Grailhunter’s Corner

[Grailhunter]

But still we have the scriptures regarding wealth to consider. Some hold to the belief that wanting the material is bad and even rejecting technology like the Amish. Some have a general dislike for the wealthy, some consider wealth a sin. But mostly people work to live comfortably, but that is not strictly compatible with the scriptures, toiling and a desire for comfort and amenities of modern life are seen.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to acknowledge that some Christian beliefs in the biblical era were due to the circumstances? Not religious concepts, but more about the practicalities of the circumstances of the time period. That is where the juggling act comes in, many are not going to admit that many of scriptures pertaining to wealth are no longer applicable, nor are they going to give away everything they own and live at the economic level of most the Jews and Christians of the biblical era. Christians do not see the religious need to live in a one room dwelling with dirt floors. But the facts are that poor people do not employ people and poor people don’t have much for charity or the church. There are words to describe preaching one thing and doing another. Even the Amish, by biblical standards are living “high on the hog.” Religious cliff dwellers still exist today and joining them would be about the only way to equate to the bohemian life style prescribed in the Bible. The life style of the Apostles and those that that conformed to what they had to do to obtain eternal life.…“If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Christians today have a lot to juggle because there were many things presented in the scriptures that are not applicable or practical today. The biblical Christian views on sex, women, marriage, and wealth has evolved and will continue to evolve. It is one of the reasons that I believe in the Living Word of God, because the ink on paper is not going to change but the Living Word of God is the Spirit of the scriptures in motion and can still instruct and guide us.

At the time of the Apostles, there was a sense of urgency. Considering that they believed that Christ’s return was so imminent, what they preached made perfect sense. But the relevant side of that logically wore off within the first few centuries. Today, with each generation preaching that the end of time is near, that is a problem, new Christians and young people can read what was said in the scriptures, and know that they were living under a different set of circumstance and what they thought would happen did not. So it can make them wonder, if Christians are committed to a wife’s tale that did not happen, so that makes them question other scriptures and other Christian beliefs.

New Christians and young people have a few hurdles that are difficult to reconcile with Christianity. The biblical view of women and the Christian religious and social views of women, along with the biblical views of slaves, and modern civil rights, and the fact that Christians believe that the universe, the earth, and mankind was created just a few thousand years ago in a six day period of time. So also that the science they live with and is proven to them everyday, is said by Christians to be all bunk! They live in the real and Christianity needs to get real, because a religion that does not make sense, is a religion of non-sense. We do not want to poison the religion for our youth. So far the church has shirked the controversy of willingly changing their views and relies on society to drag them into the 21st century.

Making realistic changes….we see what has happened. Society has many things to teach our young that is not good….Public schools and colleges teaching communism, atheism, and that drugs are good and their right to take. Society should not be the morale guide for our young. Did Christians need society to teach us that the science of medicine is a good thing? Did Christians need society to teach us that our mothers were human too and should be treated equally in and out of church? Did Christians need society to teach us civil rights for those of color is an expression of love? Can a church that uses computers and routers and high tech video and sound systems to bounce there broadcasts off of a satellite 22,000 miles in outer space to access the worldwide web…..really….really expect young people to believe that science does not work or is wrong about the past.

Some people see some Christian equivalences in the books and movies about the tales of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. That may be. But the stories of the Hobbits are fantasy that portrays certain morals….it is important that we do not but the Bible and Christianity into the category of fantasy. Need to get with the real.

Still beliefs are beliefs and that is another point I want to make. With 30,000 plus Christian denominations, the notion that you have to believe on a single set of beliefs in order to be saved is beyond all reason. If Christ was behind these divisions it could be proposed that He had set up a smorgasbord of religions lol….Either way whether it is about celibacy, science, wealth, civil rights, or women’s rights….it is not about the belief in such things that save you. Young people need to know that with smart phones in hand they can be saved. Young ladies can be successful doctors and mothers at the same time and be right with Christ. Young people of color need the feel the love of Christianity. And billionaires although they should be very charitable and many are, are not destine to hell because they are rich. That they are given a “talent” and Christ is waiting for them to make him smile. Young people need to know that they do not have to be creationist to be saved. They do not have to believe that doomsday is imminent to be saved. They do not have to believe that science is all bunk to be saved. They do not have to be poor to be saved. They do not have to be celibate to be saved. They have to believe in Christ to be saved. It is one of many reasons that I believe that everything you need to now about salvation can be put on a 3X5 card. The future of Christianity is not up to us old fogies, it will be in the hands of our youth, don’t ruin it for them….don’t ruin it for God.

 

[Grailhunter]

..The Spirit of Christ…the Spirit of the Gospels…the Living Word of God

You have heard of it. People say it different ways. Some consider it to be praying for guidance from God before reading the scriptures. Some believe it is about being in tune with the Spirit of Christ. Functionally it is analyzing the Spirit of Christ…and calling upon the Holy Spirit to assist in understanding. Using the heart of Christ as an overriding perspective…. Interpreting all scriptures with that heart and tempering all scriptures with that heart.

Now I have presented posts that point out the errors in various translations. I am sure that some may take that as a criticism of the Holy Bible, but it is not. Truth is not criticism. When I pointed out that the names of the persons of the Trinity are not in the Bible…that is a fact, so fine! Now that you know, that is all that matters. A person can always write the names Yeshua and Yahweh at the top of a few pages in their Bible. They do deserve to have their names in the Holy Bible. And persons are not saved by believing the most correct understanding of the Trinity, verily no one can understand “the” exact construct anyway. It is true that many of the conversations that Yeshua had was between Him and the Jews, but you can still see His character and His love in those conversations. Even though some of those conversations had little to do with Christianity, you can still see His heart and love. And Christian history is history….

What I am discussing here is a deeper understanding of the scriptures. The topic is the Living Word of God and the Spirit of Christ in the scriptures and how the Holy Spirit can apply that to your understanding and to your heart. The necessity to know that heart and that compassion first and foremost because without it, your character will be superimposed on the scriptures and you will never understand anything but yourself.

I have mentioned that one of the great miracles of the Holy Bible is that; no matter how much men have fiddled with the scriptures, God has driven an unbendable and indestructible rod of salvation through the Holy Bible, so that all translations can lead to salvation.

But there is another miracle just as fantastic! The Living Word of God!! People say it….what does it mean? It is a little spooky because it is real.

When you open your Holy Bible and look down at the ink on the paper, the letters that are printed, the words that form sentences in the verses. That is static information, understanding the bark on the tree. What many people do not know, is that “in effect” those verses are looking back at you! Sounds a little crazy!? You can bet that that is exactly what is going on! You need to get your nose off the bark and step back and look at the forest.

When you open that Holy Bible it knows you! Are you critical? Are you a legalist? Are you judgmental? Do you have a condemning nature? Do you search the scriptures for ammo to condemn others? Do you think you are sinless? Do you wish to edify yourself? Are you self-righteous? Are you sure that your interpretation is the only way? Does forgiveness and compassion elude your spirit? Do you seek to judge first and help later? Do you seek to preach the restriction of Grace? Does your compassion mean being critical and condemning of others? Are you wanting to find a reason to say that others are not saved? Do you question the salvation of other Christians? If this describes your nature, the scriptures will turn a cold shoulder to you, because you are not worthy. You could read the scripture for a hundred years straight and not understand. What you will find, is yourself in the scriptures. A church of one, a religion of you!

Those legalistic scriptures will call to you. Scriptures that you can use to judge, condemn, gossip and question the salvation of others….those scriptures will be highlighted for you. Your character will become the scriptures and they will lead you to pile hot coals on your own head, the sin of self-righteousness, the sin of you playing god and judging others.

