Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Gregory Matthews

Did God Die on the Cross? Part 1

Recommended Posts

8thdaypriest

Thought came to mind about the creation story.  In verse 2, "the earth was".   How did it come to be?  Something had to have happened before God said "Let there be light."    True, the earth had no "form".  But it did exist as a formless orb covered by waters ("the deep"), without a defined atmosphere. 

I think it possible that during "the evening" which preceded "the morning", God did some creating.  Else how could "the earth" already have been there when God said "let there be light" ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

8thdaypriest

I can agree that "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" are presented as foundational.  The 12 foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem, have the names on them, of those 12 Apostles.  Revelation 21:14

Doesn't say the stone named for Peter is at the top.  It's possible that each foundation, has all 12 names inscribed.  Doesn't necessarily have to be one foundation/one name. 

And Jesus Christ is "the cornerstone". 

I have dozen things to get done today.  Be back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
44 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Thought came to mind about the creation story.  In verse 2, "the earth was".   How did it come to be?  Something had to have happened before God said "Let there be light."    True, the earth had no "form".  But it did exist as a formless orb covered by waters ("the deep"), without a defined atmosphere. 

I think it possible that during "the evening" which preceded "the morning", God did some creating.  Else how could "the earth" already have been there when God said "let there be light" ? 

Scripture asserts God created the sea and chronologically this appears to have been prior to the creation of dry land.

 

"And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land." Jonah 1, 9

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
40 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I can agree that "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" are presented as foundational.  The 12 foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem, have the names on them, of those 12 Apostles.  Revelation 21:14

Doesn't say the stone named for Peter is at the top.  It's possible that each foundation, has all 12 names inscribed.  Doesn't necessarily have to be one foundation/one name. 

And Jesus Christ is "the cornerstone". 

I have dozen things to get done today.  Be back later.

All good 8thday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Re:  the "seventy elders" of Israel, who climbed Mt Sinai and "saw God".  (Exodus 24:11)

[Note:  This had to be the Son of God they "saw".  Jesus said, "No man has seen the Father."]

First the LORD spoke His covenant terms.  This goes from 20:1 through 23:33. 

Then the LORD directs that the 70 elders of Israel, along with Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, all come up Mt Sinai to "worship from afar".  They "saw God" and then ate a covenant meal (customary in that culture). 

[Which incidentally is why Jews didn't eat with Gentiles, because of the command to "make no covenant with them".   Peter was rebuked by Paul, when he separated himself from the Gentile believers for eating after the circumcision party from Jerusalem came down to Antioch. So much for Peter deciding policy for the infant church.]

It can probably be assumed (in that culture) that the 70 "notable ones" were firstborn men of each tribe.  Before the LORD changed the priesthood to exclusively Levite/Aaronic after the golden calf rebellion,  the priest of family, clan, tribe was the firstborn of each.  (Number 3:41-45). 

After the death of Christ "the priesthood" was changed BACK to "the firstborn".  Christ being THE Firstborn, would necessarily be High Priest (Ephesians 1:15).   Jesus is now High Priest over Israel (which includes all those "grafted in" to Israel, and does not include those "broken off" from Israel).  Israel is "the congregation" = the church. 

It seems IMO, that you're saying "the priesthood" has been "changed" again - to celibate males especially ordained by the Pope, and under his authority.  

Jesus Christ is the ONLY High Priest who represents us before God His Father.  He is the ONLY mediator between man and God.  

1 Timothy 2:5  "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and humanity, himself a human being, Christ Jesus." (NJB)

Priests who "absolve" petitioners of their sins, are definitely acting as mediators. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

All of those from "the first resurrection" at the glorious return of Christ will become "priests of God and of Christ" (Revelation 20:5-6). Nothing in the text indicates these men (and women) will all have been Catholic priests (in their former lives). 

The 24 Elders (who I believe are presently serving in Heaven) are redeemed "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation".  So not exclusively Aaronic, or even Israelite.  They have been made "kings and priests" to God, and "will reign on the earth" (Rev 5:8-9).

