| Author | Message | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 460 Registered: 3-2001 |
I have been reading the Purpose Driven Life, by Rick Warren. I highly recommend the book. Originally, I started reading it following the 40 Days of Purpose format, but have resorted to reading it as time permits. I am currently on the section concerning the church. He makes a comment that typifies the general tone of the chapter. He says:
Initially, I thought he was speaking of the corporate body of CHrist, but as I read on, I realized he was specifically speaking of the local church. Essentially, he was saying that people should "bloom where they are planted." While I agree with his sentiments in principle, it seems that they are a little overbroad. For example, in the same chapter, he says:
As I read this chapter, I could not help but reflect on my experience in the SDA Church. To follow Warren's advice, I should have remained in a place where I was dying spiritually for the sake of unity. He implies that one should not be concerned with the difference between healthy and unhealthy churches. Is he really adovacting that one should stay in a legalist fellowship? The book is such an excellent read, that I find this advice somewhat disconcerning. Has anyone else read the book? Did you interpret his position on Church fellowship differently? For the record, I am not questioning my decision to leave. It was the best decision I made in my life. I just found his advice to be somewhat naive, dangerous, and maybe even a little self-serving (spoken from the perspective of a Pastor, and not from the perspective of a member, who may not have the ability to effect change). I am interested in other's thoughts on the book in general, and this topic specifically. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 206 Registered: 7-2003 |
Doug, I had some of the same thoughts and reactions as you when I read this section in Purpose Driven Life. However, after contemplating it, I think his sentiments are best applied to those congregatons that are within the pale of orthodoxy and who strive (however imperfectly) to have Christ as the center and object of their faith. In other words, I think Warren is advising against endless "church hopping". Always trying to find the "perfect" church full of "perfect" pople with "perfect" doctrine in even the most minute points of theology. As a former SDA I sometimes suffer from the feeling that I need to find the "one true church". For many years I thought I was in it, now that I know I was deceived, I sometimes find myself still feeling like there must be a perfect church out there somewhere (even though intellectually I know this isn't true). If my pastor says something in a sermon that I have a slightly different take on, I find myself getting very critical and wondering if I should try to find a church that perfectly matches my theology in all aspects (this is a ridiculous notion of course, but it's a lingering remnant of my Adventist life when we all knew exactly what we were supposed to believe on any given point). I can't imagine that Warren would ever say, "If you're a Mormon, stay a Mormon. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, stay a JW. If you're a SDA, stay a SDA". Having also read his book purpose driven church, I think we would advise such individuals to come out of the cult, find a church that strives to meet the purposes of God's church in this world, then work within that church to help it grow in those purposes. It will never be perfect because the humans that make it up are not perfect, but it can grow ever closer to the ideal. Chris | ||
| Terryk Registered user Username: Terryk Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2002 |
Chris I tend to look at it just the opposite that now I know and do not expect there to be a perfect church pastor or congragation. I just did not want to read that book it just again would have put me on another guilt trip about what I should or should not be doing for the Lord. I know that that may not be the case I just have this thing in me after leaving the SDA church I want no one telling me what or what not to do. I think and this is how I feel which does not mean anyone else here feels this way and I never take anyones feelings and disgaurd them. But for me I just can not seem to get past this. I love going to church and I still study and want God to show me about him but I no longer feel the need to have a church interpret the Bible for me or my christian experience. Its funny people look at me now and probably think I am not a christian. We have these ideas in our heads. I experience this with the regular churches also they have their little groups and do not venture out of it. I no longer want to be in that little bubble I want to experiecne the people of the world and show them that you can have fun and love the Lord with all your heart. Since I left the true church I have had such great life experiences with many people who I would have not have met if I had stayed in the true church. I guess I will stop my ramblings now. Sorry thanks for listening. Love you all Terry | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 207 Registered: 7-2003 |
