The impure claim they know God and are pure. The impure teach that "all things are pure to the pure" (Ti.1:15) or that "all things are lawful" (1Cor.6:12). Such teachers don't know God; or if they do, their knowledge is impure, defective, destructive.
Many Christians erroneously conflate this line of Pauline thought with the line of Christ about how "there is nothing that enters a man from the outside that can defile him" (Mk. 7:18) which the Apostle's understood to be a "parable" (Matt. 15:15). They knew it was a parable since they were already forbidden from thinking Christ would abolish the dietary law (Matt. 5:17,19). At length they learned that we are free from Talmudic hand washing traditions (Matt 15:20), and that we must not let such men use the empty deceit of "philosophy" or the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8) / "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22) to "judge" (Col.2:16) us for how we celebrate Christ in the Sabbath which is His very "shadow" because the Sabbath signifies a greater reality still "to come" (Col. 2:17).
"DO NOT BE DECEIVED" (1 Cor. 6:19). ALL THINGS ARE **NOT** PURE TO THE PURE. ALL THINGS ARE **NOT** LAWFUL. Such notions will not "help" you but will enslave you "under the power" (1 Cor. 6:12) of "false teachers" (2Pet. 2:1) who are "slaves of corruption" (2Pet. 2:19). Such "slaves of corruption" "promise liberty" but they bring their students "into bondage" (2Pet. 2:19) by turning them away from the "holy commandment" (2 Pet. 2:21).
Jesus did not abolish a jot or tittle of the Law. You are banned from thinking or teaching He did. If you misunderstand Hebrews or others texts, and presume to teach that "all things are pure to the pure" and "all things are lawful" then you are "DECEIVED" and should refrain from teachers for your judgement will be more severe (James 3:1).
In conclusion: "DO NOT BE DECEIVED" (1 Cor. 6:19). All things are NOT lawful. Law is required to define what is "unrighteous." "The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9) because all things are NOT lawful in God's kingdom but the unrighteous live like "all things are lawful" as if impurity is pure for them, but it is not.
If you teach that "all things are lawful" or "pure for the pure" then be rebuked in the name of Christ and be silent for the sake of your own soul !
1. Artos is used as a general word for "bread." Leavened and unleavened are both equally artos/"bread." Proof? Josephus and Philo use artos to refer to unleavened bread (Philo, "De Specialibus Legibus," bk. 2. sect. 150-161; Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," bk. 3, ch. 10, sect. 6). Because artos is a general word, the CONTEXT must determine the meaning in different particular cases. 2. The context of the Last Supper is explicitly the festal time of Passover/ Unleavened Bread/ Firstfruits (Lk. 22:1,8,11,13,15). 3. The Last Supper is nestled in a larger narrative context, preceded by Matt. 5:17-20 -- "DO NOT THINK I came to abolish the Law... until heaven and earth pass, not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law... Whoever breaks the least command and teaches men to do so will be called least in the kingdom... Unless your righteousness exceeds the that of scribes and Pharisees there's no way you'll enter heaven."
Therefore, Christ was in precisely exact obedience to the very letter of the Law which requires an UN--leavened Quartodecimin Passover. It is a sin to even THINK otherwise.
4. The "fathers" are no standard of pure orthodoxy. They contradict each other and Moses, Christ, and the Apostles.
Indeed, in Revelation, the 7 churches had already nearly lost their candlesticks. Paul had previously said "The MYSTERY of Lawlessness is already at work" (2 Thess.2:7); Christ and Peter warned that false Christs, false prophets, and false teachers would come (Matt 24:5,24; 2 Pet. 2:1,2). Jude confirmed in his day that such deceivers had "crept in" and were taking advantage of those who admired them (v.16). Indeed, John named such a man, who seemed very Roman Catholic, like a proto-Pope: he established a Tradition of his own "pre-eminence" and exalted it over the Apostolic Epistles, to the degree that he attempted to excommunicate Apostle John and his true followers, like Rome's bishop Victor later tried to excommunicate all Asia for retaining the Quartodecimin date for Passover (Eusebius, "Church History, BK. 5, Ch. 23-25): that proto-Pope's name was DIOTROPHES (3 JN. 9,10).
What was the "mystery" Apostle described? A mystery of LAWLESSNESS. What do you think the effect was of that Sacrament/Mystery?
Answer: To redefine a sin as a sacred rite and duty.
Thus, we see men commanded to work on the 7th day Sabbath with threats of damnation (Laodiciean synod, canon 29-- c.365AD); and Sunday is enforced by Imperial decree March 7, 321 AD.
And again, the date of Passover was changed at Nicea (325 AD) and the Orthodox Synodikon (1583 AD) curses anyone who even SAYS the last supper was Unleavened; this means that "Orthodoxy" curses Apostle Paul himself who metaphorically calls the church itself unleavened (1 Cor. 5:7,8).
If Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection then it MUST BY LAW be UNleavened since the resurrection happened during the 7 day feast that's literally called UN--LEAVENED BREAD.
