What Did Jesus Mean?

[metis]

The "son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8), not the Lord of the "day of the sun", Sunday, the 1st day of the week.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't
turn "nonsense" into "sense". The issue of the "sun" simply is a canard that you've bought into, and we know from history that this canard simply makes no sense whatsoever. The evidence says "resurrection", not "sun", was why the "agape meal" was held on Sunday. Historians tell us that the Eucharist was given on Saturday, the agape meal on Sunday, but gradually both were held on Sunday during the 2nd century. That makes sense since the Church was overwhelmingly gentile by that time. Your scenario makes no sense on two counts: written history says Sunday was chosen because of the resurrection plus there simply was and is no necessity to follow the Jewish calendar unless one's Jewish.

Unless you have any real facts instead of your "alternative facts", I guess we're done.

 

[2ndpillar]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't
turn "nonsense" into "sense". The issue of the "sun" simply is a canard that you've bought into, and we know from history that this canard simply makes no sense whatsoever. The evidence says "resurrection", not "sun", was why the "agape meal" was held on Sunday. Historians tell us that the Eucharist was given on Saturday, the agape meal on Sunday, but gradually both were held on Sunday during the 2nd century. That makes sense since the Church was overwhelmingly gentile by that time. Your scenario makes no sense on two counts: written history says Sunday was chosen because of the resurrection plus there simply was and is no necessity to follow the Jewish calendar unless one's Jewish.

Unless you have any real facts instead of your "alternative facts", I guess we're done.

The timing for the last supper was Passover, the 14th of Nissan, which was on a Wednesday, and does not fall on any one day. The high holy Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday, the 15th Nissan. The 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale was Wednesday evening up until Saturday evening. The Resurrection was on the evening of the Sabbath, prior to the dawn of the first day of the week, Sunday

Matthew 28:1," Now late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave"

The solar solstice timing of Easter, by Constantine's Nicene Council, and the day of the sun becoming the day of rest, were all set by means of Constantine's efforts. Sunday, the day of the sun, was set as the "day of rest" per the edict of Constantine in 321 AD. They both give glory to Constantine's sun god Sol Invictus and Astarte. Your "resurrection" followed the last supper by 3 days and 3 nights. Your confusion seems to be grounded on the babel/confusion coming from the church (daughter of Babylon) and leadership of the false prophet Paul and his associates.

 

[metis]

The timing for the last supper was Passover, the 14th of Nissan, which was on a Wednesday, and does not fall on any one day. The high holy Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday, the 15th Nissan. The 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale was Wednesday evening up until Saturday evening. The Resurrection was on the evening of the Sabbath, prior to the dawn of the first day of the week, Sunday

Matthew 28:1," Now late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave"

The solar solstice timing of Easter, by Constantine's Nicene Council, and the day of the sun becoming the day of rest, were all set by means of Constantine's efforts. Sunday, the day of the sun, was set as the "day of rest" per the edict of Constantine in 321 AD. They both give glory to Constantine's sun god Sol Invictus and Astarte. Your "resurrection" followed the last supper by 3 days and 3 nights. Your confusion seems to be grounded on the babel/confusion coming from the church (daughter of Babylon) and leadership of the false prophet Paul and his associates.

And after three requests you still have failed to answer my question, so goodbye.

 

[2ndpillar]

So, you assert that you know more about the Church than the 2nd century patriarchs. Got it.

Again, Pasqua relates to Passover but gentiles need not use the Jewish calendar, so the "Feast of Astarte" has literally nothing to do as to when Pasqua is celebrated. The Gregorian Calendar is not Jewish in origin.

Are you Jewish? Assuming not, then you should not be insistent on following the Jewish calendar because that makes no sense. Maybe it's best for you to decide who you are first and then go from there.

Also, can't help to note that you do not answer my question I've asked you before, namely where are you getting your (mis)information from? Seems like you've bought into JW propaganda.

The "falling away" started before the crucifixion (Matthew 26:31). Your "2nd century patriarchs" are fathers of the nations/Gentiles who put forward nothing but "falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19).

The Gentile solar calendar started with Pontifex Maximus,Julius Caesar, as the Julian calendar. Pope Gregory, who also took the pagan position of the Pontifex Maximus, and he made minor changes now known as the Gregorian calendar. Both give glory to the sun god versus the lunar calendar kept by Yeshua. The authority of the beast/Caesar, comes from the dragon, the god Sol Invictus (Revelation 13:4). You worship one, you worship the other.

