/christian/ - christian

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology


New Reply[×]
Name
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
Captcha*Select the solid/filled icons
[New Reply]


John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


midnight_mass_smb_03_wiki.jpg
[Hide] (89KB, 960x720)
Merry Christmas
>>22586 (OP) 
Merry Christmas
>>22586 (OP) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY3quYnrdqI
Merry Christmas /christian/ !
Merry Christmas, chums.
yes, happy Christmas anons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR2jKqkqwak
>>22586 (OP) 
merry christmass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EWRU11rYKk
>>22586 (OP) 
Merry Christmas!
merry christmas anons, what did you get? i bought myself a new keyboard!
Replies: >>22608
97e71d7db09b36aeab600d4fda55600e-imagejpeg.jpg
[Hide] (112.1KB, 957x835)
>>22586 (OP) 
Merry Christmas!

>>22600
>what did you get?
I got a couple of new cats.
Merry Christmas!
Who is the jannie that deleted my posts?
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVE A.D. MMXXIII
I wish a blessed Christmas season to everyone on /christian/, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox (yes, even the Old-Calendarists).
Replies: >>26165
1702954247131975.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 1108x668)
>>26164
Merry Christmas, /christian/
christmas-nativity-scene-vector-31649763.jpg
[Hide] (248.2KB, 1000x1080)
When I was a boy I just wanted presents at Christmas.
When I was older I wanted to exchange presents to my family and realized it was Jesus Birthday.
When I got older I understood how it's better to give and Jesus birthday can be appreciated more by knowing his passion and ressurection.
Merry Christmas.
m_c.PNG
[Hide] (3.4MB, 1421x1004)
Merry Christmas, friends!
merry Christmas anons
>>22586 (OP) 
CHRIST IS BORN!
Merry Christmas to all of you. May Christ be praised.
Replies: >>26184
1703487643174675.png
[Hide] (711.2KB, 960x540)
>>26182
MERRY CHRISTMAS, /CHRISTIAN/!
'May God bless you all richly this year.'
Merry Christmas everyone!
I'm totally late, but merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to each and every one of you.
I know that I've been very quiet for most of the year, but I do still check in and watch the board. As few of us as there are, we still have high-quality discussions and, although I may not be the best BO, I do my best to keep things on track.
May the Lord grant each of you peace and goodwill in the coming year ahead of us.
>>27039
℟. O ye shepherds, speak, and tell us what ye have seen; who is appeared in the earth? * We saw the new-born Child, and Angels singing praise to the Lord.
℣. Speak; what have ye seen? And tell us of the Birth of Christ.
℟. We saw the new-born Child, and Angels singing praise to the Lord.
℣. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, * and to the Holy Ghost.
℟. We saw the new-born Child, and Angels singing praise to the Lord.

Merry Christmas to everyone here.
>>27039
Why don't you capitalize Christ in your name?
Merry Christmas everyone! May God bless you all!
tintin_winter.jpg
[Hide] (28.1KB, 880x495)
>>27039
merry Christmas BO
Blessed Octave-day of Christmas and Feast of the Circumcision and Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
For anons on the old Julian calendar

CHRIST IS BORN!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
A very (late) Christmas to everyone!
>implying there's a wrong time to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior
Replies: >>28034
>>28031
<implying there's a wrong time to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior
Jesus and God never gave a order nor implied in any shape way or form that celebrating His birthday at a particular time was to be done. Just like jude 1:11 and numbers 16 say. Core gainsaid the children of Israel to take up the position of the levites to please the Lord in a way He ordered not. And they were all destroyed for such. Do not gainsay others to worship the Lord in a way He ordered not. That would be numbers chapter 23-25, joshua 22, and revelation 2:14 if you did so.

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Ragebait bordering on heresy

Replies: >>28035 >>28036
>>28034
Amen. There is no holiday of the new covenant besides the Lord's Day. And let's not forget what befell the sons of Aaron when they offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not.

