- 111. The sum of the six columns, computed either horizontally or vertically, is 6 x 111, or 666.
the cross was the symbol for the sun god long before Jesus and was one of the Egyptian symbols Israel worshiped in their idolatry
Newton studied the bible more than he studied the things he was famous for
Christians started meeting on the first day of the week before it was ever called “Sunday.” There are a couple of references to it in the NT (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2), as well as other historical references.
For example, the Epistle of Barnabas, while it may not have been written by the Barnabas mentioned in the NT, was still written early in the 2nd century (ca. 130 AD) and specifically mentions meeting on the first day of the week in memory of the resurrection:
“We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which Jesus also rose from the dead, and having been manifested, ascended into the heavens.” He also speaks of the eighth day as “the beginning of another world.”
Also, Ignatius in the early second century speaks of believers no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s Day (Letter to the Magnesians, section 9); and Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD) describes Christian meetings on “the day called Sunday” for the observance of the Lord’s Supper by “all who live in cities or in the country” (Apology 1, section 67).
While this doesn’t validate the wrong doctrines that arose in those centuries, it does show that worship on Sunday was not based on sun worship.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm#DanIV
this copy actually shows the symbol Isaac Newton used in the original
“There are a couple of references to it in the NT (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2), as well as other historical references.”
this adresses both verses
http://ecclesia.org/truth/1st-day.html
Now let’s look at the 7th occurrence. The 7th occurrence of “the first day of the week” is when the Corinthians were commanded to take up a collection for the poor saints of Judea (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). This verse is frequently used as a precedent for Sunday collections at church, but it indicates quite the contrary. Paul’s use of the phrase “lay by him in store” indicates this was a private inventory activity, not a public religious activity. Whatever was to be done, it was to be done at home – not at a gathering (1 Corinthians16:2). The phrase also implies work on the first day of the week – not rest and worship. Apparently Paul wanted them to use the first working day of the week to set aside something for the poor saints at Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-26; Galatians 2:10) – so they didn’t need to do so when he arrived.
Did Paul say anything about “tithe” here? No, as we read on, we discover that this was just a donation for poor Christians in Jerusalem, not “tithe.” Notice that “tithe” is something completely different. Malachi 3:10 talks about taking the “tithe into the storehouse” (the church).
This money was to be laid aside privately at home, not at church. A famine was raging in Judea (Acts 11:28), and Paul was writing to ask the churches in Asia Minor to assist their famine-stricken brethren (Acts 11:29). Notice that this collection was not given in church as tithe by followers, but this collection was sent as relief to the elders by only 2 disciples! (Acts 11:30). Why didn’t the followers just put this collection in the church themselves? Because they did not go to church on the first day of the week, they worked on the first day of the week, according to the commandment! (Exodus 20:9)
These Christians all kept the Sabbath holy, so Paul suggested that on Sunday morning, after the Sabbath was over, they put aside something for their needy brethren so it would be on hand when he came. Notice, also, that there is no reference here to Sunday as a holy day. In fact, the Bible nowhere commands, or even suggests, Sunday-keeping. He was not teaching that God’s holy Sabbath day of worship had been changed from Saturday to Sunday!
The Eighth Occurrence
This brings us to the 8th and final reference which could provide any support for Sunday sacredness (Acts 20:7). In Luke’s history of the early church, he describes the dramatic farewell meeting which Paul had with the believers in Troas. This account in the book of Acts has been grievously distorted by those who grasp for any tiny excuse to justify their disobedience of God’s commandments. Because it is the only record in the New Testament of a religious meeting being held on the first day of the week, we should examine it with special care and interest. There is not a hint that they ever held a meeting upon the first day before or after this day. It was not their custom to meet on this day.
