if you look up the greek word for blood, it could mean actual "blood" or it could mean "bloodshed".
the scriptures in acts are not quoted anywhere so nobody could really say for certain which meaning it actually has... .
also, just before it in acts, it states to abstain "from things strangled".
Gopher,
You almost had it pegged. Paul may have taken it that was at first but not years later when they threw it in his face because they meant keeping some Levitical Laws not just courtesy when they penned it. Paul then had to get rid of such thinking entirely and not just put up with it as he did for a long time.
Joseph
hi, just lil ole me with one question.
what is the importance of the book of matthew?
if this has already been discussed, please lead me to the thread so i can locate it.
Paul also brings in the work of the Holy Spirit and the support of the church community as a guide and aid to the Christian whereas Matthew seems to leave it to the individual to do this on his own, which is why many Protestant teachers dismiss Matthew.
Hmike.
Of course but we are talking about different times in history with a major event between them that made all the difference in how we were to proceed. Matthew was written while they were all still under Law which still governed even after Baptism. Paul served during the time the Law was fulfilled but still observed by many. Apostles now governed as did Our Lords teachings and commandments and not the Law. What else would we expect? But the prophetic projections were all there if we had the faith to accept them.
You said: That people should repent, turn from sin, and practice mercy is the teaching of both Matthew and Paul (and the other writers). In Matthew, however, the Law and sacrifices are not done away with because there is no other provision for dealing with sins committed after baptism. For Paul, this problem is solved by the sacrificial atoning death of Jesus as foretold of God's servant in Isaiah 53.
Sure, but baptism is not an instant cure-all anyway. It is a requirement for Christians but it is also a pickling process that includes other elements that take time to mature. This is true even for the Apostles. And it does not work for everyone. Some spoil, do not mature and are rejected. We see such ones in Paul’s letters. This is why I described three elements of baptism in one of my supplements. To dismiss verses because we do not understand them should ring off alarms right off.
There was one other thing discussed by someone here and that was Justification. It was not put in the place it really holds for us but it is a basic requirement for us just like the laying on of hands. Besides baptism that we should all have experienced, there is Justification without which second death does have authority over us. Little was revealed about something so important but it is there if we look carefully.
Joseph
hi, just lil ole me with one question.
what is the importance of the book of matthew?
if this has already been discussed, please lead me to the thread so i can locate it.
That Matthew doesn't disregard ceremonial Law, including sacrifices and tithes to the temple and priesthood, although he considers it secondary to the commands of love, is clear from a number of passages; for instance:
Narkissos,
This is because it was still running and in force. Doing otherwise would be breaking it and committing sin. You strung out many verses to show this and that is fine. But it would go away in a very short time. Remember the Law, all of it not just some of it was until John. You can also show lawkeeping outside the Gospels as attempts to keep it later in time did occur but they were shown to be false teachings that needed correction. That is what I am bringing out.
Joseph
hi, just lil ole me with one question.
what is the importance of the book of matthew?
if this has already been discussed, please lead me to the thread so i can locate it.
I notice the teaching in Matthew 5-7 is not being given to the Jews in general, but rather to disciples (5:1)
hmike,
And our Lord sent them out by two’s to teach others. Mr 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; So this is the way our Lord carried the message further. He had to start somewhere but this does not alter the information he offered to everyone on earth including these Jews He chose in the beginning.
You said: My point is that these disciples were already expressing some measure of faith in Jesus. Where John's Gospel states in words that Jesus is the Son of God, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do it by showing what he did. So Matthew does teach faith.
Indeed it does. But this does not mean that even His disciples knew everything properly. Remember in Acts after teaching them about the Kingdom for 40 more days they still asked Him: 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? They had to be corrected at that time also. Powerful men like James could still trip them up. Not even their positions as Apostles helped them grasp that the Law was fulfilled. Salvation was no longer dependent upon it. They had both Faith and Law on their side they believed. And this teaching became so imbedded it went everywhere Jews lived and Paul had to correct it. No one seems to grasp that our Lord picked Paul because he would do it where his disciples would not. It took a special person not someone like Matthias still keeping the Law in Jerusalem. No wonder nothing more was said about him. They had a lot of power in the Faith but should have realized that they could only appoint another apostle to represent themselves like some did in Antioch to Paul who also represented them. Not even an apostle could appoint another apostle for Jesus Christ. Only He could do that which He did personally.
