Calling all Law Keepers.

[GodsGrace]

Heb 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

Does flesh and blood mean sin?
Could flesh mean the skin we're covered with?
Or are you just always thinking about sin?

See my posts no. 623, and 631.
There is nothing further to add.

 

[bbyrd009]

it def seems strange that a church supposedly gifted with the knowledge of freedom from bondage produces so many people in bondage to this concept of works, regardless of one's beliefs there.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Could flesh mean the skin we're covered with?

Think of lepers and disease; flesh goes deeper than skin, flesh is the meat.

Genesis 2:23 KJV
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh...

 

[jimd]

Does flesh and blood mean sin?

No.

Could flesh mean the skin we're covered with?

No.

Or are you just always thinking about sin?

No, the problem is equating flesh and blood with sin, it is not. Sin is when the flesh actually does something sinful.

 

[jimd]

it def seems strange that a church supposedly gifted with the knowledge of freedom from bondage produces so many people in bondage to this concept of works, regardless of one's beliefs there.

I think even though many do not understand how faith and works correlate they do have faith in God.

 

[GodsGrace]

No.
No.
No, the problem is equating flesh and blood with sin, it is not. Sin is when the flesh actually does something sinful.

Well j
In Hebrews 2:14 Jesus taking on flesh and blood means that He became HUMAN like us. We're made up of bones, flesh and blood. In this case it does NOT mean flesh as meaning our carnal, sinful nature.
Take it or leave it. Look it up. Do as you will.

You say flesh is sin when it does something sinful.
OK.
So, GOOD MORNING!
Do you have any other NEWS for us?

 

[GodsGrace]

The above is why I like to use the term Sin Nature and not flesh.
Flesh could be mis-understood so many ways if one is not learning in a proper atmosphere.

 

[jimd]

The above is why I like to use the term Sin Nature and not flesh.
Flesh could be mis-understood so many ways if one is not learning in a proper atmosphere.

I suppose you mean doctrinal atmosphere

 

[GodsGrace]

I suppose you mean doctrinal atmosphere

Sure. What else?
You stay in your spiritual atmosphere and continue coming up with weird concepts.
I'll be praying for you and others.

 

[jimd]

Sure. What else?
You stay in your spiritual atmosphere and continue coming up with weird concepts.
I'll be praying for you and others.

Thank you, I will do he same for you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you, I will do he same for you.

I hope you do.
We can all use some prayer.

 

[epostle1]

Nor have I implied nor stated that he did. Thus, the premise upon which your reply is built, is in error.

<snip>

Did Jesus eat the Passover, or was he the Passover? It can not have been both within the same month of the same year.

<snip>

If the premise is flawed, so also is the conclusion.

When was the Passover to be slain?

When you admit to 4 cups of wine at the seder/Passover that I have referenced more than once, we might be able to have a discussion. You say my premise is flawed but you don't explain why. It's because you deny the 4 cups of wine that can be found on any Jewish site. You are not the "Jewish expert" you pretend to be. I generally don't invest a lot of time with people with selective blindness, nor with Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists, your challenges look familiar.

 

[KBCid]

Yet, there are not that many such references. It is the timing as to when the phrase was used that always struck me. Why not simply say they "ate" or had "supped". Such as in Acts 20:11, they had broken bread and eaten. Seems almost redundant.

Indeed according to our current customs it would be. The question is would it seem odd to them at that time?
According to Jewish custom there was a blessing at the beginning of every meal;
"Blessed are You, O LORD our God, King of the Universe, Who has brought forth bread from the earth."
This blessing done at the family meal is said as the bread is broken. This blessing is a jewish religious ritual commonly known in their time as "the breaking of bread".

A man should not break bread for visitors unless he eats with them, but he may break bread for his children and the members of his household so as to train them in the performance of religious duties. I.e., recite the blessing. Talmud - Mas. Rosh HaShana 29bR.
On the Sabbath it is one's duty to break bread over two loaves... I.e., to recite the blessing. Talmud - Mas. Chullin 7b

Here is some food for thought..... Look into the subjects "Omophagia" and "Bacchants" mean historically. This should be eye opening...

I know you mention this in part below, however in:
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. It is part of a "list" of things they were steadfast in doing.

Just a curiosity: In your opinion, would the bread of the Last Supper have been "artos" or "azumos"?

The cup was after "supper". Like I said, I used to read 1 Cor 11 as you do. No matter how I read it anymore, I can not see a yearly observance there, nor being spoken of. Or, simplify it completely and directly state that this is done once a year before Passover. Not as or instead of Passover, for it is not at the appointed time of Passover, but rather the night before.

