Which Word is Which?
–
A look at the first chapter of John.
There are 2 “Words” in this introduction. Word # 1 is the Father God, and Word #2 is Jesus. Once this is understood, it is easier to read and interpret. Jesus is the Word of God, but so is the Father the Word of God. Both are being discussed here. Jesus receives the Word from the Father, and then transfers the Word to us.
–
–
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (#1-Father), and the Word (#2 – Jesus) was with God (#1-Father), and the Word (#1-Father) was God.
–
Jhn 1:2 The same (#2 – Jesus) was in the beginning with God (#1-Father).
–
Jhn 1:3 All things were made through ( by means of) him (#2 – Jesus); and without him was not any thing made, that was made
–
Jhn 1:14 And the Word (#2 – Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory (#2 – Jesus), the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (Word #1-Father) , full of grace and truth.
–
Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God (Word #1-Father) at any time; [except] the only begotten Son (#2 – Jesus) , which is in the bosom of the Father (Word #1-Father), he (#2 – Jesus) hath declared [him].
–
–
–
Physical creation of earth:
–
Word # 1 (Father God) ↔ Word, Power, Light
↓
Word # 2 (Jesus)
↓
Creation
The Father God is the source of all things. He is Creator. However, the Father God chose to go through His Son Jesus, sending power, and light, and word through Jesus, to accomplish His will, thus involving Jesus in the process.
Jesus continues to act as mediator between Father God and His creation. Is he your mediator?
Heaven Awaits 
[…] God, and Word #2 is Jesus. Once this is understood, it is easier to read and interpret. Click here for […]
Which Word is Which? « Heaven Awaits said this on August 15, 2008 at 4:14 am |
Marianne, I don’t know what prompts you to say this. The Greek is pretty clear in referring to the same Word twice:
“En arche ein o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.”
Roughly: “In the beginning was the Word, and (this same – nominative singular) the Word was with the God, and God was (this same – nomitive singular) the Word.”
If we were talking about different words, the Greek would likely be different, shifting the case of “The Word” from ‘o logos’ to, say, ‘ton logon’ or something else, depending on how the phrase was constructed. Instead, we see the same case of Word throughout, but the case of God changes: ‘ton theon’ (accusative singular) to ‘o theos’ (nominative singular, matching the case of ‘o logos’, which makes sense because ‘o logos’ and ‘o theos’ are one and the same, according to John).
Hi Brian,
I was not referring to how many Greek words were used, but the fact that BOTH the Father is the Word of God, and the Son is the Word of God. They are both described in the verses.
Does that make more sense? Maybe I should change something?
blessings
marianne
I think that the Tradition regarding this verse is to see “The Word” as being only Christ, who is eternally begotten from the Father God, and who is God. I have never read someone describe the Father as The Word, and I think the Greek text bears out this reading.
Hi Brian,
I wrote this because this passage came to mind.
Jhn 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
*** Jesus gets His words from his Father
Therefore the “words” were first initiated by the Father and passed to the Son….so it seems like both represent the Word of God, not just one person. They both have the Word of God in them. We call Jesus the Word since we do not see the Father and he is the one that presents the word of God to us.
I was breaking with tradition a little to view the Father God as the Word also. Usually just Jesus gets the credit. 🙂
blessings
marianne
That is a unique interpretation, but I think that verse proves the point: Christ is the Word of God, who comes from the Father. He and the Father are one, but strictly speaking, Christ is the Word only. They are unified in that Word, though, being one God. 🙂
Hi Brian
It is a play on words, but there might be some truth in it also 🙂
One approach is to look at the Word as a title that Jesus carries and another approach is to look at the Word as “who has this knowledge or Word in them”
blessings
marianne
Hi Marianne
To Brian, I agree with you. Jesus and God the Father are ONE.
As in the Book of John says in Chapter 1 v 1: In the begining was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God. The Bible as we know is the Word of God, God is the author, all written by the hands of men. Marianne I want to thank you for your reply in regard to who is Jesus, Is Jesus and God one?
RT
I think we are in agreement? What is most important is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united as one, they work with each other in total harmony and “oneness.” They are not the same person.
blessings
marianne
Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God.” From what I understand and read, He, who is Jesus, is the visible God.
They I believe are one. AS it states in the Bible. In Revelations Jesus says in ch 1:10 & 11: John begins with “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day and I heard behind me a loud voice as of a trumpet, saying “I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” Also in Rev ch 22:13. As you mention in your response, the Jesus is called Lord, that is true, I agree, He is the Lord. However again in Rev 1:10 John said he was in the spirit of the LORD. and the Lord said he is the Alpha and Omega. That is God. In book of John when Jesus appeared to Thomas who was doubting his resurrection, when he saw Jesus, he kneeled before him and said ” My Lord and my God. In the Hebrew scriptures God has said that we cannot grasp His ways, his understandings. The trinity is One true God – the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. It is very hard to understand, to grasp, I admit, but its by faith and trying to follow His word, follow him is what I want to do, as you. It does seem however that one of the topics we do agree is that Jesus is the Messiah, who died for our sins and resurrected. And is to come again. This is Marianne just a friendly individual belief and opinion I am sharing back to you and you are to me and those who continue to read your website. Thank you for your input, your website, your thoughts. I look foward to reading more.
God Bless
R
Hi R,
This is the way I see it. I do believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that they are separate persons. I see them as all divine, but not necessarily equal. The traditional trinity concept makes them equal, so that is what I am getting at. Jesus said his Father was greater than he was, while he was here, then after his self sacrifice, the Father exalted him so that he could site beside him on the throne. Jesus still submits to his Father in heaven.
examples of what I am thinking:
If a king has a son, the prince, the son is royalty, as the Father is royal, but it is the king that rules the country. If the son comes among the people, he is still treated as representing the king. But the prince is not the king, but he still comes in full authority representing the crown.
If your father was the CEO of IBM, and he is human, then you are human too. However, this does not make you the CEO of IBM. Only your father is that.
In the old testament, the Israelites were interacting with the King, the CEO of Creation, who was God, and who was divine. When Messiah came, he made it clear he was not the CEO, but the son of the CEO, and he was submissive to the will of the CEO. As the son of God, this made him divine, but he was not his Father. The fact that he was submissive to the will of another meant there was some sort of hierarchy and he was “beneath” his father in authority. This made them unequal. However, as God’s son, he was still entitled to worship, just as a prince is entitled to honor, because he is royalty, as the son of a king.
Once Jesus completed his mission, the Father exalted him to a higher position, to the right side of his throne, which meant he was at a lower position beforehand.
If you look in a mirror, you see an image. The image is a 2 dimensional reflection of a 3 dimensional person. The image is not the same thing as what it is reflecting. I can touch the image on the mirror without ever touching you.
If Jesus is the “image” of God, then he is a reflection of a multidimensional Father God. The real Father has more dimensions than the image does. This is consistent with what Jesus said, that his Father was greater than he was. No one can see the Father, except Jesus, because he is too great to look upon. However, as Jesus is the son, he can “stand in front of the mirror, and become the “2 dimensional representation” of his father to present his father to the world.
Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. The father has no beginning and has no end.
Does this make sense? This is how I see it. I have seen the trinity – coequal persons- very well criticized by Jews and Muslims. I think Christians should think about this concept as much as they do, so they can give good answers to this concept. I see the trinity members as all divine, and powerful, but there is only one CEO.
blessings
marianne
Hi Marianne.
