the old and the new testament

[Rival]

They translated it Passover in every place but that instance in Acts, in the same passage they say Unleavened Bread so they were wrong in saying Easter, the other translations say correctly, Passover.

You said the KJV translates it 'Passover' in every other instance. So are you telling me they managed to mistranslate it just once for no apparent reason when before they'd always translated it right? And are you also telling me you don't celebrate Easter?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You said the KJV translates it 'Passover' in every other instance. So are you telling me they managed to mistranslate it just once for no apparent reason when before they'd always translated it right? And are you also telling me you don't celebrate Easter?

No I don’t celebrate Easter, we celebrate Passover and the Lord’s Supper:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:26-29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Rival]

No I don’t celebrate Easter, we celebrate Passover and the Lord’s Supper:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:26-29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

If I may say, and I don't mean this rudely, you are so very Protestant that I really don't understand this. This kind of Christianity makes no sense to me and the theology is far too alien for me to comment further.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If I may say, and I don't mean this rudely, you are so very Protestant that I really don't understand this. This kind of Christianity makes no sense to me and the theology is far too alien for me to comment further.

I don’t know what “Protestant” is exactly but is my theology biblically correct or not? It is as far as I can see according to the Scriptures. That’s what It means to be a follower of Christ.

 

[Rival]

I don’t know what “Protestant” is exactly but is my theology biblically correct or not? It is as far as I can see according to the Scriptures. That’s what It means to be a follower of Christ.

This is Protestantism.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is Protestantism.

Do Protestants celebrate the Feasts?

 

[Rival]

Do Protestants celebrate the Feasts?

Not all of them, and historically they have banned some, such as Christmas.

Protestants are varied.

Idk why I'm having to tell you all this, you must know it. It's common knowledge.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Not all of them, and historically they have banned some, such as Christmas.

Protestants are varied.

Idk why I'm having to tell you all this, you must know it. It's common knowledge.

I keep things simple: A person is either a believer (born again through trusting Jesus sacrifice) or an unbeliever ( haven’t been born again).
I see a lot of Liberty as a believer to celebrate and honor God no matter what day, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ is every day, the Feasts are remembering what God has done and like a calendar and preparation for His return. That’s how I see those. When I read the Bible and how it says to live, I see that we are to live according to the Word of God, so when my life doesn’t line up with that I repent and live according to what God has just shown me.

 

[wellwisher]

in orthodoxy, we are taught that the new testament is greater than the old testament, that is why we use the epithet ''old'' for the old testament. it's kind of, the ''new'' testament replacing the ''old''. if there are any contradictions between the two, the new testament prevails. it makes sense. the words of christ are words of god himself, and they prevail the old.

The Old Testament is about how humans lose paradise and have to take a tougher road, trying to find their way via law; knowledge of good and evil.

The New Testament is the story of love and faith where humans have a means to find paradise, again. This implied something similar to Adam and Eve, going back into time, and being given a second chance to not make that same critical choice. This second time they do not to choose law; tree of knowledge of good and evil. Jesus is often called the second Adam and replaces law with the original faith Adam had before the taboo.

The doctrine of the forgiveness of sin is a back door way to do away with law. If you break the speed limit law, and the trooper smiles and forgives you and tells you to slow down and be careful, it is like the law does not apply to you, at that instant of time. Forgiveness of sin neutralizes the power of the law as though the law was not in affect.

God never wanted humans to live under law. In paradise, God specifically created a taboo to push Adam and Eve; humans, away from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which law derives. Original sin is connected to humans choosing law, over their original faith in the natural instincts of paradise. The animal does not need a learned system of laws to make moral judgements, but rather they act in a faithful way to their instinctive urges, which integrate them with nature and with each other. Instinct is innate and not learned like law, which is why it requires faith in a hunch.

Jesus did way with law, since law; knowledge of good and evil was never condone by God. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was connected to Satan, not God. The choice of Adam and Eve to ignore God and accept Satan via choosing law, allowed Satan to become the Lord of the Earth, during most of the Old Testament and New Testament up to Revelations. The stop off point is where Satan is thrown from heaven. At that point, Satan's job as Lord of the Earth, was no longer condoned by heaven. This is when Jesus takes over the role as arbitrator for humans between heaven and earth.

Sin derives from law. If you break the law you sin. On the other hand, sin is not imputed when there is no law. Law creates sin, often out of thin air. If we repeal a law, we also repeal the induced sin. How can something assumed to be good, like law, create the evil of sin? Law is not good, but it is both good and evil. All law has a dark side, which often shows up when the self righteous do evil in the name of the law; burn witches.

Law is not always objective but is very often subjective. One can see this in action in all types of countries where the parties in power makes laws for their own convenience and power. In Democratic countries the ruling party while shift the laws to favor themselves and their base. This is not objective and can never lead to objectivity. The result is death and suffering appear with the victims changing each election. Forgiveness of sin places each person above the law, sinless, since sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[metis]

Not really because what do you think Jesus Christ would call this Feast?