1. Christ is the God who wrote the 10 commandments on stone tablets with His very finger and gave them to Moses. 2. Moses received a further instruction that explicitly decrees Passover must be on the 14th day of the Bible's 1st lunar month. 3. Then the 7 day Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th, the very next day. 4. According to Sadduceean calendrical rendering (and the plain text of the Law), the Feast of Firstfruits falls within the 7 day Feast of UN--LEAVENED bread: it lands on the Sunday immediately following the Passover no matter the interval between it and Passover from year to year. 5. By Nicea (325AD), there was a huge gentile influx in the church, not rooted in Torah (but deeply prejudiced against the Jews, and tainted by gentile philosophy): they couldn't accept the fact that God established a Feast cycle that shifted according to the lunar calendar from year to year: ie, there could 1,2,3,4,5,or 6 days between Passover (Crucifixion commemoration) and Firstfruits (memorial of the Resurrection). They wanted a rigid standardized 3 days because that happened to be the interval on the year Christ died (even though a "Good Friday" to Sunday doesn't equal three full days and nights anyway, and it could NOT be Friday because the Gospels says a High Sabbath was butted next to the weekly Sabbath that year). Therefore, Nice deviated from the Divinely Decreed Quartodeciminism (and Byzantium apostasized from the decreed UN--leavened bread). And Constantine's rationale was that this was done so that we Christians would universally have "nothing in common with the odious wretches, the Jews," which was the reversely applied Jewish Patristic racism (JUDAizing) that Peter reverted to (Acts 10:28) before Paul rebuked him. 6. Paul clearly said "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed; therefore, let us keep the feast"... and he insists we PURGE OUT "leaven" (1 Cor 5:7,8). If you say he was being metaphorical, his metaphor is extrapolated from type to archetype: but both are UN-leavened.
Your sect has misused a parable (in which the SPREADING nature of leaven is likened to how the small group of 12 apostles would spread the kingdom Gospel worldwide) to invert the explicit meaning of a plain Law against the SPREADING nature of SIN.
The use of leaven in 1 Cor. 5:7,8 bears the exact opposite meaning that Christ's parable does. Christ used leaven to refer to the spreading GOSPEL. Moses and Paul used leaven to refer to spreading SIN.
Your eisegesis couldn't have taken you further from the Truth.
Truly, because your sect curses those who even say the Last Supper was Unleavened, you are implicated with those who ---as a matter of technical and logically consistent fact--- curse Moses, Christ, Luke, and Paul (Ex. 12:8; Lk. 22:1,8,11,13,15; 1 Cor. 5:7,8).
Why would Jews hide in a Buddhist country? Though Hong Kong had the elite Sassoons and Kadoories there, they only managed to save 16,000 Jews.
Granted, the eugenic collaboration between Eichmann and the Zionists used the camps to sift and kill off the poor dysgenic eastern Jews, nevertheless that collaboration sent 60,000 rich, eugenically fit, and intelligent Jews to Israel where they broke the Jewish American boycott of German goods by selling German goods in the middle east: there were German cars, tractors, etc, in Palestine during and after the boycott.
Zionism = Israeli Nazism as a matter of historical fact. The real oral law of Hitler was evidently an agreement with the HOFFJUDEN to use the camps to weed out the dysgenic, and plant Israel allong Darwinian lines.
It's time for the church to purge its pagan idolatry, but it's also time for Jews to realize that Tamuz, Osiris, Adonis, were confused extrapolations of the inherited prophecy given to Eve of a special seed who would be wounded in the process of crushing the serpents head.
The problem with Tamuz is not that he was part of an ancient tradition held sacred by the nations; it is not a problem that they sanctified the doctrine of a divine son that was to die and resurrect.
Rather, the problem was that the characters of the true sacred drama were conflated then granted undue reverence: eg, where once there was the holy history of a sacred Garden and orchard with a son and daughter of God, a snake, and a divine command to be fruitful and multiply, soon the chronicle was corrupted and Adam and Eve were cosmically exalted and their genders transferred to the material universe; the snake and Eve merged into the "Snake-mother," Eden was commemorated with sacred groves, and the command to be fruitful and multiply degraded into ritual orgies.
Indeed, when oral traditions of the sacred history were so universally corrupted that the snake was deified and worshipped, then it was necessary for the Protestant Reformation of Moses, whereby he would scrap their patriarchal chronicles that were long corrupted by oral transmission and reduction into icons for which the proper keys of interpretation were long lost.
Though the rites of Tamuz may be corrupted, the cycles of creation clearly proclaim the Gospel of the Creator's redemptive Logic (Logos). The Messiah's signature is stamped on the dying/rising cycles of Nature.
1. Jesus had to fulfill the jot & tittle of the Torah. 2. Torah mandates an UNleavened Quartodecimin Passover. 3. The Last Supper was a kosher Passover. 4. Orthodoxy damns those who say #3. 5. Christ & Paul made claim #3 (Lk. 22:1,8,15; 1 Cor. 5:7,8). 6. E.O. damns Christ & Paul.
