Most people seem to not care where the poison came from or how bad it was. So I pose the question: Do origins really matter? I say yes. To illustrate: Suppose you saw a piece of candy lying in the gutter. Would you pick up that candy and eat it? I definitely wouldn't, because the candy is unclean. Like that candy, holidays may seem sweet, but they (usually) have been picked up from unclean places. If you want true worship (no false religion), you need to have a viewpoint like that of the prophet Isaiah, who said, "Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean; get out from the midst of her*, keep yourselves clean, you who are carrying the utensils of GOD." -Isaiah 52:11.
* = Her is a referance to Babylon the Great, read Revelation chapter 18, talks about it alot. But Revelation has Babylon the Great referanced in several places.
Second, since I use the term GOD alot, for those who don't know I am refering to his name. Yes he does actually have one, however, most bible versions have deaded it out. His name can stil be found in most bibles at Exodus 3:15, usually in a foot note. His name in Hebrew letters is YHWH, pronounces Yehew by most people. Also in Hebrew writing they usually left out vowls because they were very complex characters and difficult to write. Hebrew is also read right to left, so if you try to translate the hebrew letters remember to do it in the proper order.
Narnian:
Jesus is the randsom payed for our sins and he and GOD will destroy false religion, Easter is part of false religion. False Religion is apart of Babylon the Great, a symbolic place in the bible that Jesus and GOD will destroy. By partaking in false religion you are in Babylon the Great, do you want to be in anyplace when it is destroyed?
I also have a few problems with your link, three problems I think. The first is it is saying man has the right to make rulings on a level that only GOD can, even if GOD hasn't changed his ruling.
And when GOD and man's ruling clash, the bible gives us referance on who to follow: In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." Acts 5:29, you can read 29-32 for the full quote. They said this when the preist of Jerusalem told them to not teach christianity. So is it any differant when a high preist says, "Hey, it's okay to do this!" and GOD says, "No, don't do it!"?
The second has to do with it saying, "...reinvesting cultural forms with spiritual meaning.", in the first sentence of the second subheading. This screams Idolitry to me. Whenever you invest religious/spiritual meaning into an object, you are in effect worshiping it, bible says don't do that.
The third is when it says, "It betokens worshipping Jesus.", found at the end of the second paragraph in the last subheading. I know I am gonna get alot of people up on my for this, but you aren't supposed to worship anyone BUT GOD. Jesus was not GOD, he was his son. You are to show him respect and follow his advice to find GOD, but you are to NEVER worship him.
Also, I'm pretty sure Abraham predates the Egyptions as he was second generation. But I'd have to dig for confermation on that one.
Acolyte:
Not nonsense, participating in false religion is really bad for you. Most christian religions actually fall under false religion due to their promotion of idolarty or putting Jesus in GODs place, but that's something else all together.
TMLutas: I'm gonna quote you to make it easier for us to follow. How do you designate a quote is by a specific person?
Thanks, but the same authority that established the canon bible and the ones that established Easter are not the same. They were several generations apart and the ones that established Easter didn't have GOD and his Holy Spirit backing them. One is valid over the other cause the establishment of the canon bible was done through GOD, hence the all scriptures enspired thing. Nothing in the bible says that all religious authority is inspired of GOD. The bible, however, gives guidelines to find out what is false and therefore bad for you to partake in.Glad you like the Bible. The same authority by which it was selected and assembled from the much larger corpus of christian books of the time is also the same authority that established Easter. So why is one exercise of that authority valid and the other not? You seem to have a problem...
I do and have starting to offer scriptures here. I will also be doing it more often as I orginize my resources and can collect what I am referancing. I am not sure at this time where it is exactly, but I will have the answer Wedensday or Friend. I'll need to ask someone else for help on the matter and I only see them on those days. However, the reason why it should only be done once a year is because the Lord's Evening Meal replaced Passover or superceeded it.A little tip. If you're going to go all sola scriptura, it's crucial that you actually use the Bible. I'm pretty sure that neither Paul, any of the other apostles, Jesus, God the Father, or the Holy Spirit have ever said any such thing like we should only celebrate the last supper once a year only.
It is a time to reflect and meditate (not the clear your mind of all thoughts mediate) on the act of his sacrifice and what it means. Most people ignore this in favor of celebrating his ressurection. I see nothing wrong with celebrating his ressurection, but it should not be done in place of a more important celebration. Most Christian religions do that, but not all do.
It is true we are supposed to preach to them, however, what I ment by distance is not them, but their customs. Basicly we shouldn't be adopting their customs to get them to come over to our side. The rest of your paragraph has to do with complete and total seperation, which is not what I ment. Sorry for the misunderstanding. What does YMMV mean?We're supposed to be going out there and converting them from their false beliefs to the true faith, the belief in Christ. There's not going to be a whole lot of conversion if we're always distancing ourselves from them. We have to uphold the truth, that always. This means that there *is* some necessary separation to keep things clear. Too much separation is so easily interpreted as being 'holier than thou', stuck up, or just plain rude, YMMV.