The fellowship mentioned seems to reference the communal existence which for them all, would have been a new thing. They were steadfast in this new way of existence for sure.... The strange part for me is that no mention is made of the cup drinking. From my perspective the Lords super was both a breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup and if no mention is made about the cup then just the mention of the bread breaking "can be" considered the simple mundane act of sharing meals among a group since it has been referenced that way previously.
For an absolute surety if the cup would have been mentioned even once in any of those bread breaking references then it would have swayed my decision but the fact remains that the extremely important part of the ritual that represents the part that covers our sins would not have been left out since it held a higher importance and it would have been absolutely new to them.
There can be no doubt at all that the bread (afikomen which is broken and hidden at the start of seder and ONLY occurs at the "Passover seder") was azumos since for the entire week prior the custom was to clear out any yeast from every house. The ritual of the afikomen is a main point that plays into the yearly consideration for me. The other point in play here is that the Torah states that we are to remember our redemption by eating unleavened bread at the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The entire ritual of the Passover was a shadow of good things to come. The yearly ritual was in this case a foreshadowing of when the savior would save us from the bondage of sin by his blood. Apparently God felt that the foreshadowing would be shared among those who owe their saving to God to celebrate it once a year. The only thing that has changed is that now we should be celebrating our being saved from the bondage of sin instead of the bondage to egypt, right? It was God who chose the day and time of the celebration and further the day was made a "High Holy Day". the fact that the ritual itself was a foreshadowing of something to come would not affect its timing of observance nor its importance to those saved right? the only thing that would change is the focus of its meaning from Egyptian bondage to sin bondage. To change the Holiness decreed for a day would (to me) require an act of God.

I'm game. Who knows, maybe you shall show me something that I missed or misunderstood. However, may I eat my crow in private, or must I publicly admit my error?

Our only goal is and always will be to do God's will. If we are corrected in our journey then we are sons..... if there is no correction then we would be bastards according to scripture no?

Is "meat" in v46 really "meat"?
Act 27:33 ...And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take some food / meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye wait and continue fasting, having taken nothing. 34 Wherefore I beseech you to take some food / meat: for this is for your safety: for there shall not a hair perish from the head of any of you. 35 And when he had said this, and had taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of all; and he brake it, and began to eat.
I find it interesting that both of us refer to the same verses in different ways.

Now Richard let's consider the context of the verses you reference....
Act 27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band...

Who was delivering Paul to Julius? certainly not believers.... Apparently breaking bread was a common thing among the "people" of that time... even romans. I thought it also strange about the 14th day reference....

Hmmm, doeth this mean that the inventor of the bread slicer was "anti-christ", attempting to do away with the "breaking of bread" altogether <grin>? Yes, I speak in jest. So while the answer to your questions is almost invariably "yes", an answer of "yes" is not restricted to be within the confines of your questions.

Nope. The inventor of the slicer meant for it to be used 364 days a year...

I agree, it is not about proving "right" and "wrong", it is about the sharing of our perspective POV's, and learning one from another. As we share some common similarities, there is perhaps some to be gleaned by one or another or even both.
I enjoy the "critical eye" aspect. But as for "popular thought", if you only knew that which I have received from my "brethren" for my current perspective upon this. I do not accept anything due to "popular thought", for if it is popular, it is likely upon the "broad" path.
I have done this before with others. Some things we shall disagree upon, and some must be shelved until such time as it is right.
No problem. I won't hesitate. Likewise, the discussion is the enjoyment.
Not a problem. My time also can become very limited.
Post when you may, I shall do likewise.

Indeed I will always be in a state of learning and holding fast those things that are beyond doubt.

If it is popular you are absolutely correct it is the "broad path" This was a first understanding that made me look critically in the first place at the accepted beliefs and then all hell broke loose... from me...

We appear to have similarity of thought... of what feather are you?

 

[bbyrd009]

I think even though many do not understand how faith and works correlate they do have faith in God.

hmm. tag for later, i'd like to sleep on this one

 

[KBCid]

If the premise is flawed, so also is the conclusion.

ummm. Truth. I can feel it in my being when I hear it.

Richard did you notice this that came from the error maker;
"""kepha31 said: The Last Supper (seder/Passover) was on a Thursday, He died on Friday"""

Matt 12:38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this point.

 

[Butterfly]

So are you saying Jesus was born with the sin nature?

I am not saying anything at the moment, I simply asked if Others consider Jesus to have had free will, and also bring into the discussion the point behind his own temptation in the wilderness, which I have always felt had a purpose in preparation for the beginning of his ministry.
Butterly

 

[epostle1]

No problem. We both have a life outside of CB and responsibilities to attend unto.




Before the "Last Supper", it was not used in the NT that I can recall other than when used by Jesus with the masses.




