J
- Status
J
juliamajor
Guest
That’s my whole entire point.the message gets lost in these petty arguments like how old is the earth.Young Earth or New earth. Does it really matter? God Created us out of love. I think making Noah’s or the early books of Genesis as some kind of test of orthodoxy is just plain silly.But apparently some folks do.and you’re right about hurling insults at one another. But the Church isn’t as split on this matter as you think.It may seem that way but this does not reflect the reality.Pick up anything of scott Hahn ’ Ignatius Bible study" to get a fair and balanced view Peace.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Why the hysterical personal attacks? I wrote about what Gottle said, not him as a person.
“You will know them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:16) If the fruit of your modernist education is the type of condescension, name-calling, and narrow-mindedness that you display in these posts, it doesn’t say much for it being an education centered in the love of Christ Jesus. I guess that’s what happens when you think of Jesus as a theory and the inspired word of God as a bunch of fairy tales.
N
Namesake
Guest
I bet someone made a similar passionate plea about Geocentrism. Science cannot be ignored just because it falsifies religious belief. Religion that can be threatened by scientific explanation of the natural world is false religion.
J
juliamajor
Guest
I don’t know where you were educated put myths don’t equal lies or falseness. That’s just not correct… and yes Wisdom books are Wise.For some reason you’ve gone backward- Catholics used to be know for their education and their love of education, our clergy the most educated around.I was so proud- to be Catholic. Now to some, especially in America, have equated education with evil- or empty faith.This is counter intuitive.simplicity is not the same as non educated.Poor in spirit, doesn’t mean you have to be poor- it means to be totally dependent on God. I depend On God to get me out bed in the morning and put me in bed at night.To get me through the low points and be with me in the high ones.i’m not going to deny the intellectual part of Biblical study- I’d be lying if I did.I enjoy it. But that’s not why I do it.I see how God’s words can move and change lives and how it empowers people lives to move us toward us being better Christians.And that power can change and heal the world.Christ is our hope- our only hope! My chin is out Melchoir- take as many swings as you want.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Let me post what Vatican I said, emphasis mine, which in line with what I already posted previously.:
Vatican I - Now since the decree* on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent**, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.*
So what did Trent say about this, some 70 years prior to 1616:
Council of Trent - (I)n matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the FathersSt. Bellarmine, who you told us that this was a defined matter of faith, however included the following qualifier in his 1615 letter to Father Foscarini (who supported a Scriptural interpretation consistent with Copernicus):
*St. Bellarmine - Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and **say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.***This is consistent with that Pope Leo XIII said of interpreting Scripture literally in 1893’s Providentissimus Deus:
*Pope Leo XII - the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine (4th century) – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where **reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.***Everything I said in my previous post still stands, and the conditions of infallible teachings. I don’t know where you are saying the Pope “immutably” changed the antiquity of such understanding in the 1616 decree, rather than that his order was immutable. You are welcome to provide proper citation or quotation.
S
savedsinner
Guest
We will find out what is myth and what is history at the end of time.
Until then we can only speculate.
God is love, the bible is God’s love letter to us.
We should read this love letter for the message of love which God is trying to convey to us.
1 Corinthians 13:8-13
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Until then we can only speculate.
God is love, the bible is God’s love letter to us.
We should read this love letter for the message of love which God is trying to convey to us.
1 Corinthians 13:8-13
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
C
cassini
Guest
Wow, what an interesting thread. Interesting too that this forum, like every other Catholic forum I have visited, has a juliamajor type character who answers contributers with negative verbal rhetoric as above.
It is a pity juliamajor you do not answer points with counter points and not rhetoric. When popes contradict one another, as they have with their different OPINIONS on the subjects under discussion, which one are we of the flock to believe? Your thinking is Catholics should follow the one in office. Well mine is follow the one that FIRST laid down the law, for the rest are lawbreakers.
Now the advice in the rules state that it is far more productive if posts stick to ONE point. The problem on this thread is that it has spread itself too quickly with too many questions to be answered at one time.
