Understanding Church History

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
You acknowledge those Scriptures apply to the day of worship.
[…] idea that Col 2:16-17 is only talking about annual festivals and new moons.
Though I am none of those things you listed ;) , to be fair, Colossians 2:16 does use the word "sabbaths [plural]," as does Leviticus 23:15 (in association with the Feast of Weeks [Shavuot / Pentecost] and the plural weeks that lead up to it), Leviticus 23:32[28] in the singular (referring to the Day of Atonement, which isn't always on a Sabbath/Saturday), Leviticus 23:38 (plural), and Leviticus 23:39 (speaks of two separate ones, each called a sabbath [not always on a Sabbath/Saturday]--the first day of Tabernacles, and the day after the 7th day of Tabernacles [aka "the eighth day"--not technically a part of the "Feast of Tabernacles"])... so this word is not necessarily referring to the "7th day of the week/Sabbath/Saturday"... but is instead according to whichever context any given verse is covering. Make sense? :D


So, do you mean [that they mean] "ONLY," or do you mean... "-ever" / "at all" / "in any case"? or that this is also a part of what all it covers/it can cover? (sorry for the hasty post... I need to go eat. :D )
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
You all seem to agree, but I just can't see how you can come up with a lot of these interpretations. If they are all correct then Christ changed God, God is not eternal, the NT does not agree with the OT, the Sabbath was wiped out by Christ as He became the Sabbath so we don't have this holy day any longer, Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything. Many postings simply do no make scripture sense.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything.
Christ both fulfilled AND CHANGED many things. It is up to you to discern this. The Old Covenant was meant to be temporary until *THE TIME OF REFORMATION* (Hebrews 9:8-10). Also translated as "the new order".

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Now what you need to do after reading this passage is take it to heart, and believe with all your heart that it is God who is telling you that Christ would bring in a new order. If you now go contrary to Christ, you are in fact OPPOSING God and Christ.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
You all seem to agree, but I just can't see how you can come up with a lot of these interpretations. If they are all correct then Christ changed God, God is not eternal, the NT does not agree with the OT, the Sabbath was wiped out by Christ as He became the Sabbath so we don't have this holy day any longer, Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything. Many postings simply do no make scripture sense.
God never changed. His plan has always been the same. He presented truth to ancient Israel in shadows and types. He gave the reality in Christ.

Is that hard to understand? Simply read Col 2:16-17.

I think dispensationalism clouds this issue a lot, though, depending on the particular view the dispensationalist holds (hard to figure that out; it's like nailing jello to the wall). Actually I think covenant theology mixes it up too..that's why I hold 1689 federalism. :)

You really shouldn't be surprised because different people have different views of the continuation of the law, and exactly how the Mosaic Law relates to the New Covenant. Judaizers can't be right though. Read Romans 7:1-7, Gal 3-4, Eph 2:13-15, Col 2:16-17, Heb 7-8, Acts 15.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
You all seem to agree, but I just can't see how you can come up with a lot of these interpretations. If they are all correct then Christ changed God, God is not eternal, the NT does not agree with the OT, the Sabbath was wiped out by Christ as He became the Sabbath so we don't have this holy day any longer, Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything. Many postings simply do no make scripture sense.
By the way, days and meats and whether your sex organ gets modified, and whether you have to marry your dead brother's widow and have sex with her to bear children is hardly "everything". These are not moral issues, which align with the character of God.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
You all seem to agree, but I just can't see how you can come up with a lot of these interpretations. If they are all correct then Christ changed God, God is not eternal, the NT does not agree with the OT, the Sabbath was wiped out by Christ as He became the Sabbath so we don't have this holy day any longer, Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything. Many postings simply do no make scripture sense.
By the way, it's a logical fallacy to claim that because there is more than one view among those who hold a different view than you, yours is the correct view. That is one of the logical errors that cults use, in essence. Their claim is that because there are multiple denominations, and different views within these gorups, this demonstrates they can't all be right, therefore my view is right.

Roman Catholicism makes similar claims as cults, by stating that there are 3,000 different denominations. It's crazy when you reduce their essential argument down to the basics. I was fooled by the fallacious arguments of one such group who claimed their belief system was the "true faith" as a young man. This group held me captive, and in a state of arrested spiritual development, until I realized that, while their arguments seemed convincing, they were based on a surface-level understanding of the Bible and faulty hermeneutics.