Notice the specific purpose for this meeting was to “break bread,” not to institute a new day of worship. Some have equated the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 with the communion service, but such a view cannot be supported from the Scriptures. The wording seems to indicate that it was a common meal they shared together, “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten …” (Acts 20:11). Here we find that eating was associated with the breaking of bread. It is unlikely that the communion meal would be referred to in this manner. Besides, Luke assures us that those early Christians broke bread on a daily basis (Acts 2:46). The Greek term for “to break bread” is “Klasai arton”, a generic term applied to any meal on any day of the week. However, what is not mentioned here in Acts 20:7 is the specific Greek term Christians used for the Lord’s Supper: “Kuriakon Deipnon” (I Corinthians 11:20). Neither is there any mention of “wine” in this passage, which is required at a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, it cannot be said that the disciples had gathered to celebrate the Lord’s Supper that day. There was no requirement to break bread or celebrate the Lord’s Supper on that day (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). If Acts 20:7 is the Lords’ Supper, so is Acts 2:46, because “bread” alone is “meat” (Mark 8:8, Mat.15:37, Acts 27:33-36), and the Lord’s Supper is “meat” (1 Corinthians10:3, John 6:27, 47-56), which would give no credence to Sunday.
It had to be a solemn, poignant occasion for the speaker and congregation, because Paul knew he would not see these people again before his death (Acts 20:25,38), and Paul preached until midnight . It is obvious that this farewell meeting was held on the dark part of the first day of the week, there were lights on in the room (verse 8). It is important to understand the Jewish way of reckoning time. Days were not counted according to the pagan Roman method, from midnight to midnight. In the Bible the day begins at evening, or sundown (Gen.1:5,8,13,19,12,31, Deut.16:6, Lev.23:32, Neh.13:19, Mark 1:21:32).
Now we are ready to apply this sound Bible principle to the first-day meeting of Paul in Troas. The night setting would require that it be held on Saturday night. The first day was upon them. The Sabbath ended at sundown, and the first day of the week began. Paul, who had stayed a full seven days so that he could be with the people over the Sabbath, decided not to leave with the ship on Saturday night. Instead, he fellowshipped all night long with the believers and then walked twenty miles across the peninsula on Sunday morning to join the boat at Assos (Acts 20:13-14,38).
Incidentally, this boat was manned by Paul’s missionary companions, including Luke, who chronicled the highlights of the carefully scheduled voyage. It is very significant that they would not go out to sea until the Sabbath was over on Saturday night. Toiling at the oars and sails would have not been proper for a holy day. That long journey on foot by Paul on Sunday would have been totally inappropriate on any kind of holy day. Neither Paul nor his fellow travelers would have indulged in those secular activities on God’s holy Sabbath. The New English Bible actually states that the meeting was held on Saturday night, “On the Saturday night in our assembly …” (Acts 20:7).
If a single instance of breaking bread upon the first day of the week was quite sufficient to constitute it a holy day, would not the continued practice of the church breaking bread every day (Acts 2:46) be amply sufficient to make every day a holy day? But even if that farewell meeting had included the Lord’s supper, it would not lend any credence to Sunday observance, because nowhere is the Lord’s Supper linked to any particular day. As a matter of fact, Jesus celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Thursday evening (Luke 22), never on Sunday!
It is surely obvious to anyone that Acts 20:7 was not a regular weekly worship service. The chief focus of this story seems to be upon the raising of Eutychus from the dead after he fell out the window, and also in the fact that Paul would never see them again before his death. Luke, the careful historian, does not even record any of the content of Paul’s marathon sermon, although he faithfully documents the miracle of the resurrected youth. Apparently, it was the way Eutychus dropped out of church, and not the day on which it happened, that Luke is seeking to establish.
Now, eating together on a Sunday while telling Paul “good-bye” does not make Sunday a sacred day, does it? Nor does it establish Sunday as the day on which New Testament Christians worshipped God. Think about this, will history record that twentieth-century Christians abandoned Sunday and, instead, began keeping Wednesday holy because they held prayer meetings on Wednesday evening? Of course not! Only God can make a day holy, only God could create the Sabbath. And God established Saturday, the seventh day of the week, as the Sabbath day (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11). And that is the same day New Testament Christians rested from their work and worshipped God.