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Ragebait bordering on heresy

Replies: >>28036 >>28038
Bird.jpg
[Hide] (8.8KB, 320x320)
>>28034
>>28035
Are you really going to tell me, the board owner, that I am not allowed to worship my Lord and Savior on this specific day of the year? Christ never gave us direct instructions to breathe, does that also mean we should just hold our breath until He comes back?
There is not a single Christian denomination, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or otherwise that has ever come out and said this without being laughed out of the room. This is a fringe take and I will have none of this heretical, well-poisoning nonsense on the board. If you really, truly believe in this take, go to your priest tomorrow (assuming you have one), tell him exactly what you said, and relay to me the exact response he gives you. Until then, you can go spread your insanity on another Christian community that is willing to coddle you on your ridiculous beliefs.
Eat a ban and come back when you finally see the error of your ways.
Replies: >>28037 >>28042
>>28036
You can still worship God in ways He approves of. Those posters never said anything about not worshipping the Lord. Isn't a image board the place to have fringe takes? Isn't there nowhere else on the internet less censored? If you can't have fringe takes here then there's not a single place on the internet to have them. The CP spam stays up, the hereticks posting about evolution stay up, but this is where you draw the line? Wouldn't it be easier just to rebut their crazy claims as opposed to ad hominim?
Replies: >>28038
>>28037
>You can still worship God in ways He approves of
We remember his death many times throughout the year whenever we partake of the Lord's Table. Does he disapprove of men taking one day to remember his birth? If the Father seeks those to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24), is there something unspiritual or untruthful in His incarnation? Is there no room in Christian liberty for a remembrance of the miracle that was the beginning our redemption?

>>28035
>And let's not forget what befell the sons of Aaron when they offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not.
The remembrance of Christmas and the offering of strange fire before the LORD are not similarly-situated. The old law was called the "ministration of death" (2 Cor 3:7) because it was unbending and condemned everyone who could not keep it (which was everyone). So it was not strange for them to be destroyed for violating the ministration of death. Inventing your own form of worship, such as the offering of strange fire, was prohibited. But all those laws were our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Seeing our failure made us long for a savior. Now that Jesus has come in the flesh, and has saved us, we are no longer under that schoolmaster (Gal 3:24-25). We are freed now to do good works (Eph 2:10). We are now to stand in the liberty that Christ has freed us for, and not to go back to the old slavery of the law (Gal 5:1). 

If you want to make Christmas into an obligation (essentially writing a new holiday into the Bible and condemning those who do not observe it), only then might that anon have a point; however, if you want to take a day and remember/celebrate Christ's birth with other believers, there's nothing wrong with that.
Replies: >>28039
>>28038
>however, if you want to take a day and remember/celebrate Christ's birth with other believers, there's nothing wrong with that.
I want to agree and rather i'd say it would be better to remember Christ everyday with other believers. But there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. That is to say, what if I wanted to built altars to the Lord in various places so that christians could worship God using them. That kind of thing would be forbidden in the books of the old testament for example. Then there's Collossians 2:16-17
>Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
>Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Which could imply that celebration of Christ's physical death because of the forgiveness of sins it gave is permissable because of it falling on a sabbath. From there you could argue the opposite is true like you are. But then there's the fact that all the customs that come with yule or xmas are mentioned in Jeremiah 10:1-5 as vain
>HEAR ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
>Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
>For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
>They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
>They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

So to say being as the heathen and learning their ways, but also celebrating Christ's birthday on the same day, is probably not permissible. God would rather us be of the conscience of pilliaging the heathen in lieu of what 1 corinthians 8 says and then use that which was obtained to be better served in good conscience if it had to be justified somehow. That is the idol is nothing in the world. For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
Replies: >>28040
>>28039
>But there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.
Of course. If you were doing something that was against the Spirit or something untrue, such as sacrificing animals to atone for your sins, then you're sinning. But regarding Jeremiah 10:3-5, I can see how a modern reader would think this is decorating a Christmas tree; however, I really think this is talking about pagans carving idols out of wood and gilding them (coating with gold and silver). It says that they do not speak, and that they have to be borne because they cannot go. These are carvings that have mouths and legs and feet. In other places, carved idols are spoken about in the same language (Habakkuk 2:18-19; Psalm 115:4-8; Isaiah 40:19-20).