But the fantastic miracle of the scriptures still applies, you maybe saved, but still not have a clue! You need to analyze yourself before opening the sacred scriptures. Rid yourself of all your negativities and ponder the love of God. “Why did they do, what they did?” lol! Would God the Father give His only begotten Son if the plan would only be minimally successful?

Look at the deeds and actions of Christ in the Gospels. Was He merciful? Was He compassionate? Was He loving? Was He forgiving? Did He help those afflicted, hungry, and in need? Did He first verify that they deserved help? Did He judge others? What was His judgments about? Generally opposing legalists! If this seems odd to you, you need to close the book and step back and regroup.

The study of the character, the heart, and the actions of Christ are the key to understanding the Living Word of God. Otherwise…Just dead ink formed in letters, if you do not have the Spirit of Christ in you. The Holy Spirit will not engage with someone with a dead and condemning heart.

Study the nature of Christ and the greatness of the scriptures will come alive for you. In my Post “The Living Word Still Has A Message For Us” I discussed the actions of Christ in the Gospels. I could copy and paste that here, but the message that the Living Word of God could be something special for you. Rediscover the Gospels, review them paying special attention to what Christ did, His interaction with the people He met along His travels during His ministry. What was His attitude? What were His words to those that were afflicted? Did He leave people suffering? What did He do when faced with a sinner? Condemnation? How did He handle all those situations?

Yeshua is the example, His heart is the Gospel. It is that heart that you need when you read any part of the New Testament. Your heart needs to be in tune with His heart. There are a lot of words in the New Testament, all those words need to be filtered through a heart modeled after Christ’s heart.

That heart is the key to the correct application of Christianity, to be in the service of Christ. Is it God the Father that leads you, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, or all three? It is all good, but take up the service of God and walk in their footsteps. A bump on a log that is “a good boy” is only a service to himself, single mindedly, waiting for his reward in heaven. The good boy needs to be in the service of Christ. Christ gives us talents, sitting on them like a egg will not get you the reward you are looking for. Christianity in motion.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

That heart is the key to the correct application of Christianity, to be in the service of Christ....The good boy needs to be in the service of Christ. Christ gives us talents, sitting on them like a egg will not get you the reward you are looking for. Christianity in motion.

Good word.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Obviously Christ understood that as He explained that trying to do that would harm both religions. Mark 2:21-22 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”

Further more Paul made distinctions between those that are under the Law and those who are not under the Law, but rather faith. (Romans 3:19-21 & 4:14, 16, Galatians 4:21, 1st Cor. 9:20-21) The Old Covenants revealed the Holiness of God in the righteous standard of the Law. God promised his people that compliance to the Law would insure many Earthly rewards and his blessings. The New Covenant reveals the Holiness of God in His righteous Son. The New Testament contains those writing that reveals the Son of God and the New Covenant between God and Man. The New Covenant promises very few Earthly rewards but offers Forgiveness, Grace, Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, Glorification, Reconciliation with God, and Eternal Life. And maybe above all that, a relationship with the Trinity as a family, as friends, being the adopted children of God.

Under the terms of the Old Covenant no flesh could be Justified. (Acts 13:38-41, Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16-21, 3:11) Because the Law itself brought about the wrath of God. But for those that have entered into the New Covenant with God….where there is NO Law, neither is there violation, (Romans 4:15) Christians are not under the Law but under grace. (Romans 10:4 Galatians 5:18) Because apart from the Law Sin is dead. (Romans 7:8) As Christians we serve God in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter of the Law. (Romans 7:6) Because Christ, our savior was the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believes in Him. (Romans 10:4, Eph. 2:15) We are Justified by faith apart from the Law. (Romans 3:28, 5:1)

The Apostle Paul referred to the Old Covenant and the Ten Commandments as a ministry of death and condemnation. 2nd Corinthians 3:6-9 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. And Paul said that Yeshua freed us from the curse of the Law. (Galatians 3:12-13)

Also the scriptures read that the Law was only a shadow of the good things to come. (Hebrews 10:1) And it is also written in Hebrews 8:6-7 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. The Old Law was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. Jesus being the mediator for us, in a better Covenant with God. (Hebrews 7:18-22 & 8:1-13 & 10:9) In Ephesians 2:15&16, Paul had this to say; “….by abolishing in his flesh the ENMITY, which IS the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to DEATH THE ENMITY.

In Galatians Paul had a warning for those that seek to live under the Law or looked to the Law as a moral guide. “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4) For those that look to the Laws for righteousness and thereby Sin under the Law, Hebrews has this to say; “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES ……IT IS A TERRIFYING THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD. (Hebrews 10:26-31) Jesus also pointed this out in John 15:22. In Philippians, Paul called those people that still preached adherence to the Old Laws, dogs, evil workers and warned against false circumcision. (Phil. 3:2-14) In Titus, Paul warned against paying attention to those that preached Jewish myths and commandments of men. (Titus 1:13&14) In John 8:17, Jesus indirectly implies that the Mosaic Law was not His Law saying, “Even in your law it has been written…”

And further on in John 8:31&32 He indicates that to be considered one of His disciples, one most follow His word, and His word would set you free from the Law and Sin; “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And verses 34-36, go on to further illustrate that the Jewish Covenant and Laws made them slaves to Sin, but Jesus’ Covenant would set His people free of Sin and the Law. “Truly , truly, I say to you, everyone who commits Sin is the slave to Sin. “And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. And verse 24 had already indicated that the Jews had no hope of salvation unless they accepted Jesus and His Laws. “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your Sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your Sins.”

So was the Apostle Paul saying that the Law was bad, or contrary to the promises of God? No! So what was the purpose for the Laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments? The Apostle Paul offers a few explanations for this. (Romans 15:4 & Galatians 3:17-29) “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” So as it is the phrase Ten Commandments does not appear in the New Testament.

Romans 4:14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified.

Romans 5:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested being witnessed by the Law and the prophets.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

AMEN!!!!!

I would only add Galatians 5:16--But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

 

[Grailhunter]

**********Harmonizing away the scriptures***********

Now harmonizing is not reading the story as a whole to get an understanding, in others words it is not collecting information to get the big picture….this is a good thing. It is usually scriptures that are not well explained or even short stand alone scriptures, that does not make sense or is contrary to the overall truth. Things like Christ saying, If you ask anything in my name I will do it or faith is moving a mountain, or killing a fig tree. Are you going to conclude you have no faith because you cannot move a mountain? That was not the intent of these scriptures. This is where knowing the Spirit of Christ comes in. Did He come here to prove that faith is hopeless or we cannot achieve the level of faith that would matter at all? Prayers do not work out like having genie in a bottle.

Most of the time attempting to harmonize the scriptures can do more harm than good. A good example is where Christ alluded to the fact that after 3 days He would resurrect from the dead….but in fact it was only 39 hours…quite a bit short of 2 days. Some people feel they have to explain this. Some people just change the days, which violates the storyline, the historical date of the Passover and its occurrence with the Jewish Sabbath that year. Others try to recalculate the math, but by the time they are done with their calculations, if you applied their method of measuring time to all things, the people of antiquity could never measure time accurately and confusion would ensue.

George asks Andy, “How long does it take to get to Nazareth?” Andy replies, “Three days.” So George arrives for the dinner in 1 day 15 hours…nearly a day in a half early. Better early than late? Three days is 72 hours and 39 hours is just over half that time. So then George goes back and hits Andy over the head with a loaf of bread saying, “Who taught you how to measure time!” Andy replies, “Some guy with a Holy Bible.”