this adresses the other claims
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BOOK/k/955/#2763427634
Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
why did paul not correct them here and show them sunday was the correct day now for this
Acts 13:44
And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
the whole city observed the sabbath
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
why didnt paul continue this on the next day and then wait till next sunday to finish it
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
again we find non jews observing the sabbath
Matthew 24:20
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
seems Jesus thought the sabbath was to be observed even to the end
Mark
Here is a 10 chapter study on Sunday worship explaining the things you brought up in last post
http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/from-sabbath-to-sunday/book-introduction-and-present-crisis-of-day-of-the-lord.html
Sean
post 27 is stuck in the moderation room.
the rest of post 27 can wait till it can be checked out
Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
why did paul not correct them here and show them sunday was the correct day now for this
Acts 13:44
And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
the whole city observed the sabbath
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
why didnt paul continue this on the next day and then wait till next sunday to finish it
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
again we find non jews observing the sabbath
Matthew 24:20
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
seems Jesus thought the sabbath was to be observed even to the end
We’re not saying that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday as a law. During Acts the Sabbath was the day that people gathered already, so it was a convenient time to address a large number of people. Notice it doesn’t say that the Gentiles in the city were observing the Sabbath according to the Law of Moses. It just says they assembled together to hear the Word taught.
But in later years the first day of the week was often chosen as a day to meet, although it wasn’t a law or a “new Sabbath.” And the church fathers who mention meeting on Sunday say they did it in recognition of the day Jesus rose, not because of sun worship or a decree from Rome.
But there is no one “correct” day. Paul tells us that observing one day above another is a personal choice and not a law (Rom. 14:5-6).
“During Acts the Sabbath was the day that people gathered already, so it was a convenient time to address a large number of people.”
show me proof that the gentiles already gathered on that day.
if you study you will find that was against the pagan beliefs of the gentiles
“But there is no one “correct” day. Paul tells us that observing one day above another is a personal choice and not a law (Rom. 14:5-6). ”
this has nothing to do with the sabbath
The verses you referred to spoke of the Gentiles asking to hear the Word preached the next Sabbath. The verse in between the two you quoted tells us that they were proselytes:
Acts 13:
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Not when they became proselytes. Otherwise, why would the Gentiles have “besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath”?
Is Sabbath-keeping not “regarding one day above another”?
“Not when they became proselytes. Otherwise, why would the Gentiles have “besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath”?”
sorry there is no definate connection because the whole city wasnt religious proselytes, they were mostly gentiles who wasnt even there the sabbath before.
If God’s day could be any day than Paul would of corrected even the Jews.
the one thing you havent adressed was why Jesus seemed to think the sabbath was going to be observed till the end.
was this something he didnt understand when he spoke it?
Is Sabbath-keeping not “regarding one day above another”?
No it isnt, it has nothing to do with other days , it is a sign that you are a child of God, that you claim God as your Father, it is what your family name is based on if you are in Gods family.
The point was that the Jews and many proselytes regularly met on the Sabbath, and that’s why Paul was in the habit of addressing them on that day. When more Jews and proselyte Gentiles wanted to hear the Word preached, they asked Paul to speak the next Sabbath. And the next week, ALMOST all the city came together, that is, other Gentiles who had heard about what Paul was preaching. None of this has anything to do with observing the Sabbath, though. It has to do with addressing people when and where the greatest number were gathered.
He preached the Kingdom and Jesus to both Jews and Gentiles, as that was the foundational message. Once they accepted Jesus, he did correct them, as written in the epistles of Colossians, Galatians, and especially Hebrews.
Jesus said nothing about the observance of the Sabbath in the verse you referred to. The context shows that he was talking about things that would make travel difficult:
Matt. 24:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Travel was not only restricted to Jews who observed the Sabbath, but even Gentiles would have a harder time traveling, as the gates of the cities were usually closed, and no supplies could be obtained.
Regardless of the reasons for observing the Sabbath, the definition of keeping the Sabbath is observing one day above another.
The message of the cross has the power to break all the sins of man. It can separate a man from his self-righteousness which blinds him so he can not see the truth clearly. It can open his eyes
to see his wrongs. By it, God redeems men from their destructions,
their poisons, and their injustices. By the power of the cross, God separates men from their perversions, their lust to kill, and their
thirst for innocent blood.