Forsake the Sacrament of Lawlessness. You can't override Law with a PARABLE!
The parable you misuse was intended to liken the SPREAD of the kingdom to the effect of leaven: ie, a small group of 12 disciples were going to evangelize all nations. Christ did not even hint that He intended to use the parable to Amend a jot or tittle of the Law: indeed, He banned that very thought (Matt. 5:17-19).
REVELATIONS: 1. Paul opens Galatians with a thesis attacking his former TRADITIONS in Judaism (Gal. 1:13,14). 2. He rebuked Peter who refused to enter the house of a gentile based on a racist "law" (Acts 10:24) that is only in the "Traditions of the elders." 3. Paul says in Galatians 5 that "whoever is CIRCUMCISED is a debtor to do the WHOLE LAW," and refers to this as a "yoke of bondage" to be avoided. 4. We know that the Jerusalem Council's ban (Acts 15:20) against the enforced circumcision and observance of the "whole law" by gentiles --- which was deemed a "burden" unbearable to the apostles or their Fathers (Acts 15:10) [thus harkening back to Oral Traditions]--- could not refer to the entire Written Law because Christ said that we embrace an "easy" yoke when we "learn" from Him (Matt. 11:29,30) and He enforced every "JOT AND TITTLE" of the Law (Matt. 5:18) which specifies the Written not oral Torah; and we know the Council's ban could not be against a cold literal meaning of circumcision because the very first thing Apostle Paul did after the Council --while carrying a written Conciliar judgment allegedly against his very act in his one hand due to be distributed internationally) was to use the other hand to physically circumcise a Gentile named Timothy (Acts 16:3); Jewish descent was then patrilineal and his Dad was a Greek. If his Jewish mother was observant then why didn't she have him circumcised at birth? It is disputed that Paul was not compelled to have Titus circumcised. Why? What difference? False converts wanted to compel Paul regarding Titus, and Paul insisted that Abraham was the model for circumcised adult gentiles, not Abraham's children: ie, faith must precede circumcision in adult converts. The Jews surrounding Timothy were evident not false converts but rather they were unconverted: and Paul displayed perfect obedience before them.
Jerome and Augustine both missed the point and thought Paul was merely an elect hypocrite who gave the Law a kindly but slow burial. They erred because they didn't factor in the Talmud in its pre-written form, which is an incalculable error. Their letters on this issue are most critical in showing exactly where the Church's tragic flaw was; because they applied no eye salve in this regard they soon exalted their own Conciliar Talmud, their own Oral Patristic Traditions that contradict the written Torah, and even dared to curse and kill men for obeying God.
What then is the issue: THE UNBEARABLE YOKE IS "CIRCUMCISION" AS A RITE OF INITIATION INTO THE "WHOLE LAW" DEFINED AS THE ORAL PATRISTIC TRADITIONS, ie, Talmud.
Apostle Paul did claim to be a Jew and Pharisee after the resurrection (Acts 23:6); so, it seems that the 1st century Apostolic Pharisees were like the Kairites today.
"The Church" went wrong because its influx of gentile converts did not factor in the Centrality of the Messiah's battle against manmade Traditions, and consequently "Judaized" in its attempt to fight what was actually pseudo-Judaizing: eg, canon 29 of Laodicea's synod (c.365AD) cursed men for KEEPING Shabbat; Nicea (325AD) changed the date of Passover, and the Orthodox Synodikon of 1583 cursed men for even SAYING the Last Supper was an Unleavened Passover; which technically means that Byzantium curses Luke, Christ, and all the Apostles (Lk. 22:1,7,8,15,19; 1 Cor. 5:7,8)...
No man can obey the Talmud and be justified in God's sight for he shall be guilty of ritually transgressing God's Law.
The Voice in the burning bush was the Voice in the rabbi who was crowned with thorns yet was not consumed.
When we read "New Moons, SABBATHS and convocations— I cannot bear YOUR WORTHLESS ASSEMBLIES" (Is. 1:13), we find the proper lens through which to view John 5:18 which says Christ "...had BROKEN THE SABBATH...."
We know Isaiah's God is the same God of Moses that enforced the 7th day Sabbath with a death penalty. Therefore, Isaiah's God did not view the Sabbath as He ordained it to be "worthless," or else Isaiah wouldn't later say in 58:13 “If you turn back your foot from the SABBATH, from doing ***YOUR PLEASURE*** on MY HOLY DAY, and CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT and THE HOLY DAY OF THE LORD HONORABLE; if you HONOR IT, not going ***YOUR OWN WAYS***, or seeking ***YOUR OWN PLEASURE,*** or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken."