You leave it be and convert the pagans where you can and then plow it under when there are no more pagans left. If there are still pagans left, you do not have the right to destroy their place of worship, that is Jesus's and GOD's job and theirs alone.What do you do with the city's pagan temple? If you just plow it under, people will just come to the site and worship out of habit. The early church converted such temples, turning them into Churches and, over time, turned the pernicious habits of the people to good. Some of the harmless stuff stuck around because, frankly, it just wasn't worth the effort.
Harmless or not, when you adopt/convert another religious people into your religion you do not adopt/convert their rituals or beliefs to yours. The bible makes it clear that you should stay away form false religion and not mingle with it, cause that will lead to it influincing the religion as a whole. Pulling it into your fold in an attempt to make it 'good' as you say is defently mingling with it.
You mean adopting someone elses rituals and customs and then say, "Hey, we do that to, but ours is better so come on over!"? I'm not sure if this is what you are saying or not, but if it is, I can't agree with that. Namely because the bible specificly says, in several places throughout the bible, not to do that.Well, what do you think I'm saying? The point is that all this feast and fast stuff is an ancient school text. It's catechesis woven into the rythms of our daily life. Like all school texts, they have to be set up in a pedagogically sound manner so that the lesson isn't jarring or seems out of place. You can learn to love God in a number of ways. I'm not arguing that you *have* to take part in this particular method. I think it's a bit bold to be attacking one of the oldest method around of teaching christianity.
Just cause it is hard to convert someone, you should not let yourself stumble just to gather a few more sheep. You have warned them and showed them that what they are doing is wrong in GOD's eyes. That is the least GOD asks of you. If they then choose to turn away from their religion to join yours, you are then charged with teaching them about it. Not teaching them about their religion with a new twist.
It comes from the fact that it is the day when Passover starts, after sundown, and that the Lord's Evening Meal (name of the last supper) takes the place of Passover.I hope you do realize that Nisan is a variable, not a constant and can simply be taken away by a decision of the rabbis of the world. They adjust those calendars on a semi-regular basis. So where are you then with your pharisee-like fixation on Nisan 14 the calendar date? Do you deny the jews the right to shape and reform their own calendar as it pleases them?
I also have to agree with Acolyte that you can't just throw out Nisan, it'd by like just throwing out Janurary on a whim. I also agree with alot of his other points about the Hebrew calander. Also because the Hebrew calander and the Christian calander (one in use now) don't match up perfectly, you need a marker for figuring it out. The most constant marker for the start of Nisan is the closest new moon to the spring equinox. I believe it is reliable enough that you don't need to referance a hebrew calander. I also believe that by using those guide lines the date will fall on the same day as passover consistantly if not every time, not totally sure on this though.
I know I described that, at least in part I did. I did not tell you what type of poison it was or if that single drop was very weak or enough to kill you. That should be enough for you to come up with an honest answer, since you would likely err* on the side of caution.I hope you do realize that you've just described a perfectly ordinary dosing event in homeopathic medicine which very much is about administering very weak doses of all sorts of poisons as medical treatment. In other words, you've left out sufficient context for me to give an honest answer.
* = Not sure if that is the right word. Trying to say that you favor caution over taking a potentially lethal risk.
Where in the Book of Acts does it detail the act of electing successors? Not saying it doesn't, I just haven't read about it and would like to.I don't know you from Adam. I do know that Christ exists. How I know is that his Church was founded by the miracle of Pentacost. I know that those apostles elected successors because they provided an example (the first) of the process in the Book of Acts. I know that the Bible was picked and assembled by further successors of those apostles and I know that those successors exist to this day.
Nowadays they're called bishops or eparchs (depending on whether they're drawing from the eastern or western lines). Do I have faith in the continuation of the miracle of Pentacost? Do I believe that the process for electing successors as laid out in the Book of Acts is Godly? It's in the Bible, isn't it? The question for me is why you have so little faith in the Bible as it's actually written.
Anyways, I assume you are speaking of the Catholic church yes? I have much faith in the bible as it is written. I, however, do not have faith in men to upload it over long periods of time. The bible also has already stated that any religious orginization that teaches false religion is prejudged and will be destroyed. The Catholic church seems to fall under this, because they teach about a Trinity (goes way back to Babylon I belive) and idoltary (worship of the cross).
Not really. You do not know if I gave you a safe dose or a dangerous dose, so would you really wanna chance it? Or would you, like the bible suggest, be cautious and not accept the drink?All poison is dose related, that is there is always a safe dose and a dangerous dose for most materials. I understand your position but you've picked a very bad way of putting it.
...wow! These posts are getting huge! I am also starting to feel like I hijacked Madmoonie's thread.
