Difficult Questions we are asked about faith and practice.

[8thdaypriest]

I will start with "praying to saints."

"What's wrong with praying to the saints?"

A Catholic physician asked me this one.

"Don't you ask others to pray for you?

Why can't we ask the saints in heaven?"

"Because they're dead," I replied.

"God absolutely forbade living human beings, trying to communicate in ANY WAY with the dead. It was a death penalty offense."

He thought I was going to launch into a state-of-the-dead study. My short reply caught him short.

I would like to hear others short and to the point replies to difficult questions from others.

How about "baptism for the dead" (1 Cor. 15:29)?

[Gail]

Well done, 8thday!

[8thdaypriest]

I Corinthians 15:29 BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

"Otherwise what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?

The disciples were baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Romans 6:3, Gal 3:27). If HE was still dead - THAT would be baptizing for a man who was dead = baptizing for the dead.

The argument Paul is making here is that Christ HAS RISEN from the dead. If HE has not risen then your faith is futile (verse 16-17). Baptism in His name would be useless.

NOTE: Interesting that they were NOT baptizing in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That came in with the Byzantine translation authorized by Constantine. There are two Greek manuscripts of Matthew that are older than the Byzantine, but the last page of Matthew is torn out of both of them. There is an Aramaic manuscript that is older than the Byzantine. Matthew 28:19 in THAT manuscript has Christ saying "baptizing them in my name."

OK - come on - I know some of you have good answers to some difficult passages.

[JoeMo]

A couple of the most difficult passages I have faced are Hebrews 6: 4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29. These verses have historically scared me more than any other NT verses; because they have been preached to as proofs that sinning after baptism gets your name blotted out of the Book of Life. I have since come to look at these verses as a blessing. Before I "tip my hand" (some of you already know where I stand), what thinkest thou?

[Ron Amnsn]

Rachel,

I agree with your explanation of baptizing for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

I posted this explanation a while back on another thread:

Quote:

Starting in verse 12 Paul is countering what some were saying-- that there is no resurrection of the dead:

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:12-20)

Then in verses 21-28 Paul goes into a parenthetical discussion of how death is abolished by Messiah as the first fruits.

In verse 29 Paul resumes the main discussion of the hopelessness of our condition if Messiah was not raised from the dead. The "otherwise" is referring back to his statement in verse 20. Paul's argument goes something like this, "[v20] But now Christ has been raised from the dead ... [v29] otherwise Christ himself is still among the dead and what will those do who are baptized for Christ if he is among the dead?".

In other words, "What's the point of being baptized into Christ, if there was no resurrection and Christ is still among the dead?"

Your observations about baptizing in Jesus name are interesting.

And your answer in the 1st post regarding praying to the saints is very good.

[cmoura23]

Wow, these are great to look over and ponder! Please keep sharing!

[Johann]

Wow, these are great to look over and ponder! Please keep sharing!

And a good start. Keep posting!

[8thdaypriest]

A couple of the most difficult passages I have faced are Hebrews 6: 4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29. These verses have historically scared me more than any other NT verses; because they have been preached to as proofs that sinning after baptism gets your name blotted out of the Book of Life. I have since come to look at these verses as a blessing. Before I "tip my hand" (some of you already know where I stand), what thinkest thou?

I think of David. He had kidnapped Bathsheba, raped her, and then murdered her husband. All because he, as an Eastern potentate, could get away with that. David KNEW that he was committing rebellious sin. He KNEW the will of God. This wasn't a little slip-up. He KNEW that the sin offering was for unintentional sin, or a sin of ignorance - NOT a willful, rebellious sin.

Why do you think he spent a week on his face, without food - before the LORD.

If DAVID could be forgiven - then so can I. But it will take MORE than just a simple "I'm sorry."

I like the way the Jews understand sin. They point out, correctly I think - that all sin is not equal in God's eyes.

There are sins of ignorance. You didn't understand that it was wrong.

Those are covered by the daily.

There is sin called "missing the mark."

You were trying. You were aiming at the mark. But you missed.

You slipped and fell.

Then there is what I call "sin with attitude."

You KNOW what God has forbidden, but you DON'T CARE.

For us - as Christians today - most of our sin falls in the "missing the mark" catagory. What I will to do - that I do not do, and what I will not to do, that I end up doing.