You said: I'm curious about your understanding of Matthew 25. Do you consider the "brothers" of Jesus that the sheep help and the goats do not to be disciples, or people of the world in general?
They are the world in general living or dead, the Nations as they were identified in verse 32. Jesus did not die just for a few Jews. We know that 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So everyone living or dead was His brother. He sacrificed himself for their sins as well. As decedents of Adam they inherited the knowledge of good and evil, something we call conscience. And He could now select from them as sheep or goats, wheat or weeds based upon their use of it. This is resurrection time hmike a very big one at that which includes all the Nations and it is not limited to just a few fellow believers. Not everyone will be found in the book of life and these verses tell us why and support that as well.
Joseph
hi, just lil ole me with one question.
what is the importance of the book of matthew?
if this has already been discussed, please lead me to the thread so i can locate it.
but also that there is a moral responsibility (addressing those who had no regard for how they lived).
Hmike,
Yes, it all goes to human decency not the legal obligations of the time now ending. A good and working conscience that we should all have. This is the basis for how anyone will be saved into the Paradise the thief was also promised. And where do we find this? In Matthew Chapter 25 of course when the world of the living and dead are separated into sheep and goats. 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. This is how the Nations get in. But anyone seeking the Kingdom as a disciple has to do this and more and this does involve doctrine and how we introduce the Faith to others. Too bad for those people or religions that abuse others and do not even display such simple human traits. There are other texts that deal with them.
Joseph
hi, just lil ole me with one question.
what is the importance of the book of matthew?
if this has already been discussed, please lead me to the thread so i can locate it.
In short, my point is that much of what is specific to Matthew makes sense as a reply to Paulinism, especially in its "epistle to the Romans" form: is the Law still valid or terminated? does calling upon the name of Jesus as Lord save or is it a matter of what you do? What makes someone a child of God? On such questions "Matthew"'s stance is diametrically opposite to "Paul"'s -- this is also the case of the epistle of James but on the more limited issue of "faith vs. works" and from a different, Jewish-Hellenistic perspective.
Narkissos,
Sorry but I do not buy into this explanation that: Matthew"'s stance is diametrically opposite to "Paul"'s." Protestants can do and say whatever they want but Matthew did not disagree with Paul as you suggest. Matthew was written for Jews and did not have to elaborate for the benefit of Gentiles. So it could say: Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Now did that mean that the Law would continue as a vehicle for salvation after our Lord’s sacrifice which was when it was fulfilled? No! Italic comments or not it meant this: Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. The days of John was when the Law would end. Not a precise date but a very precise generation marked by John in time. This is the same thing Paul was teaching. And all this business of works. The word meant different things to Jews and Gentiles. Jews took it as works of Law, sacrifices, cleanliness, vows, legal requirements written into the texts of Moses. This would no longer save them and was no longer required for salvation. Gentiles took it as their efforts in propagating the faith. Such works were of course a natural feature of such Faith and were of course required for salvation. Protestants get tangled in the contextual use of such words as did Jews back then and we may see many views offered but this does not mean as you say that: "Matthew makes sense as a reply to Paulinism, especially in its "epistle to the Romans" form: is the Law still valid or terminated?" What it does mean is: Mt 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. This is because Christian Jews still did not all get it right and it pit them against each other which would take many years, in fact nearly all the years covered by all the NT texts to resolve. By the time John wrote it was still a crisis to the point that John called such teaching antichrist.
Matthew recorded that Jesus had a view of works that went like this: Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. And with these Paul agreed for he said: 1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. This is why when Paul used "works" the more contextually driven word you see his writings turn negative because he usually meant works of Law and would say things like this: Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; His target was the Jewish Christian in Rome because they were still keeping this Law. He did this elsewhere as well such as: Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. And finally when James gave in and repented we see him now say: Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. And so that we are sure what he now means: Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James changed his teachings over what we find in Acts chapter 15 and 21 and we can see it here in his letter to Jews scattered about. He targeted them for this reason. That this has caused a lot of confusion over the years leading to wrong conclusions is no surprise. But Matthew supports what Paul taught and disagrees with what Jewish Christians including some Apostles were doing for many years afterwards.
