100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: It's intellectually immoral to believe in god. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
a lot of people have set out to intelectually prove that God doesent exist, only to end up being a believer. there is plenty of proof if you are willing to see it. most dont want to see , so they cant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biblical higher criticism is preserved in the particular enclave of academic Christian scholarship and is thought to be too unfruitful to share with the average pew-sitter, for it raises more questions than the church can adequately answer. So the leaders of the church would protect the simple believers from concepts they were not trained to understand. In this way that ever-widening gap between academic Christians and the average pew-sitter made its first appearance. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 12.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/26/14 08:31 PM
|
|
Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but lthe substance belongs to Christ.
Sabbath day for ISREALITES was Saturday Deuteronomy 5:14 You shall remember that you were a slave3 in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there hwith a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. related to being freed from slavery,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biblical higher criticism is preserved in the particular enclave of academic Christian scholarship and is thought to be too unfruitful to share with the average pew-sitter, for it raises more questions than the church can adequately answer. So the leaders of the church would protect the simple believers from concepts they were not trained to understand. In this way that ever-widening gap between academic Christians and the average pew-sitter made its first appearance. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 12.] Follows the Bible? Here are some conclusions of higher criticism of the Gospel of John: ) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years. 2) There is probably not a single word attributed to Jesus in this book that the Jesus of history actually spoke. This includes all the "I Am" sayings and all of the "Farewell Discourses." 3) Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead. 4) Many of the characters who appear in the pages of the Fourth Gospel are literary creations of its author and were never intended to be understood as real people, who actually lived in history. This includes Nathaniel, who is introduced with great fanfare in chapter one and is treated in John's Gospel as one of "the Twelve," as well as the enigmatic character called by the Fourth Gospel "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who is introduced in Chapter 13 and who stars in this narrative from then on up to and including the resurrection event. Between those two "bookend" characters, we run into such well-known figures as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman by the well, the man crippled for 38 years and the man born blind, none of whom has ever been mentioned before in any written Christian source and each of whom in all probability is nothing more than the literary creation of the author. 5) John's Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." Nicodemus, the literalist, says: "Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: "If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would give you living water." The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: "Man, you don't even have a bucket!" 6) The Gospel also exaggerates its details, once more I believe, to counter any attempt to read it literally. For example, Jesus does not just turn water into wine, he turns it into 150 gallons of wine! Jesus does not just give sight to a blind man, he gives sight to a man born blind! Jesus does not just raise a person from the dead, he raises one who has been dead and even buried for four days, one who is still bound in grave clothes and one who, according to the King James translation "already stinketh" with the odor of decaying flesh! Finally this book will challenge the way the Fourth Gospel has been used in Christian history as the guarantor of what came to be called Christian orthodoxy or creedal Christianity. The Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. leaned on the Fourth Gospel as literal history in order to formulate the creeds and ultimately to undergird such doctrines as the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The texts used to support that creedal development, my studies have led me to affirm, have nothing to do with an external God entering humanity in the person of Jesus, but are rather attempts to describe the experience of the human breaking the boundaries of consciousness and entering into the transformation available inside a sense of a mystical oneness with God. If that is so, then the Fourth Gospel has the potential to become the primary biblical source upon the basis of which Christianity can be changed dramatically to speak with radical freshness to the 21st century. Christianity is not about the divine becoming human so much as it is about the human becoming divine. That is a paradigm shift of the first order. (Bishop John Shelby Spong) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting very interesting Tbrich. At first I was put off by the amount of text but I was willing to read a line and I'm glad I did because it was enough to hook me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biblical higher criticism is preserved in the particular enclave of academic Christian scholarship and is thought to be too unfruitful to share with the average pew-sitter, for it raises more questions than the church can adequately answer. So the leaders of the church would protect the simple believers from concepts they were not trained to understand. In this way that ever-widening gap between academic Christians and the average pew-sitter made its first appearance. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 12.] Follows the Bible? Here are some conclusions of higher criticism of the Gospel of John: ) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years. 2) There is probably not a single word attributed to Jesus in this book that the Jesus of history actually spoke. This includes all the "I Am" sayings and all of the "Farewell Discourses." 3) Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead. 4) Many of the characters who appear in the pages of the Fourth Gospel are literary creations of its author and were never intended to be understood as real people, who actually lived in history. This includes Nathaniel, who is introduced with great fanfare in chapter one and is treated in John's Gospel as one of "the Twelve," as well as the enigmatic character called by the Fourth Gospel "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who is introduced in Chapter 13 and who stars in this narrative from then on up to and including the resurrection event. Between those two "bookend" characters, we run into such well-known figures as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman by the well, the man crippled for 38 years and the man born blind, none of whom has ever been mentioned before in any written Christian source and each of whom in all probability is nothing more than the literary creation of the author. 5) John's Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." Nicodemus, the literalist, says: "Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: "If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would give you living water." The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: "Man, you don't even have a bucket!" 