Shalom

prophecyviewpoint.com

[8thdaypriest]

OK - Joemo - I want to hear your exposition.

Just remember we are dealing with SHORT ANSWERS here. lol

[8thdaypriest]

KJV Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph 2:14 KJV)

"Who has made both one" -

"has made" is in the aorist tense which means, HE (Christ) is making both one. It is not an accomplished fact - yet, but the process has begun.

abolished ... "law" contained in the ordinances

SO AS (for this purpose) - to make one (Israel),

from two (Jew and Gentile)

The LAW (singular) which was abolished was the commandment forbidding Israelites (circumcised) to enter into any covenant or agreement with Gentiles (uncircumcised).

THAT is the "LAW" here - not the 10 commandments, not the Feasts ... Put this in context. Paul is arguing for the inclusion of Gentiles (with the "wrong" DNA) as Israelites.

The law which excluded Gentiles from association with Israelites IS “the enmity.” It literally became a dividing “wall” - forbidding Gentiles entrance into the Temple courtyard.

In this passage Paul is only speaking of the "law" (singular)-(contained in the ordinances of Moses) which forbade association with uncircumcised Gentiles (Exo. 23:32, 34:12; Deut. 7:2-3, Ezra 9:12; Neh. 13:25; John 4:9, 18:28).

We Christians today CANNOT understand what a BIG DEAL it was to admit uncircumcised Gentiles to ISRAEL - To consider them legally adopted by God, as sons of Abraham. It would be like admitting a Jew to the Dome on the Mount, because some prophet says that now we are all brothers.

OK - this was not a short answer - but I think this is a tricky verse to understand.

I have a study at my website, which looks at all of the different meanings of the name "Israel."

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[joeb]

KJV Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph 2:14 KJV)

"Who has made both one" -

"has made" is in the aorist tense which means, HE (Christ) is making both one. It is not an accomplished fact - yet, but the process has begun.

abolished ... "law" contained in the ordinances

SO AS (for this purpose) - to make one (Israel),

from two (Jew and Gentile)

The LAW (singular) which was abolished was the commandment forbidding Israelites (circumcised) to enter into any covenant or agreement with Gentiles (uncircumcised).

THAT is the "LAW" here - not the 10 commandments, not the Feasts ... Put this in context. Paul is arguing for the inclusion of Gentiles (with the "wrong" DNA) as Israelites.

The law which excluded Gentiles from association with Israelites IS “the enmity.” It literally became a dividing “wall” - forbidding Gentiles entrance into the Temple courtyard.

In this passage Paul is only speaking of the "law" (singular)-(contained in the ordinances of Moses) which forbade association with uncircumcised Gentiles (Exo. 23:32, 34:12; Deut. 7:2-3, Ezra 9:12; Neh. 13:25; John 4:9, 18:28).

We Christians today CANNOT understand what a BIG DEAL it was to admit uncircumcised Gentiles to ISRAEL - To consider them legally adopted by God, as sons of Abraham. It would be like admitting a Jew to the Dome on the Mount, because some prophet says that now we are all brothers.

OK - this was not a short answer - but I think this is a tricky verse to understand.

I have a study at my website, which looks at all of the different meanings of the name "Israel."

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[JoeMo]

Quote:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (Heb. 6:4-6)

Quote:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

These verses have been used for centuries among many denominations as a tactic to scare people into submission to to religious dogma. I have heard it preached this way more times than I care to remember.

One day, I heard a "different" message on these verses where the entire book of Hebrews was addressed in context. If one reads the entire Bokk of Hebrews, the theme of the book appears to be the completeness and unlimited superiority of Christ's sacrifice - the New Covenant - over the old legal and sacrificial system - the Old Covenant. The writer even goes so far as to call the Old Covenant "obsolete" (See Hebrews 8:7-13)

Taking them into context,I see these verses now as a warning against doubting the complete sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for obtaining forgiveness for our sins, procuring our salvation, and reconciling us to God. They warn us that if we return to the Old Covenant - if we don't believe that His death once and for all paid the penalty for all sin (past present, and future), we are crucifying Jesus all over again and holding Him up for public shame as "not good enough". There is no other sacrifice for sin. If you don't think Jesus did it all; if you truly believe that you can (and must) do something in addition to what Jesus has aleady done to procure your salvation,, you got nothing to look forward to except burning.

