Paganism and Catholicism.

[Infinityloop]

The pagan references in the Bible is to show us how abominable God finds paganism. God abhors the worship of other gods and their revolting rituals.

It shows that the writers of the Bible where polemicizing to some degree Pagan deities and Pagan myths (again, to whatever the word "Pagan" even means, because it's just a pejorative term that refers to nothing specific).
You seem to not even be aware that Yahweh/"Jehovah" (YHWH) was even in the Mesopotamian/Canaanite/etc pantheon, albeit not as a massive player. This also included El, Moloch and Ba'al among others. I wonder if you've ever read the Sumerian creation myth and compared it to the creation myth in Genesis?
Or comparing the story of Noah to the Gilgamesh flood myth and the story of Manu in Hinduism.
These things go on for pages and pages, there is no shortage. It's not a negative thing either.

The Bible tells is that, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17). Through the Bible we learn what is right and what isn't.

As I already wrote above: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/paganism-and-catholicism.6644/post-246154

The crucial words in the link about converting to Hinduism, is "ex Christians". Unfortunately there are many Christians who never really get to know God. There are many reasons for that. It could be they were in the wrong religions like Catholicism that I'm posting about here, where they never studied their Bibles or prayed which is how get close and communicate with God, and that led them to leave and find another false religion like Hinduism which is about worshipping other gods

This is simply fallacious. There is no such thing as "exchrisitans were never real Christians" anymore than ex-followers of any other religion. People leave religions, many from finding things they disagree with. Many people leave Christianity for reading the Bible itself.
As for "I've got the holy spirit and you haven't", that's just arrogant. Many non-Christians know God, Christianity, whilst it makes exclusive truth-claims, does not own copyright to God. The idea of Christianity owning God implies Atheism.
Hindusism is actually wiser about God actually and they all worship one God.

 

[Infinityloop]

I disagree and as I wrote, you would have to have had a spiritual experience by studying the Word of God

How did you study the "word of God"? (John 1:14), when if Jesus is the 'word of God' then he has been dead for over 2000 years. Or do you mean the Qur'an? (which is actually the word of God revealed directly to a Prophet and not just pseudo-biographical stories written by people)

You clearly haven't but I pray you do.

I'm a Monotheist (not an idolater who believes in a man-god) and I've experienced things, I also pray more than three times daily. I'm probably more religious than you are.

I know Catholicism is steeped in paganism than in the Bible.

How can you say this with a straight face? have you ever read the Old Testament?

but that should never stop a Christian from preaching the truth.

Such as Catholics. No problems there.

 

[phipps]

Don't we have to live in the spirit of Christ? If Christ purified the impure, what tells us we're not supposed to strive for the same? Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?

The proof is in the explanation. Do you disagree that the meaning of Passover was changed by Christ? If not, why was it (both meaning and practice) changed if it wasn't pagan? Would you have Passover return to its pre-Christian symbolism as the Jews of today still interpret it, ie. their Lord "passing over" the Hebrew homes to crush Egyptian babies?

The biblical sabbath is derived from the Enuma Elis, the Babylonian creation myth which contains the description of the Babylonian Shabattu. It is older than the Torah. It is the progenitor of the Hebrew sabbath. It was in devotion of Nimrod (or equivalent Mesopotamian deities, like Marduk) prior to it being in devotion to the Hebrew god. This is history. The circular reasoning of "the bible said so" has no legitimacy in such debates.

You say Jesus kept the sabbath, but Jesus was rebuked by the Jewish priesthood for breaking it. Jesus' healing on the sabbath even initiated the Pharisees' plot to kill Him. Here's what Jesus had to say about the sabbath:

Luke 13
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

Matthew 12
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Mark 3
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

John 7
23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

The last verse hits the nail on the head. The law of the priests approved of making the body unwhole (cutting off flesh by means of circumcision) on sabbath in order not to break the law of Moses. Jesus made whole (by means of healing) the body on sabbath, which is the exact opposite. So yes, He changed sabbath. He rendered it good.

Don't we have to live in the spirit of Christ? If Christ purified the impure, what tells us we're not supposed to strive for the same? Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?

Living in the Spirit of Christ is to do His will. There is so much scripture on that subject that it so clear.

Only Christ can cleanse and purify us from sin. No one else can. We are supposed to strive to be like Jesus was when He was here on earth (He did not sin), and we are to do it as Jesus did, which is to obey God's commandments and His Word NOT man made tradition.

Yes there many things that people eat that defile them. I have a forum on that. This also applies to us spiritually too. Sin defiles. what is sin? Its the breaking of God's law.

The proof is in the explanation. Do you disagree that the meaning of Passover was changed by Christ? If not, why was it (both meaning and practice) changed if it wasn't pagan? Would you have Passover return to its pre-Christian symbolism as the Jews of today still interpret it, ie. their Lord "passing over" the Hebrew homes to crush Egyptian babies?