“. Once they accepted Jesus, he did correct them, as written in the epistles of Colossians, Galatians, and especially Hebrews.”
there is not one place in the bible that says the Sabbath has been changed or done away with. if there was it would be clearly stated by Jesus and the Disciples.
“Regardless of the reasons for observing the Sabbath, the definition of keeping the Sabbath is observing one day above another.”
I cant see where you come up with this.
it is the observance of a blessing that God gave mankind and also a sign,an identifying mark of the children of God. what does that have to do with other days.
have you read the 10 chapter study.
other than that we have came to that road block again when it just one opinion against another opinion over the same verses.
opinions shouldnt change important things only clear facts.
by Earl L. Henn (1934-1997)
For centuries, people have tried to find ways of convincing themselves and others that Christians are not required to observe the Sabbath and holy days. One of their favorite scriptural targets in this quest is Colossians 2:16-17. Some teach that a heretical group of Judaizers in the Colossian church was trying to enforce obedience to Jewish practices such as the laws of clean and unclean meats and of observing the holy days. Under such a scenario, they say, Paul is telling the Colossians that they did not have to do these things, and further, they did not need to be concerned about what others were judging and saying about them.
The distortion of this portion of Scripture stems in part from a misunderstanding of Colossians 2:14, from which many deduce that the law was done away and nailed to the cross. (For a detailed explanation of Colossians 2:14, see the June 1995 article on this topic.) They reason that Paul is saying in verse 16, “Therefore [since the law is done away] don’t let anyone condemn you for eating unclean meats or not observing the Sabbath or holy days.” Consequently, they interpret verse 17 to mean that Paul lightly dismisses the Sabbath and holy days as unimportant symbols of future events, while emphasizing that the only truly substantive Christian need is belief in Christ. From this, they conclude that we should not concern ourselves about these days because, since Christ died, their observance is not required.
The Setting of Colossians
What is Paul actually saying in these often misunderstood verses? To understand these scriptures clearly, we must first consider the cultural and historical background of the people to whom Paul was writing. The Colossians had been significantly influenced by pagan philosophies that taught that perfection could be achieved through self-denial and abstinence from pleasure. As a result, Colossae tended to be an ascetic community which adhered to a religion of severity, and its citizens thought anyone who was religious should behave as they did.
Many of the people who had come into the church had brought their pagan philosophies with them, and they soon began to have an adverse influence on the entire congregation at Colossae. Paul corrects the people in the church who were doing this in Colossians 2:20-23:
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—”Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Apparently, some of the people had begun thinking that this self-imposed asceticism could somehow contribute to their salvation and had begun turning away from trusting in Christ. They had more faith in their unchristian works. Paul warned them about this in Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
God had called the people in the church at Colossae out of their pagan, ascetic way of life, and they had begun to learn how to enjoy life in a balanced manner as God intended. This included eating meat, drinking wine and enjoying food and fellowship when observing God’s Sabbath and festivals. Apparently, the people enjoyed getting together and fellowshipping so much that some even observed the new moons, festivals which God does not command to be observed but had become a tradition under the Old Covenant.
Because the converted Colossians were learning how to enjoy life as God intended, the people in the community began to look down on them and condemn them. In addressing these problems, Paul reminds the Colossians that they are complete in Jesus Christ; they have no need for the pagan philosophies of this world. “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:9-10).
In verses 11 through 14, Paul shows how Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins and now our past sins, brought about by conforming to the ways, practices and philosophies of this world, are completely blotted out and nailed to His cross. He reminds them that Christ has completely conquered all of the evil spirits who continue to rule this present, evil world and who inspire the pagan philosophies that had so influenced the Colossian society: “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” (verse 15).
With these powerful words of encouragement as a background, Paul explains in verse 16 why they need not be bothered by the attitude of the Colossian society toward their practices and way of life in the church:
Therefore [since Jesus Christ is your Lord and Master and has conquered and has control over all of the evil powers in this world], let no one judge you [call you into question or condemn you] in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.