People have a concept of perfection. They apply that concept to God and they apply it to the Holy Bible. First off, it is not up to man to define perfection. And secondly, Divine perfection is beyond our comprehension. There is a lot about the Holy Bible and the scriptures that are Divine….have power…. perfection is not that power. Just too many fingers in the pie and a lot of details missing. Details missing, by that I mean, only a fraction of the words said by Christ actually made it to the Gospels. John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

So then we come to….
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

For some people, this scripture is like nails on a chalkboard. They don’t even like it when someone brings the scripture up. Particularly since it does not seem to be out of context. It occurs just before Christ’s lecture on assessing the ramifications and cost of various endeavors before you start. Like you have to accept hating all your loved ones before you become a disciple of Christ!?

Have you ever heard people try to explain this verse away….I do have a dry sense of humor so I do enjoy it. Generally they pull up several scriptures, to show that we should love and respect our parents, wives etc. As if the scriptures are bullets and they can shoot this scripture down. Then someone may point out the scriptures that say we should call no one father and also the scriptures that say it is a sin to respect persons. And the tail chasing begins and I go get a cup of coffee. When I come back, they are still chasing their tails. Of course this verse is followed by the verse that states we have to carry our own crosses.

The ink on the pages are static and are an abbreviated account of the several millenniums. “Give them a break.” There can be several explanations for the hate your father and mother verse, but it is what it is. Of all the things Christ said, this was one of them that someone remembered and Luke included it in a conversation in regard to assessing the cost of various endeavors. Why?

We could speculate? And this is my point, if you are going to say that this is an option, it is an option for a multitude of denominations and millions and millions of people. Ironically the Christians that fall under the category of fundamentalists are the ones that are driven to speculate…. harmonize. The ones that hold so firmly that the scriptures are inspired by God to point that they are dictated, are the ones that will speculate and believe in speculation….which changes the scriptures, it is an oxymoron. They have to speculate because they believe no one can just make a mistake in the scriptures, so their concept of perfection drives them to induce more errors, and there is not going to be an agreement to the speculation, so you produce how many interpretations.

As far as I am concerned it is probably and an error of some sort. It can be a misplaced or a miswritten scripture, or a scripture that lacks proper explanation or context. Without explanation it stands in stark contradiction to what Christ preached, it is contrary to the Spirit of Christ. Christ could say that He broke His toe and He cut it off, and we would have a bunch of Christians with missing toes! Then somebody would discover that in that time period the point of a walking stick was called a toe. Don’t include vague and or contradictory scriptures as a religion, directly or through speculation.

But if we were going to rearrange the scriptures and change a few meanings we can attempt to explain or harmonize the hate your father and mother scripture. Throughout the Gospels we can see that Christ was having difficulty in getting people to join His ministry and traveling with Him. Matthew 19:16-26 is about the young rich man that would not give everything away and join Yeshua. Matthew 8:18-22 Is the scripture where a man told Christ he needed to bury his father before he could go with Him. And Christ said, “Follow Me; and allow the dead to bury their own dead.” So Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” --- ....This could be a misplaced quote of Christ’s exasperation. And those scriptures that followed could be about those that had joined His ministry but quit. Christ then lecturing them about assessing the effects or cost of any endeavor before you start.

Does that sound good? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. By marrying the two scriptures together from different Gospels, I have modified the meaning of the scriptures, and we could do this with so many scriptures that we may have concerns about. If we apply this (even if it is correct here) we could go on and apply this technique to any scripture that we have a concern with or we do not agree with, and rewrite and or reinterpret a good part of the Bible. Then other people that find other scriptures that they have concerns with can apply this technique to rewrite and or reinterpret other parts of the Bible. So then, is there any mystery as to why we have so many denominations?

The humorous side for me, is that you will find a topic explained by Christ Himself that takes up nearly the whole page and follows through with a demonstration, and it is this they will not believe. But they want to harmonize a vague and contradictory scripture for belief.

It is far more important to find an accurate translation of the original scriptures and accept them as they are….take our lumps if you will, with the concept of not changing our religious beliefs based on scriptures that are not well defined. There is plenty there to lead us to salvation, plenty there to learn the Spirit of Christ and Christianity. And if you truly seek accuracy and truth of understanding, learn the Spirit of Christ, from His point of view and but on those “Christ glasses” and read the scriptures again.

Just FYI they have taken photo copies of the oldest manuscripts that we have and there are books that you can buy with those manuscripts. From there learn a little Greek, learn a little history regarding the time period and you are on your way to better understanding. There is a sizable collection of writings from Josephus and like him or not he presents some facts about the time period and a line of thinking.

 

[Grailhunter]

****************************************************************************
Significant dates of Christ
Jewish Holidays and customs

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/significant-dates-of-christ-frankincense-are-the-customs-pagan-dinners-around-the-world.30549/


************The Mystery of the Last Supper************

Thursday
The Last supper
Matthew 26:17---
Mark 14:12---
Luke 22:7---
John 13:1---

Friday
Passover---The Feast of Unleavened Bread----Hag Ha-Matzot.
Passover is one 24 hour period in the seven day Feast of Unleavened bread. The Jewish Passover occurs each year on the evening of the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

One thing we know for sure, Christ was not crucified on the day He ate the His Last Supper. But the Jews would have normally been eating the Passover meal on the day Christ was crucified, that would be Friday before dusk.

Over the centuries there have been some confusion on which day the Last Supper occurred, and the circumstances of its occurrence. So before we go on let me explain. Traditionally in this time period, on the eve before the Passover the sacrificial lamb was slain and butchered ritually. The blood was collected ritually and applied to the doorways. (This is the Passover part of the ritual of the plaque of the first born, but this changed…Deuteronomy 16:2-6 The change was that the sacrificial lamb was slain at the doorway of the tabernacle….and then the Temple….This means that in the biblical era the Passover was a gathering of Jews at the Temple…

Then the entire lamb was cooked over a fire and eaten entirely, with unleavened bread. (The sacrifice could be either an unblemished goat or lamb. You can read about this ritual in Exodus chapter 12.) This is not exactly what happened during the evening of the Last Supper. But the Gospels use the term Passover meal to refer to the Last Supper and also reference the Passover lamb being sacrificed on Thursday evening, from there, confusion ensued.

The Jewish Passover which lasts around 7 days, that year occurred on Saturday April 8th 30 AD, and started at dusk on April 7th evening (As the Full Moon rose) Which was the start of Saturday the 8th. The Jewish Sabbath and the beginning of Passover occurring on the same day, that year. Computerized astronomical calculations (NASA) shows a full Moon on the evening of April 7th when the Passover began. So the Passover for that year occurred on the Jewish Sabbath...Saturday. Two Holy events occurring on the same day. Some refer to this as a High Holy Day, High Day, or High Sabbath for the Jews. John 19:31 The Lambs would have been killed on Friday, the afternoon of the 7th of April. But Christ would not be alive Friday evening. So in this instance there was an honorary Passover meal for Christ. As I said, we know that Christ did not eat the Last Supper on the day He was crucified. If we look at Matthew 16:21-25 and Yeshua's disagreement with Peter, we can see that He knew what was going to happen and when.

He was the symbolic and divine sacrificial lamb and He was slain around 3:00 pm on the 7th of April, around the time that the actual sacrificial lambs were being slain. The Passover dinner for Him was held on the evening of the 6th of April...Thursday and they had a sacrificial lamb. The next day, the actual Passover lambs would be slaughtered and eaten on Friday before dusk for the Passover dinners. Christ was the sacrificial lamb for the New Covenant and He was crucified during the day on Friday, about the time the sacrificial lambs for Passover were being killed. So Christ would not be observing the normal processes of the Passover and the Passover meal, and as it turned out, the same was true for the Apostles because they would be in hiding, not sacrificing lambs at the Temple. They may have arranged for food to be brought to them, but they probably were not sacrificing lambs while Christ was being crucified.