So you have no proof. I disagree that the meaning of Passover was changed by Christ. Every Jewish feast represented an aspect of Christ’s ministry. The Passover represented the crucifixion of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says, “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” The Passover first occurred while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. God sent plagues to punish Egypt, including an angel of death that killed every firstborn in Egypt. In order for God’s people to escape this plague, God told each family to kill a lamb that had no blemish. They were to smear the blood of that sacrificial lamb on their door posts, so that the angel of death would pass over their houses, and their firstborn would be safe from the plague (Exodus 12).

To remember this event, Jews celebrated the Passover, which not only looked back to their deliverance from Egypt and the lamb’s blood on their door posts, but also looked ahead to the perfect Lamb that was to be slain to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled the Passover feast. He was the Passover Lamb. Exodus 12:5; 46 says, "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats…neither shall ye break a bone thereof." Jesus was killed at the time of Passover too. Christ fulfilled these prophecies in the New Testament:

"Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

"But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs…For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:33,36).

Christ did NOT change the meaning of passover. You just don't know what Passover means. Also Jesus who is God does not change and never will, so His word says.

The biblical sabbath is derived from the Enuma Elis, the Babylonian creation myth which contains the description of the Babylonian Shabattu. It is older than the Torah. It is the progenitor of the Hebrew sabbath. It was in devotion of Nimrod (or equivalent Mesopotamian deities, like Marduk) prior to it being in devotion to the Hebrew god. This is history. The circular reasoning of "the bible said so" has no legitimacy in such debates.

You remember we disagreed in my thread about the Sabbath. I have shown you scripture that shows that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. Before Nimrod, before paganism, before the Israelites, and before anything you've posted here, the Sabbath existed. You are very wrong!

You say Jesus kept the sabbath, but Jesus was rebuked by the Jewish priesthood for breaking it. Jesus' healing on the sabbath even initiated the Pharisees' plot to kill Him. Here's what Jesus had to say about the sabbath:

First of all I showed you scripture where it said Jesus kept the Sabbath. The scripture says, "So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). I am not the one saying Jesus kept the Sabbath, the Bible is. Don't you believe the Bible? Are you one of those people who picks and chooses what to believe in the Bible according to what suits them and their beliefs?

Secondly, You misunderstood why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Jesus did not rebuke them for keeping the Sabbath, He himself kept it as scripture clearly says and I've shown above. He rebuked them for teaching the people to keep the Sabbath in an extremely legalistic way. They had so many laws about not breaking the Sabbath that it had become a burden to keep. These same leaders even accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath! To them healing somebody on the Sabbath was breaking it. The Sabbath commandment certainly doesn’t forbid healing on the Sabbath, and Jesus, God Himself, did it, and never broke the Sabbath. The Pharisees misunderstood what the Sabbath was for. The Sabbath is the day God set aside and blessed so that we can rest from from our daily work and enjoy the blessings He provided for us when we remember our creator. Its a day of peaceful worship. Jesus said in Mark 2:27, "And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Meaning it was made for our benefit. Its a precious gift to us from God.

Jesus never said, "You don’t need to keep the Sabbath any more.” Every debate He had about the Sabbath with the Jewish leaders was about how to keep it holy, not whether to keep it.

 

[phipps]

It shows that the writers of the Bible where polemicizing to some degree Pagan deities and Pagan myths (again, to whatever the word "Pagan" even means, because it's just a pejorative term that refers to nothing specific).
You seem to not even be aware that Yahweh/"Jehovah" (YHWH) was even in the Mesopotamian/Canaanite/etc pantheon, albeit not as a massive player. This also included El, Moloch and Ba'al among others. I wonder if you've ever read the Sumerian creation myth and compared it to the creation myth in Genesis?
Or comparing the story of Noah to the Gilgamesh flood myth and the story of Manu in Hinduism.
These things go on for pages and pages, there is no shortage. It's not a negative thing either.



As I already wrote above: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/paganism-and-catholicism.6644/post-246154



This is simply fallacious. There is no such thing as "exchrisitans were never real Christians" anymore than ex-followers of any other religion. People leave religions, many from finding things they disagree with. Many people leave Christianity for reading the Bible itself.
As for "I've got the holy spirit and you haven't", that's just arrogant. Many non-Christians know God, Christianity, whilst it makes exclusive truth-claims, does not own copyright to God. The idea of Christianity owning God implies Atheism.
Hindusism is actually wiser about God actually and they all worship one God.

I disagree.

 

[phipps]

How did you study the "word of God"? (John 1:14), when if Jesus is the 'word of God' then he has been dead for over 2000 years. Or do you mean the Qur'an? (which is actually the word of God revealed directly to a Prophet and not just pseudo-biographical stories written by people)



I'm a Monotheist (not an idolater who believes in a man-god) and I've experienced things, I also pray more than three times daily. I'm probably more religious than you are.



How can you say this with a straight face? have you ever read the Old Testament?



Such as Catholics. No problems there.

I'm stopping my discussion with you. You are not a believer, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about although you think you do.

 

[Infinityloop]

I'm stopping my discussion with you. You are not a believer, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about altough you think you do.

So you're not interested in trying to validate yourself against the implications of the kinds of claims you are making? (in a thread that is slandering Catholicism nonetheless).