6) The Gospel also exaggerates its details, once more I believe, to counter any attempt to read it literally. For example, Jesus does not just turn water into wine, he turns it into 150 gallons of wine! Jesus does not just give sight to a blind man, he gives sight to a man born blind! Jesus does not just raise a person from the dead, he raises one who has been dead and even buried for four days, one who is still bound in grave clothes and one who, according to the King James translation "already stinketh" with the odor of decaying flesh! Finally this book will challenge the way the Fourth Gospel has been used in Christian history as the guarantor of what came to be called Christian orthodoxy or creedal Christianity. The Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. leaned on the Fourth Gospel as literal history in order to formulate the creeds and ultimately to undergird such doctrines as the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The texts used to support that creedal development, my studies have led me to affirm, have nothing to do with an external God entering humanity in the person of Jesus, but are rather attempts to describe the experience of the human breaking the boundaries of consciousness and entering into the transformation available inside a sense of a mystical oneness with God. If that is so, then the Fourth Gospel has the potential to become the primary biblical source upon the basis of which Christianity can be changed dramatically to speak with radical freshness to the 21st century. Christianity is not about the divine becoming human so much as it is about the human becoming divine. That is a paradigm shift of the first order. (Bishop John Shelby Spong) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years. And you know this how? Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead. Again, you know this how? Where you there to witness this and or was present at the time in question to know first hand that it did not happen? John's Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." Nicodemus, the literalist, says: "Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: "If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would give you living water." The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: "Man, you don't even have a bucket!" Good thing it's not a work of "literature". The bible isn't a book written for "literature" or telling a story of good morals. Most to all the books in the bible are "epistles" or "letters" written to someone(s) for some specific reason. Which were later on all gathered together into one book we call the Holy bible. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors The bible is merely a collection of again epistles/letters or what we call the "books" of the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biblical higher criticism is preserved in the particular enclave of academic Christian scholarship and is thought to be too unfruitful to share with the average pew-sitter, for it raises more questions than the church can adequately answer. So the leaders of the church would protect the simple believers from concepts they were not trained to understand. In this way that ever-widening gap between academic Christians and the average pew-sitter made its first appearance. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 12.] Follows the Bible? Here are some conclusions of higher criticism of the Gospel of John: ) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years. 2) There is probably not a single word attributed to Jesus in this book that the Jesus of history actually spoke. This includes all the "I Am" sayings and all of the "Farewell Discourses." 3) Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead. 4) Many of the characters who appear in the pages of the Fourth Gospel are literary creations of its author and were never intended to be understood as real people, who actually lived in history. This includes Nathaniel, who is introduced with great fanfare in chapter one and is treated in John's Gospel as one of "the Twelve," as well as the enigmatic character called by the Fourth Gospel "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who is introduced in Chapter 13 and who stars in this narrative from then on up to and including the resurrection event. Between those two "bookend" characters, we run into such well-known figures as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman by the well, the man crippled for 38 years and the man born blind, none of whom has ever been mentioned before in any written Christian source and each of whom in all probability is nothing more than the literary creation of the author. 5) John's Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." Nicodemus, the literalist, says: "Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: "If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would give you living water." The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: "Man, you don't even have a bucket!" 6) The Gospel also exaggerates its details, once more I believe, to counter any attempt to read it literally. For example, Jesus does not just turn water into wine, he turns it into 150 gallons of wine! Jesus does not just give sight to a blind man, he gives sight to a man born blind! Jesus does not just raise a person from the dead, he raises one who has been dead and even buried for four days, one who is still bound in grave clothes and one who, according to the King James translation "already stinketh" with the odor of decaying flesh! Finally this book will challenge the way the Fourth Gospel has been used in Christian history as the guarantor of what came to be called Christian orthodoxy or creedal Christianity. The Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. leaned on the Fourth Gospel as literal history in order to formulate the creeds and ultimately to undergird such doctrines as the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The texts used to support that creedal development, my studies have led me to affirm, have nothing to do with an external God entering humanity in the person of Jesus, but are rather attempts to describe the experience of the human breaking the boundaries of consciousness and entering into the transformation available inside a sense of a mystical oneness with God. If that is so, then the Fourth Gospel has the potential to become the primary biblical source upon the basis of which Christianity can be changed dramatically to speak with radical freshness to the 21st century. Christianity is not about the divine becoming human so much as it is about the human becoming divine. That is a paradigm shift of the first order. (Bishop John Shelby Spong) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years. And you know this how? Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead. Again, you know this how? Where you there to witness this and or was present at the time in question to know first hand that it did not happen? John's Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: "You must be born again." Nicodemus, the literalist, says: "Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: "If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would give you living water." The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: "Man, you don't even have a bucket!" Good thing it's not a work of "literature". The bible isn't a book written for "literature" or telling a story of good morals. Most to all the books in the bible are "epistles" or "letters" written to someone(s) for some specific reason. Which were later on all gathered together into one book we call the Holy bible. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors The bible is merely a collection of again epistles/letters or what we call the "books" of the bible. I mean heck the King James version, which is mainly the translation the churches and most people in general use has only been around since bout the 1600's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The oldest complete Bible that is known to Christianity is the Codex Sinaiticus. All other translations are generally taken from this original with some exceptions.