Keep in mind 1 Corinthians 8 is not talking about your witness to unbelievers, but to fellow brothers in Christ. This chapter, as applied to the celebration of Christmas, would be something like this: "If I feel guilty for celebrating Christmas because some of the decorations may have pagan roots, then it is a sin for me to celebrate it. It is not a sin to another Christian if it doesn't bother him. The Christian who celebrates Christmas is being uncharitable towards me (and sinning against Christ), because when I see Christmas celebrations, I'm tempted to celebrate it too, but it's a sin if I do, because I do it with a weak conscience."
Now, while that's the argument, I'm not sold on it as-applied to Christmas.

The truth is, at this point in history, if certain decorations did have pagan roots, the only way people would know is if you go out-of-your-way to educate them. In this way, I think 1 Corinthians 10:27-28 illustrates the principle: 
>"If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:"
If there were pagan origins to some of the decorations (just for argument's sake), do you think that anyone today sees Christians celebrating Christmas and sincerely thinks they're worshiping pagan deities? You may see it and think that they are ignorant, but you still know they're not truly worshiping other gods in having a tree in their house. So the solution is to stop educating them. You shouldn't defile their conscience by telling them. The vast majority of the worlds Christians celebrate Christmas with a perfectly-clean conscience, and what they have in mind is the birth of our Savior.
Replies: >>28041
>>28040
>If there were pagan origins to some of the decorations (just for argument's sake), do you think that anyone today sees Christians celebrating Christmas and sincerely thinks they're worshiping pagan deities?
Probably not as you point out they are ignorant of its origins.
>I really think this is talking about pagans carving idols out of wood and gilding them
I don't think so because God then has isaiah 44 and the other passages you mention specifically for carved images decked with things made by a smith, specifically ones looking like men as well.
<So the solution is to stop educating them
Psalms 32:9
>Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.
Ontop of the fact that we are ordered to seek understanding, and God ordering us to not hate the brethern leviticus 19:17, there is the fact that romans 14:23 exists
>And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Sure in their ignorance they are celebrating the customs of yule as well as celebrating the birth of Jesus at a arbitrary time. But there is no arguement for them having celebrated the customs of yule in the faith in the first place. Whether the decorations are crossess or stars or what have you, none of it would be based on what the word of God says so its quite the stretch there for the customs to even be justified. The closest you could come to justifying that would be deutoronomy 6:1-9 if any of those decorations whatsoever had the word of God written upon them. Sinning in ignornace is still sin see acts 17:30 and leviticus chapter 4.
>You shouldn't defile their conscience by telling them
I just can not let my brethern remain in sin though, that would be hateful as leviticus 19:17 states.
>Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Instead wouldn't it be better to explain to them the importance of understanding 1 corinthians 8 like I did above? So that if for example they saw me pilliaging a heathens food stores they had for xmas the bretherns conscience isn't defiled later when they learn the truth of the origins of the customs? If they are wholeheartedly seeking God in the faith they will come across romans 14:23 and psalms 32:9 eventually and examine themselves and why they do things, right?
Replies: >>28042 >>28044
>>28041
I suppose a further logical conclusion of my arguement whatsoever is not of faith is sin would  to be to adress what the BO mentioned above.
>>28036
>Christ never gave us direct instructions to breathe, does that also mean we should just hold our breath until He comes back
Strangely enough God actually did give us orders to live, which means breathing. See Genesis 2:7
>And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Revelation 16:3
>And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
Genesis 6:17
>And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
So having breath means you are alive. God orders us to live in ezekiel 18:32
>For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
So start breathing if you aren't a bot lol.
>>28041
>I don't think so because God then has isaiah 44 and the other passages you mention specifically for carved images decked with things made by a smith, specifically ones looking like men as well.
Good find, but this furthers my point. The workmen are making idols of different materials, and much of the focus is on wood (Isa 44:13-19). God reiterates many times through scripture the sinfulness and folly of idolatry.

>Psalms 32:9
Yes, and if it was something that was a sin in itself, such as lying, stealing, or fornication, I would fully agree with you. But Christmas isn't in that category.