As for "a believer", I suspect you're wanting a tea party discussion here where everyone share your same worldview. I reject Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism) yes and for the very reason of my faith in God.

 

[Infinityloop]

It will continue to forever baffle me why Protestants take the Bible as valid while at the same time rejecting the Catholic Church (and evil going to the extent of calling Catholicism 'satanic').
Protestantism can't exist without first taking the Catholic truth-claims about canonization (vs non-canon) and doctrine (like the Trinity, sola scriptura, sola fide) as self-evident, even though there is no line to be drawn without first having placing authority in the Catholic church to even be making claims about such things. There is no God in all of that.
The historical Jesus though? definitely.

 

[phipps]

So you're not interested in trying to validate yourself against the implications of the kinds of claims you are making? (in a thread that is slandering Catholicism nonetheless).

As for "a believer", I suspect you're wanting a tea party discussion here where everyone share your same worldview. I reject Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism) yes and for the very reason of my faith in God.

This is not about me, its about God. I am not interested in validating myself to you or anyone else here for that matter. I am not slandering Catholicism but if you want to think I am, I can't stop you. I will continue to post the truth about God anyway.

I know most people here don't share my views. If you'd been to some of my older threads you would know that. I am not posting what I'm posting here for validation. Even if I was, I would not get it here. My posting here is a way of witnessing and preaching the truth of the Bible. If even one person read what I posted and went and searched further for more truth, and got closer to God that would be Holy Spirit that led them there.

If you had faith in God you wouldn't reject His truths. Do you know that biblically the truth is always only with a minority of people? The majority are always wrong. The Bible tells us that, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).

Most of Christendom has falsities in it but God has always had a people who have the truth in every age and He will have people who have the truth till He returns. We have to pray to get the Holy Spirit to direct us to God's truth. I pray that you find the truth one day through the Holy Spirit. God bless.

 

[phipps]

Paganism and the Priesthood

Summary: The Church needs leaders, and Scripture is clear about the nature of godly leadership. Unfortunately, Catholicism has chosen pagan practices over Biblical truth when it comes to the priesthood.

Leaders are a very important component of the Church. However, Catholicism has chosen pagan examples to follow regarding the establishment and power of its priests. This has resulted in beliefs and traditions that contradict the Bible and God's plan for His people.


Power of the Priests

Catholic priests are considered to be very powerful. In fact, according to St. Alphonsus Liguori, priests are given the power to forgive sins, and God must obey their judgment decisions:

"Jesus has died to institute the priesthood. It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world; a drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all; for such a prayer, being of infinite value, should be sufficient to save not one but a thousand worlds. But to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ has been necessary. Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests of the New Law now offer? a victim altogether holy and immaculate, capable of giving to God an honor worthy of God. As has been already said, all the lives of men and angels are not capable of giving to God an infinite honor like that which a priest offers to him by a single Mass...

The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from Hell, of making them worthy of Paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon....

Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, "Ego to absolve," the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, "Ego to absolve," and the penitents of each would be equally absolved...

Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father...

Let the priest," says St. Laurence Justinian, "approach the altar as another Christ.” St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties of the Priest (1927).

During the 14th session of the Council of Trent (November 25, 1551), it was decreed that Christ, "when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left behind Him priests, His own vicars, as rulers and judges, to whom all the mortal sins into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen should be brought in order that they may, in virtue of the power of the keys, pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins." Rev. H. J. Schroeder (trans.), "Fourteenth Session: Sacrament of Penance," The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: TAN Books 1978): 92.

The Bible tells us that only God can save us (Psalm 80:19, Isaiah 45:22, Acts 4:12), and He offers forgiveness through Christ alone (Matthew 9:6, John 10:9, Acts 5:31, Ephesians 4:32).

Claiming the power to forgive sins and claiming to be God are two instances of blasphemy. Daniel 7 predicted that Papacy would utter great things against God, and this is exactly what is happening.


Celibacy

Another mark of the Catholic priesthood is celibacy. Unfortunately, this is another practice that ignores God's words to His people and instead follows paganism.

Historian Alexander Hislop tells us that celibacy originated in worship to the goddess Semiramis:

"Strange though it may seem, yet the voice of antiquity assigns to that abandoned queen [the goddess Semiramis] the invention of clerical celibacy, and that in the most stringent form...When the Pope appropriated to himself so much that was peculiar to the worship of that goddess, from the very same source, also, he introduced into the priesthood under his authority the binding obligation of celibacy. The introduction of such a principle into the Christian Church had been distinctly predicted as one grand mark of apostasy." Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Cosimo, Inc., 2007): 219-220.

The prediction Hislop refers to here is 1 Timothy 4:1-3: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." God created marriage as a gift for His people. The forced avoidance of marriage does not please Him.