Your examples are good. In my response, I turned to the Word of God, the Bible, He is real, doesnt lie, as we know. Here are the following scriprues: Deut. 6:4 -“Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One!” John 10:30 “I and My Father are One.” John 1:1 “In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with Gog and the Word was God.” John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. I John 5:7 “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Isiah 41:4 “Who has performed and done it, Calling the generations from the begining? I, the Lord, am the first; And with the last I am He. Rev. 1:17, 18 “And when I (John) saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.” Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given, And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Matt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel, whis translated God with us.”
It is hard to grasp the trinity. At times I dont understand it. Jesus claimed he was the Son of God and sits at the right hand of God the Father, but Jesus also claimed He is One with God, is God. The bible is written by God, The One true Living, Honest God.
Thanks for response. God Bless
R
Hi R,
I wonder if we are saying the same thing, but in different words. God is one, God is unity of Father son and spirit.
blessings
marianne
Hi Marianne. I feel the only difference we have really is our belief in the Trinity. From what you shared, your belief is that you dont believe that God the Father, the Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. I do believe in one God and that the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are one. As it says in the versus I shared from the Holy Bible. We both do agree that Jesus is the Messisah, the Saviour, who died for our us and resurrected and is to come again. Although it is hard to grasp the Trinity, but by faith I believe. Trust in God with all our heart and mind. He will guide us. take care of us. We both believe in the Father and Messiah.
Thank you for your response and continuig information on this website. God Bless
R
I like to think of the Trinity as one person, expressing Himself in three personalities.
A crude example: I am one women, but I an a daughter, a wife, and a mother — three personalities, three different roles, yet one.
HI Debbie
There seems to be different explanations for the Trinity. I guess Jesus did not want us to get bored for 2000 years, so he gave us a puzzle to think about, and keep us busy. 🙂
blessings
marianne
Hi Marianne.
We will not know everything until He comes again. It is revealed in his word as mention who God is, the Messiah is and is to come again. To Debbie if she reads this. Thanks for example. I have heard that before. There are other examples and metaphores I have heard. Again Its by faith, and the word of the BIble, God’s gift to us that says who he is. We as humans are not skilled nor can we comprehend His ways, but we just continue to seek Him and grow in his word and remember what He has done for us and will return again.
God Bless you all
R
Hi R
I agree. Just love Jesus, and keep the faith. 🙂
blessings
marianne
i didn’t read all the comments, but i just want to say this… rejection of the “oneness” of the three is heretical, yet rejection of the “threeness” of the three is equally heretical. those who suggest that Jesus is merely God wearing a different mask, are wrong.
we must acknowledge that scripture does also indicate a hierarchy between Jesus and God.
1 Cor 15:27For he [Jesus] hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him [Jesus].
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him [Jesus], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [Father (God)] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
God (Father) is “all in all”… top of the hierarchy.
and as an interesting side note, when someone called Jesus “good master”, Jesus replied, “why do you call me good? only one is good [His Father].”
hi Paul
I think you and I see the 3 and 1 the same way.
blessings
mrianne
Hi Marianne
and greetings to Paul. As I last replied, We are not skilled nor can comprehen God’s ways, even understand the Trinity, nor will we understand until He comes again for His followers. I refer to the Bible, God’s Word. I cant fully understand how God can be 3 persons but One God, however He is God, the creater, the saviour, our Lord. He can do whatever he wants. It is in the Word, the Bible of who he is. Its faith and continuing to grow and be guided the Holy Spirit that we are to simply turn to. Father, The Son, the Holy Spirit = One God. I share this, I believe and accept the Trinity as One, respectfully I share this in hopes of not offending. We seem to do believe in Jesus as the Messiah and that He is the only Way, the Truth. He died for us so that we may have a chance for eternal life in Heaven.
Thank you. God Bless
r
Hi R,
Some things are hard to understand with the human mind. The next post, if I can ever get it finished, has to do with being “in” Christ who is “in” the Father, and how this may relate to oneness. but it is just a theory.
We just need to trust in Jesus, and when we get to heaven, we will understand better.
Have a blessed day
marianne
[[If you look in a mirror, you see an image. The image is a 2 dimensional reflection of a 3 dimensional person. The image is not the same thing as what it is reflecting. I can touch the image on the mirror without ever touching you.
If Jesus is the “image” of God, then he is a reflection of a multidimensional Father God. The real Father has more dimensions than the image does. This is consistent with what Jesus said, that his Father was greater than he was. No one can see the Father, except Jesus, because he is too great to look upon. However, as Jesus is the son, he can “stand in front of the mirror, and become the “2 dimensional representation” of his father to present his father to the world. ]]
That was very interesting.
Father is God in God form! Jesus is the same God in human form(one dimension of God). Holy Spirit is the same God in spirit form(another dimension of God).
Some explain trinity this way. Sun – father. Light from sun -Jesus. Heat from the sun – Holy Spirit.
Hi Golda
I guess there are different ways to try to understand a God that is beyond our understanding. The blessing is in the quest!
marianne
WOW! My head is spinning. 🙂
There are some “thinkers” in this crowd. Although important to know who the Word is, how does one make the jump from the Word being defined as a person to the Word being defined as a book?
http://37stories.wordpress.com.
Thanks for the help, Marianne.
On the hunt in Texas,
Archie
Hi Marianne;
I read your comments on your blog and followed it here.
Years ago in my late twenties and early thirties I came up with different methods to explain the Trinity and almost had myself convinced.
Then I found out how Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in 325 basically ratified the Trinity as it were, and some bishops who attended had second thoughts after.
However Constantine was a Roman Emperor and they were not to be trifled with.
When the hand of man and politics get this involved in God’s business, it will become corrupt, like pork barreling is to Congress.
My conclusion is that God had no intention of making it this difficult, nor has God intended to switch game plans 2,000 years ago.
Jesus understood much more than most in his day and I believe he promoted and taught that you don’t need an intermediary to relate or speak to God as he said, “when you pray go into the closet and pray in secret and He will hear you”
That makes more sense than anything else.
hi Ichabod,
There is only one God, and that is the Father. Jesus said so, and it says so elsewhere in the bible, but people read right past it, because they are conditioned to accept the trinity proposed by the catholic church. Since then, we have defied the oneness of God, and alienated both the Muslims and the Jews on this.
There is a hierarchy in heaven. The Father is the God that all things come from. Jesus prayed to the Father, and instructed us to do so also.
Jesus and the holy spirit exist in heaven with the Father God, but the Father is the “boss.” Jesus said his Father was greater than He was. The holy spirit only speaks what he hears the Father say. Jesus and the holy spirit are above the angels in essence and authority, and share the divine nature of God, but they are “less” than the Father God.
Christians need to back to what Jesus said, and that will clear things up.
blessings
marianne
What was before the Universe was made? And is the place “heaven” is invisible like an entry which have locked up?
But anyway, what things were before God was born?
R gave many good scriptures above. Here are just two more or many.
Philippians 2:5-11
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”.
Jesus is NOT a created being, he is God, and was in the begining with God (John 1:1)
He was the creator in Colossians 1:16
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”
You say that, “Word # 1 is the Father God, and Word #2 is Jesus. Once this is understood, it is easier to read and interpret. Jesus is the Word of God, but so is the Father the Word of God. Both are being discussed here. Jesus receives the Word from the Father, and then transfers the Word to us.”