Not that short of an answer - sorry!

[Ron Amnsn]

The writer even goes so far as to call the Old Covenant "obsolete" (See Hebrews 8:7-13)

Be careful of some of the English translations of Scripture. They go so far as to alter what was written in Hebrews 8:13 to make it match their own theology.

The word "covenant" does not appear in the verse at all-- it was added by the translators.

The word translated as "obsolete" is not equivalent to the English word obsolete. It means "be made old". The author of Hebrews used that same word in Hebrews 1:11 (from Isaiah 51:6) to describe the foundations of the earth, which are not obsolete but are still vital to our existence today.

The apostles were expecting an imminent end to the world.

1 Cor 7:31 "For the present form of this world is passing away."

1 John 2:17 "And the world is passing away ..."

Notice that in the last sentence of Hebrews 8:13, the author of Hebrews makes it clear that at the time he was writing (several decades after the death of Jesus) whatever was "growing old" had not yet disappeared at that time. It was "ready to disappear" or "near destruction", but would not actually reach that state until sometime in the future. According to the TDNT, the word translated as "ready" or "near" is primarily spacial, indicating proximity of location, but also indicates the imminency of judgment and the coming of the new world.

Joe, if Paul had arrived in Berea preaching the doctrine that you have derived from this passage, which Old Testament passages could the noble Bereans have found by searching the Scriptures in their synagogue to verify that the doctrine you are teaching was true? They would have easily found lots of Scripture passages that directly contradict your doctrine, which would have caused the Bereans to reject the teacher of such a doctrine as a false teacher. That in itself makes it evident that you are teaching something different than what Paul was teaching.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

The writer even goes so far as to call the Old Covenant "obsolete" (See Hebrews 8:7-13)

Be careful of some of the English translations of Scripture. They go so far as to alter what was written in Hebrews 8:13 to make it match their own theology.

The word "covenant" does not appear in the verse at all-- it was added by the translators.

The word translated as "obsolete" is not equivalent to the English word obsolete. It means "be made old". The author of Hebrews used that same word in Hebrews 1:11 (from Isaiah 51:6) to describe the foundations of the earth, which are not obsolete but are still vital to our existence today.

The apostles were expecting an imminent end to the world.

1 Cor 7:31 "For the present form of this world is passing away."

1 John 2:17 "And the world is passing away ..."

Notice that in the last sentence of Hebrews 8:13, the author of Hebrews makes it clear that at the time he was writing (several decades after the death of Jesus) whatever was "growing old" had not yet disappeared at that time. It was "ready to disappear" or "near destruction", but would not actually reach that state until sometime in the future. According to the TDNT, the word translated as "ready" or "near" is primarily spacial, indicating proximity of location, but also indicates the imminency of judgment and the coming of the new world.

Joe, if Paul had arrived in Berea preaching the doctrine that you have derived from this passage, which Old Testament passages could the noble Bereans have found by searching the Scriptures in their synagogue to verify that the doctrine you are teaching was true? They would have easily found lots of Scripture passages that directly contradict your doctrine, which would have caused the Bereans to reject the teacher of such a doctrine as a false teacher. That in itself makes it evident that you are teaching something different than what Paul was teaching.

Ron,

According to you.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Joe, if Paul had arrived in Berea preaching the doctrine that you have derived from this passage, which Old Testament passages could the noble Bereans have found by searching the Scriptures in their synagogue to verify that the doctrine you are teaching was true? They would have easily found lots of Scripture passages that directly contradict your doctrine

Hey Ron,

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the Bereans would have had a hard time finding OT Scriptures to back up my OPINION (not doctrine) because the OT was the only "scripture" around then; and the OT only contained Old Covenant stuff. The Bereans couldn't have backed up half the stuff Paul taught; cuz Paul taught a lot of New Covenant thought.

Please don't look at those verses in isolation; look at them in tontext with the rest of the Book of Hebrews, and compare it with Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians.

Just for clarity, are you saying that you agree with the fire and brimstone interpretation of these verses - i.e., that any sin committed with malice and forethought after baptism earns you a "Go Directly to Hell" card?

[Ron Amnsn]

Taking them into context,I see these verses now as a warning against doubting the complete sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for obtaining forgiveness for our sins, procuring our salvation, and reconciling us to God.