Study your Bible and church history, folks. Find good teachers, not bumbling prideful men who stumble onto the scene with new beliefs, claiming that they are the true faith.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
[this post is addressed to Nehemiah6 and his Post #103, which I didn't want to quote here due to length of this post]

I made a post awhile back showing how Hebrews 9:8-9 is referring to "a parable for the time present" and speaks of "the tabernacle [in the wilderness]" not the later Temple (due to the furnishings noted in vv.2-4 of this chpt). If you don't have time (or focus) to read this entire section, take note of the first two paragraphs and then the last paragraph (and the point being made there). :)

Here, I hope to share this section of Wm Kelly's Commentary on Hebrews 9

[quoting William Kelly on Hebrews 9:9-10; source: BibleHub]

"Now these things having been thus formed, the priests enter continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services: but into the second the high priest alone once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and the errors of the people, the Holy Spirit this signifying that the way of (or into) the holiest hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle had Yet a standing the which [is] a parable for the present time according to which* are offered both gifts and sacrifices, unable as to conscience to perfect the worshipper, [being] only with meats and drinks and divers washings, ordinances of flesh imposed till time of setting right" (verses 6-10).
[…]
"It will be noticed that it is the present, which the Vulgate and the A.V. alike neglected, though Beza rendered it correctly; yet the present not historical but ethic; for the tabernacle in the wilderness is before the writer, not the temple: so we saw in Heb. 3, 4, and so it is here and throughout. This is evident in the early verses of the chapter, summed up in "these things having been thus formed" or prepared, not only the tabernacle but its furniture; which differed in some essential respects from the temple, for it was the figure of the millennial kingdom and rest, as the tabernacle is of the resources of grace in Christ for the wilderness and its pilgrimage. Hence the ark when set in the temple had neither the golden pot with manna therein nor Aaron's rod that budded (2 Chronicles 5:10), which we find carefully named in verse 4. With such wisdom markedly divine was the scripture inspired in the O.T. as in the N.T.

"Nevertheless the law, whatever shadows of heavenly things it afforded, made nothing perfect. And this is demonstrated here by the fact that the priests in their continual entrance go no farther than the first tabernacle or holy place; into the holiest only the high priest once in the year, and then not apart from blood which he offers for himself and the errors of the people. How far from the gospel which goes out to the ungodly and lost, reconciling to God all that believe in the virtue of the death of His Son!
"When Christ came, God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself; but Him both Jew and Gentile rejected and crucified. Under the law God did not reveal Himself, but barred even His people absolutely from His presence; for how could God, if He were dealing with them on the ground of their conduct, make them free of His presence? He dwelt in the thick darkness, and allowed the priests to approach no nearer than the holy place, the high priest alone (type of Christ) entering the holiest but once a year, and then (for he was but a type, and in fact a sinful man) with blood to offer for himself and the people's sins of ignorance. The barrier was still maintained. But now, and only by the death of Christ, is the veil rent; and the Holy Spirit signifies thereby that the way into the holy places has been and is manifested. It was the death-knell of Judaism, but the foundation of better and heavenly blessing; and as man is put to shame in it, having no part but sins, God is glorified and can thereby work freely in sovereign grace to save alike Jew and Gentile. This is precisely what He is now carrying out in the gospel.

[…]

"So here we see (verses 8, 9) that, under the law, as the way into the holiest was not manifested, so its gifts and sacrifices could not make the worshipper perfect as to conscience. Now the work, and nothing short of the work, of Christ meets both God and the worshipper, nay the darkest and most distant and defiled of sinners. "Such (or, these things) were some of you; but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by (ἐν) the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6). The provisions of the law, however admirable as a witness of man's sinfulness and of a coming Redeemer, were but superficial and temporal, conditioned only by "meats and drinks and divers washings" of an external sort; and consistently they touched no deeper wants than "the errors of the people" (verse 7). They were, as here, styled "ordinances of flesh imposed till a time of rectifying."
"Thus the Holy Spirit pronounces the Levitical institutions, however instructive in their season, essentially provisional and temporary, adapted to man in his weakness, ignorance, and probation. Christ is the intervention of God in man, yet God's own Son revealing Himself and saving the lost. As John puts it, the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ. Nor was it word only, even if this were, as it really is, God's word. God has wrought in Christ. Instead of responsible man, tried in every way, and proved failing and guilty in all, we see now by faith the Second man in heaven set down on the right hand of the throne, sin judged in a perfect sacrifice, death vanquished, Satan's power annulled, God glorified, and the way into the holiest now manifested, to the present blessedness of every believer here below. And these are and are declared to be everlasting realities, in contrast with Israel's natural and transient privileges in the past, and before the day when they too, repentant and renewed, enter by divine mercy into their portion, even Messiah and the new covenant, which shall never pass away.