That makes as much sense as if I said you "corrupted" Jesus' name by posting "Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus the Christ" since "Christ" was not his last name. IOW, it's just nonsensical political correctness, and I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant Church that taught such things, using trash like that to condemn some other denominations plus Judaism.

I’m not making a mountain out of a molehill but pointing something out that’s been corrupted in the Church.

Your use of "corrupted" in this context is "corrupted" in and of itself.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That makes as much sense as if I said you "corrupted" Jesus' name by posting "Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus the Christ" since "Christ" was not his last name. IOW, it's just nonsensical political correctness, and I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant Church that taught such things, using trash like that to condemn some other denominations plus Judaism.

Your use of "corrupted" in this context is "corrupted" in and of itself.

As I already posted the Greek words for Jesus Christ are properly translated into English. The Greek word pasach is translated Passover in English not Easter. Already showed all this in the previous posts.

 

[metis]

As I already posted the Greek words for Jesus Christ are properly translated into English. The Greek word pasach is translated Passover in English not Easter. Already showed all this in the previous posts.

It doesn't make one iota of difference because words are not "magic", nor are they the actual things they symbolize. That's like saying that the Greek texts "corrupted" the Gospel since they're not Hebrew nor Aramaic. Matter of fact, using your "logic", writing "Jesus Christ" is a corruption of the original Hebrew and Aramaic name of Jesus.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It doesn't make one iota of difference because words are not "magic", nor are they the actual things they symbolize. That's like saying that the Greek texts "corrupted" the Gospel since they're not Hebrew nor Aramaic. Matter of fact, using your "logic", writing "Jesus Christ" is a corruption of the original Hebrew and Aramaic name of Jesus.

What Bible translation do you use?

 

[metis]

What Bible translation do you use?

Mostly what most Christian theologians use: the RSV. I also use the New American Version at times. But I also use the Stone Edition Chumash and Tanakh that are heavily used in Orthodox Judaism as I used to belong to a synagogue.

How about you?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Mostly what most Christian theologians use: the RSV. I also use the New American Version at times. But I also use the Stone Edition Chumash and Tanakh that are heavily used in Orthodox Judaism as I used to belong to a synagogue.

How about you?

Mostly NKJV, how does the RSV translate the word pasach mainly in Acts 12:4? Also the rest of Scripture for that word?

 

[metis]

Mostly NKJV, how does the RSV translate the word pasach mainly in Acts 12:4? Also the rest of Scripture for that word?

The reason why the RSV is preferred by most Christian theologians is that the editors tried to use the English words that are the closest to the Hebrew/Koine Greek while still making it readable. Going from one language to another is a real bugger at times. especially since some words are not that easily translatable so as to keep the original meaning. An example of that is "agape", where most English translations have it as "love", but in Greek there's more to it.

My wife grew up in Italy, and we ran across that a lot as "ciao", for example, has more than one meaning depending on its context. Some jokes in Italian make no sense in English, and some things she found difficult to translate into English. "Shalom" has the same problem when trying to go from Hebrew to English because context is very important.

The RSV uses "Passover" in Acts 12:4. In a Jewish setting, we use either "Pesach" or "Passover", and "Pasach" is actually a misspelling because the e is pronounced as being a long a, so it sounds like pay'sock.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The reason why the RSV is preferred by most Christian theologians is that the editors tried to use the English words that are the closest to the Hebrew/Koine Greek while still making it readable. Going from one language to another is a real bugger at times. especially since some words are not that easily translatable so as to keep the original meaning. An example of that is "agape", where most English translations have it as "love", but in Greek there's more to it.

My wife grew up in Italy, and we ran across that a lot as "ciao", for example, has more than one meaning depending on its context. Some jokes in Italian make no sense in English, and some things she found difficult to translate into English. "Shalom" has the same problem when trying to go from Hebrew to English because context is very important.

The RSV uses "Passover" in Acts 12:4. In a Jewish setting, we use either "Pesach" or "Passover", and "Pasach" is actually a misspelling because the e is pronounced as being a long a, so it sounds like pay'sock.

Thank-you, that’s what I was saying and communicating.

 

[abbabdon]

A big thing is 'the father' as far as the tie between xtian and judaism. Even gnostic christians place big emphasis on 'adonai sabaoth' lord of hosts, the paganism of christianity has been very real tho, esp. in my life and in regards to super important Players in the endtimes like Abbaton/michael/urael/ezrael, etc. Even jewish mysticism and occult manuscript gives creed to em.

 

[metis]

A big thing is 'the father' as far as the tie between xtian and judaism. Even gnostic christians place big emphasis on 'adonai sabaoth' lord of hosts, the paganism of christianity has been very real tho, esp. in my life and in regards to super important Players in the endtimes like Abbaton/michael/urael/ezrael, etc. Even jewish mysticism and occult manuscript gives creed to em.

Happy Birthday!

 

[abbabdon]

Happy Birthday!

Ty! 8]