Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok Mr Robycop....

List em out for us.

Every single one of them so that they can be addressed.

We need it clear, concise, and fully referenced, chapter and verse, and precisely why you think each one is a goof or a booboo.

And if possible each one separated so that it can be easily addressed in isolation.

You are making the accusations - let's see the goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  OK, let's start with "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

    First, Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".  Next, if the date of Jesus' resurrection was openly observed in Jerusalem then, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please woul;d've left off dealing with Peter to have observed it.  Next, Acts 12:3 tells us that PASSOVER was then going on. And Ezrekiel 45:21 as well as John 18:28 tells us that the whole week-long observance is called "passover". And the Greek word 'pascha' is a transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", the name GOD called passover. (Yes, I know pascha NOW can mean either passover or Easter, depending on the context, but the translation is supposed to reflect LUKE'S thoughts, not those of the translators.

   The AV makers clearly knew the difference in Easter & passover. They placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611. And they considered Easter, along with Christmas, to be one of the 2 holiest days of the year. Now, had they rendered pascha as Easter all 29 times it appears in the NT Koine Greek, we could chalk it up as an archaism, but the ONE-TIME USE can only be a goof, as there was no reason to use Easter there.

(I'll move on to another goof after this one is vetted. That's all I have time for today. Meanwhile may God bless each of you!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Come on  Mr Roby, let's get on with it.

You keep claiming goofs and booboos yet you have not given any apart from one single one that you have mentioned a couple of times which is totally wrong anyway.

List them out for us so we can address ALL THESE goofs and booboos that keep claiming.

There are apparently so many by the way you are spouting off about it.

Give us a few.

Or are you only interested in causing trouble, mis-answering direct questions, and misrepresenting what people say?

Lay it out clearly so we can answer.

And you better have a lot of them - or is it all just bluster and wind?

So far that is all we have seen - opinion based on your own brilliance, intellect, and knowledge.

Don't leave us waiting - if you have got anything, then lay it out clearly for us.

Let's leave off all this side issue stuff and get stuck right in.

I know you think you have the authority over the Word of God to pick, choose, and decide what God really means, but let's test out your so far unsubstantiated claims.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

Tyndale used Passover and Easter interchangably in his text. In fact Tyndales NT said Christ is our Easter lamb. 

The anglo saxon NT used the word Easter every place where the Greek word “Pascha” was used.

Easter is the same as Passover in Acts 12.

And no the days of unleavened bread starting does not mean it could not have been Passover.

Ezekiel 45:21 KJV
[21] In the first month , in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

I dont think William Tyndale was so stupid that he thought Christ wasn’t the passover lamb. Its clear from his translation, and the anglo saxon bible that Easter at one point in the English language was a synonym for passover. 

This rediculous idea about a Pagan holiday being called by the same Greek name in NT time as the Jewish Passover is nonsense and it makes it hard for people to take us seriously when we defend the KJV

Easter in Acts 12 is not a pagan holiday and neither is it a “goof”, It was simply a synonym for Passover in the English language at that time. 

 

According to Webster 1828

E'ASTER, n.

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

According to Smiths Bible dictionary 
 

Easter. Act 12:4. In the earlier English versions, Easter has been frequently used as the translation of pascha, (Passover). In the Authorized Version, Passover was substituted in all passages but this; and in the new Revision, Passover is used here. See Passover.

Easton:

In the early English versions this word was frequently used as the translation of the Greek pascha (the Passover). When the Authorized Version (1611) was formed, the word “passover” was used in all passages in which this word pascha occurred, except in Acts 12

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained:

Eze 45:21-23
(21)  In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
(22)  And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
(23)  And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
 

If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread.

There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days".

Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not.

That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times.

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says.

In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DaveW said:

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

 Well, actually, Sir, passover WAS ongoing when Herod busted Perer, & here's the proof, straight from your KJV:

Ezekiel 45: 21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. Remember, this is a quote of the words of GOD HIMSELF.

 And here's further proof that passover is 7 days long:

John 18: 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

  Jesus, His disciples, & the other Jews had eaten their paschal lambs the previous evening. So, the 'passover' the Jews who'd busted Jesus were hoping to eat were the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Go and study the matter of the Passover and report back.

The Passover is a single DAY, the feast of unleavened bread is SEVEN DAYS.

So who was doing the Passover wrong? Jesus or the Pharisees and the priests? Look it up and see what the Bible actually says about the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread?

Someone was doing it wrong...…… who do you reckon it might have been?