""But Christ having come high priest of the good things to come,* by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), nor yet by blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having found an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and a heifer's ashes sprinkling those that are defiled sanctifieth unto the cleanliness of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Christ, who by an eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, cleanse your† [or our] conscience from dead works to serve a living God (verses 11-14)!
* Some ancient witnesses have already "come," γενομέíùν, which seems a correction to make the phrase exclusively Christian. [by the phrase "exclusively Christian," he means, "exclusively with regard to this present age (commonly called 'the church age'," or the NOW)]
[…]

"The great, sure, and plain basis of the Epistle is Christ, not reigning yet as Son of David, but arrived at His actual heavenly position. He is High Priest not here below but in the heavenly places. It is no longer a figure in the hand of mortal man on earth, but God's work of everlasting efficacy in His Son, yet man risen and ascended, by virtue of an atonement, the perfection of which God thus attested, as well as the glory of His person who suffered to the utmost in achieving it; for sin could only thus be absolutely judged and Satan triumphed over by such a sacrifice. Yet while the blessing is fully made known to the believer now, in order to place him in immediate access to God according to the rights of Christ's glory and of redemption actually accomplished for the soul, the phraseology is purposely such as to hold out and ensure "the coming good things" for His people another day, like "the world [G3625 - oikoumenēn] to come [/that is coming]" in Heb. 2, "the rest that remaineth for the people of God" in Heb. 4, "the age [singular] to come" in Heb. 6, and the implied exercise of the Melchizedek priesthood in Heb. 7, to say no more now. They were familiar as promised in the O.T. For the Christian [that is, in the NOW] the direct aim is to place him through Christ in present, known, and settled relationship with God in the holiest above."

--William Kelly, Commentary on Hebrews 9, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kelly/hebrews/9.htm
[end quoting; bold, underline and bracketed inserts mine; parenthesis original... Note: if this is too lengthy, the admins / mods may remove it or may shorten it??? :D (I did already remove some mid-section paragraph, lol)]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ EDIT [this sentence needs to be CORRECTED to say (in the underlined) to Kelly's original word there]: "the Holy Spirit this signifying that the way of (or into) the holies hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle had Yet a standing the which [is] a parable for the present time..."
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
By the way, if you're seeking consensus in a Christian chat room, except on core elements of Christianity, you might as well be herding cats with a dog.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
:D ^ And it is just here that we must rely on Another... "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." :)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,401
13,746
113
You all seem to agree, but I just can't see how you can come up with a lot of these interpretations. If they are all correct then Christ changed God, God is not eternal, the NT does not agree with the OT, the Sabbath was wiped out by Christ as He became the Sabbath so we don't have this holy day any longer, Christ did not fulfill at all, he changed everything. Many postings simply do no make scripture sense.
I haven't seen a post suggesting that "Christ changed God" or that "God is not eternal". Those ideas, I would guess, are your misinterpretations of ideas that others have posted. That would be consistent with the pattern I've seen in your posts.

I honestly don't think you understand the distinction between the covenants. The new (in Christ's blood) is not an addition to the old, nor is it an adjustment of it. It is new. The old is obsolete, according to Hebrews 8:13. As of the time of writing (c. 50-65 AD), the old covenant was still being practiced by the unconverted Jews (at least; they thought so). Hebrews 8:13 ends with "But what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." It did disappear in AD 70, after which nobody could possibly live according to its requirements. God ensured that it was done.

That doesn't involve either a change in God nor that He is non-eternal. It means that the purposes for which God established the Law in the first place had been accomplished and He had no more use for that covenant. He tells us that the Law is merely a shadow of the things to come, but the reality is found in Christ.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
...keeping in mind that Hebrews 7:22 says,

"By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [/surety] of a better covenant."