So, of all the accusations, questions and lectures directed at me, which one shall I begin with to get some clarification?
Marcopolo quotes from Council of Trent, St Bellarmine and St Augustine - all three by the way interpreted the scriptures geocentrically - as a means to try to convince this forum NOT to interpret the scriptures geocentrically. Now how about that for modernist trickery? Now I could give alternative quotes as asked by Marcopolo but I will keep it down to one at a time.
First who was Bellarmine? Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.
Marco says:
‘St. Bellarmine, who you told us that this was a defined matter of faith, however included the following qualifier in his 1615 letter to Father Foscarini (who supported a Scriptural interpretation consistent with Copernicus).’ He then quoted Bellarmine:
St. Bellarmine - Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.’
First I hope all will note that Both Sides, Marco and Cassini agree that the geocentric interpretation of the Bible was a matter of faith and not science as santodomingo and others have thought. Here is how Bellarmine put it:
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Now we come down to that test of faith that I spoke about earlier. The concensus of history - now accepted by Churchmen and State - is that the sun has been proven to be stationary with the earth orbiting around this. In other words the consensus believes Galileo had the truth and the divinely guided Church wrong. As Catholics does this matter? Of course it does and that is why for 250 years Churchmen have used every excuse they can think up of trying to worm their way out of this crisis. That is why all these posts give the impression Catholicism is in crisis, with no TRUTH to hold us all together. Seeker of God pleads for clarification on the matter of the dogma of original sin. Do you know why he cannot get his answer? Because the Galileo case made it impossible to give one answer any more.Juliamajor says the whole subject of the Galileo affair is nonsense and it doesn’t matter. Well you can bet your soul it matters when the likes of seeker of God cannot get an answer to a question as to whether the dogma of original sin came from true history or a myth.
So, where does the TRUTH lie. It lies in the one thing the Catholic faith teaches that no other religion can claim, it has God as protecter and He does not allow popes and holy offices to define and declare something as heresy that is not heresy. The very idea that one could believe it did is to show a lack of faith.
So, what happens when something like this is stated. Yesterday on the Irish national radio, a professor of Mathematica from Cork university, replied to a question on the 1981-1992 apology to Galileo in the following way. He said that as we all know now relativity reigns supreme in the universe. ‘Quite simply Marion,’ he said, man cannot assertain whether the sun goes around the earth, or the earth goes around the sun.’
Marion nearly collapsed saying she didn’t know that.
Now that is a FACT. So why hasn’t the world accepted its one logical conclusion, - that the Church of 1616 was not wrong?
It is a pity juliamajor you do not answer points with counter points and not rhetoric. When popes contradict one another, as they have with their different OPINIONS on the subjects under discussion, which one are we of the flock to believe? Your thinking is Catholics should follow the one in office. Well mine is follow the one that FIRST laid down the law, for the rest are lawbreakers.
Now the advice in the rules state that it is far more productive if posts stick to ONE point. The problem on this thread is that it has spread itself too quickly with too many questions to be answered at one time.
So, of all the accusations, questions and lectures directed at me, which one shall I begin with to get some clarification?
Marcopolo quotes from Council of Trent, St Bellarmine and St Augustine - all three by the way interpreted the scriptures geocentrically - as a means to try to convince this forum NOT to interpret the scriptures geocentrically. Now how about that for modernist trickery? Now I could give alternative quotes as asked by Marcopolo but I will keep it down to one at a time.
First who was Bellarmine? Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.
Marco says:
‘St. Bellarmine, who you told us that this was a defined matter of faith, however included the following qualifier in his 1615 letter to Father Foscarini (who supported a Scriptural interpretation consistent with Copernicus).’ He then quoted Bellarmine:
St. Bellarmine - Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.’