The meal that Christ attended was a meal that the Gospels refer to as the Passover meal, a Seder meal, put it was not the actual Jewish Passover meal. As I explained, the next day was the Jewish day of preparation for the Passover...Friday...and the Jewish Passover meal would occur then. This was the day that Christ was slain. Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:14, 31, and 42, all confirm that the day that Christ was crucified was on the Day of Preparation, which was Friday, April 7th 30 AD. John 18:28 also proves that early Friday morning, the day of Christ’s crucifixion, when Christ was taken to the Praetorium the Apostles had not eaten the actual Passover meal yet. The morning cock had crowed for Peter John 18:27 So when Christ was before Pilate in the Praetorium the Apostles did not enter because they did not want to be defiled because they wanted to participate in the actual Passover meal before the start of Passover. Another mystery solved....

Why April 7th 30 AD?
The death of Herod is well documented, so is the date of his successors. So in order to include the story of the Herod, the Magi, the Star, and death of the innocences, Christ's birth has to happen before Herod's death. March 12th 4 BC. Now if you go to add this up from Christ's birth to the day of his Crucifixion, keep in mind that you lose a year between 1 BC and 1 AD. Because there is no year zero, so one year passes between April 1 BC and April 1 AD. So in 30 AD Christ would have been around 33 years old, give or take a few months.

We can consider April 3rd 33 AD, but Christ would be 36 years old and since it was said that Christ started His ministry when He was 30 years old, that would make His ministry 6 years long. So odds are, it is 30 AD.

Now the calculation for Passover is based on the cycle of the moon. And goes like this...Passover will occur on the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Most of the time that is in April on our calendar. Then Easter is the next Sunday after that.

So Christ is crucified on Friday April 7th 30 AD and then the Passover starts that evening at dusk along with the Jewish Sabbath. That night has a Full Moon. And this goes along with the double Sabbath tradition, ie Passover falling on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday. Keep in mind that the Hebrew month always started on the New Moon, so the Passover would “always” occur 15 days later….that does not mean that the Passover would always occur on the Sabbath Saturday, because the new month did not reset the days of the week. (Jewish Sabbath Saturday…different than the Christian Sunday.) Hebrew days of the month vs Gregorian days of the month, there is a confusion factor there, but I will try to explain.

The Lunar Calculator below, shows the Full Moon on the evening of April 7th, 30 AD. This chart is based on our Gregorian calendar, but the first day of the Hebrew month started as usual on the preceding New Moon…which was on March 24th, then 15 days later on Friday, the evening of the 7th ….the Full Moon rises.

 

[Grailhunter]

Can you be a Fundamentalist?*****************************

***************************Should you be a Fundamentalist?

The definition of Fundamentalism is nearly as diversified as Protestantism. So before I begin I will provide a few definitions, but keep in mind that there are other definitions and terms associated within Fundamentalist groups and I am not going to try to address all of the definitions and terms.

Google ~ Christian fundamentalism, movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the theory of biological evolution.

Wikipedia ~ Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups – mainly, although not exclusively, in religion – that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining in-group and out-group distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group often results from this tendency.

My definition of Fundamentalism ~ The religious concept of basing beliefs exclusively on the Holy Bible. I believe this started in the late 1400’s and continued on with Martin Luther. Fundamentalism has less concerns for the events after the close of the Holy Bible. Literal meanings and accumulative meanings taking into consideration of more than one scripture. Still this approach is greatly diversified by the numerous interpretations.

So back to the question; Can you be a Fundamentalist?

I will answer this question based on the definitions above, recognizing that Fundamentalism is not denoting a singular belief, but an attempt to formulate beliefs from the scriptures alone. In this attempt some Fundamentalists may disregard some or all religious events and Christian history from the close of the Holy Bible to Martin Luther in the early 1500’s. (And various non-Catholic religions that appeared in the mid to late 1400’s.)

Here in lies some of the issues with Fundamentalism that some do not realize if they do not take a close look at the scriptures and consider the evolution of the Christian culture and religions through the ages.

1. Weddings ~ The Hebrew language does not have a word for wed or wedding. Subsequently there is no requirement in the Old Testament scriptures or Judaism for a wedding….So that means no prescribed requirement, process, or procedure for weddings in the Old Testament. This follows through in the New Testament where there is no requirement for a wedding or a prescribed process or procedure for weddings.

The wedding customs of the biblical era came from Persia and Rome, but there is no indication that it was common to conduct these types of weddings. All we have is the wedding in Cana and the only real detail that we have is that they drank wine at that wedding and that was part of the customs of the Persian and the Romans. Several Pagan rituals can be identified in most modern Christian wedding ceremonies. Of course monogamous relationships continued but there was no requirement for wedding. If a man and woman were monogamous it was called a marriage. If a father gave his daughter to a man to be his wife, it was considered a marriage.

*Around 1140-80 discussions regard consensual marriage became a topic in the Catholic Church and eventually the Church does not support parental forced marriage, subsequently parental arranged / forced marriages became less frequent.
*The first official declaration that marriage is a sacrament was made at the 1184 Council of Verona
*Marriage was also included in the list of the seven sacraments at the 2nd Council of Lyon in 1274.
*The right of a woman to divorce her husband does not occur until 1629 AD.
*The legal requirement for public weddings does not occur until 1753 AD.
*Dating (private interludes) becomes a custom in the early 1900’s.
*To date there is no Christian requirement of a wedding ceremony nor a written description of the event. All that is required for Christianity is that the marriage is legal.

The fact that dating was not a custom of early Christians is not discussed in the scriptures. The fact that many times the fathers decided who their daughters would marry is not clearly discussed in the scriptures. It would be in the late 1100’s that women had to right to choose there husbands.

Since the Holy Bible does not give any guidance on these matters Fundamentalists have to make a choice outside of the Holy Bible.

2. Divorce ~ Divorce is discussed in the Bible, but do Christians understand the discussion? Did they get it right? That is, what Christ said about divorce and what Paul said about divorce? Most modern Christians see divorce for any other reason than adultery to be wrong and some even see that if divorcees remarry, that is adultery for them and the person they marry. Now, it does not matter if you are a Catholic or a Protestant, this is a firm belief, so there is nothing I am going to present here that is going to change things much. As a theologian and an historian I can tell that once something becomes a norm, right, wrong, or indifferent, it is nearly set in concrete. But then again as a theological topic it is rich in ambiguous concepts, misunderstandings and contextual statements that point to Judaism. So I cannot resist providing some information on this. So here are the scriptures.

Matthew 5:31-32 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastely, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:3-12 “Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.’ But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Mark 10:2-12 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Please note that Yeshua is talking to Jews about the Mosaic Law. Everyone present is a Jew. I have warned people before about setting Christian beliefs based on conversations Christ had with the Jews about Judaism and the Mosaic Laws. This is definitely one of those situations. Still there are things we can glean from it, but it is a mistake to take it word for word.

 

[Grailhunter]

First things first, the status of women; He is talking to Jews. During this time period Jewish women are still considered property. Christ does not discuss a change of status in the Gospels. (Not getting into the history of Christian women here because it goes south for them as time goes on.) In relation to marriage it is believed a woman in most instances should only “be with” one man. This is more of a cultural thing than it is a Law, as Paul points out later.

The Jews practiced polygamy for another 1000 years after the biblical era, that is an historical fact. As far as the Jews that Yeshua was talking to….we do not know how many wives each of them had. It was a practice for Jewish men to divorce their older wives and take on younger wives. This was a very cruel practice for many reasons; The women were kicked out the family with no property and it was near to a death sentence, and then according to Christ if they remarried it was considered adultery, which made the situation worse. If they were younger and children were involved, they did not take the This is very likely the whole point of this conversation. The cruelty of their practices.

