Edited by Jesse2W, 14 November 2011 - 04:50 AM.
Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:49 AM
Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:10 AM
There is an article on the Olivet prophecy posted on the thread.....
Vatican-whore of Babylon. Catholic church-Thyatira
Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:44 AM
Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:48 AM
Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:24 PM
The permitted length of a Sabbath journey was less than about 2 miles. The rabbi's still cordon of Jewish area's (I think they do it in New York) with a marker (some sort of cord) so that Orthodox Jews will know that they are within the boundaries. Anything more than this distance is seen as breaking Sabbath Law. Of course, the Maccabees had no compunction laying the Law aside in order to fight a battle on the Sabbath (this was after many pious Jews had been slaughtered because they refused to fight on the Sabbath).
Jesus' disciples were Jews and like Jesus they were under the Law. The Law was abolished by Jesus' death.........therefore the pre-resurrection and post-resurrection situations are completely different. I still think you should read the article on the Olivet Prophecy.
Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:28 PM
Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:35 PM
How did the Rabbi's establish this distance? I believe it has to do with the distance between the "Ark of the Covenant and the people: Joshua 3:4 "Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure. Do not come near it, that you may know the way by which you must go, for you have not passed this way before."
The ark was carried two thousand cubits ahead of the people in order to seek out a "resting place" (Sabbath) for them. Of course many Christians draw the analogy between the Ark and Christ who traveled 2,000 years ahead in order to seek out a resting place.
Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:04 AM
Jesus and his disciples were still under the Law when he gave the Olivet Prophecy - the implications of the resurrection regarding Law keeping was at that time still not apparent to many Jewish disciples - in fact even after the resurrection the status of the Law was a matter of dispute especially between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians. Peter was reprimanded by Paul because he ate separately from Gentiles when in the company of Jews (because of the food Laws etc) and after the resurrection the apostles and disciples gathered regularly at the Temple. There was nothing wrong with Jewish-Christians keeping the Law that they had practiced for thousands of years - Paul even went to the Temple to complete a vow (and had Timothy circumcised) - what was wrong was seeing the Law as a vehicle for salvation by works. It was all a matter of perspective - if someone kept the Law because they thought it was still necessary and vital then they were on the wrong track. Even worse was the fact that some Jewish-Christians were forcing their Gentile brethren to keep the whole Law because it was necessary for salvation. Paul operated a policy whereby believers would act out of conscience (especially regarding clean and unclean food) and not deliberately offend the counter party by doing something that went against traditional beliefs. So Paul counseled sensetivity and love. However, Paul was fiercely opposed to those who out-rightly wanted to force Law keeping as a matter of necessity.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users