The Tonsure

Celibate priests receive the tonsure when they are ordained. The tonsure is a "sacred rite instituted by the Church by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into the clerical order by the shearing of his hair." Kevin Knight, "Tonsure," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that leaders should shave part of their heads. However, the tonsure is connected to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the first-century Gnostic Simon Magus, and, even before him, the Babylonian worship of Bacchus and Egyptian worship of Osiris. Read more about the tonsure. I am aware that not all priests receive the tonsure nowadays.


Biblical Leadership

Scriptures give us plenty of information about the right attitude, actions, and ordinations of Church leaders. Peter even calls all of God's people "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9-10). To learn more, check out these passages:
Isaiah 3:13
John 13:1-17; 21:15-17
Romans 2:6-8
1 Timothy 3
Titus 1:6-8
1 Peter 5:1-4

amazingdiscoveries.org.

 

[Infinityloop]

This is not about me, its about God. I am not interested in validating myself to you or anyone else here for that matter.

Yet you make this thread.

I am not slandering Catholicism but if you want to think I am, I can't stop you. I will continue to post the truth about God anyway.

So you deny that you're slandering Catholicism (which you are) while in the following sentence claiming to be telling the truth. Such conceit. Remember that at the top of this page I outlined many aspects of Paganism in the Bible itself, to which there is much much much more. You are in fact more interested in the fantasies that come from bashing the Catholic Church (as you Protestants are known to do) without even having the brain to realize the implications and how such allegations against Catholicism effect your own position.

If you had faith in God you wouldn't reject His truths.

That's just it though, I don't reject God's truths. Embracing God is exactly what makes Christianity inferior and unable to compete with faith in God.

Do you know that biblically the truth is always only with a minority of people? The majority are always wrong. The Bible tells us that, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).

Now you're getting into Occultism and there is a lot of validity to that sentiment there. Anyway, the same sentiment can be found in the Upanishads, Buddhist sutras and in the Qur'an.

As the Qur'an says:
"On the day when the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women will say to those who believe: Wait for us, that we may have light from your light; it shall be said: Turn back and seek a light. Then separation would be brought about between them, with a wall having a gate in it; (as for) the inside of it, there shall be mercy in it, and (as for) the outside of it, before it there shall be punishment." - Surah 57:13

I pray that you find the truth one day through the Holy Spirit. God bless.

Yes, I do work with the holy spirit. Some people here don't though: "The Holy Spirit is Evil"

 

[Corvus Metus]

Unless you believe that Christians should more or less be Jews, with the exception of viewing Christ as the messiah... Most of the "pagan" traditions of Catholicism are European folks traditions that would be part of any religion that grew out of Europe.

Also, if you're against infant baptism, you really shouldn't be using the KJV as your biblical source. It was not the first English translation of the Bible and specifically translated to support the Anglican religion; who also does infant baptism.

 

[phipps]

Unless you believe that Christians should more or less be Jews, with the exception of viewing Christ as the messiah... Most of the "pagan" traditions of Catholicism are European folks traditions that would be part of any religion that grew out of Europe.

Also, if you're against infant baptism, you really shouldn't be using the KJV as your biblical source. It was not the first English translation of the Bible and specifically translated to support the Anglican religion; who also does infant baptism.

I don't believe that Christians should be Jews. The Bible in the New Testament makes it clear anyone can come to Christ, Jew or Gentile. If you're basing this on what I've posted on the Sabbath, I have posted so many times including here that the Sabbath is not Jewish. It was instituted at creation for all mankind. That was before there were ever Jews.

Well it doesn't matter where the Catholic traditions are from, they are not from the Word of God and that is my point. Since creation we read in the Bible how God made it clear that His people must not be involved in paganism. It is one of the the ten commandments too. The second one to be precise. I've read about a people who did not adopt those Catholic traditions and they were persecuted by the Catholic Church for years because they chose to believe the Scriptures and not man made tradition of the Catholic Church.

What has disagreeing with infant baptism got to do with reading the KJV. The KJV makes it clear that only those who can make conscious choices to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour and get baptised, should get baptised. It doesn't matter whether it was the first translation or not. Its not one of the newer versions that have changed parts of the Bible to give a different message about baptism.

The Anglican religion has adopted many of Catholicism's traditions that are not biblical. So even though the King James version was translated during a time in British history where they were transitioning from Catholicism to Protestantism, the people who translated it made it as accurate as they could based on the transcripts they had. Its still one of the most accurate versions we have today.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Only Christ can cleanse and purify us from sin. No one else can.

That's not what I said. But regardless, you're saying that if a Christian sees sin he should not try and remove it?

Yes there many things that people eat that defile them. I have a forum on that. This also applies to us spiritually too. Sin defiles. what is sin? Its the breaking of God's law.

The following verse rebukes any dietary law of the old testament:

Matthew 15
17. Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

Concerning diet, the Gospel only speaks of measure, not of kind.

That said, my question was the metaphorical meaning of Jesus' Word:

Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?​

​

"What goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”​

​

The scripture that is served to you, you eat (you interpret scripture). That which comes out of your mouth is your interpretation. Your interpretation is what defiles you.

So you have no proof. I disagree that the meaning of Passover was changed by Christ. Every Jewish feast represented an aspect of Christ’s ministry. The Passover represented the crucifixion of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says, “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.”