In other words, do not worry about what the people in the community think about your enjoyment of eating good food, drinking wine and joyously celebrating the Sabbath and the festivals. Christ has conquered the world and all of its rulers, so we do not need to be concerned about what the world thinks about us.
In verse 17, Paul mentions that the Sabbath and holy days are “shadows,” symbols or types, of future events in the plan of God. The Sabbath is a type of the Millennium when Jesus Christ and the saints will rule the world for a thousand years. The holy days symbolize various steps in the plan of God and remind us annually of God’s great purpose in creating mankind.
“The Substance Is of Christ”
The last few words in verse 17—”but the substance is of Christ”—is a mistranslation brought about by failure to understand the true meaning of what Paul was saying. It is a classic example of how translators sometimes interpret the Bible when they translate the original Greek into English.
A literal translation of the last few words of Colossians 2:17 reads, “but the body of Christ.” What is the body of Christ? I Corinthians 12:27 supplies the answer: “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” The body of Christ is the church! The exact same Greek expression that is translated “body of Christ” in I Corinthians 12:27 (soma Christou) is used in Colossians 2:17.
Now the full meaning of what Paul is saying becomes clear. He tells the Colossians that they should not let any man judge them or call them into question about these things but rather let the church make those judgments. He is pointing the members to the example of the spiritual leaders of the church who set the tone and pattern of worship on the Sabbath and holy days, exhorting them not to worry about what anyone in the community thinks about them.
A similar exhortation is given in verses 18 and 19:
Let no one defraud you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase which is from God.
In these verses, Paul again warns the Colossians that they should not allow the pressures of the society in which they lived have any influence on their beliefs or practices and repeats his exhortation for them to look to the church alone for their spiritual nourishment and growth.
So we see that, far from doing away with the observance of the Sabbath and holy days, Colossians 2:16-17 is one of the strongest proofs that the early church kept these days and that Paul taught the Gentiles to keep them!
Robert,
What Paul is saying in Colossians 2 is that those things about eating, holy days, and such things as new moons, were shadows
of Christ.
There were those who were under devils who would condemn men
for not participating in those things that were of the old covenant that had passed away.
The old covenant passed away as the new covenant took authority
over it by Jesus Christ and his works. Those in the new covenant are not under the authority of the old. They are under the authority
of God and Christ.
Some men under the workings of the devil would command men that they must do this or that which is written in the old covenant
and condemn men for not doing so. As the old covenant passed was done away in Christ, such things became the doctrines and commandments of men.
Some of those things in the old covenant which were once of God
for men to do, became now, under the new covenant, things of men, which we are no longer obligated to do.
There was a change of authority because of the work of Christ.
There was the institution of the new covenant because of him who
delivered us from both sin, and the responsibility to keep some of the commandments of God that were a part of the old covenant.
We are therefore no longer under those things, but are under God who is the Lord over those things.
It’s a matter of the change of the times and seasons by God through the work of Christ.
“What Paul is saying in Colossians 2 is that those things about eating, holy days, and such things as new moons, were shadows
of Christ.”
no Ray they are shadows of things to come, THE KINGDOM OF GOD not Christ who had come already.
the Christ will only be the King in the Kingdom of His God which was giving to him by his God who is above all things even the Christ
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.
We long ago established that we disagreed about the Law and the Sabbath, and I have no wish to open that can of worms again. The point I was making was specifically in reference to your statement that “Sunday worship represents the sun god.” Historical evidence shows that this is not the case. Even the 10 chapter article you posted (which I am still working through) agreed that Church Fathers referred to worshiping on Sunday, although the author was arguing that the motivation was anti-Judaism more than honoring Christ’s resurrection. In either case, though, it had nothing to do with sun worship.