What you are saying doesn’t make any sense and in reality Jesus is the Word referred to in John 1. Taking other scriptures and forcing a meaning on them that doesn’t exist does not support your position that there are two Words.
Take the scripture John 1:1,2 NIV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
It is quite obvious if you take this verse in context that the Word refers to Christ and the God refers to God the Father. Any other explanation just doesn’t make any logical sense.
In the beginning was the Word(Jesus),
“Jesus was with God in the beginning he is the Alpha and the Omega”
and the Word(Jesus) was with God,
“This confirms that the Word is Jesus who was with God from the beginning.”
and the Word(Jesus) was God.
“This assertion states the deity of Christ and that Jesus is God.”
2He(Jesus) was with God in the beginning.
“Again, confirming that he(Jesus) was with God the Father in the beginning.”
There are not 2 Words but only 1 which is Jesus. The scripture in Greek shows that there is only 1 rendition of the Word and not two.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος(Word) και ο λογος(Word) ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος(Word)
Again, the Word refers to Jesus who was with God in the beginning. This is very important to understand and not twist around since the deity of Jesus is at stake. Anything less than this amounts to heresy since the understanding of Jesus as God and the trinity is the basic foundational beliefs of Christianity.
DEar Contender
It also says that no one has seen God, except the Son. I makes the Son and God different.
You do not understand my definitions because you have not read the links.
Jesus is divine, but the Father is “God.
The words of Jesus himself, as he prayed to his Father in heaven:
The Father is God, and Jesus is Lord.
The point here is not that no one has seen God except the Son but who is referred to in John 1 as the Word. It is perfectly clear that the Word refers to Christ.
The three persons of the trinity are equal and Jesus is God.
Colossians 2:8-10 NIV
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
1 Timothy 2:5,6 NIV
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
Colossians 1:15-17 NIV
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
According to Athenagoras in 160 AD:
“they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.”
According to Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD:
“I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.”
“There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.”
Also, you keep saying “You do not understand my definitions because you have not read the links.”
I have read some of your links but not all. I’ve read enough to understand what you are trying to say. However, your definitions don’t stand the test against the Bible. Who am I supposed to believe and follow, you and your definitions or God and the Bible? Enough said.
I think we can explain this with the definition of Electromagnetic wave.
Electromagnetic radiation (often abbreviated E-M radiation or EMR) is a form of energy that exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space. EMR has both electric and magnetic field components, which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. (Wikipedia)
Consider Electic field component as Father, Magnetic Field component as Jesus and the direction of propagation as the Holy Spirit.
Electromagnetic wave is a single wave.
However, it contain three different components.
If any one of the component is absent, then there does not exist an Electromagnetic wave.
Hence we cannot separate them.
That have their own identity. However, it will become one wave if and only if the three components are present.
As Jesus was representing a Son in Earth, it was Jesus’ duty to be submissive to the Father God (Please note that they together represent the God).
As Holy spirit was representing a messenger and teacher from God in the Earth, the holy spirit was also appeared to be submissive to the Father.
However, we cannot separate them and we cannot give a Hierarchy.
Fire-Heat-Light is an example.
Fire cannot exist without Heat and light.
But we can study about light and heat separately.
Since, heat and Light are originated from Fire, surely they will tell Fire is the source of our existence.
However, the three were made at the same time.
It is the different experiences of the God by the World.
There is independent existences, so, that we can study separately.
However, we cannot separate them or give separate Hierarchy.
Thanks.
Sajan.
hi Sajan
That is a good analysis.
The only hierarchy I would refer to is the one Jesus mentioned, that the Father was greater than he was, and that he only did what the Father willed him to do.
Since Jesus was submissive to the Father, this implies some sort of inequality in place, and it might have meant only for the time Jesus was on earth. Or maybe it also applies to the heavenly relationship as well, but we cannot really understand this, because we are not in heaven to see this.
Aside from this, Jesus has all the power of the Godhead.
What he meant by that statement may possibly only be understood once we reach heaven, and witness this relationship first hand.
Marianne,
The only thing we can tell is,
Jesus and Holy spirit were submissive to the father when they acted in the earth on different occasions, since they came from the God.
That doesn’t conclude that the same Hierarchy is existing in the heaven.
We can study independently about Fire, Heat and Light.
But we cannot separate them.
If we are separating them, there is no existence for the Fire.
But we can study the properties of each expression separately.
A normal person can feel the fire as such.
Fire, Light, Heat.
A blind person will tell Fire is Heat.
A person without sensation in his skin will tell Fire is light.
But scientifically, we know that Fire is a plasma form of Energy, which can produce different type of energies like heat and light.
Thus we should conclude the simple Fire as a mystery, since we can’t go beyond a limit to express such a phenomena by words.
See the definition of Fire:
Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
The flame is the visible portion of the fire and consists of glowing hot gases. If hot enough, the gases may become ionized to produce plasma.[2] Depending on the substances alight, and any impurities outside, the color of the flame and the fire’s intensity will be different.
(Wikipedia)
Then too, they can’t include all the features and specialties of Fire with this definition.
Then how we will explain the almighty with our words???
Please think about that.
God doesn’t have any language.
So we cannot explain or define God with any of the Language.
Language is human creation.
We cannot limit God to any of the Human creation, as man is a creation of God.
We can tell like “God is an experience”.
He is beyond definitions.
Maximum we can tell is “this is not the exact God=Neti Neti” (Sanskrit an Indian Language)
The only person in the wold who know completely about God is Jesus Christ, since he was the image of God, or he was the God.
From Jesus what we understood is ” God is Love”
Then we should define what is love.
Now, we cannot express love with words, since it is beyond human definitions, language and words.
Love is an experience.
Now we cannot explain, what is an experience.
Thus what I understood is,
as simple human beings, we cannot define or explain this kind of silly things by our words.
even if we define there should be some limitations.
Then how can we define God??
Again, we reached the same position where we begin.
God is a mystery, because he is beyond our explanations.
Thanks.
Sajan
sajan
accepted. some things we just cannot explain. things that are too high for us to really understand. we are not denied salvation because of this lack of understanding. but we are blessed when we seek god and spend time in his word.
Al
You wrote:
“This is how I read what is being said: Shosana has no problem with the new covenant. The problem was with a new covenant called Christianity which eradicated pretty much everything Hebrew and made it into a gentile religion laced with Babylonian sun god worship.”
Are you really prepared to condemn billions of people because they belonged to the wrong church…Doesn’t God Judge the heart? Where is the Love in that condemnation? Does that not make Christianity a religion only the chosen few who are literate in Hebrew culture can attain? What about the illiterate masses who don’t know any better?
Does this make you feel superior to them?
Here is my take. Perhaps you and shoshana, having put yourselves back under the Law are Jealous of the Gentile church…..as was intended by Paul in Roman 11:11
“11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion[b] mean!”
What you fail to understand is that ALL people are God’s people, not just the Hebrews, and that the “Hellenization” which was protected via the Holy Spirit was intended to make the Jewish people Jealous. Is that not what Jesus condemned in the Nation of Israel….their elitism and exclusivity and inability to bring the faith to the Nations. Because they wanted to keep it in the Hebrew box. (I could give about 200 scriptures here but for brevity will not)
How much more will their full inclusion mean?