In Isaiah's day, the Sabbath no longer resembled the Sabbath as it was decreed by the "Lord of the Sabbath," so the Lord of the Sabbath disavowed as Israel's Traditions deformed it, and He called it "***YOUR*** Sabbath." That's what Yah previously did in the days of Moses. When speaking with Moses, Yah referred to rebellious Israel as "***YOUR*** PEOPLE, whom ***YOU*** BROUGHT UP out of Egypt, have become corrupt" (Ex. 32:7).
Likewise, we know that Christ did not break the Sabbath as He Himself wrote it on stone with His very own finger on Sinai. We know that He customarily kept the Sabbath (Lk. 4:16), as did Paul (Acts 17:2), and the earliest gentile converts (Acts 13:42), since that's what all believers everywhere had done since ancient times (Acts 15:21).
Christ "broke the Sabbath" in its deformed state, He dishonored the Sabbath of the Talmudizers.
The Lord referred to Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath"; so, the 7th day is the true "Lord's Day."
1. The Apostate Pharisees criticised and judged Christ for protesting against their Oral Patristic Traditions (Matt. 15:3): every written command was filtered through that lens of Oral Tradition. The Talmud was their criteria of criticism not a literal reading of the Torah. Their erroneous Oral Tradition destroyed the heart of the command. Christ upheld every "jot and tittle" of the Law (Matt. 15:17-19).
Eg, the Sabbath is a day of liberty or "loosing": even animals were FREED from labor. That's why Jesus justified His position by saying that just as the Pharisees would LOOSE (Greek: λύει~~Luke 13:15) their animals to drink on the Sabbath or free them from the bondage of being trapped in a ditch, Christ likewise LOOSED (Greek: λυθῆναι~~ Lk. 13:16~ a variant of the same Greek word in verse 15) a woman who was held captive in infirmity by the devil for 8 years. JESUS WAS LITERALLY **KEEPING** THE SABBATH. HE WAS NOT ENGAGING IN MENIAL LABOR FOR MAMMON. HE DID NOT SIN. IF HE SINNED THEN HE ISN'T A SINLESS SAVIOR. He was a Reformer of Pharisaic Judaism who Protested its false and overly exalted Oral Patristic Traditions.
2. You miss the point. Your Oral Patristic Traditions contradict the spirit and letter of the Law. If the Law says **NEVER EAT LEAVEN** DURING THE FEAST OF UN--LEAVENED BREAD, YOU CANT FULFILL THAT LAW BY EXALTING A NEW ORAL PATRISTIC TRADITION THAT SAYS **ONLY EAT LEAVEN.**
You have some Reforming to do. I raise a Protest against your Mystery of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7).
You suffer this delusion because your father's did not Love the Truth of the Law, they loved their sense of the pre-eminence of their new Sanhedrin and its Conciliar Talmudism that expanded like forbidden leaven during the Feast of UN-Leavened Bread.
3. How do you obey Christ and "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"? How do you keep the Feast of UN-Leavened Bread that's divinely riveted to the Biblically Legal Calendar?
You don't. You invent your own calendar to celebrate saints rather than keep The Feast of UN-LEAVENED bread that Christ and all the Apostles kept.
Forsake thy Talmudism! RETURN "TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY!"
1. The Torah commands us to keep an UN-leavened Quartodecimen Passover. 2. Jesus had to fulfill the Law. 3. Jesus filled the UN-leavened Quartodecimin Passover full of meaning at the Last Supper. 4. The Resurrection happened on Firstfruits Sunday, which falls during the 7 day Feast of UNleavened Bread: Yah threatens to CUT OFF those who eat, or have leaven in their houses, during the 7 day Feast of UN-Leavened Bread. 5. Nicea conflated the Resurrection (which is technically properly celebrated as The Feast of Firstfruits) with Pascha, and revolted against the Divinely Legislated Quartodecimin date for Passover. 6. The Orthodox Synodikon (1583) presumes to cut off those who even SAY the Last Supper was an UN-leavened Passover; and it commands men to only eat *leavened bread in honor of the Resurrection which happened during a Feast that's literally called UN-LEAVENED BREAD! 7. Luke said, and Peter, John, and all the Apostles with Christ Himself, did what Yeastern Unorthodoxy dares forbid (Lk. 22:1,7,8,15,19), and so did Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 5:7,8). 8. Therefore, in consequence, Yeasternism unwittingly presumes to cut off Christ and all the Apostles; meanwhile the Law of God itself says the soul is to be "cut off" (Ex. 12:15) which eats leaven during the Feast of UN-leavened Bread (during which the Resurrection happened), and this includes all of Yeasternism that's under the yoke of its Conciliar goy Talmud that commands them to eat exactly what God forbids and forbids them to even SAY what God truly commanded, and what Christ did with all the Apostles since they kept every jot and tittle of the Law. 9. Both can't be right. My epistemic ground is the Law of Non-Contradiction; and the Conciliar Talmud of Yeasternism contradicts the written Law of Yah. Only Judaizers exalt their Traditions over God's written Law when they contradict. 10. The orally preached tradition of the Apostles is called The Gospel and has been written down: it is the unique Tradition of Apostolic Judaism which says that Jesus is the telos of the Law & Prophets: not the termination or cessation of the Law but the aim or goal of it. If one does not love the Traditional Apostolic interpretation/application of the Law then they shall be susceptible to the MYSTERY/SACRAMENT OF LAWLESSNESS which was "already at work" (2 Thess.2:7) in the first century.