As for the JW's, they like yourself, carry the mark of the beast, and follow the false prophet Paul and his false gospel of the cross/grace.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which shows me that you never read them because there's only one item of teaching that's different from halacha, and that was praying for the dead, which was commonly practiced but not found in the Tanakh. These books were not rejected as the decision on them was postponed.
Again, where are you getting your stuff from?

I'm getting this stuff from the Bible.
There is No praying for the dead according to Romans 6:7; Romans 6:23.
Since the price tag sin pays is ' death ' and 'Not death plus some post-mortem penalty'.
Death stamps the price tag of sin as Paid In Full.
So, death frees or acquits a person.
Just as a governor can pardon a person so the crime charges do Not stick, Jesus pardons a person so the sin charges do Not stick.
Plus, those committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32 can't be prayed for to be out of their sins.

I read in the apocryphal book of Sirach that Eve is blamed for sin at Sirach 25:23.
That is totally un-scriptural. See also Sirach 25:12 B.

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm getting this stuff from the Bible.
There is No praying for the dead according to Romans 6:7; Romans 6:23.
Since the price tag sin pays is ' death ' and 'Not death plus some post-mortem penalty'.
Death stamps the price tag of sin as Paid In Full.
So, death frees or acquits a person.
Just as a governor can pardon a person so the crime charges do Not stick, Jesus pardons a person so the sin charges do Not stick.
Plus, those committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32 can't be prayed for to be out of their sins.

I read in the apocryphal book of Sirach that Eve is blamed for sin at Sirach 25:23.
That is totally un-scriptural. See also Sirach 25:12 B.

The "dead" are raised from the dead per Revelation 20:12-13, and judged for their deeds. Seems like a "post mortem" judgment to me.

 

[savagewind]

say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19).

I think that might happen like, almost every day.

 

[Deeje]

Some people use a lot of words to say so little, often walking around a point rather than addressing it as written and getting to their own point = "word salad". And then match that with unbridled know-it-all-ism and acute judgmentalism and you end up with nothing that can be discussed seriously.

"Some people"? Since you do not address me directly, I get no alert for your responses....so I see that you have not really addressed any of my questions, metis? I would like to discuss these things "seriously" but you just make up excuses for not engaging....? Attack is not defense.

These are important points....not things you can discuss in short sentences for people with the attention span of a goldfish! Those who might be too lazy to read the the crux of the arguments will miss why the answers to the questions posed to you, regarding your (now) Catholic beliefs, are relevant. This is a debate forum and your reluctance to respond to any of the questions is telling. Why the need for personal insults? The questions were genuine.

Some simply do not heed the wise words found in Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

You think a person cannot be confident about their beliefs and still be humble? You think humility means being weak and undecided about what to believe? Were the apostles weak in their views? Did not Paul tell us to pray for "boldness" in our words? (Acts 4:29) Do you feel threatened by that kind of confidence?

At this juncture in human existence, when world conditions are indicating a complete upheaval in the way this world is governed, there is no time left to be indecisive. Bible prophesy is being fulfilled right before our eyes....has the church taught you anything about those things? (Matthew 24:3-14; 42-44)

Do you believe that God directs people to his truth, presented to the world through his son? Do you think being indecisive is a good trait? (John 6:44; James 1:5-8)

I am sorry you feel the need to be so defensive.

 

[2ndpillar]

I think that might happen like, almost every day.

I probably should have posted the whole verse. The nations/Gentiles will confess in the "day of the LORD", such as the "day of distress", and after "the sons of Israel " are restored "to their own land" (Jeremiah 16:15). Right now the nations/Gentiles call good evil and evil good, and confess nothing. (Isaiah 5:20).


New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit."

New American Standard Bible Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

[2ndpillar]

Some people use a lot of words to say so little, often walking around a point rather than addressing it as written and getting to their own point = "word salad". And then match that with unbridled know-it-all-ism and acute judgmentalism and you end up with nothing that can be discussed seriously.

Some simply do not heed the wise words found in Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

The first part of your post seems to be describing your postings. The Word of God, the testimony of the prophets, and the Law, consists of more than one often misapplied sentence.

Micah 6:8 is expanded in Hosea 6:6 & Matthew 12:7 Without the "knowledge of God", it seems that multiplication of words is the path chosen by the "many". (Matthew 7:13).