TerryK, just for the record, I haven't found 40 Days of Purpose or the book Purpose Driven Life to be abouth telling people what they ought to be doing. Rather, the idea is to lead people into the kind of relationship with God where you desire to be involved in whatever He is doing. The ultimate purpose we are here for is to be involved in the work of God. God may have different purposes for individuals or for indiviudal congregations, but we will find the greatest joy, happiness, and fulfillment when we are aware of and engaged in His purpose for us. That's what I take away from this material. I liked Purpose Driven, but there is another older study that probably had a greater impact on my life. I highly recommend Henery Blackaby's study guide/worbook (especially if you go through it in a group) "Experiencing God". In some ways the message is much the same. It's a study designed to help you become intimate with the Lord, listen for His invitation to join Him in His work, and then be involved in the work He is inviting you to be a part of. I just really liked how Experiencing God drew you into the study in such a personal and worshipful way. It's the study that led my Pastor to start CrossBridge Christian church and it's what led me to seek him out and become involved in the startup. It truly was a life changing experience, but not one that was ever constrictive, prescriptive, or restrictive. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2003 |
I believe Warren's comments about the church only apply to churches within the pale of orthodoxy. I'd also step a little farther out on the limb to say that I'd probably not stay in a church that didn't honor the Bible as the inerrant word of God. While I know that there are actually several denominations whose creeds I agree with as stated, those creeds are general enough to allow practices that I consider unscriptural (i.e. ordaining gay bishops, etc.). If I found myself in such a local church, I'd leave to find one whose practices and beliefs were scripturally supported. I find myself with the same frustration you expressed, Doug, because I've heard those very arguments used to defend Adventism. Yes, we should work for change from within--provided we are in an organization founded on Jesus and his gospel of grace, not on the slightly skewed theology endorsed by a false prophet. Many people see Adventism as part of the body of Christ because it proclaims Jesus as Lord and salvation by grace through faith. They are blinded to the reality that a false prophet lies under all its doctrines, and the doctrines themselves are NOT taught inside the church the same way they are taught in true Christian churches. We cannot hope to effect deep, large-scale change in a church which is bound by a cleverly disguised spirit of deception. I am again struck by the image of deception placing itself in front of the real thing so it assumes the shape, size, and appearance of the real thing, but inside it is a lie. Many people are deceived--both inside and outside the church--by Adventist deception because it looks and sounds almost exactly like the "real thing"--until one looks deeply at it. Remember that Jesus said that the great deception at the end of the age would be so effective that "if it were possible" the very elect would be deceived? Adventism (while it's not the great deception!) is certainly one of religion's most effective deceptions. Speaking of people not understanding Adventism, Richard and I would appreciate your prayers for us; we've been asked to talk to a Baptist prayer meeting re: Adventism next week. Thanks! Colleen | ||
| Terryk Registered user Username: Terryk Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2002 |
I will be praying for that. I feel it is so important that people know the truth that the church teaches. Thank you and Richard for your ministry you have really helped me. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 492 Registered: 11-2002 |
I stopped at the church earlier today on my way over here and the minister gave me a copy of this book. Seems the congreation is doing the 40 day format of studies during the 40 days of Lent. Then st the Wednesday Vespers service we are to have a discussion of the previous weeks readings. I'm looking forward to getting home and starting on this book. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2000 |