First I hope all will note that Both Sides, Marco and Cassini agree that the geocentric interpretation of the Bible was a matter of faith and not science as santodomingo and others have thought. Here is how Bellarmine put it:
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Now we come down to that test of faith that I spoke about earlier. The concensus of history - now accepted by Churchmen and State - is that the sun has been proven to be stationary with the earth orbiting around this. In other words the consensus believes Galileo had the truth and the divinely guided Church wrong. As Catholics does this matter? Of course it does and that is why for 250 years Churchmen have used every excuse they can think up of trying to worm their way out of this crisis. That is why all these posts give the impression Catholicism is in crisis, with no TRUTH to hold us all together. Seeker of God pleads for clarification on the matter of the dogma of original sin. Do you know why he cannot get his answer? Because the Galileo case made it impossible to give one answer any more.Juliamajor says the whole subject of the Galileo affair is nonsense and it doesn’t matter. Well you can bet your soul it matters when the likes of seeker of God cannot get an answer to a question as to whether the dogma of original sin came from true history or a myth.
So, where does the TRUTH lie. It lies in the one thing the Catholic faith teaches that no other religion can claim, it has God as protecter and He does not allow popes and holy offices to define and declare something as heresy that is not heresy. The very idea that one could believe it did is to show a lack of faith.
So, what happens when something like this is stated. Yesterday on the Irish national radio, a professor of Mathematica from Cork university, replied to a question on the 1981-1992 apology to Galileo in the following way. He said that as we all know now relativity reigns supreme in the universe. ‘Quite simply Marion,’ he said, man cannot assertain whether the sun goes around the earth, or the earth goes around the sun.’
Marion nearly collapsed saying she didn’t know that.
Now that is a FACT. So why hasn’t the world accepted its one logical conclusion, - that the Church of 1616 was not wrong?
S
seeker_of_God
Guest
I found this article on the issue, which seems to answer it quite well.
Also, the article, Adam, Eve, and Evolution discusses evolution and the fall.
This article, Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?, might lend some credibility to the geocentric model, as the earth would have to be in the center of such a void.
Also, the article, Adam, Eve, and Evolution discusses evolution and the fall.
This article, Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?, might lend some credibility to the geocentric model, as the earth would have to be in the center of such a void.
J
juliamajor
Guest
ST. ASt. Augustine on Genesis
St. Augustine wrote: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad ugustine on Genesis
St. Augustine wrote: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad ugustine on Genesis
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Your first paragraph here is a misrepresentation of my posts, and anyone is free to see what I’ve posted.
For anyone else here who is following, just to be clear, there is a difference between what may be interpreted as embarrassing decisions by the 17th century Church, versus the Church having made a declaration of doctrine on a matter that was not faith or morals. At the time, the Church was involved authoritatively in non-doctrinal matters. The Church was not satisfied with the science presented them at that time. They would have viewed themselves as true to Augustine’s call to stay with the literal sense of Scripture until good reason shows otherwise. Were they foolish to be so slow to acknowledge the question brought by science? Perhaps. That is subjective.
The point remains: this was not an issue of faith or morals, and thus subject to reinterpretation: the earth could possibly revolve around the sun. At that time, Cardinal Bellarmine recognized that possibility, and the respected theologian Father Foscarini was already embracing it. No matter how hard anyone wishes it to be true, the Church never defined geocentrism as a matter of unchangeable doctrine. Today the Church still takes no official position on the matter. New science could show something else, or it might not.
M
Melchior
Guest
I am not interested in injuring your chin at all.
I don’t know why you assume those who disagree with your particular school as the ONLY or even the best school, are simply uneducated or anti-intellectual. Acting like there is not a diversity of opinion, educated opinion, is anti-intellectual. You must admit that you belong to the newest school. That is not an insult, it is simply true. I am not trying to attack you I am just recommending you broaden your horizons a bit and not assume the worst of those who esteem a different school of interpretations higher are hateful, ingnorant or have bad teeth. I certainly have listened, for years, to those who esteem historical criticism as the highest hermeneutic. I disagree just as much with those who think scripture supports geocentrism and that the earth must be 6,000 years old because they fail to understand how genealogy and figures of speach are used in scripture. I think both extremes display a profound ignorance (or at least bias) based on the fact that they take an extreme position. One is ultra new, and one is genuinely antiquated. I am for as much education as possible and I can assure you that is how I raise my children.