King James Bible Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Matthew 12:7
If only you had known the meaning of 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

New American Standard Bible Hosea 6:6
For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

King James Bible Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

 

[metis]

Let me just say in regards to the last two posts above that in the real world of theology, certainty is usually a sign of delusion as interpretations so often vary. Anyone who has seriously delved into theological studies well knows this, and they also well know that "confirmation bias" is an enemy of any serious study.

In real estate it's "location, location, location", and in theology it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation". Yes, religious bodies have a right and duty to teach what they interpret to be likely correct, but any serious student also needs to know that simply because their leadership has interpretations doesn't mean that those interpretations are automatically correct.

When I converted back to Catholicism a few months ago, I frankly told the priest that because of my background that I basically tend to question just about everything and anything but that I could commit myself to work within the Church. After explaining as such, he accepted this and said he does understand and not see that as being an impediment to me coming back.

BTW, right now I'm involved in a 20 week study of the Gospel of Matthew and am truly enjoying it. Previous to my reconversion, I was involved in Torah study for roughly 1 & 1/2 hours each Saturday morning except during the summer, and I did as such for around 20 years. I also was involved in two different studies last year in my church..I certainly am no expert on Jewish and Christian theology, but I have long been a serious student who also reads a lot of theology (about every other book I read, and I never read fiction). Ya, I know-- it don't show.

To me, parroting any denomination's teaching, whether that be Catholic, Protestant, JW, a branch of Judaism, etc., reminds of a saying: "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is actually doing the thinking". My point is please realize that what we are being taught are interpretations, and "interpretation" is not synonymous with the word "fact".

To me, it's important for us to study on our own, going through various interpretations from varying sources, not just our own denomination's/religion's. And this also is what I so much appreciate here at RF with all the differing opinions being expressed. What I can't stand, as the reader well knows, is the "my way or the highway" approach because that is both delusional and harmful, imo.

Busy weekend coming up for me, so take care.

 

[2ndpillar]

Let me just say in regards to the last two posts above that in the real world of theology, certainty is usually a sign of delusion as interpretations so often vary. Anyone who has seriously delved into theological studies well knows this, and they also well know that "confirmation bias" is an enemy of any serious study.

In real estate it's "location, location, location", and in theology it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation". Yes, religious bodies have a right and duty to teach what they interpret to be likely correct, but any serious student also needs to know that simply because their leadership has interpretations doesn't mean that those interpretations are automatically correct.

When I converted back to Catholicism a few months ago, I frankly told the priest that because of my background that I basically tend to question just about everything and anything but that I could commit myself to work within the Church. After explaining as such, he accepted this and said he does understand and not see that as being an impediment to me coming back.

BTW, right now I'm involved in a 20 week study of the Gospel of Matthew and am truly enjoying it. Previous to my reconversion, I was involved in Torah study for roughly 1 & 1/2 hours each Saturday morning except during the summer, and I did as such for around 20 years. I also was involved in two different studies last year in my church..I certainly am no expert on Jewish and Christian theology, but I have long been a serious student who also reads a lot of theology (about every other book I read, and I never read fiction). Ya, I know-- it don't show.

To me, parroting any denomination's teaching, whether that be Catholic, Protestant, JW, a branch of Judaism, etc., reminds of a saying: "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is actually doing the thinking". My point is please realize that what we are being taught are interpretations, and "interpretation" is not synonymous with the word "fact".

To me, it's important for us to study on our own, going through various interpretations from varying sources, not just our own denomination's/religion's. And this also is what I so much appreciate here at RF with all the differing opinions being expressed. What I can't stand, as the reader well knows, is the "my way or the highway" approach because that is both delusional and harmful, imo.

Busy weekend coming up for me, so take care.

In your "real world of theology" you will not find the truth, but the traditions of men (Matthew 11:25). As for you reconverting to Catholicism, that reminds me of a dog returning to its vomit (Proverbs 26:11).

New American Standard Bible Proverbs 26:11
Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.

The leader of the Roman Catholic church, the pope, who thinks he has the keys of the kingdom, per Isaiah 22:22-25, will "fall" "in that day", which "that day" is upon us. Those who hang onto him will be "cut off" (Is 22:25). While the pope seems to be trying to shoot his own foot, and bleed to death, according to Matthew 7:24-26, that will not be the cause of the fall of his house. And for your information, unlike you, I don't belong to any denomination. Per Zechariah 2:7, one is to "escape" from the daughter of Babylon.

 

[metis]

In your "real world of theology" you will not find the truth, but the traditions of men (Matthew 11:25). As for you reconverting to Catholicism, that reminds me of a dog returning to its vomit (Proverbs 26:11).