OUR IDENTITY IN CHRIST Remember the unsettling days when our identity was largely submerged in Adventism? I am currently reading an excellent book entitled, "A CLOSER LOOK AT YOUR IDENTITY IN CHRIST" by Bob George. I will share a few snackbars for your soul as follows: "We determine our identity through appearance, occupation, abilities, family relationships, friends, denominational affiliation--the list is endless. Identity, however, is a spiritual need. Who we truly are is determined by our relationship to Jesus Christ. When we are identified with Him, we have an identity that cannot be shaken or taken away. When you become a child of God, the Bible says you have become a brand new creation--like a caterpillar becomes a beautiful butterfly (see 2 Cor. 5:17). In nature, the caterpillar weaves a cocoon around itself, and in the cocoon the marvelous process of metamorphosis takes place. When this process is complete, a beautiful butterfly emerges. This butterfly is a new creature; it will never be a caterpillar again. In the same way, we have become new creatures in Christ; we will never be old sinners again. And as new creatures in Christ, we must learn to see ourselves as God sees us. You would never look at a butterfly and say, "Look at that good-looking converted caterpillar." Why? Because now it is a new creature, and you don't think of a butterfly in terms of what it once was. Even though we were sinners, that is not our identity today...The Corinthians were guilty of sexual sins, getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, and pride. Yet, with all this going on, God, through Paul, called the Corinthian believers saints. Did their behavior change their identity from God's vantage point? "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (Ephesians 5:8)." A good paraphrase of this verse is, "You once were a caterpillar, but now you are a butterfly. Fly like a butterfly!" It just makes sense for a butterfly to fly. In the same way, as children of God, saints by calling, it just makes sense for us to live in accordance with who we are. When we do sin, however, God reasons with us based on our identity. It's as if He holds a mirror over us and says, "Look up here. What do you see?" "A butterfly, Lord." "Since you are a butterfly, why are you crawling around with the caterpillars?" "I don't know, Lord. It doesn't make sense, does it?" "No, it doesn't. Why don't you get up and fly like a butterfly?" The butterfly can fly because through the process of metamorphosis, God equipped the butterfly with wings. It wouldn't make any sense to tell the butterfly to fly if it didn't have wings. In the same way, it would be foolish to tell us to live a life worthy of our calling if we had not been given the Holy Spirit to enable us to do so. We have been made into a new creation, but what is it that makes us new? You truly are a new creature in Christ. Through spiritual birth God has transformed you into a saint. You may act like an old sinner saved by grace, but that is not your identity. If you have been crawling around with the caterpillars, you need to realize that you are a butterfly. Get up and fly! God has something better for you than crawling around with the caterpillars. It is called the abundant life. With Christ living in you, you can experience everything God created you to be as a new creature in Christ. As children of God, we have been redeemed. To redeem means to buy back and then set free. We were born into this world in bondage to the law of sin and death. God purchased us out of this bondage through the death of His Son. that was the price the law demanded. Now we belong to God. He did not purchase us, however, to make us slaves again. He purchased us so we could receive the full rights of sons. To be sanctified means to be set apart or to be made holy. As a child of God, you have been made holy by the blood of Jesus. Holiness is not something we can attain by our good works. Like salvation, holiness is a free gift that is given to all who put their faith in Christ Jesus. To be justified means to be made right with God. Our identity before coming to Christ was that of a sinner. As it says in Ephesians 2:3, "We were by nature objects of wrath." Having been born in sin, we were cut off from the life of God. However, through his death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have been brought back into a right relationship with God. Because Jesus took all of our sin and gave us His righteousness, we stand justified before God. Once we have been placed into Christ, our citizenship is no longer in this world...We have an incredible identity in Christ. To be a child of God is an identity given to us by His grace, and it more wonderful than we could ever imagine. Knowing who you are in Christ enables you to know that you are totally loved and accepted by God. Don't settle for anything less! And don't allow Satan or the world to tell you that you are something other than a child of God. It is an indentity based on His absolute truth, and you can rest assured that it will never change." It is my prayer that these thoughts from Bob George will also be a blessing to you. By the way, his book titled, "Classic Christianity", also belongs in your personal library. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 127 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, thank you for sharing those ideas from the new George book. I haven't seen it yet, but I agree: he is a great author who express spiritual reality really clearly. The whole question of identity in Christ has been on my mind a lot the past year or so. Since our Friday group began studying Romans (we're just entering chapter 7--we're really going slowly!), the issue of who we are has seemed more and more significant and central to our walk with Jesus. It's hard to explain the whole concept in terms that reflect the miracle and power of it. We are literally born of the Spirit when we accept Jesus; we are literally--not just figuratively--new creations. Being born again is not just a legal transaction that changes us from one family to another; it's a completely new reality that makes us spiritually alive and eternally connected to God. And as Bob George says so well in the excerpts above, we are still free to live according to our sinful nature, as Paul says. When we do, though, we are ignoring the REALITY that we are God's children and the Spirit is IN us. God's own power--the power that raised Jesus from death--is at work in our mortal bodies to bring new life to us even now before our bodies are redeemed. It's all quite astonishing and life-changing. Praise God for making us His! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2000 |
WEDNESDAY CRUCIFIXION THEORY STILL ALIVE Sylvia and I were stunned and disappointed this last weekend to hear Charles (Chuck) Swindoll preach that Jesus did NOT die on Friday afternoon. He said a parishioner called their church office to find out if they were planning a Good Friday service. He replied to the caller, "Well, how about a Good Wednesday service?" I still remember the late Herbert W. Armstrong strongly preaching the Wednesday Crucifixion theory. Apparently, faulty hermeneutics have a life of their own. Some feel that this aberrrant view is not a salvational matter. However, I would like to know your views on this revived heresy. Thank you in advance for your comments. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 251 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dennis, I don't think I would label this view "heresy" in most cases, provided it is purely motivated by an attempt to understand Christ's words as written. Most orthodox commentators that have suggested this as a possibility have done so out of a desire to makes sense out of the "three days and three nights" statement. I think they have misunderstood this Jewish idiom and are trying to erroneously fit it into an English framework, but none the less, it usually comes out of a pure desire to handle scripture in a literal fashion (a good thing when done correctly). It should also be noted that most of these commentators have still put the resurrection on Sunday morning, the first day of the week. However, when a Tues. or Wed. crucifixion theory is used to push an abberant doctrine like Saturday sabbatarianism and to downplay the significane of The Lord's Day in Christian history, then it begins to leave the realm of orthodxoy. I say this, because this type of view must significantly twist scripture to avoid the ressurrection occuring on the first day of the week as the gospels clearly indicate. This approach is not interested in rightly handling scripture, only in proving a doctrinal bias. In summary, if Swindoll said such a thing I would disagree with him, but not label him a heretic because he is throuroughly orthodox in all the essentials. However, when Armstrong taught this idea it was to promote heretical doctrine and we can safely refer to his teachings as such. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 252 Registered: 7-2003 |
I've never heard of a Wednesday crucifixion, though I do know one pastor who thinks he was crucified on Thursday ... based largely upon 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth... It seems so clear he was raised in the early hours of the first day of the week regardless of how you measure out 3 days and 3 nights (whole or partial), how can you get to Wednesday or earlier?? | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 495 Registered: 3-2001 |
I too have not heard of the Wednesday crucifixion. What I have heard is that the Last Supper likely occurred on Wednesday evening (not Thursday) and that Jesus was crucified on Thursday. The first time I heard this, it was from a couple of friends in the Adventist Church who were noted for being "controversial" just for controversy sake. I immediately dismissed the idea. These were the same guys who were circulating a video by some Adventist Pastor (or lawyer, I can't recall) that said that Jesus would return in 2000. About a year or so later, I was doing some studying and came across the rationale for the Thursday crucifixion idea. For me, it was a pretty compelling argument. It suggests that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal at all, but occurred on the preceding evening. Recall that Jesus dismissed Judas to "go do what he needed to do." The other disciples thought that He was telling Judas to