Do not get me wrong here…I am not defending the paganism of Rome, and this will be swept clean in the house of God. God will show mercy to whom he shows mercy….do not begrudge that fact. But part of that Gospel was the part on being dead to the Law of Bondage and being reborn under the Law of Liberty and Love….I am sorry if this makes you jealous.
I agree that god judges the heart, not the denomination.
I think what they are saying is that the hebrew roots movement has a richer and deeper experience in the Word than the gentile church, so there are more blessings in it.
those in the gentile church leave because it seems something is missing for them.
the hebrew roots movement may help with this.
Marianne,
For forty years I have celebrated easter, and Christmas. For forty years I have been celebrating the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Not Ishtar. What the day of those events are is lost to history. we can guess, but there is no certainty. What the church would do upon converting a nation or race would take the feast days that belonged to one nation and impose a Christian meaning to it. They knew that they were not going to change the culture of that nation, so they did this. That would be like Christians taking the Jewish Holidays and making them Christian, which I do not oppose either. In fact this is part of that jealousy thing above. Or perhaps like the nation that conquers the U.S. taking July 4th and making it a memorial day holiday, complete with hot dogs and apple pie, and fireworks. It is no longer our independence day then.
What I oppose is bringing those pagan meanings back into these Holidays. For example having a statue of Ishtar standing on our alters. The same can be said for the Jewish holidays, Bringing back the animal sacrifices associated with them, or even the grain and incense offerings. That is why I pointed out the first verses of Isaiah 66 to Shoshana and Al. Our sacrifice is to be a humble and contrite spirit. (Isaiah 66:2, Psalm 51:17,) I see very little of this in the Hebrew roots people, as they are more concerned about looking good on the outside, thus being acceptable to the Israeli people.
This is what Israel failed to understand, that the intent of the law was to bring repentance, instead it yielded a proud heart. To give into this proud heart, is to crucify Christ again, and I will not go there. Yes understanding Hebrew culture will broaden our understanding of Jesus, But when it begins to lead one to think this understanding makes them superior to other Christians is when it has gone too far. When it starts leading to “Thank God I am not like those other men, Pagan Roman catholics and their lost daughter protestents” Then it has gone too far (Luke 18:9ff). It is then we are no better than the Pharisees, and we too will be blinded with that spiritual blindness.
I see a ton of this superiority in the comment I read on that other page…I am sickened by them, as well as saddened by them.
God bless,
Deuteronomy 12:28-32
Amplified Bible (AMP)
28 Be watchful and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and with your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.
29 When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go to dispossess, and you dispossess them and live in their land,
30 Be watchful that you are not ensnared into following them after they have been destroyed before you and that you (DO NOT INQUIRE AFTER THEIR GODS, SAYING, HOW DID THESE NATIONS SERVE THEIR GODS? WE WILL DO LIKEWISE.
31 YOU SHALL NOT DO SO TO THE LORD YOUR GOD*), for every abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods. For even their sons and their daughters they have burned in the fire to their gods.
32 Whatever I command you, be watchful to do it; you shall not add to it or diminish it.
Exodus 23:13
Amplified Bible (AMP)
13 In all I have said to you take heed; do not mention the name of other gods [either in blessing or cursing]; do not let such speech be heard from your mouth.
Easter=Astarte-Ashteroth-Ishtar
Read about Tammuz and the Tammuz caves in Israel and the date given to be his birth-Dec 25th.
No harm-no foul-no problem, right? I have gone this far, might as well make everyone mad.
Jeremiah 10:1-10
Amplified Bible (AMP)
10 Hear the word which the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel.
2 Thus says the Lord: Learn not the way of the [heathen] nations and be not dismayed at the signs of the heavens, though they are dismayed at them,
3 For the customs and ordinances of the peoples are false, empty, and futile; it is but a tree which one cuts out of the forest [to make for himself a god], the work of the hands of the craftsman with the ax or other tool.
4 They deck [the idol] with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers so it will not fall apart or move around.
And we gave up the Hebrew feasts (which Yah commanded us to do) for this and it was a “good” thing to do?????
*emphasis mine
Al,
I am NOT worshipping “their gods”….I am celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, and his resurrection. (emphasis on the period) Whether I do this on December 25th, or September 25th does not matter.
There is victory in Jesus….Through him we overcame the Pagan religions of Rome (secular empire), and its Babylonian and Egyptian roots. We have overtaken those holidays as the victors, and placed a Christian feast in its place….You are trying to take those days back, and give them to the pagans…..whose side are you on anyway?
Do you see how one can twist things around with your superiority logic? (sarcasm intended)
I have said you are welcome to eat what you like (dietary restrictions)
I have said you can worship on the Sabbath if you like (Saturday)
I have said you can celebrate Christmas, and resurrection day when you like.
I have told you that you are welcome to celebrate the Jewish feasts if you like.
But only the Blood of Jesus makes one righteous in God’s eyes….”Not by works of righteousness which we have done, But according to his mercy he saved us…” (Titus 3:5)
10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:10-12)
God bless
Al,
You do realize that Isaiah 66:17., is referring to the above regarding what you had posted as well don’t you?
That Isaiah 66:17., is referring to those that worship idols and that verse could have been rendered as;
“They that dedicate to consecrate themselves, and those that purify themselves ceremonially in the garden behind one in the midst, eating and consuming by fire swine’s flesh and the mouse to idols, will come to an end together says the LORD.”
The garden would be referring to the high places where worship to idols took place, and the one in the midst has been translated as having the word “tree” within many versions.
Yeshua is our Everything now and though our Hebrew Roots do indeed offer us further insight into that of our faith, they don’t replace that of Yeshua or what He has accomplished. “He” on the other hand is the “Replacement”!
The Scripture of the New Covenant is further revelation as to what Jeremiah 31:31-34., consists of and it is all pointing to Yeshua as being the sufficient fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Be Blessed in Yeshua our Everything.
Amen.
Al,
Lets just take look at some of the obvious dynamics and changes that have taken place within the New Covenant.
For one there was the Akedah and how Abraham was tested by God to bind his beloved son Isaac and offer him as a burnt offering sacrifice on Mount Moriah.
But then (as you have quoted above) in Deuteronomy 12:31., the Father says;
“Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.”
Yet other than the fire, God offered up Yeshua to Himself as a sacrifice.
In Exodus 20:10., (as well as many other verses), when God was giving the 10 Commandments to Moses and to Israel He said;
“But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:”
Yet Yeshua broke that Law “to show mercy and to demonstrate love” every opportunity that He could.
In Genesis 9:4., God said to Noah;
“But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
And God said in Leviticus 3:13.;
“[It shall be] a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.”
Yet Yeshua said in John 6:53-56.;
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
Though I would agree that the last example would obviously be figurative in context rather than literal, it still was completely contrary to that of the law.
The way that I see these two positions is, that some see Yeshua as only that of sacrificial Lamb which didn’t change any of the law whatsoever.
Whereas others see Him as Fulfilling every aspect of the law and bringing in an entirely New Covenant where He is absolutely Everything and All things.
These others, (myself included) feel that this returning to some if not all of the law of the Old Covenant, may just be the prophesised “falling away” from the faith that is expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Be Blessed in Yeshua our Savior, our Everything.