If a man had 5 wives and Christ told him He could not remarry after divorcing one of them, he still had 4 wives. He did not stop the Jews from having wives, He was stopping this cruel practice of cycling wives.

Then again, remember, this discussion is with Jews about the Mosaic Law, and Christ says a few things that are a tad confusing at best. He says this about Moses…Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. This essentially sets the 613 Laws of Moses on its ear, because between this and the “eye for an eye” correction it makes you wonder if Moses wrote this on his own accord, not in accordance with God’s wishes, and then of course the question is, how many more Laws did he write on his own? Then He also says, “…and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” There are two issues here; 1. There is no process for a woman to divorce or “put away” her husband in that era, not in Judaism, nor in the Roman culture. If a woman ran away it was automatically considered adultery in Judaism. It would not be legal in Christian cultures until 1629 AD. 2. Also He states that if a man divorces His wife for any other reason but adultery, he cannot remarry, but it does not constitute adultery for him, if he does not remarry. But for the woman that divorces her husband it is automatically called adultery...and if the husband divorces his wife, he forces her to commit adultery.

Right or wrong, this is an extreme change to their religion as well as their culture. The Jews He was talking to did not respond, so they just likely walked away and did not accept what He had said, but His own disciples pushed back against this. This is no surprise, this is shocking to them! Strangely enough this was a widely accepted practice in their culture. So they said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” This is their religion, their history, and their culture. Then Christ’s response could be read as rather curt, in effect, telling them to either accept what He was saying or be a eunuch. He does add that, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.” The meaning of which is not entirely clear.

During this discussion He references a statement that Yahweh made, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” And indeed towards the end of the Old Testament Yahweh said He hated divorce, sacrifices, and their songs of hymns. So that is another thing to consider.

Now Paul adds a few rules, advice, and opinions. 1st Corinthians 7:10-16 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not put his wife away. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not put her away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

1st Corinthians 7:25-40 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

The word divorce actually does not occur outside of the Gospels, and consequently there is no custom of a “letter of divorcement.” Depending on the translation you are using the word divorce may appear, but it does not appear in the Greek. The terms “put away” or leave are used and terms like live with and released are used which brings up theological and historical questions. The Christians are not using the Jewish process for divorce and they have no set process for divorce….so all we can see is put away or released, or one or the other leaves. Paul does give instruction that a husband should not put away his wife and if a woman leaves her husband, she is not to remarry, but he does not call it adultery, but Paul does not indicate that a man must not remarry if they part ways. Of course as Paul explains, marriage is given up as a concession to prevent sin and points out that he preferred that everyone remain celibate. A point that few take as gospel.

This is another one of those things that Fundamentalists have to consider. Divorce is not a hot topic outside of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was mostly written by Jewish Christians. So their views on women are going to be shaded by Jewish religious and cultural beliefs. Old habits die hard. Christian cultures don’t start to push back against these old beliefs until the American and French Revolutions, and women’s rights do not occur until the 20th century. The Apostle Paul campaigns for everyone to be celibate and eventually, centuries later, celibacy is seen as the preferred state for senior Christians that hold offices….Which as it turns out is one of the biggest mistakes the Catholic Church made because it is still kicking their tail today.

 

[Grailhunter]

So as it is today we have Christian women believing that even if her husband abuses her and or sexually molest their children that they are religiously obligated to not divorce their husbands. And if they do they are not allowed to marry again and provide a father for the children. It does not matter if they are drug traffickers, gang members, armed robbers, and or dead beat dads. All this is ammo for people to judge and condemn them and gossip which is effectively more sin…hot coal piled on top of their heads of those that judge and condemn. By what measure will you be judged?

For me? I am not a Jew. The scriptures in the Gospels pertaining to divorce are in the company of Jews discussing Judaism and are pointed and influenced by the Laws of the Hebrew Bible and their culture. So, I do not incorporate them into my Christian beliefs. As with most Christians I am monogamous and my relationship with women is about love and respect. I do not judge people on their reasons for divorce and I do not consider remarriage as adultery. That is my opinion. I am just providing information that you can consider. There is certainly more of a push for celibacy than for marriage and family in the New Testament so like it or not…it is not written in stone. Why was celibacy the prefer state for men and women? Here again perspectives are in fact important, but for some, not relevant. The perspective is that much of what they were doing and saying had to do with the fact that they thought Christ return would be “soon” so marriage and families were not a high priority. But this does not change the scriptures.

So if you are a Fundamentalist that subscribes to sola scriptura, the circumstances may not be taken into consideration.

Still the importance of marriage and family are paramount. The legal systems we have are designed to promote division and hatred which does further harm to children. Common sense Christian marriage councilors are hard to find. So Christians that are having difficulties a lot of times do not have anywhere to turn. Online “Christian” counseling are about couples and partners, like it is not politically correct to say husband and wife. It is worth the effort to find a good Christian counselor, whether you stay together or not.

3. The status of women ~ Since I mentioned the status of women I need the cover the scriptural statements about women. Today women have rights, they vote, and there are female preachers, so they have authority over men in deed in the work force and government have authority over men. And now a days women have a say in the reproductive events. This is not the case in the Holy Bible. Most can recall the scriptures about women being silent in church, not having authority over men, and washing the feet of the saints… washing feet? Something that the Bible does not record the Apostles doing.

During the Apostle Paul’s ministry the Church of Corinth brings up the question of, if it is better not to touch a woman? Paul responded in 1st Corinthians 7:2-9 “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Salvation for women ~ 1st Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety….and I guess if they wash feet?

4. Living in the last days ~ There are over two dozen scriptures that directly or indirectly implied that Christ and the Apostles thought that they were living in the….last days…last times…time is short…the times have been shorted...that Christ’s return would be soon or quick. Of course this did not happen.

This is a question that the Church has had to wrestle with for quite sometime and it did cause some ill affects. Many, many have speculated why His return and the events in Revelation have not occurred, but for the most part speculation is not sole scriptura so it cannot be Fundamental. But if they do not speculate and do not have an explanation for this, then they are in a catch 22 scenario …Deuteronomy 18:22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”

Some attempt to explain it away by sighting this scripture 2nd Peter 3:8 “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” This scriptural riddle actually means “today” anytime you refer to it. Indeed the scriptures that followed explain that the Lord is not slow about His promise etc. So this sets Christians up to believe that every generation is living in the last days. Of course I know families that keep their children living in fear and dread. And also this is a conspiracy theorist’s playground. So this is a question that Fundamentalists have to answer.

5. According to Romans 14:5-6 any day can be celebrated as the Lord’s Day. Sunday as the Lord’s Day became a custom sometime after the close of the Holy Bible. So this is another choice for Fundamentalists.

6. Christian holidays in general ~ There are no Christian holidays defined in the Holy Bible, not even Sunday. This is one of the reasons that Jehovah’s Witnesses worship on Saturday and do not celebrate any holidays….not even birthdays. I had it explained to me once they did not celebrate birthdays because John the Baptist had his head chopped off at a birthday party. So this is something that Fundamentalists have to consider and make decisions on.

7. Respecting one another ~ James 2:9 “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” There are a few of these scriptures and some translations soften what the Apostles said, but be sure to know that the Greek words partiality and favoritism does not appear in the New Testament…anywhere! Then you have Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” There could be explanations for these scriptures as I have pointed out before, but they are not sola scriptura. I have went over the whole Christian love without respect thing, but still it is up to the Fundamentalists to contend with this.