1 Corinthians 5
6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

You left out crucial parts of that verse's context. While not necessarily related to Passover specifically, it is just as relevant.

"Get rid of the old yeast": get rid of the old meaning of Passover, "so that you be a new unleavened batch": so that you may be reborn in Christ and come to the new meaning: the resurrection.

"For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" ---> our lamb ---> our = Christian, not Judaic. Paul is speaking to Greeks here.

"Therefore let us keep the Festival" ---> Christ does not destroy, he renders good.

"... not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness" ---> the old law, the ministration of death engraved in stones, the letter that kills.

"... but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ---> the new law, the Spirit!

2 Corinthians 3​

6 ... for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

To remember this event, Jews celebrated the Passover, which not only looked back to their deliverance from Egypt and the lamb’s blood on their door posts, but also looked ahead to the perfect Lamb that was to be slain to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled the Passover feast. He was the Passover Lamb. Exodus 12:5; 46 says, "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats…neither shall ye break a bone thereof." Jesus was killed at the time of Passover too. Christ fulfilled these prophecies in the New Testament:

"Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

"But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs…For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:33,36).

Christ did NOT change the meaning of passover. You just don't know what Passover means. Also Jesus who is God does not change and never will, so His word says.

Again, this is Christ taking a tradition that celebrates infanticide (do you deny this?) and turns it into a commemoration of Christ's resurrection. That the same symbolism of the lamb is used does not take anything away from Christ's mission to convert, to render things good by reinterpreting, but in fact strengthens it.

First of all I showed you scripture where it said Jesus kept the Sabbath. The scripture says, "So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). I am not the one saying Jesus kept the Sabbath, the Bible is. Don't you believe the Bible? Are you one of those who picks and chooses what to belive in the Bible according to what suits them and their beliefs?

Secondly, You misunderstood why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Jesus did not rebuke them for keeping the Sabbath, He himself kept it as scripture clearly says and I've shown above. He rebuked them for teaching the people to keep the Sabbath in an extremely legalistic way. They had so many laws about not breaking the Sabbath that it had become a burden to keep. These same leaders even accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath! To them healing somebody on the Sabbath was breaking it. The Sabbath commandment certainly doesn’t forbid healing on the Sabbath, and Jesus, God Himself, did it, and never broke the Sabbath. The Pharisees misunderstood what the Sabbath was for. The Sabbath is the day God set aside and blessed so that we can rest from from our daily work and enjoy the blessings He provided for us when we remember our creator. Its a day of peaceful worship. Jesus said in Mark 2:27, "And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Meaning it was made for our benefit. Its a precious gift to us from God.

Jesus never said, "You don’t need to keep the Sabbath any more.” Every debate He had about the Sabbath with the Jewish leaders was about how to keep it holy, not whether to keep it.

The Torah prohibitions on sabbath most definitely did include healing. If not, the concept of pikuach nefesh or the "saving a life" would never have been added to Torah interpretation of exceptions to following sabbath. They reason that for a Jew to follow the commandments, a Jew must first live, therefore the saving of such a life trumps adherence to the sabbath laws. But even then, the Judaic exceptions where healing is allowed would still not have allowed the healing Jesus applied to the man with the shriveled hand or the crippled woman, since neither of their lives were in imminent danger.

Even though the above already destroys any possible interpretation that Christ reaffirmed the sabbath, as well as Christian scripture ("If you do not observe the Sabbath of the Sabbath you will not see the Father.” - Gospel of Thomas, instructing the abolishment of the sabbath), history will. As said, the sabbath of the old testament is a direct descendant of the Babylonian shabattu from the Babylonian creation myth, an "evil day" where it was also prohibited to heal.

You remember we disagreed on this in my forum about the Sabbath because it is not biblical. I have shown you scripture that shows that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. Before Nimrod, before paganism, before the Israelites, and before anything you've posted here, the Sabbath existed. You are very wrong!

Does the Bible say anything about only adhering to scripture that is biblical or rejecting scripture that is not biblical?

 

[elsbet]

Yet you make this thread.



So you deny that you're slandering Catholicism (which you are) while in the following sentence claiming to be telling the truth. Such conceit. Remember that at the top of this page I outlined many aspects of Paganism in the Bible itself, to which there is much much much more. You are in fact more interested in the fantasies that come from bashing the Catholic Church (as you Protestants are known to do) without even having the brain to realize the implications and how such allegations against Catholicism effect your own position.



That's just it though, I don't reject God's truths. Embracing God is exactly what makes Christianity inferior and unable to compete with faith in God.



Now you're getting into Occultism and there is a lot of validity to that sentiment there. Anyway, the same sentiment can be found in the Upanishads, Buddhist sutras and in the Qur'an.

As the Qur'an says:
"On the day when the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women will say to those who believe: Wait for us, that we may have light from your light; it shall be said: Turn back and seek a light. Then separation would be brought about between them, with a wall having a gate in it; (as for) the inside of it, there shall be mercy in it, and (as for) the outside of it, before it there shall be punishment." - Surah 57:13



Yes, I do work with the holy spirit. Some people here don't though: "The Holy Spirit is Evil"

Derailing.. again.