Alienated, Al
Please read the following. This is as thorough of an exposition on the Church and Israel that I have found….speaks out against replacement theology as well.
I pray it is received by all who read it.
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/i-will-build-my-church
Good Link Dru!
It was well written with accurate Biblical support.
Be Blessed in Yeshua, our Everything.
Shoshana
Gal 2:17-21, heb 8:7, heb 10:9, 1 peter 2:16,
Here are some more info about being free from the law. But I want to show you and David respect so I will not mention when I eat lobster and pig again.
Peace sister!
Adam
The debate is over, you would do well to heed the words I wrote above as well.
God bless
Dru the soumi
The debate is never over. Maybe it is over on this blog but this will be discussed for a long time. Hebrews will be jealous because their messiah will be a Christian and it is much easier to belong to God as a Christian then following the 613 laws.
Sisu!
Where was the Sisu when you lost in penalties aganst US and A in world championship in Icehockey????
Olen menettänyt hyppy kukko
The US has a population of 300 million to pick the best players from, Suomi about 5.5-6 million I would call that an unfair advantage.
Gregg,
If you would indulge me, I am a little confused on the point you are trying to make with Isaiah 66:17. Clarify what will come to an end or as other translations offer will be destroyed or taken away. Thanks
Al,
Sure, I’ll clarify the above for you you.
But first I would like to say this.
In the past you have always tried to substantiate your point of view regarding the dietary law by saying words to the effect, “That it is only Paul that states that all foods are to be considered clean. That no other Apostle makes the same claim within any of their epistle’s. Therefore, what Paul has to say regarding the dietary law must be considered to be false or completely misunderstood.”
Though there is some truth to the above in that no other Apostle writes anything regarding the dietary law, it is also highly circumstantial, and is in my opinion a rather convoluted way to arrive at your above conclusion.
Wouldn’t it be far more likely that if what Paul was teaching happened to be false, that somewhere within one of the other Apostles epistles, there would be a rebuttal to this teaching? That one of them would clearly state that it was false or has been misunderstood and would then offer specificity to clarify what had been misconstrued?
Remember they had all spent a significant amount of time together and were well aware of the Gospel that each of them were preaching by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not only does that and the above have be taken into consideration, but one also has to wonder why the Holy Spirit Himself didn’t step in to correct the error, if indeed one had been made?
But not once in Scripture does any Apostle rebuke or make any attempts to correct or clarify what it was that Paul had been teaching!
What is fact is this;
As recorded by Luke by the Holy Spirit within the book of Acts, Paul was chosen by Yeshua Himself, (Acts 9:15,16.), which from that point forward describes one of the most marvelous 180 degree turnaround testimonies within Scripture. And that the only time whatsoever that Paul is mentioned by any other Apostle in any of their epistles, is by Peter, where he, (by the Holy Spirit), rather than rebuking Paul, commends him, (2 Peter 3:15,16.).
So the question then becomes, “Does one then Believe Paul, (being chosen by Yeshua Himself and filled with the Holy Spirit, as stated in Acts 9:17.), or does one simply disregard what he says, (and disregard the Holy Spirit), and instead believe what they wish to believe?” And to me that simply adds up to being “apostasia”, were one has chosen a stumbling stone of offence, rather than the fulness and sufficiency of Yeshua.
To me it is far more credible to derive a conclusion based upon the following. “If Paul says something while filled with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not refute what He has said through Paul, (by doing so through any other Apostle), then the Holy Spirit must have meant what He said. And to disagree with Paul is not merely disagreeing with a man, but is in actuality disagreeing with the Holy Spirit.”
And considering the topic we are discussing, that is some food for thought.
Now to answer your question above regarding Isaiah 66:17.
I can not say with any conviction or certainty that what follows here is completely correct, (as you also can not deny its possibility either). However we must remember the cyclical nature of Scripture, its duplicity of meaning, and as to what physical time frame to which it could be applied. Therefore if we look at Isaiah 65 first, we see that within the beginning of that chapter, the context consists of, “Gods Righteous Judgement regarding natural Israel”, as confirmed by 65:2..
The Father says in 65:2-5.;
“I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way [that is] not good, According to their own thoughts; A people who provoke Me to anger continually to My face; Who sacrifice in gardens, And burn incense on altars of brick; Who sit among the graves, And spend the night in the tombs; Who eat swine’s flesh, And the broth of abominable things is [in] their vessels; Who say, ‘Keep to yourself, Do not come near me, For I am holier than you!’ These [are] smoke in My nostrils, A fire that burns all the day.”
Now the above is in no way referring to the “Church” or the “Holy Spirit indwelled believer”, but is rather referring to those that have not accepted Yeshua as their Messiah and are instead worshipping idols rather than God. Therefore in not being “In Yeshua”, none of the liberty that He provides would apply to them whatsoever.
They would still be under the law, and they aren’t choosing to perform that at all either, but have instead gone their own ways.
In Isaiah 65:6,7., God further confirms as to who His anger is directed at, as being those that have worshipped idols rather than choosing to draw near to Him.
However, in verse 8 through 10 something else is expressed. That being, that out of all of Israel a “remnant” that has sought God will be saved, (which personally I believe correlates to Revelation 12.)
From Isaiah 65:11 through to verse 16 God expresses the differences that this “remnant” will experience from those that continued to not repent and worship the one true God. One group will die and be slaughtered and one group will be saved. One group will eat and the other will be hungry. One group will drink and the other will be thirsty. One group will rejoice and the other will be ashamed. One group will sing from joy of heart, and the other will wail from grief of spirit.
In Isaiah 65:17 through to verse 25 we have, (what I believe we could safely say), is that of the Millennial Kingdom, (or in essence effectively a return of sorts, to Eden). Where verse 17 also ties in with 2 Peter 3:9-13.
Now, though in chapter 65 where it appears that what is expressed would indeed be the end, we then have Isaiah 66?
We must also realize and take into consideration that the Father is not restricted by the dimension of time like we are, and that chapter 66 itself is not necessarily chronological, or that it happens after that of chapter 65 in sequence. Therefore there is a distinct possibility that this is further information regarding what will occur during what has previously been revealed within chapter 65.
Could 66:1-3., be referring to the new temple that will be built by those that have not accepted Yeshua as their Messiah, and could this therefore explain as to why their sacrifice’s are not acceptable to God?
Isaiah 66:3.;
“He who kills a bull [is as if] he slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb, [as if] he breaks a dog’s neck; He who offers a grain offering, [as if he offers] swine’s blood; He who burns incense, [as if] he blesses an idol. Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations,”
Could 66:4., be referring to 2 Thessalonians 2:11,12.?
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Could 66:5., be literally a repetition of the past, and be referring to Matthew 10:17,18.?
“But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.”
And Matthew 23:34,35.
“”Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: [some] of them you will kill and crucify, and [some] of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”
Could Isaiah 66:6 through to verse 14., be a reiteration of what was expressed within chapter 65 regarding the “remnant and the birth of the 144,000” that is also described within Revelation 12?
Verse 66:16., states;
“For by fire and by His sword The LORD will judge all flesh; And the slain of the LORD shall be many.”
And verse 66:17 and 18., state;
“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, [To go] to the gardens After an [idol] in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. For I [know] their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory.”