The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The oldest complete Bible that is known to Christianity is the Codex Sinaiticus. All other translations are generally taken from this original with some exceptions. The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. Not sure how they kept track of time during that time eg., now it's Sunday - Saturday for a week. Thus why Saturday would actually be the Sabbath. And these other "Sabbaths" you refer to would be man made and not God ordained. The sabbath is from back at the start of Genesis when God made the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Thus would make Saturday technically the Sabbath, which if I'm not mistaken is when either if not both Pentecostals and 7th Day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath. It was "Catholicism" or any other man made "title" that gave the Sabbath to being a specific day, it was God. It was man that moved the Sabbath to Sunday as from our culture in America at least, Work week is Monday - Friday, and Sat/Sun are the "weekends" which would technically be incorrect as Sunday is actually the first day of the week and not Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The oldest complete Bible that is known to Christianity is the Codex Sinaiticus. All other translations are generally taken from this original with some exceptions. The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. Not sure how they kept track of time during that time eg., now it's Sunday - Saturday for a week. Thus why Saturday would actually be the Sabbath. And these other "Sabbaths" you refer to would be man made and not God ordained. The sabbath is from back at the start of Genesis when God made the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Thus would make Saturday technically the Sabbath, which if I'm not mistaken is when either if not both Pentecostals and 7th Day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath. It was "Catholicism" or any other man made "title" that gave the Sabbath to being a specific day, it was God. It was man that moved the Sabbath to Sunday as from our culture in America at least, Work week is Monday - Friday, and Sat/Sun are the "weekends" which would technically be incorrect as Sunday is actually the first day of the week and not Monday. The law given directly to Moses by God gave the command for the observance of the feasts as well as the Sabbath, if you will check your bible. I'm coming at this from a historical delineation as I've done very extensive reading from the ancient texts we still have in various countries around the world. Christianity has it's roots from Yeshua who was of Jewish descent. Both Jews and Christians believe the commandments were from God of which there were 10 major commandments and over 300 other commandments listed in the same book of Genesis. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The oldest complete Bible that is known to Christianity is the Codex Sinaiticus. All other translations are generally taken from this original with some exceptions. The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. Not sure how they kept track of time during that time eg., now it's Sunday - Saturday for a week. Thus why Saturday would actually be the Sabbath. And these other "Sabbaths" you refer to would be man made and not God ordained. The sabbath is from back at the start of Genesis when God made the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Thus would make Saturday technically the Sabbath, which if I'm not mistaken is when either if not both Pentecostals and 7th Day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath. It was "Catholicism" or any other man made "title" that gave the Sabbath to being a specific day, it was God. It was man that moved the Sabbath to Sunday as from our culture in America at least, Work week is Monday - Friday, and Sat/Sun are the "weekends" which would technically be incorrect as Sunday is actually the first day of the week and not Monday. The law given directly to Moses by God gave the command for the observance of the feasts as well as the Sabbath, if you will check your bible. I'm coming at this from a historical delineation as I've done very extensive reading from the ancient texts we still have in various countries around the world. Christianity has it's roots from Yeshua who was of Jewish descent. Both Jews and Christians believe the commandments were from God of which there were 10 major commandments and over 300 other commandments listed in the same book of Genesis. Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect.