I think the piece of the context that you may have missed is that we are told the Hebrew believers in Jesus were "all zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:21). There isn't anything in the book of Hebrews that would even begin to convince a person who is zealous for the Law that God's Law of Moses has somehow morphed from being beneficial and a source of blessing (as Scripture consistently describes it) into something that is detrimental and brings evil.

God's Law describes the character of Jesus and describes His already accomplished righteousness. Isn't that the righteousness that is bestowed upon His people? If we reject the righteousness of Jesus, what happens?

[Ron Amnsn]

Just for clarity, are you saying that you agree with the fire and brimstone interpretation of these verses - i.e., that any sin committed with malice and forethought after baptism earns you a "Go Directly to Hell" card?

No. I don't see baptism mentioned or alluded to in those verses.

[Ron Amnsn]

The Bereans couldn't have backed up half the stuff Paul taught; cuz Paul taught a lot of New Covenant thought.

That depends on your interpretation of what you read in Paul's writings.

If you imagine Paul to be a "proto-Protestant" teaching those traditional Christian interpretations that have been handed down to us from the Roman church, then you'll imagine that the Bereans would have trouble confirming Paul's gospel in the Old Testament.

But if you recognize that Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews" and you interpret Paul's writings within the parameters that Paul himself gives us, then it becomes apparent that the Bereans would be able to confirm all of Paul's gospel from the Old Testament Scriptures.

Paul himself testified of his beliefs, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14 NIV). And of his decades-long ministry, Paul tells us, "I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;" (Acts 26:22)

The problem is that historically people have interpreted Paul's writings outside of those parameters. Because they do not value God's Law themselves, people have interpreted Paul's writings as if Paul believed things that are contrary to the sections of Scripture known as "the Law" and "the Prophets". And they have interpreted Paul's writings as if Paul was teaching many things that neither Moses nor the Prophets said were going to take place (such as God's Law of Moses becoming obsolete).

The traditional Christian interpretations of Paul's writings are so old that people have come to believe that those interpretations are what Paul actually wrote. But the traditional interpretations make Paul's teachings convoluted and self-contradictory as well as contradicting the Scriptures that existed in his day. There are other interpretations of Paul's writings, however, which are consistent with what Paul tells us about himself and consistent with the Old Testament.

By the way, the New Covenant is from the Old Testament and agrees with the Old Testament.

[8thdaypriest]

Ok guys! We were talking about the "handwriting of ordinances" which separated circumcised Israelites, from uncircumcised Gentile NON-Israelites.

IN THE CONTEXT of Ephesian 2:15. THAT context is the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles (now believers in Yeshua) in the "commonwealth of Israel." They are legally adopted by the Father AS Israelites, so now the dividing wall, the law prohibiting any covenant or relationship with Gentiles is "abolished in His flesh."

Repentance (of ones old pagan ways) and baptism (a symbol of the trial by water) is the procedure for legal adoption. This fits with the ancient symbolism throughout the Middle East.

But if you want me to comment on what I believe HAS been changed,

Here goes:

I believe the LAW written on stones (The 10 Commandments = The Covenant)

WAS "a ministry of death" BECAUSE human beings cannot keep it - not perfectly.

6000 years of striving have taught us THAT.

Christ promised a New Covenant - whereby - He promised to write His LAW - yes - that very same law - on our new hearts.

You see - my perfection is HIS work - NOT mine. I do NOT even worry about being perfect. My Savior has promised that perfection for me - and I claim it. But it is a process - and will not be complete until The 8th Day, when we are "returned to the land." (See Ezekiel 36) The transformation is a process. There is NO EASY BUTTON - no instant fix.

He has "annulled" the system of animal sacrifices BECAUSE they didn't work to change the heart. They only pointed forward to HIM.

If we go back to the sacrifice of animals we are saying that the death of Christ was not sufficient to pay for all sins, for all time.

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[JoeMo]

Nice 8DP! I pretty much agree with you! Again, I'm not saying that I (or Paul) have thrown the 10 Commandements out of the church. I simply believe that good works and compliance with the law come as a RESULT of salvation through Christ's all sufficient sacrifice and our faith in it - not as a PREREQUISITE for salvation.

[Ron Amnsn]

8thday,

I've been studying these save verses from Ephesians in the last week or so and have come to a different conclusion than you have.