It was you that opened that can of worms when you claimed sunday worship was support by the bible and then claimed the early church fathers backed it when i presented a very good study on why the church fathers done this was out of fear of persecution from the Romans who had become very anti-judaism and was executing those who were signaled out by the sign of sabbath keeping. by the time of the fourth century not only christians foraske the keeping of the sabbath in the open also the jews were forced to do the same or be executed. the roman religion of sun worship had conquered truth christianity bringing in the trinity of sun worship too and the idols of sun worship. there is only one symbol for Jesus and revelations makes that clear. its the Menorah which Jesus stands in the midst of.
if you dont make these claims i wouldnt have to address them
Here’s a footnote on Colossians 2:16 from the 1599 Geneva Bible:
” 2:16 1 The conclusion: wherein also he nameth certain kinds,
as the difference of days and meats, and proveth by a new argument that we are not bond unto them: to wit, because those things were shadows of Christ to come but we posess him now exibited to us.”
That’s a footnote from the reformers of that day (before the 1600′s.)
This was a very common Bible of that era.
It seems that some will make the argument that such participation
in some things of the old covenant law were not a matter that needed to be addressed by the apostle in the church of Colosse,
and that the problems were otherwise, something from some pagan worshipers, but it was the tendancy throughout the Church
at that time that there were so many Jews that were zealous of keeping the law under the old covenant, that this matter needed to often be addressed.
We see it addressed in Galatians, Hebrews, Romans, Acts, and I believe
here in the book of Colossians also.
Let’s remember too, that shadows of the Old Testament which were about Christ, will also testify about him in the future.
ray here are some notes out of history
http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/chalng.htm
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Robert, are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
no
other than the sabbath their doctrine is false
Robert, what denomination are you connected with?
none
there is only one true religion and thats the truth of the word of God.
there is not a single group with the whole truth, just some with a few truths.
99% of denominations dont follow any true doctrines
Robert, I’ m not connected with any particular denomination either.
If I found a church that told it’s people that they have elders who will hear anything between people that they can not resolve as long as people are willing to forgive and to repent of their sins as they become known to them, I might be interested in their church.
That seems to me to be one of the greatest services that church leadership could do for the congregation, and teach them how to plead the cause for others also.
I think then we could really connect with the world and bring them into the kingdom if they wanted. If not, at least we would be going out as salt and light making a difference in our communities with the light of the gospel of Christ, learning to choose the good over the evil, not hearing evil for the sake of evil, hearing both sides of any matter, checking out if indeed something done was done and if it was indeen done, checking out if indeed it was wrong and pleading for mercy on behalf of the wronged party.
Sometimes people oppress without realizing what they are doing to another, as they fight to get whatever it is that they want. Sometimes they don’t understand that the way that they go about getting something is wrong and hurts others.
Sometimes people don’t understand that we can judge a thing and not condemn the person, and that we can simply say, “Please have mercy.”
here is an easier copy to read
who would of thought the RCC would admit that they have authority to change times and laws set forth by God.
http://sharinggod.org/rome/index.html
2 Thessalonians 2
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Jesus tried very hard to define the blessing of the sabbath over the laws of observing it which were a part of the kingdoms of Israel’s government.
so you understand my position, i do not stand in judgement on how you chose to observe it, just that you recognize it as a sign of Gods people forever and will be a blessing forever.
breaking the sabbath and not believing in the sabbath are 2 very different things.
there is no way we can be perfect in keeping it, but it will always be perfect in keeping us in a relationship with our God.
there is a lot of sense in this article on how we can not be perfect in it by the same authors of an article just posted by Ron S
http://www.godward.org/archives/Special%20Articles/profaning_the_sabbath_day.htm
I don’t believe the apostle Paul would ever refer to a pagan day
as a “holy day”, (see Col 2:16) as you have set forth Robert.
It doesn’t add up.
Sometimes people will set forth a huge argument as if to hide under a great tree with branches so thick it casts a dark shadow
underneath. Under it’s ominous presence they hope to hide.
Job 40:22
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
True Pilgrim’s value truth over all the things of the world that hold
no lasting value, as they quickly will fade away at the presence of
the Lord, but the truth will remain.
The one commandment Jesus never taught was to keep the Sabbath day. All the other commandments we can find him teach.