 

[phipps]

That's not what I said. But regardless, you're saying that if a Christian sees sin he should not try and remove it?

The following verse rebukes any dietary law of the old testament:

Matthew 15
17. Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

Concerning diet, the Gospel only speaks of measure, not of kind.

That said, my question was the metaphorical meaning of Jesus' Word:

Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?​

​

"What goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”​

​

The scripture that is served to you, you eat (you interpret scripture). That which comes out of your mouth is your interpretation. Your interpretation is what defiles you.

1 Corinthians 5
6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

You left out crucial parts of that verse's context. While not necessarily related to Passover specifically, it is just as relevant.

"Get rid of the old yeast": get rid of the old meaning of Passover, "so that you be a new unleavened batch": so that you may be reborn in Christ and come to the new meaning: the resurrection.

"For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" ---> our lamb ---> our = Christian, not Judaic. Paul is speaking to Greeks here.

"Therefore let us keep the Festival" ---> Christ does not destroy, he renders good.

"... not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness" ---> the old law, the ministration of death engraved in stones, the letter that kills.

"... but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ---> the new law, the Spirit!

2 Corinthians 3​

6 ... for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

Again, this is Christ taking a tradition that celebrates infanticide (do you deny this?) and turns it into a commemoration of Christ's resurrection. That the same symbolism of the lamb is used does not take anything away from Christ's mission to convert, to render things good by reinterpreting, but in fact strengthens it.

The Torah prohibitions on sabbath most definitely did include healing. If not, the concept of pikuach nefesh or the "saving a life" would never have been added to Torah interpretation of exceptions to following sabbath. They reason that for a Jew to follow the commandments, a Jew must first live, therefore the saving of such a life trumps adherence to the sabbath laws. But even then, the Judaic exceptions where healing is allowed would still not have allowed the healing Jesus applied to the man with the shriveled hand or the crippled woman, since neither of their lives were in imminent danger.

Even though the above already destroys any possible interpretation that Christ reaffirmed the sabbath, as well as Christian scripture ("If you do not observe the Sabbath of the Sabbath you will not see the Father.” - Gospel of Thomas, instructing the abolishment of the sabbath), history will. As said, the sabbath of the old testament is a direct descendant of the Babylonian shabattu from the Babylonian creation myth, an "evil day" where it was also prohibited to heal.

Does the Bible say anything about only adhering to scripture that is biblical or rejecting scripture that is not biblical?

That's not what I said. But regardless, you're saying that if a Christian sees sin he should not try and remove it?

How can a Christian remove sin without Christ? We can't save ourselves from sin through our own effort (Christians and none Christians alike). Why else did Jesus come to this sin-infested planet to endure abuse, shame, and death on the cross? It was because it is the only way we can be saved from sin forever.

The following verse rebukes any dietary law of the old testament:

Matthew 15

17. Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

Concerning diet, the Gospel only speaks of measure, not of kind.

That said, my question was the metaphorical meaning of Jesus' Word:

Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?​

"What goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”​

The scripture that is served to you, you eat (you interpret scripture). That which comes out of your mouth is your interpretation. Your interpretation is what defiles you.

The subject in Matthew 15:1–20 is eating without first washing the hands (verse 2). The focus here is not eating, but washing. The scribes taught that eating any food without a special ceremonial washing defiled the eater. Jesus said these ceremonial washings were meaningless. In verse 19, He listed certain evils: murders, adulteries, thefts, etc. Then He concluded, “These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man” (verse 20). That's what I said to you before isn't it?

1 Corinthians 5

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

You left out crucial parts of that verse's context. While not necessarily related to Passover specifically, it is just as relevant.

"Get rid of the old yeast": get rid of the old meaning of Passover, "so that you be a new unleavened batch": so that you may be reborn in Christ and come to the new meaning: the resurrection.

"For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" ---> our lamb ---> our = Christian, not Judaic. Paul is speaking to Greeks here.

"Therefore let us keep the Festival" ---> Christ does not destroy, he renders good.

"... not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness" ---> the old law, the ministration of death engraved in stones, the letter that kills.

"... but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ---> the new law, the Spirit!

2 Corinthians 3​

6 ... for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

You are misinterpreting scripture again. That's not what 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 3 mean. I can't explain what they mean in detail because I don't have the time, but biblically bread represents the Word of God, John 6:35, 51, 52, 63. In the Bible, leaven (yeast) symbolises sin or error. It causes fermentation. The Lord said to His disciples "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15). In addition, the apostle Paul warned the Church at Corinth that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6). He was saying that just a small amount of sin could destroy us. Leaven does not symbolise "the old law, the ministration of death engraved in stones, the letter that kills." This is not biblical.