The above verse clearly coincides with what had been previously stated within Isaiah 65:2-5.
Again Isaiah 65:2-5.;
“ I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way [that is] not good, According to their own thoughts; A people who provoke Me to anger continually to My face; Who sacrifice in gardens, And burn incense on altars of brick; Who sit among the graves, And spend the night in the tombs; Who eat swine’s flesh, And the broth of abominable things is [in] their vessels; Who say, ‘Keep to yourself, Do not come near me, For I am holier than you!’ These [are] smoke in My nostrils, A fire that burns all the day.”
And again, the above is in no way referring to the “Church” or the “Holy Spirit indwelled believer”, but is rather referring to those that have not accepted Yeshua as their Messiah and are instead worshipping idols rather than God. Therefore in not being “In Yeshua”, none of the liberty that He provides would apply to them whatsoever.
So this in no way can be utilized to substantiate your position regarding the dietary law, and how it would apply to those that are “In Yeshua”, because it is like comparing apples to oranges.
This then leads me back to what I had written previously regarding this topic……
Quote,
“Does one then Believe Paul, (being chosen by Yeshua Himself and filled with the Holy Spirit, as stated in Acts 9:17.), or does one simply disregard what he says, (and disregard the Holy Spirit), and instead believe what they wish to believe?”
Unquote.
Be Blessed in Yeshua our more that Sufficient Everything.
Amen.
a.
Amen, Buck
Those verses, Isaiah 66:1-3 are the reason I believe that the person who reinstates the temple sacrifices is the one who commits the abomination of desolation….They are declaring themselves god.
Romans 3:21-30
Dru
No one will reinstate the temple sacrifice. You have lack of Holy spirit thats why you believe in such stuff.
Adam
I think you need to read the following link as well
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/i-will-build-my-church
Gregg,
We are not going to get anywhere passing scriptures back and forth. I will approach this a little different.
As far as the dietary instructions, I haven’t referred to that in quite awhile. You make it sound like this is the focus of what we are talking about and I just posted a comment on it. Regardless, I will again tell you my position on the matter. The comment about Paul either making a false statement or being misunderstood is based on how he is viewed by those who keep the dietary instructions. Some go as far to say he is a false prophet. I don’t believe that, but I do believe he is misunderstood and I have written as much, but that didn’t seem to make your hit list. For every reference that Paul “seems” to make concerning the Torah having passed away (and all that entails), there are legitimate rebuttals. But in this forum of bias, would be an act of futility to undertake. The one problem I do have with the Christian understanding of Paul’s writings is the fact that there is no other witness to it. Finding a number of scriptures written by the same person is still only one witness, you need two or three different people in the scripture to establish a word as being true. I don’t believe Paul falsified anything. I do think he has been misinterpreted. Whether you agree or not, won’t change anything. When it comes to Paul, everyone breaks the rules to hold everything intact. Why? Because there is no other word to substantiate what the Christian Church believes he is saying. I understand he is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but that doesn’t negate the rest of the Word of Yah. So much for that.
(Matthew 18:16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
I want to ask a question from the historical record. I posted it while conversing with Dru. The way I read his response, he would have done things the same way. I will ask you the same.
“For three centuries, the new covenant flourished until Constantine made a deal with the Gentile believer’s of Messiah-get rid of everything Jewish (Yah’s things) and they would not be persecuted anymore. They agreed and allowed the worship of Yahshua to be tainted and compromised with Babylonian sun god worship, rather than the Sabbath and the Moedim, even as it is to this day and no one sees any problem with this. In fact, if anything is said, they are ridiculed and told it is only about Love now. Nothing else matters. Love is the foundation of all, but does not make Yah’s word of no affect. It mattered for the first three centuries since Messiah. What changed???”
I will add the following to illicit a more specific response:
For 200 + years a mostly Gentile assembly of believer’s kept the moedim-Yah’s appointed times-the Feasts and kept the Sabbath. Am I to believe that these believer’s were wrong for those 200+ years and a Pagan Emperor had it right by doing away with these things and in their place introducing Babylonian sun god worship -Christmas, Easter, Lent, “Sun”-day worship and so on that has been with us ever since? All the while, the Christian Church embracing this to this very day, thinking they are doing a good thing
. The Jews for centuries were tortured by the Church to convert to Christianity and keep the pagan feasts. Most chose death, while some did relent rather than die. Even most of them recanted later due to the stench of paganism and worshipping Yah in such a foul manner and chose death.
Do you agree with Constantine and the choice the believer’s made or the stance the unbelieving Jews took?
Al,
If I might, what happened to the “Love feast”? This is THE apostolic church feast. Don’t believe me?
http://earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.php
This was done on the “first day” of the week. Act 20:18, I Corinthians 16:2.
Now this was well before Constantine was born…..
The first day of the week is Pentecost as well (Church Born), and the Day Jesus resurrected (Kingdom come). On the first day, God began his creation, and on the first day A new creation in Christ….the Kingdom of God. Why would you ever want to give this day to the Pagan deities? Shame on You!
God bless.
Hey Dru,
Some light reading for you from Wikipedia (I tried to find a source that would not be partial to the Jews):
Origin of Sunday rest[edit]
Main article: Early Christianity
Though the majority observance of Christian Sabbath is as Sunday rest, this development was gradual. In the 2nd century, the observance of a corporate day of worship on the first day (Sunday, or Saturday night) had become commonplace as attested in the patristic writings. For such worshipers the term “Lord’s Day” came to mean the first day or Sunday. From the 4th century onwards, Sunday worship has also taken on the observance of Sunday rest in some Christian traditions, such as the Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries. Among these “first-day Sabbatarians”, Sunday worship and/or rest eventually became synonymous with a first-day Christian Sabbath.
Seventh-day rest[edit]
In the 1st centuries, the first day, being made a festival in honor of Christ’s resurrection, received attention as a day of religious services and recreation, but seventh-day Sabbath rest was still observed by “almost all churches”.[7][8] According to classical sources, widespread seventh-day Sabbath rest by Gentile Christians was also the prevailing mode in the 3rd and 4th centuries.[8][9]
Nonobservance[edit]
Early Christian observance of both spiritual seventh-day Sabbath and Lord’s Day assembly is evidenced in Ignatius’s letter to the Magnesians c. 110.[10][11] Ambiguity arises due to textual variants. The only extant Greek parent manuscript of the letter, the Codex Mediceus Laurentius,[12] says, “Those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s life …” (kata kyriaken zoen zontes).[13] The expanded Pseudo-Ignatian version of Magnesians, possibly from the middle of the 3rd century, rewrites this passage to make “Lord’s” refer to the first day (the variant textual reading of kata kyriaken zontes, “living according to the Lord’s”, is supported by the medieval Latin manuscript Codex Caiensis 395, “secundum Dominicam viventes”).[13][14] Pseudo-Ignatius amplified this point by combining weekly observance of spiritual seventh-day Sabbath with the Lord’s assembly: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness …. But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s [Day, Dominicam] as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days.”[15] If Pseudo-Ignatius dates as early as 140, its admonition must be considered important evidence on 2nd-century Sabbath and Lord’s Day observance.[13]
The 1st-[16] or 2nd-century Epistle of Barnabas or Pseudo-Barnabas on Is. 1:13 regards “Sabbaths of the present age” as unacceptable in favor of one spiritual seventh-day Sabbath that ushers in “the eighth day” and commencement of a new world.[17] By the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr, who attended worship on the first day,[18] wrote about the cessation of Sabbath observance and stated that Sabbath was enjoined as a temporary sign to Israel because of Israel’s sinfulness,[19] no longer needed after Christ came without sin.[20] Tertullian (early 3rd century) also said “to [us] Sabbaths are strange” and unobserved.[21]
Sunday rest[edit]
The origin of Sunday worship in the 1st or 2nd century remains a debated point. Often first-day worship (Sunday morning or Saturday night) was practiced alongside observance of seventh-day Sabbath rest[11] and was a widespread Christian tradition by the 2nd century;[1][22] over time, Sunday thus came to be known as Lord’s Day and, later, a rest day.