The above is a classic example of why so many get upset with fundamentalism.

You regard both the oldest and largest Christian denomination that dates back to the apostolic church as being "vomit"? Anyhow, thanks for verifying what I said in my last post about the issue of certainty (and now I can add judgmentalism), and also showing us that religious bigotry is still alive and well in today's world.

BTW, if a priest said anything like what you just did towards any other denomination or religion, that would be the last mass I'd ever go to that church. In attending mass regularly for over 50 years, I have never heard even once a priest badmouth another denomination or religion as you have just done.

 

[2ndpillar]

The above is a classic example of why so many get upset with fundamentalism.

You regard both the oldest and largest Christian denomination that dates back to the apostolic church as being "vomit"? Anyhow, thanks for verifying what I said in my last post about the issue of certainty (and now I can add judgmentalism), and also showing us that religious bigotry is still alive and well in today's world.

BTW, if a priest said anything like what you just did towards any other denomination or religion, that would be the last mass I'd ever go to that church. In attending mass regularly for over 50 years, I have never heard even once a priest badmouth another denomination or religion as you have just done.

Well, when I went to a Roman Catholic Parochial grade school, before you started your mass services, I was taught that my Protestant friends would all go to hell because they were not Catholic. I was taught that not attending the pagan based Easter service was a mortal sin, and a ticket to hell. I was also taught that you could not eat meat on Friday. Your Catholic priests, can apparently neither stop sinning nor forgive your sins. As for when I went to a mostly Protestant public school, the word was that the Roman Catholic church was the "whore of Babylon". Which of course is not really true, for she was simply a daughter of Babylon the Great, and the mother of the Protestant churches.

As sons of Luther, most Protestants, of my generation, believe that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon", and that their days are numbered. You need to get out more. Even many Catholics don't believe in the pope, and many have serious issues with the church itself. I worked for nuns who were kind of virulent about things going on in the church.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The "dead" are raised from the dead per Revelation 20:12-13, and judged for their deeds. Seems like a "post mortem" judgment to me.

I find the dead are Not judged while dead asleep in the grave ( Biblical hell ) - Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146:4.
'Afte'r they are resurrected in perfect human health then they will be judged on what they do 'after ' they are resurrected.
So, that judgement is Not post-mortem, but takes place while alive in perfect health of sound heart, mind and body.

 

[metis]

Well, when I went to a Roman Catholic Parochial grade school, before you started your mass services, I was taught that my Protestant friends would all go to hell because they were not Catholic. I was taught that not attending the pagan based Easter service was a mortal sin, and a ticket to hell. I was also taught that you could not eat meat on Friday. Your Catholic priests, can apparently neither stop sinning nor forgive your sins. As for when I went to a mostly Protestant public school, the word was that the Roman Catholic church was the "whore of Babylon". Which of course is not really true, for she was simply a daughter of Babylon the Great, and the mother of the Protestant churches.

As sons of Luther, most Protestants, of my generation, believe that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon", and that their days are numbered. You need to get out more. Even many Catholics don't believe in the pope, and many have serious issues with the church itself. I worked for nuns who were kind of virulent about things going on in the church.

First of all, the Church has never taught that Christians outside the fold were condemned to hell, but I do know that there were some teachers, whether they were priests, nuns, or lay, who taught as such. Historically, the issue was more of a question, not an answer.

Secondly, all people sin, including you and I, and priests and nuns are much the same. Maybe you should get over yourself and take a good look in the mirror before pointing fingers at others.

Your religious bigotry is based on the ignorance and stereotyping that is just so repulsive and blatantly immoral. You are the one who needs to "get out more" and get over your bias through study and reflection. It's easy to find fault in others, so maybe use some introspection on yourself.

The church is far from perfect, but at least it's coming to grip with many of its shortcomings. But you certainly are not taking the moral high ground when you stereotype any organization, thus creating a strawman, and then condemning what you've created. I've seen this kind of bigotry many times before but, fortunately I don't see it in today's Catholic Church.

I personally have found much solace within the Catholic Church, even with all its warts, but what I don't see them do is to do what you're doing, namely pointing fingers at others but not at yourself. Either way, there are others who aren't into self-centered bigotry here at RF, so I'm going to spend time with them instead.