>Leviticus 19:17
I think applying Leviticus 19:17 to this situation (rebuking your fellow Christians for celebrating Christmas because some decorations may have long-forgotten pagan origins) crosses into legalism. If decorating my house with certain plants and flowers is wrong because some pagan did so, where do we stop? Should we do a deep investigation into all forms of clothing and accessories? What if we find out standard clothes have pagan origins? Should we go on a global campaign to stamp-out the wearing of earrings? Is it sinful for Christians to have a haircut like Julius Caesar?

>Romans 14
This supports my point. It could only be a sin for a Christian to celebrate Christmas if he believes it to be a sin.
>"1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. [...] 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
So feeling guilty for celebrating Christmas is classed-with a weak faith.
>"3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."
We shouldn't be judging one another over the Christmas issue. If you don't want to celebrate it, then don't. But don't judge those that do, and they shouldn't judge you.

>I just can not let my brethern remain in sin though
But they're not in sin. In Romans 14, you would be the one eating herbs and judging others for eating meat.

This is a non-issue because the pagans who may have decorated in similar fashion have long-since been converted and the origins forgotten and obscured. God made the trees, the ivy, and the garlands. Were these things acceptable before the pagans decorated with them? Do ancient tribes from Europe have the ability to forever desecrate God's creation, so much that Christ could not redeem these things?

I went down this rabbit hole years ago, so I can relate. But after much research, I've found that the pagan origins are mostly speculation.
>its quite the stretch there for the customs to even be justified
An example: the Christmas trees likely came from Paradise (Garden of Eden) Plays that 16th-century Germans would perform annually on December 24, decorating the tree with apples and wafers.
Replies: >>28045
>>28044
>Psalms 32:9
>Yes, and if it was something that was a sin in itself, such as lying, stealing, or fornication, I would fully agree with you. But Christmas isn't in that category.
What? Your response here is nonsensical. I do not think understanding is limited to the knowledge of sin specifically as the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is forbidden anyhow. But I think there's more verses that give light to that like proverbs 1:1-7 or isaiah 28:9-14 like understanding carpentry or brick laying or the history of customs, etc.
>If decorating my house with certain plants and flowers is wrong because some pagan did so, where do we stop? 
You have a point there. But rather why put those flowers and plants there in the first place in the faith?
>Should we do a deep investigation into all forms of clothing and accessories?
God already did that for us and in the old testament reccomends leveticus 19:19. But that too is crossing into enforcing old testament precepts upon those not trying to be justified by such e.g what you are probably referring to as legalism. We can use that to see how to better please God, but then it would be pointless to be justified by such levitical precepts when the Melchisedec priesthood exists.
>Should we go on a global campaign to stamp-out the wearing of earrings?
No because God does not care about what pagens do but rather we should focus on the edification of the body of Christ 1 corinthians 6:12, romans 14:20, etc. I don't know if there's something permitting or forbidding earings off my memory in the word of God as to better please God.
>Is it sinful for Christians to have a haircut like Julius Caesar?
The only verses I know of that make any reference to hair like such in the word of God is 1 corinthians 11:14-15. Which is men having short hair and women having longer hair. That is of course arbitrary for lengths but still yet women should have longer hair then men going off of those verses.
>I went down this rabbit hole years ago, so I can relate. But after much research, I've found that the pagan origins are mostly speculation.
What exactly then would be xmas's customs' origins in the word of God then? If its not pagan then is it in the faith somehow?
>the Christmas trees likely came from Paradise (Garden of Eden) Plays that 16th-century Germans would perform annually on December 24, decorating the tree with apples and wafers.
Did God imply or want us to do this somewhere? Was this just a tradition men started to remember God and has been perverted? I'm preety sure xmas nowadays is just a excuse for people to get together and party and give gifts once a year instead of all year round like matthew 7:8-12 says?

All of this is very scarily getting into the territory that Jesus boldy disowned in matthew 15:2-9
>Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
>But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
>For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
>But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
>And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
>Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
>This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
>But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Is continueing the traditions of the 16th century germans making the word of God of none effect pertaining to Jeremiah 10:2? I personally think the answer is yes, but as was pointed out earlier Colossians 2:16-17 exists so its not something i'm going to get super dogmatic about. But I am going to get dogmatic about things like not educating the brethren, they should be able to discern the truth. It is hateful to not tell them the truth. The defiling their conscience thing would be as to threaten their relationship with Jesus Christ which is why its dammable to do. But if they are acting like a pagan in the first place, what exactly is their relationship with Jesus when we are ordered to be holy? 1 peter 1:15-16
>But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
>Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Replies: >>28047
>>28045
We're just going in circles now. The Bible is not the Talmud. It's not a shelf full of volumes of detailed rules for which shoe to tie first and which way your hat should be leaning on Wednesdays. My questions regarding dress and haircuts were rhetorical. If Julius Caesar was a pagan, and a Christian has a similar haircut, does he sin because he wears his hair in a style that has pagan origins? Do you feel the need to educate him on the unholiness of his haircut?