[see also Heb8:8, etc]
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I have one friend who was a Sabbath/festival observer. His group called the Feast of Tabernacles the Feast of Booze (not Booths). He had an alcohol issue and would get drunk at their festival often. He wasn’t alone either.

They found justification in their behavior theough OT Scriptures.

I find it interesting how those who allege a higher degree of holiness than the Sabbath breaking pork eaters can delude themselves in guzzling down booze like that.

Well, there were some that protested their drunkenness but it was an annual problem.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
Christ both fulfilled AND CHANGED many things. It is up to you to discern this. The Old Covenant was meant to be temporary until *THE TIME OF REFORMATION* (Hebrews 9:8-10). Also translated as "the new order".

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Now what you need to do after reading this passage is take it to heart, and believe with all your heart that it is God who is telling you that Christ would bring in a new order. If you now go contrary to Christ, you are in fact OPPOSING God and Christ.
God is our eternal God, the one thing in this world that remains absolutely constant and dependable. We are told of the principles of God is the first five books of the scripture that is not exclusively for "Israel" but for mankind, all humans that God created.

The new covenant and the holy spirit is a fulfillment, not something that was a new creation. Pentecost was celebrated for hundreds of years before the day told of in Acts with the feast of Shavout.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
I haven't seen a post suggesting that "Christ changed God" or that "God is not eternal". Those ideas, I would guess, are your misinterpretations of ideas that others have posted. That would be consistent with the pattern I've seen in your posts.

I honestly don't think you understand the distinction between the covenants. The new (in Christ's blood) is not an addition to the old, nor is it an adjustment of it. It is new. The old is obsolete, according to Hebrews 8:13. As of the time of writing (c. 50-65 AD), the old covenant was still being practiced by the unconverted Jews (at least; they thought so). Hebrews 8:13 ends with "But what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." It did disappear in AD 70, after which nobody could possibly live according to its requirements. God ensured that it was done.

That doesn't involve either a change in God nor that He is non-eternal. It means that the purposes for which God established the Law in the first place had been accomplished and He had no more use for that covenant. He tells us that the Law is merely a shadow of the things to come, but the reality is found in Christ.
When I found this in scripture it sent me to months of searching for truth. What is the law of Moses that is gone? If one scripture tells us that another scripture is wrong then we cannot rely on scripture. There has to be another answer.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
God is our eternal God, the one thing in this world that remains absolutely constant and dependable. We are told of the principles of God is the first five books of the scripture that is not exclusively for "Israel" but for mankind, all humans that God created.

The new covenant and the holy spirit is a fulfillment, not something that was a new creation. Pentecost was celebrated for hundreds of years before the day told of in Acts with the feast of Shavout.
During black death there was a group of believers who practiced self harm in hopes that God will have mercy on them and save them from the disease because of their actions. What do you think about them?

Victor,

I mentioned to you that I would look through Needham’s third volume to see if there were any references to flagellants. I bought the book but I didn’t see anything in it related to them.

You probably know there’s a lot of YouTube videos, etcetera, about them. I also gave you what I found from Kenneth Scott Latourette’s books.

By the way I know a younger Roman Catholic guy and he told me that he was beating himself that way. I thought he was joking at first. Apparently he was not. That’s really the only exposure I have had to this practice.

Regards.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,401
13,746
113
When I found this in scripture it sent me to months of searching for truth. What is the law of Moses that is gone? If one scripture tells us that another scripture is wrong then we cannot rely on scripture. There has to be another answer.
I neither said nor implied that "one scripture tells us that another scripture is wrong". Rather, the Scripture itself declares that the old covenant is obsolete. The two words simply don't mean the same thing.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
We are told of the principles of God is the first five books of the scripture that is not exclusively for "Israel" but for mankind, all humans that God created.
You are simply dodging the issue. If the Torah was sufficient, then we would not have the epistle to the Hebrews in the Bible. But if you reject Hebrews, you reject what God and Christ have revealed to the whole world. That is a very serious matter. And it seems that you are still committed to your false beliefs.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
When I found this in scripture it sent me to months of searching for truth. What is the law of Moses that is gone? If one scripture tells us that another scripture is wrong then we cannot rely on scripture. There has to be another answer.
If I talked about the Law, the Sabbath, etcetera more than I talk about Jesus, I think that would tell me something. Like, I would read Romans 7:1-6 and ask myself if I’m an adulterer.