Gentiles, aka "strangers", were allowed to participate in the feasts from the very beginning. They just had to accept the covenant relationship with God as the prerequisite to their participation. Was that an arbitrary requirement because they were Gentiles? Absolutely not. Since the feasts pointed forward to the Messiah who was to come the Gentiles had to show that they believed in the Messiah and wanted that covenant relationship with God. The Isrealites were required to do the same thing. If they we're circumcised they couldn't participate either. They were considered to outside a covenant relationship with God too.

Quote:

Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

That is correct, JoeB. Gentiles who join themselves with Israel have always been included in the covenants. The mixed-multitude stood at Sinai and entered into the covenant along with the descendants of Jacob. Abraham circumcised his servants (not descendants of Abraham) as well as his own son when he entered into God's covenant.

There is no law in Torah that creates enmity between Gentiles and Jews. The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" is talking about man-made "commandments" masquerading as if they were God's commandments. The word translated as "ordinances" is dogmasin a form of the Greek word dogma. Although the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) speaks hundreds of times about God's laws, commands, statutes, judgments, and instructions, not once is any of God's laws or any of God's instructions referred to as dogma or dogmasin (or any other form of the word dogma). When the Septuagint uses the word dogma (in any form) it always refers to man-made decrees. The Septuagint was the Scriptures used by Greek-speaking people when the New Testament was being written. If Paul wanted to refer to any of God's commands in Ephesians 2:15 or in Colossians 2:14 he would have used one of the many Greek words that are used in the Septuagint to refer to God's laws and instructions. Instead Paul used a word that was never used in the Greek Scriptures to refer to anything that God commanded.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ok guys! We were talking about the "handwriting of ordinances" which separated circumcised Israelites, from uncircumcised Gentile NON-Israelites.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but where were we talking about "handwriting of ordinances" in this thread?

"Handwriting of ordinances" is found in Colossians 2:14 where it refers to a man-made document that was nailed to the cross listing the accusation against the condemned person. The word "ordinances" is translated from the Greek word dogmansin, which is never used in the Greek Scriptures (the Septuagint) to refer to anything that God commanded or instructed.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

The word translated as "ordinances" is dogmasin a form of the Greek word dogma... When the Septuagint uses the word dogma (in any form) it always refers to man-made decrees... If Paul wanted to refer to any of God's commands in Ephesians 2:15 or in Colossians 2:14 he would have used one of the many Greek words that are used in the Septuagint to refer to God's laws and instructions. Instead Paul used a word that was never used in the Greek Scriptures to refer to anything that God commanded.

Wow Ron, I never knew that! Very interesting information. Of course, I'll check it out before I "buy" into it.

[Ron Amnsn]

But if you want me to comment on what I believe HAS been changed,

Here goes:

I believe the LAW written on stones (The 10 Commandments = The Covenant) WAS "a ministry of death" BECAUSE human beings cannot keep it - not perfectly. 6000 years of striving have taught us THAT.

Christ promised a New Covenant - whereby - He promised to write His LAW - yes - that very same law - on our new hearts.

The Law of God has two purposes or "ministries".

After Moses had reviewed the Law with the Israelites he said:

"See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;" (Deut 30:15)

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants," (Deut 30:19)

The Law's "ministry of death" is what happens if the Law remains written only on stone. Life is what happens when it becomes written on our hearts.

Both "ministries" are good and necessary functions of the Law.

[Ron Amnsn]

He has "annulled" the system of animal sacrifices BECAUSE they didn't work to change the heart. They only pointed forward to HIM.

If we go back to the sacrifice of animals we are saying that the death of Christ was not sufficient to pay for all sins, for all time.

Where is this stated in Scripture? This appears to be only a man-made doctrine that contradicts the record of the New Testament.

The followers of Jesus in the New Testament never abandoned the sacrifice of animals, so how could they have taught anything about the significance of going "back" to the sacrifice of animals, a practice that they had never abandoned?

If Paul had arrived in Berea teaching that sacrificing animals according to God's instructions had somehow become an evil thing to do, which Old Testament passages would the noble Bereans have been able to find to confirm such a teaching in their daily search of the Scriptures at the synagogue?

Where do Moses or the Prophets foretell that sacrificing animals according to God's instructions would become an insult to Messiah? Paul testified that he was teaching only what was foretold by Moses and the Prophets concerning Messiah (Acts 26:22-23).