Chase Ray
The impure claim they know God and are pure.
The impure teach that "all things are pure to the pure" (Ti.1:15) or that "all things are lawful" (1Cor.6:12). Such teachers don't know God; or if they do, their knowledge is impure, defective, destructive.
Many Christians erroneously conflate this line of Pauline thought with the line of Christ about how "there is nothing that enters a man from the outside that can defile him" (Mk. 7:18) which the Apostle's understood to be a "parable" (Matt. 15:15). They knew it was a parable since they were already forbidden from thinking Christ would abolish the dietary law (Matt. 5:17,19). At length they learned that we are free from Talmudic hand washing traditions (Matt 15:20), and that we must not let such men use the empty deceit of "philosophy" or the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8) / "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22) to "judge" (Col.2:16) us for how we celebrate Christ in the Sabbath which is His very "shadow" because the Sabbath signifies a greater reality still "to come" (Col. 2:17).
"DO NOT BE DECEIVED" (1 Cor. 6:19).
ALL THINGS ARE **NOT** PURE TO THE PURE.
ALL THINGS ARE **NOT** LAWFUL.
Such notions will not "help" you but will enslave you "under the power" (1 Cor. 6:12) of "false teachers" (2Pet. 2:1) who are "slaves of corruption" (2Pet. 2:19).
Such "slaves of corruption" "promise liberty" but they bring their students "into bondage" (2Pet. 2:19) by turning them away from the "holy commandment" (2 Pet. 2:21).
Jesus did not abolish a jot or tittle of the Law.
You are banned from thinking or teaching He did.
If you misunderstand Hebrews or others texts, and presume to teach that "all things are pure to the pure" and "all things are lawful" then you are "DECEIVED" and should refrain from teachers for your judgement will be more severe (James 3:1).
In conclusion:
"DO NOT BE DECEIVED" (1 Cor. 6:19).
All things are NOT lawful.
Law is required to define what is "unrighteous."
"The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9) because all things are NOT lawful in God's kingdom but the unrighteous live like "all things are lawful" as if impurity is pure for them, but it is not.
If you teach that "all things are lawful" or "pure for the pure" then be rebuked in the name of Christ and be silent for the sake of your own soul !
4 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
1. Artos is used as a general word for "bread." Leavened and unleavened are both equally artos/"bread." Proof? Josephus and Philo use artos to refer to unleavened bread (Philo, "De Specialibus Legibus," bk. 2. sect. 150-161; Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," bk. 3, ch. 10, sect. 6). Because artos is a general word, the CONTEXT must determine the meaning in different particular cases.
2. The context of the Last Supper is explicitly the festal time of Passover/ Unleavened Bread/ Firstfruits (Lk. 22:1,8,11,13,15).
3. The Last Supper is nestled in a larger narrative context, preceded by Matt. 5:17-20 -- "DO NOT THINK I came to abolish the Law... until heaven and earth pass, not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law... Whoever breaks the least command and teaches men to do so will be called least in the kingdom... Unless your righteousness exceeds the that of scribes and Pharisees there's no way you'll enter heaven."
Therefore, Christ was in precisely exact obedience to the very letter of the Law which requires an UN--leavened Quartodecimin Passover. It is a sin to even THINK otherwise.
4. The "fathers" are no standard of pure orthodoxy. They contradict each other and Moses, Christ, and the Apostles.
Indeed, in Revelation, the 7 churches had already nearly lost their candlesticks. Paul had previously said "The MYSTERY of Lawlessness is already at work" (2 Thess.2:7); Christ and Peter warned that false Christs, false prophets, and false teachers would come (Matt 24:5,24; 2 Pet. 2:1,2). Jude confirmed in his day that such deceivers had "crept in" and were taking advantage of those who admired them (v.16). Indeed, John named such a man, who seemed very Roman Catholic, like a proto-Pope: he established a Tradition of his own "pre-eminence" and exalted it over the Apostolic Epistles, to the degree that he attempted to excommunicate Apostle John and his true followers, like Rome's bishop Victor later tried to excommunicate all Asia for retaining the Quartodecimin date for Passover (Eusebius, "Church History, BK. 5, Ch. 23-25): that proto-Pope's name was DIOTROPHES (3 JN. 9,10).
What was the "mystery" Apostle described? A mystery of LAWLESSNESS. What do you think the effect was of that Sacrament/Mystery?
Answer:
To redefine a sin as a sacred rite and duty.
Thus, we see men commanded to work on the 7th day Sabbath with threats of damnation (Laodiciean synod, canon 29-- c.365AD); and Sunday is enforced by Imperial decree March 7, 321 AD.