As for the rest of what you said, I could not agree more. I would just suggest you will get more out of scripture if you assume, as the Fathers did, that the specific people in scripture mentioned were real people and that the events are true, historically true, in there essence BUT not that they are comprehensively detailed in all their facts, but only in the ones that God felt it important for us to know. And certainly not meant to explain any particular area of science or to compete with it either. This is the balance. For example to assume Noah was not real and to make it some sort of local flood does violence to the text and the central message of that story. Peter, the first Pope clearly understood it literally. The local flood theory does violence to the entire point that God destroyed a wicked humanity, save one family, who he repopulated the earth with. Plus, the genealogies would be deceptive and meaningless. Clearly for this event to happen there would have to have been some supernatural activity involved - but isn’t that God’s stock in trade all throughout scripture? How is the flood account, of which many disparate ancient peoples believed in for a reason, so much harder to believe that God becoming man, a virgin giving birth, the dead rising and the entire cosmos being made new and without decay? Do you see my point? Hopefully, this post was sufficiently friendly to help you see what I am saying. I truly am not here to argue with you, sister.
But I do have a verse for you 1Tim 2:12.
Peace,
Mel
C
cassini
Guest
Marco, contrary to many posts on this forum, here and elsewhere, and 100,000 other places where Catholics try to ‘worm’ their way out of trouble, I should like to announce the truth:
The Galileo case was NOT about science.
The Galileo case was about WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
Nothing more and nothing less. I will stake my reputation on this fact.
The Galileo case was NOT about science.
The Galileo case was about WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
Nothing more and nothing less. I will stake my reputation on this fact.
G
grg
Guest
My question is, did God kill as is stated in the Torah? I have been told (by a teacher) it is the words of the author not the action of God…
R
requiemaeturnum
Guest
It is heresy to say that any part of the Holy Bible was made up. If one part was made up, why do you think the rest is not just the ramblings of poets and drunks?
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
T
TMC
Guest
He did? Its a strong thing to say with such specificity what the Lord believed. I believe that He believed:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
I believe Jesus would agree with that passage. But that passage does not speak to historical or scientific accuracy.
I don’t know of any statements of Jesus that suggest he believed in the historical accuracy of Scripture. If that is what you mean, what do you base your statement on?
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Wow. Second guessing what Jesus believed. Amazing how deep the inroads of deconstructionsist Protestant critics of the Bible are today.
I don’t blame you, I blame the Bishops that tolerated this Canaanite syncretism. You are buried in error and you don’t even know it. Jesus is the God Man and His faith is perfect. Anyone who dares to deconstruct the faith of Christ enters in to destroy and not to edify.
T
TMC
Guest
I am not doing any “second guessing.” I am asking for the basis of your “first guessing.”
I said I think Jesus would agree with the descripition of Scripture in 2 Timothy, but that I don’t know of any source for more than that. Why do you say Jesus believed in the historical accuracy of all Scriptures? (If that is what you believe.) Your statement must be based on something. What is it?
R
RonTheNewJew
Guest
As a Christ-believing, but Torah-observant Jew (PS. The word only means one who praises God. The word, Judah only means the land of those who praise God), I am astounded at two truths:
They wanted a Messiah who would free them from pagan Rome.
The Romans persecuted the Jews in the early centuries of the Judeo-Christian Church or Synagogue. They also persecuted the Judeo-Christians because they worshipped in the same place on the same Shabbat and annual Holy Convocation days.
They both kept the same Shabbat, or Shabbot on the seventh day of the week. They kept the Passover Sedar meal, but the Christians followed the 14 steps, but withOUT the cooked slain lamb. They used broken unleavened bread, and the grape juice (wine) in place of the cooked lamb. And kept all the other holy days and seasons that the Jews did.