8. Pacifism ~ Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

So should a Fundamentalist believe in pacifism? Throughout history Christianity has been under attack. Was it a sin for them to fight back? Should we not resist communism in our country? Should we defend our country against our enemies in the world? Should we defend other Christians in the world? Should we not resist the Moslems and let them decimate Christianity? Get a mat and kneel down with them to worship Allah? If criminals invade your home and they are there to abuse your family and take your belongings, should you turn the other cheek, bless them and let them do what they want to your family and take what they want? This is a question that Fundamentalists have to answer.

9. Science ~ We live in a very technical world. Much of this technology is contrary to “biblical truths.” If we send our children to school they are going to be taught things that contradict the Bible. The Sunday school teacher that arrives at the church could very well have drove up in a Ford pick-up that has 32 processors in it. He will probably tell the young Christians in his class that science is all bunk. But there is a very good chance that most the young people in his class have Smart Phones in their hands or in their pockets, which have several thousand times the computing power than the computers used to send man to the Moon. If his church broadcast their services than they have computers and a computer network and those services are broadcasted across telecommunication satellites 20,000 miles in space. How does that look to the young people? Science is all bunk? Does that make sense to the young people? People on this forum will deny science and at times I have to remind them of the science and technology embedded in forum.

Some deal with this by withdrawing from society like the Amish and separatists that teach their children at home and do not allow televisions, phones, computers, or internet access. So this is something that Fundamentalists have to consider.

 

[Grailhunter]

10. Wealth ~ The New Testament has little good to say about wealth. But what constitutes “wealth” in the New Testament. Best I can tell wealth was defined as if you had more than you needed to support yourself at a comfortable level….the remainder was wealth. But if you lived at an extravagant level….the difference between that and comfortable level was considered wealth. Of course this is not completely accurate because in the case of the rich man that asked Christ, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Christ said, “….go and sell all you posses, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.” Then you have Christ saying, “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.” And also you have the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.


So in what context should a Fundamentalist define wealth? What adjustments should a Fundamentalist make so as not to be the guy that tries to fit through an eye of a needle to get to heaven? It is not that simple a question. Yeshua lived in period that many were suffering, starving, and diseased. They believed Christ’s return would be “soon” so what good was accumulated wealth when it meant that you stood by while others were living so miserably and even starving. Now of course we know that they were not living in “the last days” but is hind sight biblical? That is the question that a Fundamentalist have to answer. What should be their standard of living and how much should they give to the poor? Every generation of Fundamentalists believe they are living in the last days, so should they save for the future or give it to the poor. Is it possible to adhere to the concepts of wealth in the modern era? Ask the Amish. Either way this is something that Fundamentalists have to answer.

Summary
Fundamentalists interpret and or explain away these scriptures in different ways, but a close look at these explanations either do not hold water or if they were applied to other scriptures would do more harm than good. For me the term Fundamentalism is erroneous regardless of how the scriptures are interpreted. My opinion is supported by the fact that, how can Fundamentalism truly exist if there are so many interpretations of the scriptures. Also, here 2000 years later can a word for word correlation be possible in a theological environment with so many interpretations? Whatever opinion someone has on my statement, it is one of thousands. In this theological environment the term fundamentalism loses its meaning. So is it possible in the modern era?

Personally I take into consideration the Holy Bible and entirety of Christian history and all of the divine communications and miracles that occurred. But in relation to the Holy Bible, I like the term Christology, but unfortunately that term has been taken and diluted and includes some strange concepts. So I would call it Christism. The study of what Christ said. What He did and why. A study of Christ’s heart and character. From that, all other scriptures are taken into consideration “in that light” as it relates to our present time.

I am a firm believer in the Living Word of God…meaning 2000 year old scriptures can still teach us new understandings, which may be additions and understandings that may agree with or disagree with old understandings. The social and religious status of women, their equal status in the church, is just one of those things. The concepts of wealth, poor people do not employ people and poor people don’t have much to give, so wealth is not anti-Christian. The overall concept…Heaven is real and so whether we live or die it is inevitable…what matters is how we live our life.

In other words we can and need to apply Christianity to our present time period, and the time periods in the future. Why? To keep Christianity relevant this needs to happen. To keep Christianity relevant and believable to young people, this needs to happen.

Personally I am multi-denominational. I do not see any denomination as being perfect but see several that are fantastic. I love Christians. I enjoy the best of all of them. Whether I am in a cathedral and experiencing the ceremony of the Stations of the Cross, or in a Holy Ghost church and the Holy Spirit is moving and speaking, or one of many Protestant churches that apply oil and the laying on of hands for healing, the altar calls are a blessing to witness, and the great choirs that raise their voices in worship to God are awesome and I enjoy it all.

 

[justbyfaith]

True Trinity.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Summary
Fundamentalists interpret and or explain away these scriptures in different ways, but a close look at these explanations either do not hold water or if they were applied to other scriptures would do more harm than good. For me the term Fundamentalism is erroneous regardless of how the scriptures are interpreted. My opinion is supported by the fact that, how can Fundamentalism truly exist if there are so many interpretations of the scriptures. Also, here 2000 years later can a word for word correlation be possible in a theological environment with so many interpretations? Whatever opinion someone has on my statement, it is one of thousands. In this theological environment the term fundamentalism loses its meaning. So is it possible in the modern era?

Personally I take into consideration the Holy Bible and entirety of Christian history and all of the divine communications and miracles that occurred. But in relation to the Holy Bible, I like the term Christology, but unfortunately that term has been taken and diluted and includes some strange concepts. So I would call it Christism. The study of what Christ said. What He did and why. A study of Christ’s heart and character. From that, all other scriptures are taken into consideration “in that light” as it relates to our present time.

I am a firm believer in the Living Word of God…meaning 2000 year old scriptures can still teach us new understandings, which may be additions and understandings that may agree with or disagree with old understandings. The social and religious status of women, their equal status in the church, is just one of those things. The concepts of wealth, poor people do not employ people and poor people don’t have much to give, so wealth is not anti-Christian. The overall concept…Heaven is real and so whether we live or die it is inevitable…what matters is how we live our life.

In other words we can and need to apply Christianity to our present time period, and the time periods in the future. Why? To keep Christianity relevant this needs to happen. To keep Christianity relevant and believable to young people, this needs to happen.

Personally I am multi-denominational. I do not see any denomination as being perfect but see several that are fantastic. I love Christians. I enjoy the best of all of them. Whether I am in a cathedral and experiencing the ceremony of the Stations of the Cross, or in a Holy Ghost church and the Holy Spirit is moving and speaking, or one of many Protestant churches that apply oil and the laying on of hands for healing, the altar calls are a blessing to witness, and the great choirs that raise their voices in worship to God are awesome and I enjoy it all.

You make some interesting points in your article on fundamentalism. I can see that you've done your homework.

The main problem I have with this article is that you seem to be chipping away at the reliability of the Bible. When you start this, where do you stop? If one verse is in serious question, then any of them can be.... We end up picking and choosing which scriptures WE think are authentic and which are not. Perhaps this is one cause of the *30,000* denominations, by your estimation, lol.

Some people would say that choosing the canon of scripture was arbitrary, meaning that people chose on their own which books, etc. to include. But I believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in this process just as He inspired the the writing of the scriptures and leads us into all truth as we read and study the Bible. And the truths of the Spirit must be spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 2:14--But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
.

 

[Grailhunter]

Was Abraham a horrible sinner?

The issue of slavery has come up with the discussions concerning the Black Lives Matter organization and although I am pretty hard line on such things because I know that coddling criminals will only perpetuate the problem, so I am not addressing that. But I want to address the topic of the historical practice of slavery and some of the things people judge as wrong or evil in the past.