I am not confusing the sabbaths. Yes normally each week one day was set aside for rest and worship; however, the feasts were also commanded to be kept which included at least one sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) but depending on when they fell, they also included a "high sabbath" in which the same rules for observance applied and that high sabbath could fall on any other day of the week. They were considered High Holy Days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect. I am not confusing the sabbaths. Yes normally each week one day was set aside for rest and worship; however, the feasts were also commanded to be kept which included at least one sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) but depending on when they fell, they also included a "high sabbath" in which the same rules for observance applied and that high sabbath could fall on any other day of the week. They were considered High Holy Days. Ok, do you know the scriptures that support as such? Even if a "Christian" or "Catholic" person or persons celebrated something, does not mean we are technically "suppose" to celebrate it or practice it. And on your "Friday night to Saturday night" This to would also need verse support or it's basically moot to the belief as a whole and entirely belonging to just that person(s) that celebrated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
premierblue
on
Mon 07/28/14 02:11 PM
|
|
The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. The law given directly to Moses by God gave the command for the observance of the feasts as well as the Sabbath, if you will check your bible. I'm coming at this from a historical delineation as I've done very extensive reading from the ancient texts we still have in various countries around the world. Christianity has it's roots from Yeshua who was of Jewish descent. Both Jews and Christians believe the commandments were from God of which there were 10 major commandments and over 300 other commandments listed in the same book of Genesis In Judaism the sabbath (Fri sundown-Sat sundown) is an absolute 'no work day' except for cooking for the family only, and maintaining personal hygiene. Besides the weekly sabbaths there are 13 other 'no work days' observed during feasts in the Jewish calender. These 13 no work days are observed exactly like the sabbaths. Btw, there are 613 mitzvah (commandments/ do's & donts) incl. the "10 commandents " in the Torah (Pentateuch) as given to Moshe by G_d. Missy, you know what you're talking about |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Mon 07/28/14 02:17 PM
|
|
The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday till sundown on Saturday. There were also other "sabbaths" observed such as the feasts of Passover and First Fruits etc, and some of these had sometimes one or two "sabbath" days included in them where no buying or selling were to be done nor any work for earning a wage. There were also "High Sabbaths" which could fall any day of the week during the feasts and were to be observed. Jesus, or Yeshua, or Joshua, (the way it would be said in Hebrew) kept all of the sabbaths. Original sabbaths were later changed to Sundays by Catholicism. When Protestanism broke from Catholicism, they also kept Sunday as the day of worship, but such was not the case in original Christianity. Just FYI. The law given directly to Moses by God gave the command for the observance of the feasts as well as the Sabbath, if you will check your bible. I'm coming at this from a historical delineation as I've done very extensive reading from the ancient texts we still have in various countries around the world. Christianity has it's roots from Yeshua who was of Jewish descent. Both Jews and Christians believe the commandments were from God of which there were 10 major commandments and over 300 other commandments listed in the same book of Genesis In Judaism the sabbath (Fri sundown-Sat sundown) is an absolute 'no work day' except for cooking for the family only, and maintaining personal hygiene. Besides the weekly sabbaths there are 13 other 'no work days' observed during feasts in the Jewish calender. These 13 no work days are exactly like the sabbaths. Btw, there are 613 mitzvah (commandments/ do's & donts) incl. the "10 commandents " in the Torah (Pentateuch) as given to Moshe. Missy, you know what you're talking about Also have to keep in mind the cultures and community there of. Now that it's been mentioned of the other sabbaths, please now give us the verse(s) that support these other sabbaths. If it's not support directly in the scriptures, it's neither specifically Christian or Catholic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect. I am not confusing the sabbaths. Yes normally each week one day was set aside for rest and worship; however, the feasts were also commanded to be kept which included at least one sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) but depending on when they fell, they also included a "high sabbath" in which the same rules for observance applied and that high sabbath could fall on any other day of the week. They were considered High Holy Days. Ok, do you know the scriptures that support as such? Even if a "Christian" or "Catholic" person or persons celebrated something, does not mean we are technically "suppose" to celebrate it or practice it. And on your "Friday night to Saturday night" This to would also need verse support or it's basically moot to the belief as a whole and entirely belonging to just that person(s) that celebrated it. Yes I know that Cowboy and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. What I am saying is that from a historical viewpoint everyone is aware that the sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday. The Eastern Christian church in Middle Eastern countries still observe the Sabbath; whereas, the Western Christian church does not. The points I have tried to make here is not to convince someone of what any person should or shouldn't do. I was simply stating it from a fact of history. But if you will remember that when God made each day, scripture renders the counting of each day as "there was evening and morning the first (second, third etc) day. (Gen.1:5) So the nation of Israel counted their days as beginning in the evening of one day and lasting till the evening of the next day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect. I am not confusing the sabbaths. Yes normally each week one day was set aside for rest and worship; however, the feasts were also commanded to be kept which included at least one sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) but depending on when they fell, they also included a "high sabbath" in which the same rules for observance applied and that high sabbath could fall on any other day of the week. They were considered High Holy Days. Ok, do you know the scriptures that support as such? Even if a "Christian" or "Catholic" person or persons celebrated something, does not mean we are technically "suppose" to celebrate it or practice it. And on your "Friday night to Saturday night" This to would also need verse support or it's basically moot to the belief as a whole and entirely belonging to just that person(s) that celebrated it. Yes I know that Cowboy and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. What I am saying is that from a historical viewpoint everyone is aware that the sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday. The Eastern Christian church in Middle Eastern countries still observe the Sabbath; whereas, the Western Christian church does not. The points I have tried to make here is not to convince someone of what any person should or shouldn't do. I was simply stating it from a fact of history. But if you will remember that when God made each day, scripture renders the counting of each day as "there was evening and morning the first (second, third etc) day. (Gen.1:5) So the nation of Israel counted their days as beginning in the evening of one day and lasting till the evening of the next day. What I am saying is that from a historical viewpoint everyone is aware that the sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday. And that would be technically correct, even still to this day. Regardless if they have moved the Sabbath to Sunday in Christians and Catholics alike. God doesn't change, nor would the Sabbath. Probably started at Sundown on Friday, for after the sun went down there was no work to do in that day and age from the lack of light. But nevertheless this would be technically the "correct" way to celebrate the Sabbath. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fri-Sat weekly sabbaths and the 13 other 'no work days' are specifically followed only by the Jewish people. Read the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, to further educate yourself on this topic. They are included in your Christian Bible.
I normally don't post on threads covering Religion and Politics but seeing the level of ignorance in this discussion, I thought I'll clarify it with a post. Will not be posting further on this thread. Have a nice day! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: Why are you confusing the feasts with the Sabbath though? Feasts and the Sabbath are entirely two different things. The Sabbath is not a feast persay. The sabbath is a day of rest and a day one can focus more directly on God rather then work, bills, ect. I am not confusing the sabbaths. Yes normally each week one day was set aside for rest and worship; however, the feasts were also commanded to be kept which included at least one sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) but depending on when they fell, they also included a "high sabbath" in which the same rules for observance applied and that high sabbath could fall on any other day of the week. They were considered High Holy Days. Ok, do you know the scriptures that support as such? Even if a "Christian" or "Catholic" person or persons celebrated something, does not mean we are technically "suppose" to celebrate it or practice it. And on your "Friday night to Saturday night" This to would also need verse support or it's basically moot to the belief as a whole and entirely belonging to just that person(s) that celebrated it. Yes I know that Cowboy and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. What I am saying is that from a historical viewpoint everyone is aware that the sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday. The Eastern Christian church in Middle Eastern countries still observe the Sabbath; whereas, the Western Christian church does not. The points I have tried to make here is not to convince someone of what any person should or shouldn't do. I was simply stating it from a fact of history. But if you will remember that when God made each day, scripture renders the counting of each day as "there was evening and morning the first (second, third etc) day. (Gen.1:5) So the nation of Israel counted their days as beginning in the evening of one day and lasting till the evening of the next day. What I am saying is that from a historical viewpoint everyone is aware that the sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday. And that would be technically correct, even still to this day. Regardless if they have moved the Sabbath to Sunday in Christians and Catholics alike. God doesn't change, nor would the Sabbath. Probably started at Sundown on Friday, for after the sun went down there was no work to do in that day and age from the lack of light. But nevertheless this would be technically the "correct" way to celebrate the Sabbath. But again don't confuse customs with instructions. God doesn't give an exact time for the Sabbath to begin or end eg., 9pm on Friday and ends 11:59pm Sunday. God made everything in six days, and rested on the 7th blessing it. Thus then continued the custom onto his creation to work 6 days, and rest on the 7th blessing it in his name. That doesn't mean you have to go to church or whatever. But does mean you set a day aside for resting to continue the word and to give your attention more specifically to him in thanks or whatever it is you want to give him to show your appreciation for him and what he does for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fri-Sat weekly sabbaths and the 13 other 'no work days' are specifically followed only by the Jewish people. Read the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, to further educate yourself on this topic. They are included in your Christian Bible. I normally don't post on threads covering Religion and Politics but seeing the level of ignorance in this discussion, I thought I'll clarify it with a post. Will not be posting further on this thread. Have a nice day! Then doesn't matter anyway, that would all be moot. Everyone of those books are from old testament, so they would not effect Christians. As Christianity and or the existence of "Christians" did not come about till after Jesus walked this Earth in the flesh, eg., New Testament. All old testament laws are fulfilled, completed. That covenant has been finished, and we are given a new covenant signed in Jesus' blood. |
|
|
|
|