Christ came to get the Jews to begin actually believing in the meaning He had first infused into the Law of Moses, as contained in the written Torah. These meanings were taught during the annual Holy Convocations and sabbaths, and were taught every Sbabbat (Sabbath).
The Day of Atonement when Christians should humble themselves and confess their sins, followed by the beautiful Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and will be celebrated in the New Jerusalem. Isaiah 66, and other passages as well.
Ezekiel, 36, verses 26 and 27: “I will cause my Law to be put into their inner parts, and they shall be written on their hearts, so that they shall keep My Statutes and My Judgements and DO THEM.”
The Statutes and Judgements of God are contained in Leviticus 23
They are the “Gospel.”
The Jewish leaders, in their vain attempt to change God’s requirements of humility and self-secrifice for others, loaded down God’s Holy Shabbat, and the annual sabbaths, each of which contained a theme that needed special study, so that believers could then teach these themes and concepts during each Shabbat (today’s Saturday according to the Jewish calendar. They added many regulations, which Christ denounced repeatedly.
He said of the rabbi’s and priests, “Listen to them, but do not do as they do. For they say but DO NOT DO. But, when they sit in Moses’ Seat in the synagogues (today’s “churches”), LISTEN to them and DO what they say.”
One such regulation said that if a man decided to sell his parents’ land and home and give it to the Temple priests, they would have Salvation. The parents had nothing to say about it. Christ said, bluntly, that the rabbi’s new rules had "made of none effect the Law of God. (His Law).
Christ gave the desciples the “Keys” of His Kingdom. He had given it to them long before that time. He had given it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The meaning of the word, “keys” is simply “knowledge.” He had given it to them for nearly 3 and a half years. They could not change the meaning of His knowledge, the knowledge He gave to His disciples, that is.
What was meant by “whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven,” only meant, and means today, that when the disciples had to deal with, as they often did, conflicted situations among people, that He had faith in their ability to make wise judgements BASED on the knowledge He had given them over the previous years of His mininstry.
The big change that came was from man’s promises at Sinai, “All that the Lord hath commanded we shall do.” In other words, from man’s promises to God, to God’s promises to man, guaranteed by His Son’s sacrifice at the cross once and for all time for the sins of mankind.
This means that He died that man might be so moved by His sacrifice after living a Torah-observant life (eg, the Law He have Moses), that man would never want to do anything other than keep the written Torah close to his own heart and life.
Christ is, today, the High Priest in His Heavenly Sanctuary. The earthly Sanctuary is gone forever. The earthly priesthood is also gone because the Sanctuary is gone.
God, in Leviticus said, “My Holy Convocations shall be kept throughout all your generations, FOREVER.”
Remember, to, that when the Israelites were camped at Mt. Sinai, and Moses had gone up to the top of the mountain for 40 days, the people asked Aaron to build them a golden calf, so “that we may worship God.” They thought they were worshipping God when they bowed down to the golden calf.
When Moses came down, saw what they had done, he threw down the Tablets of Stone with the Ten Commandments written by Christ’s own finger (“No man has seen God, the Father”). God was ready to destroy Israel, Period.) But He listened to Moses pleading for his people, and asked Moses to come up into the mountain again, where He again wrote the Ten Commandments on Tablets of Stone.
The Jews will return to the original Covenant, but only IF the original religion that Jesus gave to what were supposed to be His first missionaries, the children of Israel, and which His Apostles all kept, the Messianic annual festivals, are being kept by His “grafted into the Olive Tree” people TODAY.
Yeshua (God) truly bless you today.
RonTheTrueJew
- That “Christians” question the authenticity of the history of the books they call the “Old” Testament. Several unfortunate things have emanated from this “Old Covenant” premise:
A. That God’s Son, when He became incarnated into human flesh and exemplified the living out of the Law He gave to Moses, as God the Son on Mt. Sinai (in northern Saudi Arabia, not in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula), ie the written Torah, did NOT start a new religion.
They wanted a Messiah who would free them from pagan Rome.
The Romans persecuted the Jews in the early centuries of the Judeo-Christian Church or Synagogue. They also persecuted the Judeo-Christians because they worshipped in the same place on the same Shabbat and annual Holy Convocation days.