The Bible was written in a different time period, the biblical narrative literally involves more than one culture, more than one religion, and more than one language. For that reason you cannot extract an understanding of the scriptures if you are reading them like it were the latest edition of the local Sunday Paper. There are really a lot of customs and preset concepts that existed in that time period that would seem to us to be odd and the scriptures do not explain a lot of that.

One of the many mistakes people make is the need, or the desire, or the want to judge the past. Why? My guess, is that they do not realize that where we are now, socially and religiously, is a product and a process of experiencing and seeing the effects of certain things, which has brought us to where we are at now. Did our moral compass become more right? Some would say not. We do not have slaves, but we murder over 600,000 babies a year, in the United States…and yes a lot of them are black babies. So it is a trade off.

Neither Yahweh or Yeshua denounced slavery, the Mosaic Law spoke of and regulated slavery, and Paul spoke of the relationship between masters and slaves. Slavery was very common in the Old and New Testaments, even part of their economic systems. Most of world history is full of conquests to conquer and seize land and peoples. The Europeans came over to America and took the land away from the Indians and shipped people over from Africa and made them slaves. Some of the founding father of America owned slaves and today, in some discussions it has been said that, that was wrong, and that is the point I am trying to get at here, it was not wrong. From the time even before Abraham to the early period of American history slavery was common and considered right. In other words, neither the Catholics nor the Protestants denounced it. Most of the slave owners in America were Protestants. (Mainly because there were only so many Catholics in America at the time.) Sarah had a slave, the Bible calls her Hagar. Sarah and Abraham did not sin. Christ did not denounce slavery, that was not an oversight or a sin.

In the 1800’s most nations abolished slavery. We have come to know that seizing land and slavery is wrong. Can we fix the past? Should we judge the past? Should we give the Indians back the land and the whites go back to Europe and the blacks go back to Africa? It is not going to happen and there is no need to judge it, no need to apologize, and no need for retribution. Who is going to pay the Jews for being slaves? This is the wrong way to look at the past, the wrong way to look at history.

If you are black and hold a grudge, you will live with a chip on your shoulder and become a sub-society and have a separate reality. The gangs of New York and other large cities kill each other over territory they do not own. They live in a fantasy reality. No one owes them anything, either in money or special rights. Society will never embrace the criminal element. They are a product of their own efforts or lack thereof.

If you study the Bible you are going to get a distorted understanding of the scriptures if you superimpose your beliefs on the scriptures. The same is true of history, you can not judge or superimpose modern morals and customs on ancient history. If those in the biblical era could look forward at us today, they would probably consider us as heathens and idolaters.

Each time period had it own set of morals and customs. Most of the people that practiced polygamy in the Old Testament did not sin. Those that had slaves in the Old and New Testament did not sin. The founding fathers of America that had slaves were not guilty of doing anything wrong. (Except in how some treated their slaves.)

But as time went on “we” realized that there was a “better right.” Now this evolution of “right” is both religious and social. Some social moral corrections did not set well with Christian churches. Things like civil rights and women’s rights were not popular with Christian churches at the time. But still the question is, is that realization from God? I believe in the Living Word of God, so are the scriptures still teaching us things? Modern concepts of morals are not always right, for example abortion and the category of fathers known as “baby daddies” used by those that are not married or have multiple sources for baby donors has become common. Death sentences for murders are not socially popular, but murdering babies seems to be a rally cry for freedom.

After the biblical era, Christian customs and morals changed.

Initially the ritual of weddings came from Pagan societies. As time went on…Christians adopted the Roman template for weddings, which is why we have so many Pagan rituals and customs embedded in our modern weddings. Most would agree that weddings and vows are a very good change.

As time went on the preferred age for females to get married went from pre-puberty to some time later in their teens.

As time went on Christian ladies were given the right to choose their own husbands. Which led to dating as we know it today.

As time went on women were given the right to divorce their husbands.

As time went on women were given the right to vote.

Today we have female doctors, preachers, and politicians.

Some will see all this as a good thing or a bad thing. But the point I am making is that what we consider right and wrong has always been an evolution of thinking or a realization if you want to contribute it to God. But what we consider right and wrong in our modern times is not always the same as in ancient times or biblical times or the periods between then and now. We can say we know better now…some will disagree with that on some things, but judging those in the past on modern morals and customs only shows an ignorance of the evolution of morals and customs.

 

[Grailhunter]

Baptism, a little word with the power of the universe.

Beliefs regarding baptism go from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Many believe that when someone is baptized it causes miraculous events for the individual that are part of salvation.


Some believe it is linked to repentance and thus referred to it as the Baptism of repentance in which the person’s past sins are forgiven.

Some believe it as the Baptism for the remission of sins...

Some believe that the person receives the Holy Spirit in one fashion or another.

Some believe that Baptism is in effect, dying in Christ and a resurrection of sorts, or a metaphorical symbology thereof.

Many believe that the process of regeneration occurs here.

But at the other end of the spectrum, some believe it has no spiritual significance at all, serving as a public display of obedience or an announcement that they are Christian.

The early Christians and ECF’s (Early Church Fathers) were big on water baptism even though the method could very. In winter you could substitute the river with pouring water over someone’s head three times. But it always involves water.

ECF…Tertullian on Water Baptism (155-220 ad) (English teachers hold back on the red pins.)

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through, an untried though probable. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

Tertullian on why Water Baptism
Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive prescript, we nevertheless proceed to treat (address) the question, How foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray , has this material substance merited an office of so high dignity? The authority, I suppose, of the liquid element has to be examined. This however, is found in abundance, and that from the very beginning. For water is one of those things which, before all the furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapened state. In the first beginning, says Scripture, God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible, and unorganized, and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters. The first thing, O man, which you have to venerate, is the age of the waters in that their substance is ancient; the second, their dignity, in that they were the seat of the Divine Spirit, more pleasing to Him, no doubt, than all the other then existing elements. For the darkness was total thus far, shapeless, without the ornament of stars; and the abyss gloomy; and the earth unfurnished; and the heaven unwrought: water alone — always a perfect, gladsome, simple material substance, pure in itself — supplied a worthy vehicle to God. What of the fact that waters were in some way the regulating powers by which the disposition of the world thenceforward was constituted by God? For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by dividing the waters; the suspension of the dry land He accomplished by separating the waters. After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, the waters were the first to receive the precept to bring forth living creatures. Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life. For was not the work of fashioning man himself also achieved with the aid of waters? Suitable material is found in the earth, yet not apt for the purpose unless it be moist and juicy; which (earth) the waters, separated the fourth day before into their own place, temper with their remaining moisture to a clayey consistency. If, from that time onward, I go forward in recounting universally, or at more length, the evidences of the authority of this element which I can adduce to show how great is its power or its grace;; how many ingenious devices, how many functions, how useful an instrumentality, it affords the world, I fear I may seem to have collected rather the praises of water than the reasons of baptism; although I should thereby teach all the more fully, that it is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance which He has disposed throughout all His products and works, obey Him also in His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial.

But it will suffice to have thus called at the outset those points in which withal is recognized that primary principle of baptism — which was even then fore-noted by the very attitude assumed for a type of baptism — that the Spirit of God, who hovered over (the waters) from the beginning, would continue to linger over the waters of the baptism. But a holy thing, of course, hovered over a holy; or else, from that which hovered over that which was hovered over borrowed a holiness, since it is necessary that in every case an underlying material substance should catch the quality of that which overhangs it, most of all a corporeal of a spiritual, adapted (as the spiritual is) through the subtleness of its substance, both for penetrating and insinuating. Thus the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One, itself conceived withal the power of sanctifying. Let no one say, Why then, are we, pray, baptized the very waters which then exited in the first beginning? Not with those waters, of course, except in so far as the genus indeed is one, but the species very many. But what is an attribute to the genus reappears likewise in the species. And accordingly it makes no difference whether a man be washed in a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless withal the eunuch whom Philip baptized in the midst of his journeys with chance water, derived (there from) more or less of salvation than others. Act 8:26-40 All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying. Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act; that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not show themselves in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord, the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit, on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed.

