HERESY?

[michaelvpardo]

If someone truly believes something and they tell it, they are not lying, just misinformed.

Please be careful of word choice, so you don't get into trouble with the moderators.

(I agree with you about the bread being unleavened.)

I try to tread lightly with the carnal minded, but my Lord never instructed me to tolerate lies. Misunderstanding something isn't sin. Even teaching error, strictly speaking isn't sin. God measures the intent of the heart, something we can't do, but some folks here actually believe that they know your thoughts and beliefs, confusing their evil imagination with reality and judging the saints.

We can only make judgments about what someone does or says. Why do you think someone would say things which aren't true, after they've been shown their error?
Is that just ignorance?

Jesus ripped into the Pharisees that accused Him of sin.
Should he have been polite?

When Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan", did that rebuke harm Peter, or did it help Peter submit to God's will?

Most Christians get the idea that God's intention is to make us Christ like, but how do people miss His indignation? How do they miss His zeal and strength in the face of His accusers?
More importantly, how does someone repent of their sin if no one tells them that they're sinning?

There's a huge difference between someone sharing their opinion and asserting that their opinion is truth despite disagreement with scripture. The moderators here know the scriptures pretty well and its a shame that they don't step up regularly to moderate arguments that are headed south, but they don't follow every conversation and the nature of an ecumenical site that recognizes cultists as Christian participants, will always be divisive.

I don't need to be here. Those who want to know what I'm preaching, also know how to find me, but staying in one place makes you easier to find. I don't need to minister here. Wherever I go, I find opportunity for ministry and usually with much less resistance.
If I'm not a blessing here, I would much rather shake the dust from my feet and move on. Some of my brothers in Christ have already done just that, and I wouldn't fault them for it. However, I'm no stranger to back biters, frauds, and pretenders. I've known betrayal by those who have eaten at my table and in even these things, I have fellowship with Christ. And yes, fellowship with Christ is the only reason I would tolerate false accusations, evil innuendo, and subversion of the truth.

 

[Cassandra]

We can only make judgments about what someone does or says. Why do you think someone would say things which aren't true, after they've been shown their error?
Is that just ignorance?

I don't believe the person you are arguing with thinks they are in error. It does not fall under the definition of a lie.

The moderators here know the scriptures pretty well and its a shame that they don't step up regularly to moderate arguments that are headed south, but they don't follow every conversation and the nature of an ecumenical site that recognizes cultists as Christian participants will always have divisive arguments.

And as for the moderators, I don't think that they should remove or edit anything that they disagree with Bibically. It would be unfair of them to pounce on a belief, unless someone was blaspheming. Most everyone here has a fairly good grasp of the Scriptures.

You said "...nature of an ecumenical site that recognizes cultists as Christian participants".
Where is this? And who do you speak of?

 

[michaelvpardo]

I don't believe the person you are arguing with thinks they are in error. It does not fall under the definition of a lie.


And as for the moderators, I don't think that they should remove or edit anything that they disagree with Bibically. It would be unfair of them to pounce on a belief, unless someone was blaspheming. Most everyone here has a fairly good grasp of the Scriptures.

You said "...nature of an ecumenical site that recognizes cultists as Christian participants".
Where is this? And who do you speak of?

This site is ecumenical and over the last 10 years I've encountered cultists with great regularity, many of whom deny the divinity of Christ, many who are enemies of the cross, many who are proponents of self righteousness, many who reject scripture for tradition.

Our 21st century culture is in full rebellion to God and His appointed authority. Children are taught to question authority and to be their own. Each man does what's right in his own eyes and truth is sacrificed upon the altar of tolerance and political correctness.

At one time the scripture was sufficient to shut the mouths of the rebellious, but now its always "did God indeed say that?"
I expect this from the world. The world is by nature at enmity with God. But when the church is filled with "briars and thorns" aren't we standing on the precipice of judgment?

 

[Cassandra]

You are correct on that portion of your post. BUT the point that I was making is in an earlier post of the timeline on that Last Supper which was this....

Thursday evening and on into Friday morning
1. Jesus is in the upper room for His LAST SUPPER with His 12 disciples (the first members of the church)
2. The disciples eat of the leavened bread (autos/not...STRONGS G106:ἄζυμος, -όν, (ζύμη), Hebrew מַצָּה, unfermented, free from leaven; )
3. The New Covenant is revealed to the now 11 disciples.
4. They all go to the Mount of Olives.
5. They leave and go to the Garden of Gethsemane.
6. Judas reveals Jesus to the Jews that were looking for him.
7. Peter denies Jesus.