My guess is that, unless you're a Jehovah's Witness, you've celebrated Christmas in the past like everyone else. And now you've read something online that makes you think the celebration has pagan origins. How confident are you in that conclusion? Do you have an ancient Norse holy book that describes these decorations? No, because their traditions were localized and unwritten. All we have to go on is speculation on scant archeological evidence. And for that, you want to teach the brethren regarding something you have no firsthand knowledge of, which is sure to cause strife and defile consciences. I chose my words poorly saying not to educate, because I really meant that we don't know the origins of every custom and decoration, so you could just as easily be spreading falsehoods.
>But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. (2 Tim 2:23)

The foundational question is this: Is there a scriptural prohibition against celebrations that are not explicitly commanded by God? Does the celebration involve doing something that is in itself a sin (e.g., an orgy)? Since the answers to these questions are "no", the celebration of Christmas is covered under Christian liberty.
Replies: >>28048 >>28106
>>28047
>now you've read something online that makes you think the celebration has pagan origins. How confident are you in that conclusion?
>because I really meant that we don't know the origins of every custom and decoration, so you could just as easily be spreading falsehoods.
I agree that I don't know the origins of every custom. However if its not in the Bible i'm preety confident in the conclusion its not of the faith. Since the word of God is the sole bedrock and foundation of the faith as without it we could not hear or have faith romans 10:17. I mean barring prophets or God Himself speaking directly.
>The foundational question is this: Is there a scriptural prohibition against celebrations that are not explicitly commanded by God?
But the point of those celebrations should be to praise and serve God. I think that's why the above banned posters mentioned offering strange fire and that weird reference to core in numbers 16. The levites wanted to praise and serve God in Leviticus 10:1-2, but God commanded them not to do so. I think that the point is to serve God 1 corinthians 7:15
>Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
and Revelation 22:8-9
>And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
>Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
That makes it seem more important to obey God and please him then keeping a particular precept like circumcision or celebrating a holy day that we could argue in circles about its origins on.
>The Bible is not the Talmud.
That's good because doesn't the talmud say evil things about Christ?
Replies: >>28049 >>28050
>>28048
>However if its not in the Bible i'm preety confident in the conclusion its not of the faith.
Matthew 26 and Mark 14 tell the story of a woman who broke an alabaster box of very expensive ointment and poured it on Jesus' head. Jesus said she did this for his burial, and explicitly stated that what she did was good. But this burial custom (and all OT burial customs) were not given by God in scripture, they were from tradition, practicality, and cultural norms in the area where they lived.