buy what was needed for the "Feast." Why would they believe that if they were already partaking in the feast? Also, according to the Old Covenant law, the Passover Lamb was selected on the tenth day and kept until the fourteenth day. That would coincide perfectly with Palm Sunday being the day when the Passover Lamb was selected (Jesus' triumphal entry) and his crucifixion occuring on the fourteenth day(Thursday). Thus Jesus literally became the Passover Lamb. This is why he said He desired to eat the Passover meal with the disciples, but that he would not eat it again until it found fulfillment in the kingdom of God. I would be happy to post a more detailed explanation if anyone is interest. This interpretation in no way changes the resurrection. It still occurred early on the first day of the week, but accounts for Jesus' prophecy that He would be in the tomb for three days and three nights. With the traditoinal Friday crucifixion idea, it is impossible to get three days and three nights without some mental gymnastics. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 252 Registered: 7-2003 |
Doug, I don't think it requires mental gymnastics to sync Jesus' prophecy with a Friday crucifixion, just an understanding of this Jewish idiom. To the Jews any part of a day was a day. They wouldn't have spoken about half days or portions of days. Jesus spent part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday in the tomb. In Jewish speech he was in the omb over the course of "three days". In Hebrew and Greek the words for "day" had a rather large range of meanings, so the Jews would often use the idiom "and nights" to refer to a natural day (i.e. not an age or a period). This all no doubt seems like mental gymnastics to us, but it need not be seen as such if it was a commonly used and well understood way of speking at the time. Imagine trying to explain some of our modern idioms to the people of that time! Try translating "Just shoot me an e-mail" into Koine Greek then explain it's meaning to a first century Palestinian. They would very likely accuse you of trying to redefine the words "shoot" and "mail" as well as making very little sense in general. But say it to someone today in English and it makes perfect sense without needing a second thought. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 253 Registered: 7-2003 |
The pastor I mentioned also has a book which has a detailed explanation, but it is at home. I remember him saying, however, that the sabbath they wanted him removed from the cross for did not have to be the 7th day sabbath because they also called their feast days sabbaths and it could have refered to that. He addressed every scripture and from my perspective also made very compelling arguments for the Thursday crucifixion. But in complete agreement with Doug, the actual day doesn't matter. It just made me wonder where we got the idea he was crucified on Friday, if that was something carried down through tradition or if it is actually written in early church documents or simply someone going "Sunday, Saturday, Friday...3 days." I've heard various explanation about any part of a day being considered a whole day, but what about the nights?? It is interesting to ponder. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 253 Registered: 7-2003 |
I took this from Wesley: Three days and three nights - It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty four hours, for the whole day. Accordingly they used to say a thing was done after three or seven days, if it was done on the third or seventh day, from that which was last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1Kings 20:29; and in many other places. And as the Hebrewss had no word to express a natural day, they used night and day, or day and night for it. So that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights, was with them the very same, as to say, it happened after three days, or on the third day. See Esther 4:16; Esther 5:1; Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28. Jonah 2:1. óWesley's Commentary | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 496 Registered: 3-2001 |
Chris, allow me to present a different perspective. This comes from the "Parallel Bible" with commentary by F. LaGard Smith. It is a little lengthy, but it is well worth the read--especially the conclusion in the next to last paragraph (which I will boldface). I think the "traditional" interpretation springs from a premice that Jesus was crucified on Friday. It then sets out to make Jesus' prediction fit that premise--that's what I meant about the mental gymnastics. On the other hand, if we set aside any preconceived ideas about when the crucifixion occurred, it opens up some pretty amazing possibilities. To my knowledge, the basis for a Friday crucifixion comes from an acknowledgement that Jesus was crucified just before the Sabbath and an acknowledgement that he was raised early on the First Day of the week. Smith's analysis takes both into consideration.