Sunrise Good Friday morning
8. Judas hanged himself.
9. Jesus goes before Pilate.
10. The ruling priest, the elders (12 tribal leaders?), the crowd, the Roman soldiers and the Bible scholars accuse Jesus.
11. The govenor frees Barabbas.
12. The Roman soldiers refer to Jesus as "King of the Jews" in a paradoxical manner because he really is our King.
13. Jesus carries His cross
14. A man from Cyrene carries the cross for Jesus.
15. The two criminals and Jesus go to Golgatha and are nailed to their crosses.
16. A placque is labeled "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" and nailed to the cross.
17. The thief on the cross believes Jesus and says to the other..."Aren't you afraid of God seeing that you are condemned just as He is?"
18. Jesus promised the thief that he would be with the risen Christ in Paradise.
19. Jesus dies at 3:00 p.m. on Good Friday
20. Jesus arose from the dead on Easter Sunday

NOW, WHEN DID JESUS INSTITUTE THE NEW COVENANT IF HE DID NOT DO IT UNDER THE OLD COVENANT EVEN THOUGH THE SEPTUAGINTS TRANSCRIBED THE GREEK WORD AS LEAVENED BREAD AT THE LAST SUPPER??

The "Last Supper" had to have been instituted BEFORE he died; not AFTER and it was done on the Thurday evening not on Passover day of which He was the "Passover Lamb" hanging on that Friday.

Jesus was foretelling us, by using the word "leavened bread" that it too was a "new" way of doing things in place of the OT sacrificial system. (IMHO)

Leaven always referred to sin. You are welcome to believe what you wish.
The New covenant? Instituted at His death
Hebrews 10:8-10
8Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law),
9then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

and verses 15-16

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”
17then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

The New Covenant was the writing of the Law in our hearts/

If the leaven were indicative of Him 'foretelling" us, why was it not mentioned by the disciples? I would've thought, since all of them were raisedto equate leaven with sin, Passover wise, for Jesus to say that leaven was his Body, they would've been trippin'.

He told them many times He was going to give up his life.
Matt 16:21 “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

Mark 10:45
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Luke 9:22 Saying, "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day

 

[GodsGrace]

You are correct on that portion of your post. BUT the point that I was making is in an earlier post of the timeline on that Last Supper which was this....

Thursday evening and on into Friday morning
1. Jesus is in the upper room for His LAST SUPPER with His 12 disciples (the first members of the church)
2. The disciples eat of the leavened bread (autos/not...STRONGS G106:ἄζυμος, -όν, (ζύμη), Hebrew מַצָּה, unfermented, free from leaven; )
3. The New Covenant is revealed to the now 11 disciples.
4. They all go to the Mount of Olives.
5. They leave and go to the Garden of Gethsemane.
6. Judas reveals Jesus to the Jews that were looking for him.
7. Peter denies Jesus.

Sunrise Good Friday morning
8. Judas hanged himself.
9. Jesus goes before Pilate.
10. The ruling priest, the elders (12 tribal leaders?), the crowd, the Roman soldiers and the Bible scholars accuse Jesus.
11. The govenor frees Barabbas.
12. The Roman soldiers refer to Jesus as "King of the Jews" in a paradoxical manner because he really is our King.
13. Jesus carries His cross
14. A man from Cyrene carries the cross for Jesus.
15. The two criminals and Jesus go to Golgatha and are nailed to their crosses.
16. A placque is labeled "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" and nailed to the cross.
17. The thief on the cross believes Jesus and says to the other..."Aren't you afraid of God seeing that you are condemned just as He is?"
18. Jesus promised the thief that he would be with the risen Christ in Paradise.
19. Jesus dies at 3:00 p.m. on Good Friday
20. Jesus arose from the dead on Easter Sunday

NOW, WHEN DID JESUS INSTITUTE THE NEW COVENANT IF HE DID NOT DO IT UNDER THE OLD COVENANT EVEN THOUGH THE SEPTUAGINTS TRANSCRIBED THE GREEK WORD AS LEAVENED BREAD AT THE LAST SUPPER??

The "Last Supper" had to have been instituted BEFORE he died; not AFTER and it was done on the Thurday evening not on Passover day of which He was the "Passover Lamb" hanging on that Friday.

Jesus was foretelling us, by using the word "leavened bread" that it too was a "new" way of doing things in place of the OT sacrificial system. (IMHO)

The Last Supper was on Thursday.
It's communion and/or the "Mass", that didn't exist yet, that was instituted.

The Apostles were still under the Old Testament.
The New Covenant did not go into effect until after Jesus died.

A person must die before their Testament, or will, goes into effect.

 

[Grailhunter]

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”
17then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

This is a long topic.

If the leaven were indicative of Him 'foretelling" us, why was it not mentioned by the disciples? I would've thought, since all of them were raisedto equate leaven with sin, Passover wise, for Jesus to say that leaven was his Body, they would've been trippin'.