What she did was not in the Bible (in her day), yet Jesus thought it was so good that He said everyone would remember it wherever the gospel is preached. In an analogous way, Christmas is good because believers who love Jesus take a day to remember his incarnation, and nothing in the celebration or decorations are inherently evil (e.g., a goat's skull hung on the wall).
Replies: >>28056
>>28048
>However if its not in the Bible i'm preety confident in the conclusion its not of the faith.
Just one more thing to add for clarity: I'm not arguing that Christmas celebration is essential to the faith, merely that it's not contrary to the faith. You don't have to celebrate Christmas to be saved; but neither are you ungodly if you do.
>>28049
<What she did was not in the Bible (in her day),
You do err neither knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. In Leveticus 14:12-13
>And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD:
>And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:
Jesus as a physical sacrificial lamb had to be offered with oil, such as the oil found in alabaster. It was also for the cleanliness of a dead body see  Numbers 16:11-13
>He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
>He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
>Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
See number 16:16-19. There are very good reasons Jesus stayed on the earth for more then three days after His death...
>>28051
<egotistical rulecucks
Where do you think you are? Wouldn't adhering to rules be something to be commended, not disdained?
>>28054
Hilarious how the above posters are banned and this heretical garbage is allowed to stay up. We are not all adulterers, cucks, here. Do not make generalizations that are not true. Nor should you call us kikes, that is untrue and your entire statements have respect of persons pertaining to skin color in them, so quit spamming nonsense.
Replies: >>28057 >>28058
>>28056
numbers 16 should be numbers 19.
>>28056
>And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering
Jesus said she did it for his burial. He never said it was for his offering. Because Jesus explicitly gave the reason, we know for sure: the reason was for His burial.
>It was also for the cleanliness of a dead body
It wasn't. The purification in Numbers 19:11-13 was not done with oil, it was done with the ashes of the red heifer mixed with water (see verses 9, 17, 18, and 19); and even if it was done with oil, this is not purification for a dead body... it's purification of a person who touches a dead body. There is nothing in this chapter regarding purification of a dead body. Are you suggesting that Jesus touched His own dead body while He was dead? That would lead to an absurd conclusion: that Jesus was unclean for seven days after His resurrection.
Replies: >>28059
>>28058
>Are you suggesting that Jesus touched His own dead body while He was dead?
Think about that statement for a moment. Think long and hard about it. Being physically leviticul priesthood ceremonially unclean is not neccessarily a sin since you can be purified see numbers 19:17-19. Secondly, is there something not permitting such a conclusion in the word of God? In various parts of the word of God being ceromonially unclean is not the same as sin see zacheria 13:1, sin and uncleanness are not the same there for example. Also see acts 11:8-10, purified things that were unclean are not a sin to eat. Thirdly is that being physically pre-cleaned via the ointment means Jesus was never unclean in the first place anyways. There's a special exception made in leviticus 5. Let's go through it step by step so you might yet understand. In Numbers 19:11-12
>He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
>He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
Ok so a dead body is unclean, presumably as its not directly stated. But then there's Numbers 19:16 and 19
>And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
>And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

So how could Jesus, who was dead and yet liveth Revelation 1:18, touch His own grave waking up from death? Numbers 19:22 hints at it
>And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until even.

Ah so the soul is implied here. In leviticus 5:2
>Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
That spells it out quite plainly. Since Jesus's soul left with His Spirit in matthew 27:50 we then get verses like luke 24:12
>Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Why leave His clothes behind? because they might have been unclean but He Himself is clean. Don't need to wash clothes you don't have right.
See verses like romans 14:14
>I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
I don't think Jesus was unclean at any point. But His dead body you might be able to argue was "unclean" at the time of death, but did not affect His soul whatsoever as the physical body had already been pre-purified. This is all very legalistic and a very literal interpretation of the events. You could of course just hand wave it and say Jesus floated in the tomb as to not touch the grave or what have you. I'm probably missing something or reading too much into this particular set of passages. Jesus Christ the same today yesterday and forever Hebrews 13:8. That would mean the nail marks in John 20:25-27 are still there. And perchance what is mentioned in john 19:34 is still there as well? You could argue what is mentioned in john 19:34 is the "water of separation" as well for the ceremonial purposes of the leviticus priesthood. Remember that nobody but Jesus could be justified by such because hebrews chapters 7-8 exist and of course what He says in matthew 5:17-18.
Replies: >>28060
>>28059
It's a logical impossibility for Jesus to touch his own body while he was dead. The two are mutually-exclusive. The very moment he died, he became incapable of touching. The moment he became alive again (and thus, able to touch) he could not be unclean because there was no dead body to touch. Arguing that he touched something in the tomb is just grasping at straws, because regardless, once the sacrifice was complete, the law was fulfilled, and these ceremonial rules became abrogated.

>Why leave His clothes behind?
The clothes are left as evidence of the resurrection. If his disciples stole the body, it's implausible that they would have carefully unwrapped him in the tomb before taking the naked body. They would've just taken him as they found him. He wouldn't have been wearing them after the resurrection anyway, as they're not normal clothes. They're grave wrappings packed in spices, myrrh, and aloes (John 19:39-40).