So what do you think? In His Grace (regardless of what day He was crucified) Doug | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 52 Registered: 4-2000 |
According to Chuck Swindoll, when the women approached the sepulcher early on Sunday morning, it was after the Sabbaths. The Koine Greek uses the plural form; specifically, "SABBATHS." Thus, he reasons, there were two Sabbaths--one being the weekly Sabbath and the other a Passover Sabbath. I will listen to his archived weekend radio broadcast for the third time to get more detail. The name of his radio program is INSIGHT FOR LIVING. So, we can listen to the Saturday-Sunday (April 3 & 4 are repeat programs in this part of the country) broadcast via audio from his website at www.insight.org. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 254 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well Doug I certainly am drawn to the symbolism of the passover lamb......who knows...... Chris | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 497 Registered: 3-2001 |
I just did a google search on "Thursday Crucifixion" and I came across several articles that address the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday theories (this was my first exposure to the Wednesday argument). Interestingly enough, none of them address the fulfillment of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. For the most part, they all (including those who propose Thursday) leave you thinking to your self, "so what?" I think that is why the Thursday theory appeals to me so much, because it has tremendous spiritual implications. Otherwise, I am not sure it really matters what day He died and/or was resurrected. The most important think is that He was, and because of that, we have the promise of the abundant life both now and forevermore. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 53 Registered: 10-2001 |
I have heard this a lot and it really makes no sense to me, most of the preachers that preach it don't sit well with me to begin with. I like Chuck Swindoll but I don't see eye to eye with him on everything. I have listened to the whole theory and it just doesn't seem to bear witness with me. I actually heard a sermon on it again today in the car by Fred Price-who I don't find much common ground with. Usually when I have to think too hard to figure somthing out it isn't truth. The Holy Spirit has a way of just showing us right away when something is truth, ya know? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 130 Registered: 12-2003 |
How interesting. Like Chris, I'm "drawn to the symbolism of the passover lamb," but again, I suspect the actual day of crucifixion is not as significant as the day of the resurrection. I have heard of the Wednesday theory before, but it never made much sense to me. The Thursday idea is newer to me--and more convincing than Wednesday, I might add--but I guess I have to say that celebrating Good Friday does not seem to be an offense at all, even if the crucifixion was on Thursday (or Wednesday!). I really have grown to love Holy Week--and this year, The Passion has just made it all so much more real! Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 62 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dennis, I'm afraid the fact that the word Sabbath is in the plural cannot be used as an argument. In koinÈ Greek, the word is sabbaton (singular) and sabbata (plural). Because the plural sounds like the Aramaic singular (shabbata) it was often used in the plural with a singular meaning, examples being Ex 20: 8 and Deut 5: 12 (LXX), Mat 12: 1, Luke 4: 16, Acts 13: 14. Also, Matthew 28: 1 has "after the Sabbath(s)" with a plural form, but Mark 16: 1 has "when the Sabbath was over" with a singular form in the Greek, as do Luke 23: 54 "the Sabbath was about to begin, and 23: 56 "they rested on the Sabbath." The Luke passage in particular mentions the day of preparation (23: 45), then the Sabbath (singular - 23: 45, 56), then the first day of the week (24: 1). This would seem to me to support the traditional view. Also, in Luke 24: 21, the disciples, on resurrection day, say, "it is the third day since all all this took place." If Jesus had been crucified on Thursday, then Sunday would be the fourth day, not the third. The evidence is not so simple to interpret after all! Incidentally, Justin Martyr (died around 165), in his First Apology, chapter 67, writes, "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." Of course, this does mean he was necessarily right, but it does show that the tradition of a Friday crucifixion is very early. Good job it isn't a salvation issue :-) God bless, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 63 Registered: 2-2003 |
I meant to say, it does NOT mean Justin was necessarily right, sorry Adrian | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 291 Registered: 1-2003 |
I believe what you posted Doug222. A friend of mine sent me something she wrote about it (about 6 months ago) and it just makes total sense. Should we argue with all of Cristendom over the issue...no. Like others have said...what matters is, he did it! And the Lamb is Worthy. But yes, I think Palm Sunday (Christ was hailed as king)was the same day they chose the spotless lamb to be sacrificed...and Jesus was most likely killed at 3:00 pm the exact hour the priest was raising his hand to kill the sacrificial lamb and it was probably at that exact moment the temple veil ripped. Very cool! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 135 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very interesting, Adrian. While the Thursday argument makes a ot of sense, I still tend to think that the long tradition of Friday being the day of the crucifixion as well as the peripheral references in the Bible do tend to lend credibility to a Friday crucifixion. Further, the issue of which day Jesus died is very often used as an argument for interpreting certain texts in Daniel and thus lending weight to certain eschatological ideas. Yes, it's a good thing it isn't a salvation issue! Colleen |