Color me curious. What is your concern with leaven? Have I missed it?

 

[farouk]

The Last Supper was on Thursday.
It's communion and/or the "Mass", that didn't exist yet, that was instituted.

The Apostles were still under the Old Testament.
The New Covenant did not go into effect until after Jesus died.

A person must die before their Testament, or will, goes into effect.

@GodsGrace What was later called the mass was added later by those who did not accept that the work of Christ was finished (John 19.30) and thus entirely satisfactory for the sinner's redemption. It made ppl think that they still needed the supposedly essential rites of the church, continually.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am walking this backwards

Because the Jews calculate Passover on the Lunar cycle....we know what date it is.
Saturday was the double holiday....Passover and the Sabbath. Passover started at dusk on Friday with the rise of the full moon...continued through Passover day Saturday.

Friday Christ was crucified....and the Passover meal for the Jews occurred....using unleavened bread...Seder meal....
Earlier that day...after midnight the Apostles were watching Christ before Pilate and did not enter because they did not want to defile themselves because they intended to eat the actual Passover meal....Friday evening

On Thursday, they had a Passover meal for Christ because He would not be there for the actual Passover meal on Friday.
This meal had leavened bread. The confusion factor is that the Bible calls it a Passover meal. And there is no coverage of the actual Passover meal that occurs on Friday evening before Passover starts....All we have is that on Friday the Apostles were intending to eat the actual Passover meal.

The longer version....with scriptures.
Grailhunter’s Corner

I went to Grailhunter's Corner to read the longer version.
Never got to it.
Every time I go there I get caught up reading different topics.
It's really Great GH.
So much information and easy to read.
Thanks for writing it up and putting it on here!

 

[GodsGrace]

sorry I did not get to this earlier



I see your point.

I guess we would have to look at the true length Jonah was in the great fish. Was it literally 3 days or three nights? Because that is what Jesus used as an example.

I do agree. it is not 3 periods of 24 hours..

he died in the evening. So that would be day one.

He raised before sunset. so that would be the third night.

so if he died on Thursday. it would work out.

if he died on Friday, as tradition says. Then the time does not work out.

This is probably one of those things we will have to ask Jesus when we see him.

Agreed.
Can't spend too much time on this,
or

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace The NT believer is not under the law in any case (Hebrews 7.12; 7.19)...

Agreed.
If we can eat anything we wish to...
then we can also eat whatever bread is offered at a service.
We are under grace, not under Law.

 

[farouk]

@GodsGrace I like that little emoticon...

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course not, but asserting that something is found in scripture, when it isn't is either a lie or just a proof of ignorance. When someone accuses you of saying something that you've never said, or of believing things which you don't believe, that person is giving false testimony and literally trampling on yours to give themselves the appearance of righteousness. I leave vengeance to my God, He will repay, but if you want to abide with sin that's your loss.

To be specific this is what Moriah posted :
"The important thing is that the 70 scholars of the Septuagint translated that word "bread" as "artos" in all 77 of those verses in the NT's Last Supper even before Jesus was crucified and further mentioned by the writers who spoke of the "communion" as taught by the authors in the Epistles."
The New Testament is not in the Septuagint because it didn't exist when the septuagint was written. The statement is not true, but false. If this an innocent mistake born of ignorance, then the poster should stop arguing from error, but continuing to assert a false doctrine based upon proven error is just prevarication.
How exactly do you benefit in biblical discussion by tolerating lies?

I didn't follow along and did not read every single post - this thread is going very quickly.

The septuagint is the O.T. written in Greek, and not even written all in one time.
If the Last Supper is being discussed it would not be in this version of the O.T. (or any version of the O.T.).

I think the other poster might have been saying that the word BREAD in the septuagint was translated as ARTOS, as in the N.T.

I just dislike when names are used in a derogatory manner and it derails the thread.
Happily, this didn't happen this time.

I didn't mean to offend you.

 

[GodsGrace]

That wasn't insult, but factual. A liar
tells lies. Do you want a definition? If you want to be christ like, you should walk as He did and Christ didn't tolerate lies.

Let's end it here.
I believe it was a misunderstanding...

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace I like that little emoticon...

Me too. That's how I feel sometimes!

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace What was later called the mass was added later by those who did not accept that the work of Christ was finished (John 19.30) and thus entirely satisfactory for the sinner's redemption. It made ppl think that they still needed the supposedly essential rites of the church, continually.

I'll have to agree with this.
There are some denominations, or cults, that make a person believe that they cannot be saved unless they belong to a particular organization.
I'd have to say that the JWs would be one of these "denominations".