>what is mentioned in john 19:34 is the "water of separation"
The prime ingredient in the water of separation is the ashes. Jesus wasn't burned. There were no ashes inside him. So your problem remains: the oil she poured on Jesus was regarded by Jesus as a human burial tradition that is not required by the law of Moses, yet Jesus still called it a good thing.

>I don't think Jesus was unclean at any point.
I agree. But I also don't think his dead body was in-fact unclean (I'm sure the priests would've regarded it as such, but not God). I think just as he is Lord of the Sabbath, he is also the "Lord of Purity", if I may coin a new term. Many times he touched unclean people (lepers, bleeding woman, dead bodies), and they were healed and raised from the dead by him. His power, authority, and holiness meant that uncleanness was cleansed by touching him, never the other way around.

This scripture furthers my point:
>"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." John 19:40
The law of Moses never required dead bodies to be wrapped in linen with myrrh, aloes, and spices. It was merely a tradition the Jews made-up that was not contrary to the law, and not sinful in itself. They would not be condemned for doing it, or not doing it. Same with Christmas. Celebration is not essential to the faith, but also is not contrary to it.
Replies: >>28061
>>28060
The point of a dead body being in a tomb being a grave which made it unclean went completely over your head it seems. Anyways I might have found another way to explain it. In John 19:41
>Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
Its possible that you could argue that Jesus was never actualy truly "unclean" spiritually and therefore since no other man had lain in the tomb dead it was never unclean in the first place. I still think the first conclusion was correct. That it was based on the oil of the waving part of a sin offering of the leviticul priesthood. Nevertheless I think that women's submission to Jesus was far more important then the ointment itself.
Replies: >>28062
>>28061
>it was based on the oil of the waving part of a sin offering of the leviticul priesthood.
This doesn't fit, because the woman wasn't a priest, the oil wasn't offered contemporaneously with the sacrifice (so it wasn't offered according to the law)... and the strongest reason of all: Jesus told us why she did it: his burial. He did not say it was for his sacrifice.

I have a related question for you. What is Christian liberty? Can you give an example?
>>28047
>Is there a scriptural prohibition against celebrations that are not explicitly commanded by God?
Yes. Leviticus 10:1-3
>the celebration of Christmas is covered under Christian liberty.
1. The Church has no liberty to corrupt God’s worship by introducing whatever idolatry and will-worship it feels like 2. For the Church to observe Christmas destroys Christian liberty, since all who are present are forced to observe Christmas with their church. And the nature of Christian liberty is not that we are free to throw our liberty away, but we are bound to reject anything which impedes it (like the will-worship of man) Galatians 5:1
Replies: >>28108
>>28106
>Yes. Leviticus 10:1-3
This wasn't a cultural celebration. Two sons of Aaron were executed for violating the very specific rules God prescribed regarding the tabernacle and sacrifice. If they burnt strange fire in their homes or in the wilderness, they wouldn't have been killed.
>1. The Church has no liberty to corrupt God’s worship by introducing whatever idolatry and will-worship it feels like
No one said it did. Christmas is not idolatry or will-worship, it's a celebration/remembrance of a real historical event that is recorded in Luke's gospel.
>2. For the Church to observe Christmas destroys Christian liberty, since all who are present are forced to observe Christmas with their church.
Very few brothers' consciences are pricked by being "forced" once a year to remember the incarnation (which, btw, they also believe truly happened). After a certain point, zeal crosses into legalism and extinguishes faith.
Replies: >>28109
>>28108
>This wasn't a cultural celebration
Neither is Christmas.
>Two sons of Aaron were executed for violating the very specific rules God prescribed regarding the tabernacle and sacrifice. If they burnt strange fire in their homes or in the wilderness, they wouldn't have been killed.
The way they violated the rules was by doing other than prescribed. They were not starting a fire pit. They were offering sacrifice as ordained priests. For them to do this at all apart from the tabernacle would have also been a violation.
>No one said it did. Christmas is not idolatry or will-worship, it's a celebration/remembrance of a real historical event that is recorded in Luke's gospel.
You just said it’s not that but also it is. This special holy day is nowhere instituted in scripture, it is God who makes holy and not men. To observe a holiday which God has not instituted is to add to His worship and corrupt it with our own inventions.
>Very few brothers' consciences are pricked by being "forced" once a year to remember the incarnation
I would be concerned for anyone who ever forgets it, but this defense is no excuse. Whether or not the conscience is pricked is immaterial, because we are bound by God to stand fast for our freedom, our own consent does not legitimize a fresh slavery. Christmas also is not merely a sermon on the incarnation (which could be done at any time of the year and has no reason to be done annually on this day apart from the false holiday), but consists of exalting the day as holier than others and participating of really distinct worship practices accordingly. If it was only a sermon on the incarnation it would be much less objectionable, but to count a thing as holier than God has made it is to commit idolatry. Most often, these holidays serve only to denigrate the Lord’s Day and distract from Christ; the children do not want to hear about Jesus, they want to open their presents.
Replies: >>28110
>>28109
Maybe you're from a denomination that holds the date as sacred, but the churches I've been to claim Jesus likely wasn't born on December 25th and there's nothing special about the day other than that we picked a day to remember. 