If something doesn’t add up Robert, don’t buy it as if it’s the truth,
for one day you will find it to be nothing, a thing of no value.
“I don’t believe the apostle Paul would ever refer to a pagan day
as a “holy day”, (see Col 2:16) as you have set forth Robert.”
Ray i have said nothing of the sort.
the colossians were enjoying GODS holy days, there pagan country men were judging them in because they themselfs observed pagan festivals, honor false gods on the days of the week.
Paul is telling them not to let their country men judge them for observing Gods special times but to let the body of christ(church) judge those matters. there were very few jews in coloss, it was a city of pagan gentiles.
Robert, it was Jews who were zealous for law keeping that were
judging some people for not keeping some things contained in the law such as what meat to eat, or in drinking, and in respect of holy days.
It wasn’t the pagans that were condemning them for not keeping
some of the things in the law, for why would a pagan do that as even a pagan doesn’t keep the law of God? That doesn’t make sense does it?
Robert, choose the things that add up. Don’t eat of the fruit of the trees of Beelzebub’s orchard. It’s undigestible. It makes people sick. Repentance can cure you of it.
“It wasn’t the pagans that were condemning them for not keeping
some of the things in the law”
Ray
read again
THEY JUDGED THEM FOR KEEEEEEPING GODS TIMES
Robert,
Colossians 3:16
Let no man therfore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Paul is talking about Jews who were judging some of the people in the church at Colosse because some of the Jews were so zealous of law keeping. He was telling the church at Colosse that the handwritting of ordinances (the law) which was contrary to our nature has been taken away by Jesus. Keeping the things contained in the law such as meat and drink, respect of holydays, new moons and sabbaths are not now required of us as it was when the old covenant was in effect for the people of God.
Are you saying that it was the pagans who were judging the church of Colosse for keeping the special times written about in the law by ordinances?
Robert, why would the pagans judge them if they were keeping these things? Would it be because the pagans knew of the work of Christ and his redeeming them out from under the law and it’s ordinances?
It wasn’t the pagans that were a problem to the church at Colosse or at other churches in the early church. It was the Jews who were zealous for the law.
It was the Jews who were the circumcised, (Colossians 2:11) not
the pagans, which Paul was talking about. He was reminding the church at Colosse that they are the circumcised who are circumcised in the heart and spirit, reminding them that they are God’s, as the Jews (not pagans) were God’s chosen.
Paul had no need to compare the church at Colosse with the pagans, for the pagans had no connection with God as the Jews who had kept the law of God in times past.
Stop eating from the wrong tree. You’re making people sick when you do that. It’s dark and sinister because it’s from the wrong orchard.
Galatians 4:10,11
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Robert, here in the church in Galatia, was it the pagans who caused the Galatian church to observe these things, or the Jews who were zealous for the law?
Was the apostle Paul for their observing these things or not?
It wasn’t the apostle of Jesus Christ who caused them to observe these things, and it wasn’t the pagans who were judging them for observing these things. It was the apostle who judged them for observing these things because they were going back to the law for righteousness, a thing that is contrary to the spirit of God.
Can you see that?
“Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”
this isnt refering to Gods times, it is refering to pagan days, months, seasons and years. these times were very different than what Paul was teaching them. all these pagan times were associated with pagan gods.
the fact is it says “days” says this was not the sabbath DAY
“5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.”
there was some people who claimed the sabbath was saturns day. Paul was just assuring them that the sabbath was in honor of God and the Food they ate on the sabbath was not being offered to saturn.
Claiming the whole world was jewish at this time is not factual.
christianity biggest enemy was the same pagan cults that had caused Israel to err and yes there was jews who followed these pagan cults mixing them in with judaism during the beginning of christianity.
the jews of Jesus’ day did not follow the commandments of God they followed more the traditions and commandments of men.
every group of people in Jesus’ day had created laws to rule their country men and most were based on pagan false gods.
so everytime you see the words law and commandments it doesnt just mean the laws and commandments of israel.