And again, the date of Passover was changed at Nicea (325 AD) and the Orthodox Synodikon (1583 AD) curses anyone who even SAYS the last supper was Unleavened; this means that "Orthodoxy" curses Apostle Paul himself who metaphorically calls the church itself unleavened (1 Cor. 5:7,8).
If Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection then it MUST BY LAW be UNleavened since the resurrection happened during the 7 day feast that's literally called UN--LEAVENED BREAD.
@PatristicNectarFilms @JayDyer @Jeem196 @MadebyJimbob @The_Crucible
2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
1. Christ is the God who wrote the 10 commandments on stone tablets with His very finger and gave them to Moses.
2. Moses received a further instruction that explicitly decrees Passover must be on the 14th day of the Bible's 1st lunar month.
3. Then the 7 day Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th, the very next day.
4. According to Sadduceean calendrical rendering (and the plain text of the Law), the Feast of Firstfruits falls within the 7 day Feast of UN--LEAVENED bread: it lands on the Sunday immediately following the Passover no matter the interval between it and Passover from year to year.
5. By Nicea (325AD), there was a huge gentile influx in the church, not rooted in Torah (but deeply prejudiced against the Jews, and tainted by gentile philosophy): they couldn't accept the fact that God established a Feast cycle that shifted according to the lunar calendar from year to year: ie, there could 1,2,3,4,5,or 6 days between Passover (Crucifixion commemoration) and Firstfruits (memorial of the Resurrection). They wanted a rigid standardized 3 days because that happened to be the interval on the year Christ died (even though a "Good Friday" to Sunday doesn't equal three full days and nights anyway, and it could NOT be Friday because the Gospels says a High Sabbath was butted next to the weekly Sabbath that year). Therefore, Nice deviated from the Divinely Decreed Quartodeciminism (and Byzantium apostasized from the decreed UN--leavened bread). And Constantine's rationale was that this was done so that we Christians would universally have "nothing in common with the odious wretches, the Jews," which was the reversely applied Jewish Patristic racism (JUDAizing) that Peter reverted to (Acts 10:28) before Paul rebuked him.
6. Paul clearly said "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed; therefore, let us keep the feast"... and he insists we PURGE OUT "leaven" (1 Cor 5:7,8). If you say he was being metaphorical, his metaphor is extrapolated from type to archetype: but both are UN-leavened.
Your sect has misused a parable (in which the SPREADING nature of leaven is likened to how the small group of 12 apostles would spread the kingdom Gospel worldwide) to invert the explicit meaning of a plain Law against the SPREADING nature of SIN.
The use of leaven in 1 Cor. 5:7,8 bears the exact opposite meaning that Christ's parable does. Christ used leaven to refer to the spreading GOSPEL. Moses and Paul used leaven to refer to spreading SIN.
Your eisegesis couldn't have taken you further from the Truth.
Truly, because your sect curses those who even say the Last Supper was Unleavened, you are implicated with those who ---as a matter of technical and logically consistent fact--- curse Moses, Christ, Luke, and Paul (Ex. 12:8; Lk. 22:1,8,11,13,15; 1 Cor. 5:7,8).
@PatristicNectarFilms @JayDyer @Jeem196 @MadebyJimbob @The_Crucible
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
Why would Jews hide in a Buddhist country? Though Hong Kong had the elite Sassoons and Kadoories there, they only managed to save 16,000 Jews.
Granted, the eugenic collaboration between Eichmann and the Zionists used the camps to sift and kill off the poor dysgenic eastern Jews, nevertheless that collaboration sent 60,000 rich, eugenically fit, and intelligent Jews to Israel where they broke the Jewish American boycott of German goods by selling German goods in the middle east: there were German cars, tractors, etc, in Palestine during and after the boycott.
Zionism = Israeli Nazism as a matter of historical fact.
The real oral law of Hitler was evidently an agreement with the HOFFJUDEN to use the camps to weed out the dysgenic, and plant Israel allong Darwinian lines.
It's time for the church to purge its pagan idolatry, but it's also time for Jews to realize that Tamuz, Osiris, Adonis, were confused extrapolations of the inherited prophecy given to Eve of a special seed who would be wounded in the process of crushing the serpents head.
The problem with Tamuz is not that he was part of an ancient tradition held sacred by the nations; it is not a problem that they sanctified the doctrine of a divine son that was to die and resurrect.
Rather, the problem was that the characters of the true sacred drama were conflated then granted undue reverence: eg, where once there was the holy history of a sacred Garden and orchard with a son and daughter of God, a snake, and a divine command to be fruitful and multiply, soon the chronicle was corrupted and Adam and Eve were cosmically exalted and their genders transferred to the material universe; the snake and Eve merged into the "Snake-mother," Eden was commemorated with sacred groves, and the command to be fruitful and multiply degraded into ritual orgies.