In a way the CC does this to some extent.
They do proclaim that one is saved by Jesus and that we are to follow Him.
However, they also believe that sins must be confessed to a priest and that
purgatory does the final cleansing before one can enter into heaven. (if they are heaven-bound).

I believe the reason for this goes way back to the middle ages.
People were not literate and could not possibly study theology as we do today.
They were told that they were to go to church, be good persons, go to confession and pray.

Not everyone did this.
Some did. Those that felt some type of calling or devotion to God.
They were surely in God's hands.

In fact, I'd say that in some ways they were more pure than many today that claim to be Christian
and then make up their own version of Christianity.

What say you?

 

[farouk]

I'll have to agree with this.
There are some denominations, or cults, that make a person believe that they cannot be saved unless they belong to a particular organization.
I'd have to say that the JWs would be one of these "denominations".

In a way the CC does this to some extent.
They do proclaim that one is saved by Jesus and that we are to follow Him.
However, they also believe that sins must be confessed to a priest and that
purgatory does the final cleansing before one can enter into heaven. (if they are heaven-bound).

I believe the reason for this goes way back to the middle ages.
People were not literate and could not possibly study theology as we do today.
They were told that they were to go to church, be good persons, go to confession and pray.

Not everyone did this.
Some did. Those that felt some type of calling or devotion to God.
They were surely in God's hands.

In fact, I'd say that in some ways they were more pure than many today that claim to be Christian
and then make up their own version of Christianity.

What say you?

@GodsGrace A great blessing simply to rest in the finished work of Christ (John 19.30; Hebrews chapters 9 and 10) and in the Lord's Supper engage in simple remembrance for God's glory.

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace A great blessing simply to rest in the finished work of Christ (John 19.30; Hebrews chapters 9 and 10) and in the Lord's Supper engage in simple remembrance for God's glory.

You're right.
Sometimes we think too much.
I had to teach this stuff to kids and got very interested in theology and apologetics because one of my faults
is that I have to understand everything.

As far as my soul is concerned, I'm resting in our Lord Jesus and am depending on Him as a compass and as a Savior.

As far as the rest...I just keep reading about different ideas, concepts.
I think it has strengthened my faith...but it's always been strong.

Posting here is also a learning experience.
Many on this forum are so knowledgeable.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Let's end it here.
I believe it was a misunderstanding...

Maybe I'm just tired and cranky. You didn't offend me, but somebody did. I'm not a mind reader, but I've always had excellent reading comprehension and I know the difference between misstatements and prevarication.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Leaven always referred to sin.

I disagree with that. It did not always refer to sin.

Old Testament:

Lev 2: 12 As an offering of first fruits you may offer them [leaven and honey] to the LORD, but they shall not go up [in smoke] on the altar as a sweet and soothing aroma. (Amplified Bible)​

Lev 23:17 - From wherever you live, bring two loaves of bread to be lifted up before the LORD as a special offering. Make these loaves from four quarts of choice flour, and bake them with yeast. They will be an offering to the LORD from the first of your crops.​

New Testament:

Mark 14:22 (RSV) As they were eating, he took bread, (G- artos) and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."​

Mat 13:33 -He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened." (This is referring to the spread of the gospel.)

Luk 13:20 And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?
Luk 13:21 It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."​

Mat 16:11 - How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread (artos) ? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees."
Mat 16:12 - Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees. (Leaven to make bread rise is good vs. bad leaven of the Pharisees.

1Co 5:6 - Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 - Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump (without boasting and instead, spread the gospel with humility as in Lu 13:21 above)​

 

[Moriah's Song]

The New Covenant was the writing of the Law in our hearts

This part I understand. But I am a little confused with...

The New covenant? Instituted at His death

Not sure what you mean by this. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you don't believe the "New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper but only "at the death of Jesus." Is that correct?

I see in your post that you did not include any verses that Jesus Himself spoke concerning the New Covenant promise being fulfilled in regards to the Jerremiah 31:31,33 prophecy that says- "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,"....33)But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; an I will be their God, and they shall be my people..." (referring to Pentecost)

That promise was fulfiled in Heb 8:8 - For he finds fault with them when he says:

"The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;​

At the "Last Supper" the Apostles Matthew, Mark and Luke write of this New Covenant that was instituted at that time along with replacing "sacrificing of animals" with an ordinance of "communion" of which the wine and the bread are represented in it.

Mat 26:28 - for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (footnotes say: Other ancient authorities insert "New" in Matt & Mark)​

Mar 14:24 - And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:19-20 And He took bread, (artos), and when he had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "this cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.
​

In 1Co 11:25 Paul writes - "In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Then we have this in Heb 13:20 -

"Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,​

There are over 25 verses in the NT that refers to the New Covenant.