“Stop eating from the wrong tree. You’re making people sick when you do that. It’s dark and sinister because it’s from the wrong orchard.”
please leave your opinions of me out of this.
i have no other reason to post these things other than love of Gods creation(my fellow man) and the love of God
Robert,
The context is clear in Galations 4. It was not the pagans that were affecting the church in Galatia, it was the Jews who were zealous for the law, therefore Paul told them again about Abraham
and his sons, for this is an allegory. This allegory had nothing to do with pagans. This allegory is about the two covenants, the old and the new.
You’re eating from the wrong tree again. It’s fruit is corrupt. It makes people sick. It’s not of God. It’s good to eat what God gives us to eat, but to eat that which is not of him is not good for food.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again [2] to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
this speaks of their pagan gods
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again [2] to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
this speaks of them returning back to their pagan ways
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
this speaks of them observing the pagan days, the pagan months, the pagans seasons, and the pagans years.
i eat from the tree of life which is the truth. you speak of Gods ways as being weak and beggarly elements, the same thing satan would do
Robert
I cannot argue with your comments regarding Col 2:16 and I agree with a lot of the teachings of the 7th Day church, yet I don’t understand nor comprehend how they still believe in the trinity. Perhaps, if you could, please enlighten me. Am I wrong in that belief they have or is it just certain churches. But then I can’t really say anything as my home church part of the Advent Christian denomination and many of their sister churches believe the same thing. I wish there was another monotheistic church in Augusta, Ga, but thus far I haven’t found one….
Randy
I can not understand why people cant see the falseness of the trinity either. there are some groups that have found more truth than others but as far as one that has all the truth i have found none. all satan needs is for you believe one lie and than he has you.
i am also looking for fellowship but it must support the whole truth. right now i must go to several places to get that type of fellowship and must just ignore their false doctrines.
i dont understand why people can not use the same means that got one truth from to get the rest of the truth. this site has discovered a few of these truth but ignores the rest using the same things they fight against.
the people here are of the finest but are still deceived.
here is one of the best sites i have found. Matthew uses common sense along with knowledge but still has a way to go
http://ministersnewcovenant.org/
How far is Conyers, Georgia from you
this is where Matthew is
Robert,
Before we came to know God we were all by nature subject to the bondage of sin which puts men under that which by nature is not
God and is not godly.
The apostle Paul was concerned for the church at Galatia because they were turning back to some of the things contained in the law.
It’s often called Judaism today.
It was not because of the influence of Pagans, but because of the influence of some Jews who began to persuade some that they had to do this or that, which was written of in the law, which was also a shadow or type for something concerning Christ.
Galatians 4:9
But now seeing ye know God, yea, rather are known of God, how turn you again unto impotent and beggarly rudiments, whereunto as from the beginning ye will be in bondange again?
This is referring to the things of the law wherewith some of them wanted to go back to as if to be some kind of servant of God rather
than being his sons.
They are called impotent and beggarly ceremonies, being considered apart by themselves without Christ, for Christ was not to be found by them in such things as he may have been found in the past by some who participated in such things.
Christ was not calling his Church back into those things to be joined with them in those things, for they were of the old covenant.
To go back to those things after having received Christ and tasted of the gifts of the spirit by him, would be going contrary to Christ. It would be falling back from Christ, falling away from him, casting away their riches and going back into a weak and beggarly condition, far from the sonship of God in Christ Jesus.
It’s not talking about going back to some pagan idolatry. Paul would not have referred to that as “weak and beggarly elements”,
he would have strongly reproved them of leaving Christ for pagan
idolatry, yet Judaism can be one form of idolatry. There are no “isms”
in God, but rather, Christ.
Ray
while there was a problem with some jews coming into the church Paul addreses that problem but the biggest problem with the galatians was they were returning to their pagan ways of worshiping false gods by doing service to THEM that were no gods. this can not refer to judaism and weak and beggarly elements could never refer to the the law which Paul himself said was holy and just in which he observed completely.
Robert,
There is some fruit that might appear good unto men, but is naturally corrupt.
yes and by the law we know it is corrupt, just ask Adam.