Yet, there are not that many such references. It is the timing as to when the phrase was used that always struck me. Why not simply say they "ate" or had "supped". Such as in Acts 20:11, they had broken bread and eaten. Seems almost redundant.


I know you mention this in part below, however in:
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

It is part of a "list" of things they were steadfast in doing.


Just a curiosity: In your opinion, would the bread of the Last Supper have been "artos" or "azumos"?




The cup was after "supper". Like I said, I used to read 1 Cor 11 as you do. No matter how I read it anymore, I can not see a yearly observance there, nor being spoken of.

Or, simplify it completely and directly state that this is done once a year before Passover. Not as or instead of Passover, for it is not at the appointed time of Passover, but rather the night before.

I'm game. Who knows, maybe you shall show me something that I missed or misunderstood. However, may I eat my crow in private, or must I publicly admit my error? <chuckle>

Is "meat" in v46 really "meat"?

Act 27:33 And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take some food / meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye wait and continue fasting, having taken nothing. 34 Wherefore I beseech you to take some food / meat: for this is for your safety: for there shall not a hair perish from the head of any of you. 35 And when he had said this, and had taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of all; and he brake it, and began to eat.

I find it interesting that both of us refer to the same verses in different ways.

Prior to the "Last / Lord's Supper", within the NT I only recall it in such instances as you mention above, in which it speaks of Jesus breaking the bread as in Matthew 14 amoung a few other places.

However, even in a non-communal setting, at every meal in which bread was consumed, it was broken. Even within the walls of a SFD (single family dwelling) in which it was only a husband and wife, or even add a child or two.

Hmmm, doeth this mean that the inventor of the bread slicer was "anti-christ", attempting to do away with the "breaking of bread" altogether <grin>? Yes, I speak in jest. So while the answer to your questions is almost invariably "yes", an answer of "yes" is not restricted to be within the confines of your questions.

Point taken and understood. However, that it specifically states "broken" it, is such a thing truly necessary to state when such would have been the norm. In Bere'shit 19, bake "unleavened bread, and they ate. No mention of "break / braking". Same in ch 31. When "breaking" bread was the norm for the times, to specifically state as much, is a redundancy unless there was a reason for it. And redundancies are always within the Scriptures for a reason. And again, I find it interesting, that we should both bring forth some of the same verses from different perspectives

Because something is absent from a verse does not mean it is non-existent.

I agree, it is not about proving "right" and "wrong", it is about the sharing of our perspective POV's, and learning one from another. As we share some common similarities, there is perhaps some to be gleaned by one or another or even both.

I enjoy the "critical eye" aspect. But as for "popular thought", if you only knew that which I have received from my "brethren" for my current perspective upon this. I do not accept anything due to "popular thought", for if it is popular, it is likely upon the "broad" path.
Which is very possible. I have done as before with others. Some things we shall disagree upon, and some must be shelved until such time as it is right.
No problem. I won't hesitate. Likewise, the discussion is the enjoyment.
Not a problem. My time also can become very limited.
Post when you may, I shall do likewise.

 

[epostle1]

Acts 2
46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts,

They broke bread daily.

 

[KBCid]

Our bodies / temples were designed with the same inherent nature as the animals. By this I mean that we have all the same basic instincts as any animal which was put in place as an automated system to protect the individual and the family.
These genetically controlled instincts are the things that give us urges that do not and cannot conform to God's will. They will always be with us until we die and thus we will always be susceptible to the sin of following their urges and desires.
Christ was born of the flesh and his flesh had the same instinctual urges as any other man as we can see here;
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Christ who like ourselves was tempted in 3 respects:
1) lust of the flesh --hunger -turn stones into bread-
2) lust for power -- control-- -have all the kingdoms of the world-
3) pride -- test God-- -jumping from a cliff-

Christ IS the example for every man who says sin can't be resisted..... Christ IS the example for every man who has the spiritual desire to overcome the natural urges of the body. Christ is the example that proves to all men that you can beat the nature of the beast that is part of each of us and you can do it with God's helper that can let you know when to just say no.

If a man asserts that they cannot stop sinning then they are denying that Christ was made like us. They would by default be asserting that Christ didn't do it by his own free will.

Who is not able of their own free will to have no other gods before God in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not make any graven images and serve them in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to keep the seventh day Sabbath holy in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to Honour thy father and thy mother in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not kill in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not commit adultery in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not kill in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not steal in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not bear false witness in mind and deed?
Who is not able of their own free will to not covet in mind and deed?

All these things and more Christ did of his own free will choice as an example for us to follow;

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously...

 

[Helen]

@KBCid That was an excellent post to read. Good word.