Joseph
the early days....... i don't claim to be a rutherford expert, but i was doing some thinking the other day about this man and the impact he has had on millions for decades.
what started out as something a little whacky, but more people freindly by c.t.
russell, was harmless enough.
Tyrone,
Just saw your post about Rutherford and how the WTS developed.. Wonderful and I agree with all of it. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. There were also many scams like the Watchtower Farms were people's life savings were stolen from them and the thieves became wheels in that system instead of being arrested for fraud. It is disgusting from beginning to end.
Joseph
the wts denies the bodily resurrection of christ.
here is a verse i have found which , to my way of thinking, adds weight to the bodily resurrection.
read john 20:6,7.did you notice that the face cloth,napkin or shroud from jesus burial garments was folded up and was lying seperate from the rest of the bandages or linen strips.if ,as the wts teaches,god had simply evaporated jesus body in some way then surely all the bandages would be lying in the same place,the place where jesus body lay.i visualize the scripture this way.jesus body is restored to life.he sits up and undoes the bandages from around his head.he then lays these to one side,stands up and divests himself of the other linen cloths.i may be way off with this but it seems to fit with other scriptures relating to the bodily resurrection.
16But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
confused and lost,
Well it looks like you are not as confused or lost as you pretend. It was not a difference in Jesus human body but a fault in the disciples own recognition capabilities that cause the problem. His clothing alone could account for this since something like a simple hood would account for it. But other texts show that Jesus could conceal himself in a hostile crowd and get away. So the WTS proofs that He was not human anymore shows that they cannot even read much less interpret the texts for you.
Joseph
the wts denies the bodily resurrection of christ.
here is a verse i have found which , to my way of thinking, adds weight to the bodily resurrection.
read john 20:6,7.did you notice that the face cloth,napkin or shroud from jesus burial garments was folded up and was lying seperate from the rest of the bandages or linen strips.if ,as the wts teaches,god had simply evaporated jesus body in some way then surely all the bandages would be lying in the same place,the place where jesus body lay.i visualize the scripture this way.jesus body is restored to life.he sits up and undoes the bandages from around his head.he then lays these to one side,stands up and divests himself of the other linen cloths.i may be way off with this but it seems to fit with other scriptures relating to the bodily resurrection.
VoidEater,
Yes, and taking back this body had no effect of the sacrifice performed by it. History was not changed. And God himself made this known to Jesus so that John could record: Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. That glory was that of the Word that created us at our beginning and gave Adam life. So raising the dead body in the tomb was not a problem for Him. And not just permission but a commandment to do this was also granted before this sacrifice for John also recorded. John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. So what does this mean? That Jesus now had both the nature of the Word and the nature of an immortal man and we could now refer to him either way. We see both natures referred to in scripture later. This human body would be used for 40 more days and will be used again in the Kingdom of God here on earth Acts 1:11. So their is good reason to understand this properly. How can anyone claim to preach the good news of the Kingdom if they cannot understand something so simple? Perhaps some never have despite claims they are the only ones doing it?
Joseph
the wts denies the bodily resurrection of christ.
here is a verse i have found which , to my way of thinking, adds weight to the bodily resurrection.
read john 20:6,7.did you notice that the face cloth,napkin or shroud from jesus burial garments was folded up and was lying seperate from the rest of the bandages or linen strips.if ,as the wts teaches,god had simply evaporated jesus body in some way then surely all the bandages would be lying in the same place,the place where jesus body lay.i visualize the scripture this way.jesus body is restored to life.he sits up and undoes the bandages from around his head.he then lays these to one side,stands up and divests himself of the other linen cloths.i may be way off with this but it seems to fit with other scriptures relating to the bodily resurrection.
confused and lost,
Of course Jesus body was resurrected as you surmised. And He raised it himself just like He promised. This has stumped a lot of people including the WTS and their teaching was identified by John as Antichrist. The Apostles had the same problem for a while. When Greg Stafford wrote a chapter on this in his first book I put together an article to refute it and put it on my web page. So keep up your study and I expect you to find hundreds of false teaching the WTS engages in not just this one.
Joseph