On March 7, 321, the Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating:[23]
All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.
Ellen G. White states that ecumenical councils generally each pressed Sabbath down slightly lower and exalted Sunday correspondingly, and that the bishops eventually urged Constantine to syncretize the worship day to promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans. But “while many God-fearing Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held [seventh-day] Sabbath.”[11][24]
Some church authorities opposed widespread seventh-day Sabbath observance as a Judaizing tendency.[11] For example, the Council of Laodicea (canon 29) required Christians to separate from Jewish laws and traditions, stating that Christians must not Judaize by resting on Sabbath, but must work that day and then, if possible, rest on the Lord’s Day, and that any found to be Judaizers were declared anathema from Christ.[25] This was consistent with Constantine’s personal position towards Jewry,[26][27] which has been described by the primitive Christianity movement as being anti-Semitic, antinomian, and persecution of seventh-day observers.[citation needed] Simultaneously Rabbinical Judaism was distinguishing itself from primitive Christianity. White says that the Roman bishops “demanded … that the Sabbath be profaned; and they denounced in the strongest language those who dared to show it honour. It was only by fleeing from the power of Rome that any could obey God’s law in peace.”[28]
Al,
Where did you hear that? on the internet. 🙂 Now you know you shouldn’t believe everything you hear on the internet.
Let’s hear the word of God, shall we.
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.[a] 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,
“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
Thus belief in Yeshua equates with rest….as in “come to me all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” Spoken by THE Word of God himself. Rejection of that rest offered as gift by Yeshua leads to wrath, as the quoted psalm 95:11 affirmed in the negative.
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
Now this alludes to Hebrews 3:7-8
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
Now here we have testing and rebellion associated with not entering his rest, due to a lack of faith (read Psalm 95 here, since this is the text the author is using.)
For if Joshua had given them rest, God[b] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
Now here lies the distinction. Sabbatisimos, or Sabbath rest, is not to be confused with Katapausis, which is a resting place that is entered. For whoever has entered God’s “resting place” has also rested from his works as God did from his.
Now in the following is the clincher:
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 4)
So our striving is to enter his resting place, of which the “Sabbath rest” is a foreshadow of. Entry into this resting place is not by works, but by faith. The Whole point of Hebrews can be thus summed up in the following:
10 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10)
Or to put it more bluntly:
” Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? ” (Hebrews 10)
We, through faith in Yeshua, and his shed blood, have entered that resting place when we believe that his blood is sufficient, once for all, to save us, and forgive our sins. We have rested from our labors through his shed blood on the cross.
Now you can go on abiding by the dietary restrictions, the Sabbath rest, the grain and incense offerings, but they do not amount to hill of beans compared to the righteousness of Yeshua on the cross, and his sacrifice. These are merely your actions to abide by tradition and custom, and are of no benefit to you in his kingdom. In fact, they may even be hindering you from entering his blessed resting place.
How sweet it is to be here, where everyday is a rest from my toils and struggles. As the hymn puts it….
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
Refrain
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
This is a place I hope you will find and enter, as it is truly a wonderful place to be. Amen
Not to mention it is then, that he can begin writing his law upon your heart. The whole point of James epistle, as well as 2 Peter, that faith is the starting point for becoming servants of God.
God bless.
Oh, and Al
You wrote:
” The one problem I do have with the Christian understanding of Paul’s writings is the fact that there is no other witness to it.”
Implied in this comment is the statement “I am not a Christian” ….Think about it. In other words you do not equate yourself with Christians. That is because you have put yourself under bondage of the Law. (which you imagine as a pedestal)
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith. (Galations 3:10-14)
Regarding the “other witnesses” to Paul, there is Jesus, John, Peter, Luke, Matthew, Mark, James, and Jude. The perfect number of 8, And not to mention the writer of Hebrews. (Not in the way your looking for, for then you would be walking by sight, and not by faith 2 Cor. 5:7)
God bless.
Hi Al,
Below you will find a two part response since you have asked me to answer a specific question at the end of your above post.
The first part of my response here is in regards to what you perceive to be a lack of witnesses.
Above you say the following;
Quote;
“The one problem I do have with the Christian understanding of Paul’s writings is the fact that there is no other witness to it. Finding a number of scriptures written by the same person is still only one witness, you need two or three different people in the scripture to establish a word as being true.”
Unquote;
Well, the reason that no other Apostle rebukes or attempts to correct anything that Paul has stated in any of their epistles, is because the matter had already been decided by “NUMEROUS WITNESSES”.
I don’t have a “Christian bias or understanding” regarding this, I simply comprehend what was written. This ISN’T even a CHRISTIAN perspective BUT RATHER THAT OF A JEWISH ONE, because those that arrived at a conclusion just happened to be of JEWISH HERITAGE AND ANCESTRY.
Acts 15:1,2.;
“And certain [men] came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.”
So above we see that at least a couple of individuals came from Judea and preached a doctrine that both Paul and Barnabas disagreed with, and after what I am sure was a rather heated argument, they all decided to get clarification regarding this teaching by heading to Jerusalem to present the question to the full compliment of Apostles and elders.
Acts 15:4.;
“And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.”
So now we have the group that traveled to Jerusalem, being greeted by the church there, (which by that time could have been comprised in the hundreds), where they were now also with the Apostles and elders.
Acts 15:5.;
“But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.”
Above during that time, this group of Pharisees expressed their beliefs and understanding.
Acts 15:6.
“Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.”
Which would be whether or not it was a requirement for Gentiles to be “CIRCUMCISED and were to KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.
Acts 15:7-11.;
After which was again probably a heated debate, Peter stands up and confesses his experience regarding Cornelius and his household, and as to how God utilized him at first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter says that “God who knows the heart, bore witness to Cornelius and his household, and blessed them with the Holy Spirit, just as He had done with them. And that God made no distinction between the two (Jew and Gentile) and had also purified the hearts of Cornelius and his household by that of Faith.”
Then Peter says in verse 15:10 “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”
The above would be in reference to “KEEPING THE LAW OF MOSES”.
Then in verse 15:11., Peter says, “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
Acts 15:12.;
At that point everyone that was there then listened to both Paul and Barnabas as they described all of the miracles and wonders that God had worked through them among all of the Gentiles that believed.
After both Paul and Barnabas had finished telling everyone that was there what had happened on all of their journey’s, James stands up in Acts 15:13 through 18 and expresses his thoughts and opinions.