[King David divided the priesthood into 24 "courses" which would rotate duties at the Temple.  So - far more than just #24 of them.  It is very likely there are 24 courses in Heaven also.  My person thought is that they are all faithful servants of God from the age before Christ's resurrection.  They were resurrected just after Christ Himself was resurrected (Matthew 27:52-53).  They ascended with Christ, when He ascended to Heaven.] 

The texts from Peter that I sited earlier, indicate that everyone who belongs to Christ is being "built up" as part of "a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices."  (1Peter 2:5).   I did a study into "spiritual sacrifices" once.   Any believer can offer these things. 

1. praise and thanks to God (Heb. 13:15)    2. our lives dedicated to God (2 Tim. 4:6)  
    3. the service of faith (Phil. 2:17)              4. the bodies of martyrs (Rom. 12:1)  
    5. gifts to the poor (Phil. 4:18)    
    6. visiting the sick or those in prison (Matt. 25:34-40)      
    7. offerings in support of the ministry (1Cor. 9:13)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

I believe the LORD "calls" His own prophets and teachers.  He anoints them with His own spirit. 

1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." (NIV)

When the four daughters of Phillip prophesied, they had not been specifically ordained as "priests" or "bishops". 

There are administrative positions to co-ordinate the gathering of special offerings,  hiring and paying helpers,  etc. etc. etc. etc.  But those who occupy administrative positions, don't dictate doctrine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

I thought "bishops" are supposed to be married.

1 Timothy 3:2  "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;" (NKJ)

Having a wife certainly removes some temptation.  And helps to prevent some abuse of male minors.  But the Catholic Church wanted to make sure no inheritance by children could take away any of her wealth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

But the Catholic Church wanted to make sure no inheritance by children could take away any of her wealth. 

They also wanted to ensure (at least theoretically) that priests were devoting their entire lives to the church rather than splitting their devotion between family and church.  Also the requirement for priests to be celibate has only been if force for 100 years.

"The tradition of clerical continence developed into a practice of clerical celibacy(ordaining only unmarried men) from the 11th century onward among Latin Church Catholics and became a formal part of canon law in 1917." (Wikipedia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 9/8/2019 at 1:43 PM, Gustave said:

Scripture is simply tradition that has been written down - so yes.

The Sadducees rejected Tradition whereas the Pharisees / Jesus and the Apostles accepted it. 

The Jewish Tradition of observing the Sabbath starting on the evening of the 6th day is an example of this.

Sadducees and Pharisees differed on several things.  You're speaking of their difference about what? 

The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead.  (That's why they were sad - you see.  lol)   The Pharisees always kept the Feast of Firstfruits on the 16th of Nissan.  The Sadducees kept Firstfruits on the day that followed the first 7th Day Sabbath, that followed the Passover.  Because of this, they began counting the Omar (50 days to Pentecost) differently.  So interesting that in the year of fulfillment, the 16th of Nissan fell on the day after the first 7th Day Sabbath.  That way - the Pharisees and Sadducees would all be in the Temple for Pentecost to hear Peter preach.  God does have a sense of humor.  Even got the Ps and Ss together - for Pentecost.

The Sadducees were the money handlers at the Temple.   They were the thieves who gouged the people.   They immediately saw that Christ would bring an end to their money, and thus their power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 9/8/2019 at 8:14 PM, Gustave said:

Alright, here is my logic chain.

Joseph Smith wrote the Mormon Articles of Faith and #1 just happens to be;

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (  http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/articles_faith.htm   ).

The Mormons baptize individuals by saying it's done "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". Latter Day Saints FULLY believe in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (LDS Teaching about the Godhead -  http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/index.htm       )

I could go on but I'm thinking you see where I'm going with this. If Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus, have as their first Article of Faith that they believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and baptize using the standard formula than something else must be going on here, right? 