Indeed, when oral traditions of the sacred history were so universally corrupted that the snake was deified and worshipped, then it was necessary for the Protestant Reformation of Moses, whereby he would scrap their patriarchal chronicles that were long corrupted by oral transmission and reduction into icons for which the proper keys of interpretation were long lost.
Though the rites of Tamuz may be corrupted, the cycles of creation clearly proclaim the Gospel of the Creator's redemptive Logic (Logos).
The Messiah's signature is stamped on the dying/rising cycles of Nature.
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
1. Jesus had to fulfill the jot & tittle of the Torah.
2. Torah mandates an UNleavened Quartodecimin Passover.
3. The Last Supper was a kosher Passover.
4. Orthodoxy damns those who say #3.
5. Christ & Paul made claim #3 (Lk. 22:1,8,15; 1 Cor. 5:7,8).
6. E.O. damns Christ & Paul.
Forsake the Sacrament of Lawlessness.
You can't override Law with a PARABLE!
The parable you misuse was intended to liken the SPREAD of the kingdom to the effect of leaven: ie, a small group of 12 disciples were going to evangelize all nations. Christ did not even hint that He intended to use the parable to Amend a jot or tittle of the Law: indeed, He banned that very thought (Matt. 5:17-19).
@PatristicNectarFilms @JayDyer @Jeem196 @MadebyJimbob @The_Crucible
1 month ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
Lord willing, I have a huge Satire coming on the Bitchute channel... It's cooking. Very not funny. Not at all.
Keep me in prayer. Thanks.
1 month ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
REVELATIONS: 1. Paul opens Galatians with a thesis attacking his former TRADITIONS in Judaism (Gal. 1:13,14).
2. He rebuked Peter who refused to enter the house of a gentile based on a racist "law" (Acts 10:24) that is only in the "Traditions of the elders."
3. Paul says in Galatians 5 that "whoever is CIRCUMCISED is a debtor to do the WHOLE LAW," and refers to this as a "yoke of bondage" to be avoided.
4. We know that the Jerusalem Council's ban (Acts 15:20) against the enforced circumcision and observance of the "whole law" by gentiles --- which was deemed a "burden" unbearable to the apostles or their Fathers (Acts 15:10) [thus harkening back to Oral Traditions]--- could not refer to the entire Written Law because Christ said that we embrace an "easy" yoke when we "learn" from Him (Matt. 11:29,30) and He enforced every "JOT AND TITTLE" of the Law (Matt. 5:18) which specifies the Written not oral Torah; and we know the Council's ban could not be against a cold literal meaning of circumcision because the very first thing Apostle Paul did after the Council --while carrying a written Conciliar judgment allegedly against his very act in his one hand due to be distributed internationally) was to use the other hand to physically circumcise a Gentile named Timothy (Acts 16:3); Jewish descent was then patrilineal and his Dad was a Greek. If his Jewish mother was observant then why didn't she have him circumcised at birth? It is disputed that Paul was not compelled to have Titus circumcised. Why? What difference? False converts wanted to compel Paul regarding Titus, and Paul insisted that Abraham was the model for circumcised adult gentiles, not Abraham's children: ie, faith must precede circumcision in adult converts. The Jews surrounding Timothy were evident not false converts but rather they were unconverted: and Paul displayed perfect obedience before them.
Jerome and Augustine both missed the point and thought Paul was merely an elect hypocrite who gave the Law a kindly but slow burial. They erred because they didn't factor in the Talmud in its pre-written form, which is an incalculable error. Their letters on this issue are most critical in showing exactly where the Church's tragic flaw was; because they applied no eye salve in this regard they soon exalted their own Conciliar Talmud, their own Oral Patristic Traditions that contradict the written Torah, and even dared to curse and kill men for obeying God.
What then is the issue:
THE UNBEARABLE YOKE IS "CIRCUMCISION" AS A RITE OF INITIATION INTO THE "WHOLE LAW" DEFINED AS THE ORAL PATRISTIC TRADITIONS, ie, Talmud.
Apostle Paul did claim to be a Jew and Pharisee after the resurrection (Acts 23:6); so, it seems that the 1st century Apostolic Pharisees were like the Kairites today.
"The Church" went wrong because its influx of gentile converts did not factor in the Centrality of the Messiah's battle against manmade Traditions, and consequently "Judaized" in its attempt to fight what was actually pseudo-Judaizing: eg, canon 29 of Laodicea's synod (c.365AD) cursed men for KEEPING Shabbat; Nicea (325AD) changed the date of Passover, and the Orthodox Synodikon of 1583 cursed men for even SAYING the Last Supper was an Unleavened Passover; which technically means that Byzantium curses Luke, Christ, and all the Apostles (Lk. 22:1,7,8,15,19; 1 Cor. 5:7,8)...
No man can obey the Talmud and be justified in God's sight for he shall be guilty of ritually transgressing God's Law.
The Voice in the burning bush was the Voice in the rabbi who was crowned with thorns yet was not consumed.