In Acts 15:19-21. James expresses his determination regarding the whole matter of discussion and says;
“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, [from] sexual immorality, [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
In Acts 15:22., Al, you have your full compliment of witnesses that you had stated that didn’t exist above. All JEWISH WITNESSES.
“Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, [namely], Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.”
Acts 15:23-29., consist of the letter that was written and what the Jerusalem council consisting of all of the Apostles, all of the elders, the whole church and everyone who had journeyed to Jerusalem to have this matter decided had concluded.
In Acts 15:24-26.;
“Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “[You must] be CIRCUMCISED and KEEP THE LAW–to whom we gave no [such] commandment– it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, (AGAIN,THERE ARE ALL YOUR WITNESSES) to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So not only do all of the Apostles, elders, church and everyone else that was commissioned initially by God to speak the truth of Yeshua to all people AGREE, but in Acts 15:28., it appears that the HOLY SPIRIT was also in agreement as well.
“For it seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:”
Where none of the following conditions required for Gentiles to be “CIRCUMCISED or in KEEPING THE LAW OF MOSES”!
PART TWO.
Al, it appears to me that you seem to consider “love” to be some form of Christian construct rather than it being the will of God for man?
I challenge you to partake in your own study rather than simply taking my word for it.
Research the amount of verses that Yeshua speaks about the law as opposed to the times that He offers up parables and speaks directly about performing acts that demonstrate that of love. And as to how many times He Himself performs acts of compassion and love by healing others unconditionally. As well, take into consideration the amount of times that He states that “Love fulfills the Law and the Prophets” and then compare the same with all of the other epistles that are in the New Covenant Scripture.
Regarding the rest of your question and that of Constantine, I wasn’t there Al. I don’t really know what transpired or how it transpired?
I don’t follow any organized religion myself and I rarely attend any denominational church whatsoever. Never have. I read Scripture and apply what I have learned through reading it to that of my life.
You close with the following question;
“Do you agree with Constantine and the choice the believer’s made or the stance the unbelieving Jews took?”
I believe that you left out an alternative option above.
I don’t agree with Constantine nor that of the unbelieving Jews.
I choose to believe the Word that God has left us to understand His ways and to serve Him as best as I can and I don’t attempt to emulate anything other than that.
If something is stated as clear and dry as the earlier portion of my response is above, and I understand what God is saying, I apply it to my life.
I am not a Gentile that tries to be a Jew. I am simply a follower of my Lord and Savior based upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Is it possible that I may be wrong regarding some things?
Absolutely.
Do or would they have a bearing on my heart for God and the gratitude that I have for His Son and my King?
Not a chance.
Do that study that I asked for you to look into. You may find it well worth your time.
Be Blessed in Yeshua our more than Sufficient Everything.
Gregg,
You stated above:
“If something is stated as clear and dry as the earlier portion of my response is above, and I understand what God is saying, I apply it to my life.”
The sad part is things are not that simple. It is why I stated in a previous post that Yah made salvation basic and easy to find and understand so that even a child can find it. But beyond that things are not so simple. Not even the verse you quoted in Acts 15.
I am leaving town for a few days but will get back with you and Dru when I get back. I know you would probably rather have me just kind of disappear, but for now anyway, that is not going to happen. This discussion needs to take place.
Unfortunately, simplicity is not the word of the day.
Be Blessed my brothers
Al,
“For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you. For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end”
2 Corinthians 1:12,13.
Gregg,
I am totally intrigued and would love to respond right now, but don’t have the time. Will get back with you hopefully tomorrow.
Blessings to you also
Al,
In respects to the content of the Scripture in the above post to you, I offer you this as well.
The Following is Paul speaking to those that ate all foods, and worshiped God on the day of their choosing.
It would also be as to “how and what” – “The Way” before Constantine, would have been taught and understood the Gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach.
“Him that is weak, (“astheneō”, feeble, without strength and powerless), in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful, (“dialogismos”, deliberating, doubting, questioning about what is true) disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all, (“pas”, each, every, any, all, the whole, all things, everything) things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise, (“exoutheneō”, despise, or hold in less esteem) him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him, (“autos” or in this context, “both”). Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth, (“krinō”, to separate, to pick out, select, choose, determine, resolve, decree.) one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth, (“phroneō”, to have understanding, be wise, to think or judge what one’s opinion is) the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought, (“exoutheneō”, despise, or hold in less esteem) thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God, (Isaiah 45:23).
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock, (“proskomma”, an obstacle in the way which if one strikes his foot against he stumbles or falls, or, that over which a soul stumbles i.e. by which is caused to sin.) or an occasion to fall in [his] brother’s way.
I know, and am persuaded, (“peithō”to be persuaded, to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing) by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing, (“oudeis”, no one, nothing) unclean, (“koinos”, common, ordinary, belonging to generality, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean) of itself: but to him that esteemeth, (“logizomai”, to take in account, or is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight) any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
But if thy brother be grieved, (“lypeō”, to make sorrowful, to affect with sadness, cause grief, or offend) with [thy] meat, (“brōma”, that which is eaten, food) now walkest thou not charitably, (“agapē”, affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love). Destroy (“apollymi” in this context, to discard or to put out of the way entirely) not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good, (“agathos”, of good constitution or nature, excellent and honourable) be evil spoken of, (“blasphēmeō”, to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme):
For the kingdom of God is not meat, (“brōsis”, the act of eating.) and drink; but righteousness, (“dikaiosynē”, in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God in integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting) and peace, (“eirēnē”, a state of national tranquillity, peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord, of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is.) and joy, (“chara”, joy, gladness) in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify, (“oikodomē”, (the act of) building, building up. the act of one who promotes another’s growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness) another. For meat destroy, (“katalyō”, to dissolve, disunite, render vain, (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish.) not the work of God. All things, (“pas”, each, every, any, all, the whole, all things, everything) indeed, (“men”, truly, certainly, surely, indeed) [are] pure, (“katharos”, clean, pure, in a levitical sense, clean, the use of which is not forbidden, imparts no uncleanness); but [it is] evil, (“kakos”, of a bad nature, not such as it ought to be.) for that man who eateth with offence, (“proskomma”, a stumbling block, that over which a soul stumbles i.e. by which is caused to sin). It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Hast thou faith? Have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth, (“krinō”,to pick out, select, choose, to approve, esteem, to prefer, to be of opinion, deem, think, to determine, resolve, decree.) not himself in that thing which he alloweth, (“dokimazō”, to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), after examination, to approve, deem worthy).
And he that doubteth, (“diakrinō”, to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer, to determine, give judgment, oppose) is damned, (“katakrinō”, to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment, condemned by one’s good example to render another’s wickedness the more evident and censurable) if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith, (“pistis”, “primarily”, conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it) : for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin, (“hamartia”, to miss the mark, to err, be mistaken, to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong).
Romans Chapter 14.
Al, I am sorry if my personal Faith in Yeshua as my Everything, and the Liberty and Freedom that He provides, has caused you to stumble or has offended you in any way. That was never my intention. I believe that I fully comprehend the above both in its English and Greek context and only wished for you to once again enjoy the ribs that you had stated that you missed so much.
There is nothing that you could submit or provide that will ever change my mind regarding this, though you are welcome to respond if you wish.
Hope that you had a productive and safe trip.
Be Blessed In Yeshua our KING of kings, our Everything.
Amen.