They both kept the same Shabbat, or Shabbot on the seventh day of the week. They kept the Passover Sedar meal, but the Christians followed the 14 steps, but withOUT the cooked slain lamb. They used broken unleavened bread, and the grape juice (wine) in place of the cooked lamb. And kept all the other holy days and seasons that the Jews did.
Christ came to get the Jews to begin actually believing in the meaning He had first infused into the Law of Moses, as contained in the written Torah. These meanings were taught during the annual Holy Convocations and sabbaths, and were taught every Sbabbat (Sabbath).
The Day of Atonement when Christians should humble themselves and confess their sins, followed by the beautiful Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and will be celebrated in the New Jerusalem. Isaiah 66, and other passages as well.
Ezekiel, 36, verses 26 and 27: “I will cause my Law to be put into their inner parts, and they shall be written on their hearts, so that they shall keep My Statutes and My Judgements and DO THEM.”
The Statutes and Judgements of God are contained in Leviticus 23
They are the “Gospel.”
The Jewish leaders, in their vain attempt to change God’s requirements of humility and self-secrifice for others, loaded down God’s Holy Shabbat, and the annual sabbaths, each of which contained a theme that needed special study, so that believers could then teach these themes and concepts during each Shabbat (today’s Saturday according to the Jewish calendar. They added many regulations, which Christ denounced repeatedly.
He said of the rabbi’s and priests, “Listen to them, but do not do as they do. For they say but DO NOT DO. But, when they sit in Moses’ Seat in the synagogues (today’s “churches”), LISTEN to them and DO what they say.”
One such regulation said that if a man decided to sell his parents’ land and home and give it to the Temple priests, they would have Salvation. The parents had nothing to say about it. Christ said, bluntly, that the rabbi’s new rules had "made of none effect the Law of God. (His Law).
Christ gave the desciples the “Keys” of His Kingdom. He had given it to them long before that time. He had given it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The meaning of the word, “keys” is simply “knowledge.” He had given it to them for nearly 3 and a half years. They could not change the meaning of His knowledge, the knowledge He gave to His disciples, that is.
What was meant by “whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven,” only meant, and means today, that when the disciples had to deal with, as they often did, conflicted situations among people, that He had faith in their ability to make wise judgements BASED on the knowledge He had given them over the previous years of His mininstry.
The big change that came was from man’s promises at Sinai, “All that the Lord hath commanded we shall do.” In other words, from man’s promises to God, to God’s promises to man, guaranteed by His Son’s sacrifice at the cross once and for all time for the sins of mankind.
This means that He died that man might be so moved by His sacrifice after living a Torah-observant life (eg, the Law He have Moses), that man would never want to do anything other than keep the written Torah close to his own heart and life.
Christ is, today, the High Priest in His Heavenly Sanctuary. The earthly Sanctuary is gone forever. The earthly priesthood is also gone because the Sanctuary is gone.
God, in Leviticus said, “My Holy Convocations shall be kept throughout all your generations, FOREVER.”
Remember, to, that when the Israelites were camped at Mt. Sinai, and Moses had gone up to the top of the mountain for 40 days, the people asked Aaron to build them a golden calf, so “that we may worship God.” They thought they were worshipping God when they bowed down to the golden calf.
When Moses came down, saw what they had done, he threw down the Tablets of Stone with the Ten Commandments written by Christ’s own finger (“No man has seen God, the Father”). God was ready to destroy Israel, Period.) But He listened to Moses pleading for his people, and asked Moses to come up into the mountain again, where He again wrote the Ten Commandments on Tablets of Stone.
The Jews will return to the original Covenant, but only IF the original religion that Jesus gave to what were supposed to be His first missionaries, the children of Israel, and which His Apostles all kept, the Messianic annual festivals, are being kept by His “grafted into the Olive Tree” people TODAY.
Yeshua (God) truly bless you today.
RonTheTrueJew
- Status