You speak of freedom, but call Christmas celebrators idolaters and will-worshipers. Can you give an example of Christian liberty? Is it only negative liberty? Are we only free to NOT do things? Is there anything we're now free to do that we weren't when we were under the law? Your argument could be used to demand that we obey all the OT dietary and feast laws as well.

>"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." Romans 14:5-6 KJV
Replies: >>28111
>>28110
>Maybe you're from a denomination that holds the date as sacred, but the churches I've been to claim Jesus likely wasn't born on December 25th and there's nothing special about the day other than that we picked a day to remember. 
As I said, if it’s only a sermon on the incarnation, there’s much less to object to. The problem is that this practice has a history. In the middle ages celebrating Christmas meant much more than a sermon on the incarnation, and it still does in most churches which observe it across the world; in the church of Rome, in the eastern churches, in the Anglican communion, in most Lutheran churches which celebrate it etc. Practically nobody observes a day called Christmas as nothing more than a sermon on the incarnation outside of Baptist and Reformed contexts. Now it is good that in your church you are told it’s not a special day, since this day is at least like the bronze serpent of Moses which became an idol and needed to be destroyed, so if such a sermon should occur it should be prefaced with the clarification that the day is not especially holy. But I think it is wise to remove it altogether to remove the monuments of idolatry from the Church and leave no trace of it.
>Can you give an example of Christian liberty?
Christians are free to eat whatever foods they want, and to fast or feast. 
>Are we only free to NOT do things? 
The only thing we are free to not do is throw away our freedom, since it was for freedom that Christ set us free.
>Your argument could be used to demand that we obey all the OT dietary and feast laws as well.
If you think that you have not understood my argument. My argument is that no elements of the worship of God are permitted besides those which He has commanded. 
>Romans 14
1. Again, there is a large difference between the observation of a single individual and the observation of the church, if the church observes Christmas the believers are divested of their liberty to not observe it. It’s like conflating an individual fasting with the church compelling the congregation to fast. Paul gives the imposition of holidays as an example of bondage, Galatians 4:10 
2. Paul here speaks not of practices which the church is free to observe but of judgement which is not to be cast upon our brethren. If a man thinks he is bound by the old dietary laws, Paul’s meaning is not to never try to persuade him otherwise as he himself had done, but not to look down on him or condemn him. He forbids cruelty, not obedience, and he gives no indication that he approves of the given behaviors, describing them as weakness and describing the other as blessed. 
3. Paul here refers not to anything whatsoever, but specifically the same holidays and festivals of the old law which among the Galatians he requires to be abolished. This is apparent, since 1. He writes to a mixed church of Jew and Gentile (chapters 1-3) 2. He equates the observation of holidays with abstinence from meats, that is, the dietary laws. In addition it is certain that Paul cannot have in mind any holiday whatsoever, since this would include the festivals to false gods which the converted Gentiles in the Roman church would have practiced, which none can deny are wholly forbidden. Thus it appears his intent is not to give permission to false worship but to grandfather in those Jews who, weak in faith, continued to observe days which God once had commanded. We see similar things in the Book of Acts where the Church in Judea continued to observe temple worship, even decades after the ascension of the Lord.
[New Reply]
58 replies | 8 files | 46 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.3