Would you agree that it's something deeper or different about Mormonism that has you judging them to not be Christian? Saying Jesus has a divine nature certainly has them attributing the Godhead to Jesus. 

 

Mormons do not believe that Jesus the Christ is "the only begotten Son" of God the Father.  They believe Father God has had many "sons".  They believe that Lucifer and Michael were literal brothers - both sons of Father God.   This would put them "outside the pale" of Christian teaching based upon the Bible which contains the Old Testament and the New Testament

To arrive at their distinct teachings, they had to add other writings, and call them "inspired".   This is what puts a teaching "outside the pale".  

NOTE:  While I do believe that Michael (which means "Like unto God") was the pre-incarnate name of God's only "son",  I believe that Lucifer was created by God the Father "through" His only begotten Son.   Lucifer would be included in the "all things" that were created. 

Big difference.  Lucifer was created.  Michael was begotten.  Lucifer was a created spirit being.  Michael was/is a divine being. 

Father God has always existed.  His Son has not.  

I have no problem with Michael being called the "archangel" - which means Chief Messenger.  God's Son is called "the Word" - implying a message.  "The Angel of the LORD" often spoke in first person, as God speaking.   In 1Thess 4:16, the voice of the Archangel calls forth the dead at the Second Coming.  John 5:25 says the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

To arrive at their distinct teachings, they had to add other writings, and call them "inspired".   This is what puts a teaching "outside the pale".  

THIS is the crux. 

Don't Catholics regard the Pope as speaking for/as Christ, as if Christ were directly speaking?  All the things added by Popes down through the centuries are regarded as "inspired" by Christ.  Many of those things were at odds with the Scriptures already written.  Also the Pope claims to be speaking as/for Christ, as the correct interpreter of the Scriptures.  

(Some SDAs look to EGW as the "inspired" interpreter of much Scripture.)

It's not so much whether direct succession can be found - one man anointing another.  It's whether the teachings of the successive men, align with the Scriptures.  The men successively anointed/appointed can/may "depart from the faith" and begin to distort the truth.  [Popes had mistresses, a definite departure from the Scriptures.]

This is also the reason why many Messianics reject the Letter to the Hebrews.  The author is not named.  This letter may have been written by one other than a first person Apostle. 

If Hebrews is rejected, how can we know that Christ is acting as High Priest in Heaven?  How could we know the priesthood has been "changed"?  How can we know that "the first covenant" is now "obsolete"?  We might go back to sacrificing animals when the Temple is rebuilt at Jerusalem.  Most Messianics plan to.  The Torah supported Aaronic priesthood would be restored at that Temple - totally negating the Catholic priesthood, as well as the priesthood of all those "in Christ". 

[Personally I like the idea that Paul taught Priscilla, and she wrote the Letter shortly after his execution.  Anything written by a woman would have been rejected.  Hence the missing author's name.  Great book by Ruth Hoppin, "Priscilla's Letter". ] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Sadducees and Pharisees differed on several things.  You're speaking of their difference about what? 

The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead.  (That's why they were sad - you see.  lol)   The Pharisees always kept the Feast of Firstfruits on the 16th of Nissan.  The Sadducees kept Firstfruits on the day that followed the first 7th Day Sabbath, that followed the Passover.  Because of this, they began counting the Omar (50 days to Pentecost) differently.  So interesting that in the year of fulfillment, the 16th of Nissan fell on the day after the first 7th Day Sabbath.  That way - the Pharisees and Sadducees would all be in the Temple for Pentecost to hear Peter preach.  God does have a sense of humor.  Even got the Ps and Ss together - for Pentecost.

The Sadducees were the money handlers at the Temple.   They were the thieves who gouged the people.   They immediately saw that Christ would bring an end to their money, and thus their power. 

Jesus, prior to His death and Resurrection told both His own disciples AND the crowds to do WHATSOEVER the Scribes and Pharisees bid them to do. Knowing that the Scribes and Pharisees sat on Moses seat and had the authority to BIND "LAWS" on Jews what would that tell you? Jesus didn't say that the Sadducees were sitting in Moses' seat. 