Tertullian on without Baptism there is no salvation
When, however, the prescript is laid down that without baptism, salvation is attainable by none (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless one be born of water, he has not life ), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom — Paul excepted — we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ's baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized. I have heard — the Lord is my witness— doubts of that kind: that none may Imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the license of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.

 

[Grailhunter]

And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm that the apostle were unbaptized. For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one; (saying to Peter, who was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, He who has once bathed has no necessity to wash a second time; John 13:9-10 which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized even here we have a conspicuous proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John's baptism. Can it seem credible that the way of the Lord, that is, the baptism of John, had not then been prepared in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no repentance was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners? As for the fact, then, that others were not baptized— they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying, Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist.

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea. It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted in the sea, that is, in the world, by the waves, that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world, and restores tranquility to His own.

Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end — so that even that saying of the Lord touching the one bath does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us— still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. Your faith, He would say, has saved you; and, Your sins shall be remitted you, on your believing, of course, albeit you be not yet baptized. If that was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever; Matthew 9:9 another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living; Matthew 4:21-22 a third, who disdained his father's obsequies, fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37

For those that believe that Baptism has spiritual effects there is scriptural support.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 11:16 Peter speaking, Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Act 8:26-40
But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: “He was led as a sheep to slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He does not open His mouth. “In humiliation His judgment was taken away; Who will relate His generation? For His life is removed from the earth.” The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus.

Biblical references to Baptism

Mark 1:8 John the Baptist said, I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 3:3 Speaking of John the Baptist. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John 3:5 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter in to the Kingdom of God.”

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:41
So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

Acts 8:13
Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

Acts 8:16
For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36
As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”

Acts 8:38
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Acts 9:18
And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Acts 10:47
you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.

Acts 10:48
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

 

[Grailhunter]

Acts 16:15
And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:12-16
“A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

John 3:22-23 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized Can you imagine being baptized by God!

Romans 6:3-5 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.

Along with the beliefs that in Baptism we die in Christ, the person that emerges from the water as a new person. Meaning, completely and totally a new person, consequently the Trinity having no memory of the old person, their sins, or their poor character. It is the proverbial, instance of starting out with a new slate. This belief has some historical precedence in the early Church, for one, some would wait until they were near death to be baptized, thinking that way their soul would be free of sin when it came time to face judgment. It has been said that Emperor Constantine did this.

There is a psychological side of this because some people have trouble forgiving themselves. I think Paul was one of these. With that person no longer existing a person can better understand that they can move forward with their walk with Christ. There is a possibly of a redemptive quality that goes beyond the norm here. For those that have done horrible things or the unpardonable sin it is like that person never existed, so all is forgiven. Alternatively it denies Satan any venue to accuse you of not being good enough to be a Christian. Thoughts and beliefs vary on this.

Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities until he came to Caesarea. Some of those that believe that Baptism has no spiritual effect have concerns that if Baptism forgives, why did Christ need to die on the Cross? The explanation for this may go back to John the Baptist, a relative, the cousin of Christ. Their association is a topic in itself. But John probably understood the plan and put it in the most simplest of words, as he was baptizing in the Jordan.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (Notice the exclamation point) Spoiler alert! Christ would never answer the question of where John got the authority to forgive sins. The answer of course, it came from God. Baptism or ritual bathing is not unique to Christianity, and it is always about cleansing. But the Christian baptism is spiritual. Even before the crucifixion God the Father had given Christ all authority over judgment and sin. Matthew 2:5, 28:18-20, Mark 2:5, John 3:35, 5:22-27, 13:3 Luke 7:48 In this scenario baptism removed an individual’s sins from their soul and any sin committed after baptism is between the individual and Christ. Of course for those that believe in Original Sin, it could also be removed during baptism.

Who should Baptize…. Tertullian
For concluding our brief subject, it remains to put you in mind also of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving it, the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without he bishop’s authority, on account of the honor of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops, or priests, or deacons, be on the spot other disciples are called i.e. to the work. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any: in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God's property, can be administered by all. But how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen seeing that these powers belong to their superiors — lest they assume to themselves the specific function of the bishop! Emulation of the Episcopal office is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle has said, that all things are lawful, but not all expedient. Let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule , if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person compels you (so to do); for then the steadfast courage of the succourer, when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature's loss if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow.

But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it!

But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla's example as a license for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! Let them be silent, he says, and at home consult their own husbands. 1st Corinthians 14:34-35

After Christ’s death on the cross the entire process and effects of Salvation come into play, Justification, Substitution, Redemption, Propitiation, Reconciliation, Adoption, Grace, and Sanctification.

Justification: Romans 3:22-30, 4:25, 5:1 5:9, 5:16-18, 8:30-34

Substitution: Matthew 20:28 Mark 10:45

Redemption: Matthew 13:44, 1st Timothy 2:6, Hebrews 9:12, Titus 2:14

Propitiation: 1st John 2:2, Romans 3:25

Reconciliation: Romans 5:10, 2nd Corinthians 5:19-21

Adoption: Roman: 8:14-17 Galatians 4:1-5

Grace: The word grace occurs 122 times in the NT and the phrase grace of God occurs dozens of times, so I will be a little selective to saving grace. Acts 15:11 Romans 3:24, 5:2, 5:17, 5:20-21, 2nd Corinthians 4:14, Ephesians 1:7, 2:8, Titus 2:11, 3:7, Hebrews 4:16,

Sanctification: Romans 7:6 Hebrews 10:10, 1st Peter 1:16, 1st John 3:1-3, Ephesians 5:26-27, Jude 24:25

At Christ’s death the veil in the Temple was ripped in two, a physical and symbolic meaning that there is no longer anything between us and God. Christ sacrificial death brought an end for the need of sacrifices. His death brought an end to the system of sin and tally, effectively breaking the slate. From there on all sins would be between us and Christ and He had been given authority to judge and forgive the sins of the family of God.

The more complicated aspect of this is the properties of sin that changed. Christ’s Grace presents us blameless before God the Father who otherwise would have zero tolerance to anything but sinlessness. This is one of the reasons that heaven was not an option for the Jews in the Old Testament. We are now in the family of God. To illustrate this, if your son steals a hundred dollars from a bank, that is a federal offense and prison time is in his future. If he steals a hundred dollars from you, it is between you and your son. This is the difference of sin as a perspective. We are presented before God the in a white cloak of Grace, perfect before Him. He never sees or sins, or sins are between us and Christ and He is faithful to forgive our sins if we ask for forgiveness.

I am sure I have missed some perspective because beliefs vary so much. For example the Holy Spirit's involvement with baptism deserves an article of its own, so I will work on that.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You are very fond of your book-style posts @Grailhunter

 

[101G]

before I finish reading your entire post, you said this.

And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm that the apostle were unbaptized.

well what do you say to these verses,
1 Peter 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

who are the "US" in this verse before we contuine?

PICJAG.

 

[Grailhunter]

You are very fond of your book-style posts @Grailhunter

The book I wrote was volumes...1200 pages with appendixes.
People that know me, know that I am a walking speech.
When I address a topic I like to nail it down.
Hope all is well with you.