And which one aligns with the Biblical point of the Passover being a Day, and the Feast of unleavened bread being seven days that starts by the way with an "Holy Convocation" or Sabbath day, the day after the Passover, which was NOT A SABBATH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DaveW said:

Go and study the matter of the Passover and report back.

The Passover is a single DAY, the feast of unleavened bread is SEVEN DAYS.

So who was doing the Passover wrong? Jesus or the Pharisees and the priests? Look it up and see what the Bible actually says about the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread?

Someone was doing it wrong...…… who do you reckon it might have been?

And which one aligns with the Biblical point of the Passover being a Day, and the Feast of unleavened bread being seven days that starts by the way with an "Holy Convocation" or Sabbath day, the day after the Passover, which was NOT A SABBATH.

  I just quoted SCRIPTURE which proves otherwise. GOD, not man, called passover "a feast of seven days".

And, had Jesus observed passover on the wrong day, it woulda been a sin, and also the Jews woulda had their "legitimate" excuse to murder Him. Jesus observed passover at the CORRECT time, & any other time woulda been incorrect. But if the Jews thought he was observing it at the wrong time, they would have taken out His disciples also for the same "sin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In other words, you refuse to do the basic study which explains the scripture you quoted doesn't say what you think it does. And in fact I already showed the explanation, so you don't even have to do any work.

All you had to do was read two more verses, but you don't care because that would show you are wrong.

DO THE STUDY OF THE PASSOVER AND THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.

How about you move on to another so called error....... since you refuse to do the basic study required to answer this one.....

 

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, DaveW said:

Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained:

Eze 45:21-23
(21)  In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
(22)  And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
(23)  And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
 

If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread.

There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days".

Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not.

That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times.

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says.

In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Why would you so horribly and viciously misrepresent my words?

What I said about Tyndale was this:

18 hours ago, DaveW said:

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says

Not actually about Tyndale at all, and not about his intelligence or his understanding. 

This an entirely unjustified personal attack - I would expect such from certain others here, but not from you.

I know you don't have much respect for me (and I possibly have earned that lack of respect), but I thought you had a decent level of basic respect generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Leviticus differentiates passover and feast of unleavened bread: Leviticus 23: 5-8.

"On the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.  In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.  But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

This instruction clearly shows us that the Easter mentioned in Acts is not the same as Passover, as Dave has pointed out.  While I do not accept any modern versions, both the NIV and the NASB are clear as to the difference as well.

Easter has always been a pagan festival, in homage to Ishtar, the fertility goddess. It has NOTHING to do with Christ, so Tyndale got it wrong. Period. Christ is our Passover Lamb, not our fertility lamb. And before you jump on me as you did Dave, Jordan, rest assured that I don't believe Tyndale was stupid in any way. Just wrong to call Christ our Easter Lamb. Just as wrong as the modern translators who were wanting to refer to Christ as the "pig of God" because the people of Papua New Guinea didn't know what sheep were and held pigs as sacred.

There is no mistake about Easter in the KJV. "Pascha" means Easter, and is the word used in Acts. "Pesach" means Passover. Two different words, two different meanings. The feast of Eostre (Ishtar, Easter) took place around the same time as Passover. Herod was referencing Easter - the festival of Ishtar - not the resurrection of Christ nor even Passover. Herod was an Edomite. His ancestors had converted to Judaism, but that doesn't mean Herod did. By his referring to the feast of homage to Ishtar, it is clear he was a pagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ditto Jim. On my part, it has only been 21-22 years of being Kjvonly (though leaning that way for several years before I actually started doing personal research on the matter). I especially focussed on Bible difficulties - and have never found an “error” that couldn’t be reconciled in some way - whether by studying out the exact English words of the passage or by comparing related passages. And inthe same manner, have proven over and over that other versions do have errors - whether by omissions creating a contradiction or difficulty or by reading the exact wording of that verse or passage in that modern version to see there is a conflict (and not finding the same error or conflict in the Kjv).

For the record Robycop, it is one thing to prove there is an error and another thing to just say there is. Just because you disagree with how someone reconciles or explains a Bible difficulty does not prove there is actually one. You’ve already explained your issue with the word Easter in Acts 12, now list or show us the myriad other actual errors you have personally found - if in fact you have found some. I can guarantee that the believers in the authenticity of the Kjv here can defend the Kjv from all those supposed errors, and show from each passage or related passages that our King James Bible is not in error. Can you do that with your favourite modern Bible version(s)? If not, you are just creating more smokescreens and being a stumbling block to the faith of any believer following your philosophy. For someone who claims to love the Lord and His Word, that should be something that you would strive against.

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...