The meaning of Passover as I posted using scripture has always been about Jesus' death. That is why a lamb was offered to God on Passover. The Passover lamb's bones were not to be broken just as Jesus’ bones were not broken when He died on the cross for our sins. John the Baptist had prophesied in John 1:29 about Jesus Christ becoming the Lamb that bears the sins of the world, just as the Passover lamb bore the sins of the sinner. The Passover offering of the lamb was a shadow of the true offering of "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

I'm going to say this for the third time to you in this forum because you keep ignoring it. Jesus is God, and I showed you scripture from the Bible that tells us God does not change. Just because you ignore that fact won't make it less true. The Passover was fulfilled by Jesus when He died on the cross. That's the truth of the Bible.

Again, this is Christ taking a tradition that celebrates infanticide (do you deny this?) and turns it into a commemoration of Christ's resurrection. That the same symbolism of the lamb is used does not take anything away from Christ's mission to convert, to render things good by reinterpreting, but in fact strengthens it.

Lets get one thing straight. God does not take from any tradition. God always existed. He existed before this World was created. He is also all knowing. So how could He take from a tradition that celebrates infanticide? You're reaching here and this is lying against God because infanticide is against the law of God. The one of thou shalt not kill. Yes I deny it and its not biblical.

The Torah prohibitions on sabbath most definitely did include healing. If not, the concept of pikuach nefesh or the "saving a life" would never have been added to Torah interpretation of exceptions to following sabbath. They reason that for a Jew to follow the commandments, a Jew must first live, therefore the saving of such a life trumps adherence to the sabbath laws. But even then, the Judaic exceptions where healing is allowed would still not have allowed the healing Jesus applied to the man with the shriveled hand or the crippled woman, since neither of their lives were in imminent danger.

Even though the above already destroys any possible interpretation that Christ reaffirmed the sabbath, as well as Christian scripture ("If you do not observe the Sabbath of the Sabbath you will not see the Father.” - Gospel of Thomas, instructing the abolishment of the sabbath), history will. As said, the sabbath of the old testament is a direct descendant of the Babylonian shabattu from the Babylonian creation myth, an "evil day" where it was also prohibited to heal.

Jesus is God and He did not break any Sabbath commandment. Remember He created the Sabbath and is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The Jews had thousands of man made rules about the Sabbath and other religious duties. Why? Because of their history. One of the reasons for the desolation of Israel when Babylon took Israel captive for 70 years and destroyed the temple was because they disobeyed the Sabbath commandment. God sent prophets to warn them about breaking the Sabbath commandment. (Jeremiah 17:19-22, 23, 27, 25:11, 2 Chronicles 36:21). If the Jews would not keep the Sabbath Day of God, then He would CAUSE the land to keep His Sabbath, by making it desolate. After 70 years of captivity under Babylonian rule the Jews were able to return to their homeland but were scared of ever breaking the Sabbath commandment again because of what happened to them. So they made so many man made rules about the Sabbath thinking that would protect them from breaking the Sabbath commandment. All it did was make the Sabbath so legalistic and a burden to the Jews that they didn't look forward to it any more. The Sabbath was not a joy to keep. That was never the intention of God when He instituted the Sabbath. The sabbath was instituted for the benefit of man. The Pharisees were also always looking for ways to trap Jesus.

Luke 6:6-11, "Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught. And a man was there whose right hand was withered. So the scribes and Pharisees watched Him closely, whether He would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against Him. But He knew their thoughts, and said to the man who had the withered hand, “Arise and stand here.” And he arose and stood. Then Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?” And when He had looked around at them all, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he did so, and his hand was restored as whole as the other. But they were filled with rage, and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus."

What kind of spirit is it that would make you angry at a man who had just given another man the use of his hand back and made him whole? Wouldn't you think that's cause for rejoicing? But they were angry. They were so bound up in what their beliefs were and that He was countermanding their opinions that they wanted to destroy him just to preserve their opinions. Obviously, that's not the right spirit. How dare God do this and break His Sabbath? Of course He never broke the Sabbath commandment.

The Gospel of Thomas isn't scripture. So what it says about the Sabbath, is against the Word of God as is what you're saying. You probably don't know this but the Sabbath will be observed for all eternity by the righteous. So the Bible says.

Isaiah 66:22-23, “For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord, “So shall your descendants and your name remain. And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord."

I will stick to Bible truth not man made doctrine that stems from paganism.

Does the Bible say anything about only adhering to scripture that is biblical or rejecting scripture that is not biblical?

The Bible is the foundation for all truth. That doesn't mean we cannot learn or God cannot speak through anything but the Bible. God does speak through some Ministers every week otherwise people may as well stay home. One of the gifts of the Spirit, if you look in 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13, and 14, is prophecy. It’s not a gift that ended with the Bible.

The gift of prophecy is still in the Church. God still speaks through people, but that doesn’t mean that we measure the Bible by what they’re saying. We measure what prophets say, we measure what pastors say, by the Bible. In other words, the Bible is the criteria that is infallible, that we do not add to or take away from. If it doesn’t match up with the Bible, Isaiah 8:20 says, "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So we’re to measure everything by the Word of God. That's why I'm posting about false doctrine within Christendom.