 

[2ndpillar]

I find the dead are Not judged while dead asleep in the grave ( Biblical hell ) - Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146:4.
'Afte'r they are resurrected in perfect human health then they will be judged on what they do 'after ' they are resurrected.
So, that judgement is Not post-mortem, but takes place while alive in perfect health of sound heart, mind and body.

Not the case. The resurrected dead were judged with regard to their deeds which had been written in the books. .

New American Standard Bible Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

13 The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds.…

 

[Deeje]

If I may just address some points here @metis...I understand your reluctance to discuss what makes you uncomfortable, but is that a reason not to discuss any of it? If others reading here have questions similar to the ones I have asked you, then you are providing information for them, not just me. These are opportunities to defend your faith....most importantly to yourself. If you look up the definition of "faith" in Hebrews 11:1-2 you will see that there can be no lack of conviction....no "limping on two different opinions".

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval." (NRSVCE)

"Assurance" and "conviction" are the evidence of faith. It is our faith that gains God's approval.

"Elijah then came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” The people did not answer him a word." ( 1 Kings 18:21 NRSVCE)

We have a choice here just like the Israelites did.....we either accept the trinity god of Christendom....or the one true God of the Jews as taught by his son. There was no trinity in the OT and it is not in the NT either.

 

[Deeje]

Let me just say in regards to the last two posts above that in the real world of theology, certainty is usually a sign of delusion as interpretations so often vary. Anyone who has seriously delved into theological studies well knows this, and they also well know that "confirmation bias" is an enemy of any serious study.

Who invented that term metis? What is "confirmation bias" if it isn't demonstrated by the very ones who accuse others of having it?

Can you define what you mean by "the real world of theology" and "theological studies" ? And why you believe that one truth can even have various interpretations? Does God want us to be confused? Was there any ambiguity in what Jesus taught his apostles? If they didn't understand something, he explained it to them often using the Hebrew scriptures. He exposed the teachings of the Pharisees by using scripture too...their own scripture. Did they repent? Or did they respond the way they always had, by silencing the messenger?

In real estate it's "location, location, location", and in theology it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation". Yes, religious bodies have a right and duty to teach what they interpret to be likely correct, but any serious student also needs to know that simply because their leadership has interpretations doesn't mean that those interpretations are automatically correct.

If they teach what is only partially true, or if they teach you straight out lies.....how would you feel once you found out? If you caught them out on many things, could you then believe anything they say? I mean, clarifying an existing belief because of additional information is one thing....but incorporating foreign concepts and practices and passing them off as Christian teachings is not something people would accept knowingly....would they? Isn't that what deception is? Do the deceived ones know that it isn't true? More importantly...do they want to know?

 

[Deeje]

To me, it's important for us to study on our own, going through various interpretations from varying sources, not just our own denomination's/religion's. And this also is what I so much appreciate here at RF with all the differing opinions being expressed. What I can't stand, as the reader well knows, is the "my way or the highway" approach because that is both delusional and harmful, imo.

In examining what we accept as truth though, do we not need to use discernment in our explorations? Having come out of Christendom myself, it wasn't until I did that research that I realized how far from the mark they had strayed. I had no idea how many doctrines and practices found no basis in scripture but had originated in traditions and beliefs that came straight out of ancient Babylon.

Mother goddess worship, for example was transferred over to Mary, along with all her titles....and her 'ever virgin' state. There is no scripture that gives Mary any kind of special status, let alone an immaculate conception of her own.

The trinity was eventually adopted into Catholic doctrine and gave rise to Mary's status as "the Mother of God". Nowhere in all of scripture did Jesus ever claim to be anything but "the Son of God".

Catholic teaching about hell was designed to scare the pants off people and it worked well for many centuries. It was the church's invention of "Indulgences"...'paying your way out of purgatory' that, among other unscriptural practices, prompted Luther to post his thesis. He didn't want to create a reformation...he just wanted the church to clean up its act. It never did.

The "mother" church then gave birth to many daughters but the acorn did not fall far from the tree. All hold a core of doctrines in common...none of which originated from the Bible.

If "real theology" means ignoring these important issues, then what is the point of taking your ideas from that source? You might as well adopt paganism outright than mistake it for the real thing because of its very thin re-labeling.

I understand if you don't want to debate these things, but at least can you acknowledge the need to examine them in the light of scripture. When Jesus said "it is written" he was referring to God-inspired scripture, which should be the last word on any Christian topic under discussion....unless you are Catholic and have been convinced that "the church" can override God's word? Isn't that the danger, metis? Isn't who you believe as important as what you believe?