The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the body AND didn't believe that a person's spirit was conscious after death. The Sadducees believed everything ended at the death of the body. Jesus severely corrected them on both points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Jesus, prior to His death and Resurrection told both His own disciples AND the crowds to do WHATSOEVER the Scribes and Pharisees bid them to do. Knowing that the Scribes and Pharisees sat on Moses seat and had the authority to BIND "LAWS" on Jews what would that tell you? Jesus didn't say that the Sadducees were sitting in Moses' seat. 

The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the body AND didn't believe that a person's spirit was conscious after death. The Sadducees believed everything ended at the death of the body. Jesus severely corrected them on both points. 

Jesus bid people to obey the authorities over them (Jewish and Roman) - not to rebel.  He said, "slaves obey your masters".  He was not justifying slavery.  Though He drew a line at clear violations Torah.  This was not because the authorities over them were correct, taught truth, or were just.  It was simply because those men were in power at that time.  The LORD allows people to come under the authority of the rulers they deserve.  Israel had become "blind" to the LORD, and to justice.   He gave them the Romans and the Pharisees.  John the Baptist preached repentance.  Repentance from what - if they were so righteous? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

The 12 foundations of the Holy City, with the names of the 12 Apostles:  It's not the men who were foundational.  It was their message.  Their message - Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.  He is alive forevermore.   Those men were simply the first to proclaim the message. 

Jesus did say,  "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28 NAS) 

This could go six ways from Sunday, but it appears there will be a hierarchy in the coming Kingdom of Messiah on the earth. 

That hierarchy has Christ first (under Father God).  Then the 12 disciples.  Then those "in Christ" (ruling "the nations").    I'm thinking "the least will be first" - meaning those who have sacrificed most will be appointed to places of authority. 

Does this support Papal succession.  No way!  

Seems we are going to get into reformation Theology, and why the Protestants were protesting against Papal authority.  

The Papacy claimed that because they seceded from Peter, they had the authority to interpret any writings in the name of Christ,  claimed to speak for Christ, added to God's law, deleted from God's law, and decreed every facet of Church organization.   One of the things they decreed was to keep the Scriptures locked away from everyone but their own hierarchy, and to keep the people poor and illiterate.  

You and I would not be discussing Papal secession, if the Papacy was still ruling.  I would not have the Scriptures, and neither (probably) would you.  Don't know.  I might be burned at the stake for my comments so far (to save my soul of course). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus bid people to obey the authorities over them (Jewish and Roman) - not to rebel.  He said, "slaves obey your masters".  He was not justifying slavery.  Though He drew a line at clear violations Torah.  This was not because the authorities over them were correct, taught truth, or were just.  It was simply because those men were in power at that time.  The LORD allows people to come under the authority of the rulers they deserve.  Israel had become "blind" to the LORD, and to justice.   He gave them the Romans and the Pharisees.  John the Baptist preached repentance.  Repentance from what - if they were so righteous? 

Jesus didn't suggest or even remotely imply that people should follow false doctrines / teachings. Jesus issues with the Pharisees was that they could relax the law but they didn't - furthermore the biggest issue was that the Pharisees generally didn't practice what they preached. Your interpretation of what Jesus said in this context would have been alien to any Jew within earshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 9/12/2019 at 7:27 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus bid people to obey the authorities over them (Jewish and Roman) - not to rebel.  He said, "slaves obey your masters".  He was not justifying slavery.  Though He drew a line at clear violations Torah.  This was not because the authorities over them were correct, taught truth, or were just.  It was simply because those men were in power at that time.  The LORD allows people to come under the authority of the rulers they deserve.  Israel had become "blind" to the LORD, and to justice.   He gave them the Romans and the Pharisees.  John the Baptist preached repentance.  Repentance from what - if they were so righteous? 

In this case it was "God ordained" the people observe whatsoever the Pharisees bid them to observe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...