In the books of Acts 17:11, the Bereans listened to what Paul and Silas preached then went home and searched the scriptures to see if what they were saying was true. That is what we all ought to be doing. That way no one can preach false doctrine to us.

 

[Infinityloop]

The Gospel of Thomas isn't scripture.

Quite funny that you also jump to such (Catholic-informed) conclusions such as this, while at the same time dodging my serious questions here: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/paganism-and-catholicism.6644/post-246151

 

[DavidSon]

This is not about me, its about God. I am not interested in validating myself to you or anyone else here for that matter. I am not slandering Catholicism but if you want to think I am, I can't stop you. I will continue to post the truth about God anyway.

Of course you're slandering Catholicism, which is your prerogative. The history is important. But when you're ridiculing and demonizing 1/2 of the world's Christian population, expect a conflict.

What I still don't get is the way you portray yourself at VC. Your posts are 90% copies of amazingdiscoveries.com. I just don't understand the reason for preaching your version of reality to the small group of intelligent people here. I thought people go to forums to communicate, to listen to one another. We are real people behind these screens, do you think about that? Let us talk like normal human beings. Seriously you're not the pastor.

What you neglect to address is the fact your "word of God" was assembled by the RCC. If they are the "spawn of satan" that some claim, then the root of disease must begin with the Ante-Nicene fathers. We should question why 2 Peter was canonized over the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, or Book of Hebrews. Do you have a clue how many ancient writings were destroyed by the Hellenic church?

The greatest hypocrisy of Protestants denouncing Catholics is every drop of your professed faith is based on the same creeds: the Apostles Creed, Nicene, and Athanasian. Modern Christian declarations are just extensions. This is part of a Baptist creed:

"Article I. The Scriptures. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

"The change was made over concerns that some groups were elevating the recorded words of Jesus in Scripture over other Scriptural passages."

Do you see? This is the same man made garbage. The forged letters of Paul to Philemon aren't the true center of Christian union lol.

If you had faith in God you wouldn't reject His truths. Do you know that biblically the truth is always only with a minority of people? The majority are always wrong. The Bible tells us that, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).

Nice to see a verse of a traditional saying of Jesus. As @Infinityloop replied this represents universal intelligence, ideas spoken by many cultures throughout history. The golden rule is another saying that exemplifies universal intelligence.

Again you gotta drop the preacher act. You're not the only one in the world who respects God or has faith. Let's be honest, this culture is not the pinnacle of Godliness. Sorry to debate but your conceitedness and corny limitations of God are intolerable. God is of billions of years, into time unknown. Consciousness, that is also God. God is love.

I agree that the Most High is in the dedicated writings of the true believer, but not only there. Anytime a true word is spoken, or a good deed done, God is there. At this moment someone in Noshiro, Japan could be pouring a cup of tea for their friend. They're relaxing and in their heart giving thanks for life and the breath of life. God is there, I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

"My brothers, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement." - James 3:1

 

[DavidSon]

It will continue to forever baffle me why Protestants take the Bible as valid while at the same time rejecting the Catholic Church (and evil going to the extent of calling Catholicism 'satanic').
Protestantism can't exist without first taking the Catholic truth-claims about canonization (vs non-canon) and doctrine (like the Trinity, sola scriptura, sola fide) as self-evident, even though there is no line to be drawn without first having placing authority in the Catholic church to even be making claims about such things. There is no God in all of that.
The historical Jesus though? definitely.

Ouch I just saw you said the same thing in far simpler fashion. Could have saved myself a lot of time!

 

[DavidSon]

Derailing.. again.

Derailing, hmm. Where were we going?

 

[JoChris]

Derailing, hmm. Where were we going?

Just in case you are interested, a classic book that explains how the RCC started leaving the narrow path. Large print, shorter than first impressions give. Vigilantius tried to prevent the church from from worship of saints + adopting many other errors. Unfortunately he failed.

https://archive.org/details/vigilantiusandh00gillgoog/page/n8

It is what the Catholic Church added over time that makes it no longer Christian. Like the curtain fig tree**, the Roman Catholic Church grew on the original (small c) catholic church, slowly overtook it and then strangled all spiritual life out of it.
The RCC (church) has many superficial similarities to other churches, its true nature is different from the early church of the bible.

It doesn't matter how moral or Christian the RCC looks to outsiders, its nature is not Christian.
Its extra doctrines add to, distort and even contradict the original Nicene Creed. https://carm.org/roman-catholicism
When forced to choose between the RCC and the bible, the true Roman Catholic will choose the church and its teaching/s every time.

Non-Christians/ Pagans often feel way more compatible with/ positive towards RCC church because RCC embraced pagans when the church became an official religion. Paganism is in the RCC's DNA.
To believe in Jesus, you must be born again. A born again believer i.e. Christian leaves the RCC when they realise they believe in a different Jesus to the RCC's version.

----
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtain_Fig_Tree To the outsider who knows nothing about trees the Curtain fig looks like a strange tree, but they assume it is a tree like all other trees. It isn't - it is a parasite that kills its host tree.

P.S. will be my only entry as I only want to give my position here.