2 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 0
View 6 replies
Chase Ray
When we read "New Moons, SABBATHS and convocations— I cannot bear YOUR WORTHLESS ASSEMBLIES" (Is. 1:13), we find the proper lens through which to view John 5:18 which says Christ "...had BROKEN THE SABBATH...."
We know Isaiah's God is the same God of Moses that enforced the 7th day Sabbath with a death penalty. Therefore, Isaiah's God did not view the Sabbath as He ordained it to be "worthless," or else Isaiah wouldn't later say in 58:13 “If you turn back your foot from the SABBATH, from doing ***YOUR PLEASURE*** on MY HOLY DAY,
and CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT
and THE HOLY DAY OF THE LORD HONORABLE;
if you HONOR IT,
not going ***YOUR OWN WAYS***,
or seeking ***YOUR OWN PLEASURE,*** or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken."
In Isaiah's day, the Sabbath no longer resembled the Sabbath as it was decreed by the "Lord of the Sabbath," so the Lord of the Sabbath disavowed as Israel's Traditions deformed it, and He called it "***YOUR*** Sabbath." That's what Yah previously did in the days of Moses. When speaking with Moses, Yah referred to rebellious Israel as "***YOUR*** PEOPLE, whom ***YOU*** BROUGHT UP out of Egypt, have become corrupt" (Ex. 32:7).
Likewise, we know that Christ did not break the Sabbath as He Himself wrote it on stone with His very own finger on Sinai. We know that He customarily kept the Sabbath (Lk. 4:16), as did Paul (Acts 17:2), and the earliest gentile converts (Acts 13:42), since that's what all believers everywhere had done since ancient times (Acts 15:21).
Christ "broke the Sabbath" in its deformed state, He dishonored the Sabbath of the Talmudizers.
The Lord referred to Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath"; so, the 7th day is the true "Lord's Day."
@PatristicNectarFilms @JayDyer @Jeem196 @MadebyJimbob @gray96
We know
2 months ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
1. The Apostate Pharisees criticised and judged Christ for protesting against their Oral Patristic Traditions (Matt. 15:3): every written command was filtered through that lens of Oral Tradition. The Talmud was their criteria of criticism not a literal reading of the Torah. Their erroneous Oral Tradition destroyed the heart of the command. Christ upheld every "jot and tittle" of the Law (Matt. 15:17-19).
Eg, the Sabbath is a day of liberty or "loosing": even animals were FREED from labor. That's why Jesus justified His position by saying that just as the Pharisees would LOOSE (Greek: λύει~~Luke 13:15) their animals to drink on the Sabbath or free them from the bondage of being trapped in a ditch, Christ likewise LOOSED (Greek: λυθῆναι~~ Lk. 13:16~ a variant of the same Greek word in verse 15) a woman who was held captive in infirmity by the devil for 8 years. JESUS WAS LITERALLY **KEEPING** THE SABBATH. HE WAS NOT ENGAGING IN MENIAL LABOR FOR MAMMON. HE DID NOT SIN. IF HE SINNED THEN HE ISN'T A SINLESS SAVIOR. He was a Reformer of Pharisaic Judaism who Protested its false and overly exalted Oral Patristic Traditions.
2. You miss the point.
Your Oral Patristic Traditions contradict the spirit and letter of the Law. If the Law says **NEVER EAT LEAVEN** DURING THE FEAST OF UN--LEAVENED BREAD, YOU CANT FULFILL THAT LAW BY EXALTING A NEW ORAL PATRISTIC TRADITION THAT SAYS **ONLY EAT LEAVEN.**
You have some Reforming to do.
I raise a Protest against your Mystery of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7).
You suffer this delusion because your father's did not Love the Truth of the Law, they loved their sense of the pre-eminence of their new Sanhedrin and its Conciliar Talmudism that expanded like forbidden leaven during the Feast of UN-Leavened Bread.
3. How do you obey Christ and "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"? How do you keep the Feast of UN-Leavened Bread that's divinely riveted to the Biblically Legal Calendar?
You don't. You invent your own calendar to celebrate saints rather than keep The Feast of UN-LEAVENED bread that Christ and all the Apostles kept.
Forsake thy Talmudism!
RETURN "TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY!"
@JayDyer @MadebyJimbob @The_Crucible @PatristicNectarFilms @Jeem196
2 months ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Chase Ray
1. The Torah commands us to keep an UN-leavened Quartodecimen Passover.
2. Jesus had to fulfill the Law.
3. Jesus filled the UN-leavened Quartodecimin Passover full of meaning at the Last Supper.
4. The Resurrection happened on Firstfruits Sunday, which falls during the 7 day Feast of UNleavened Bread: Yah threatens to CUT OFF those who eat, or have leaven in their houses, during the 7 day Feast of UN-Leavened Bread.
5. Nicea conflated the Resurrection (which is technically properly celebrated as The Feast of Firstfruits) with Pascha, and revolted against the Divinely Legislated Quartodecimin date for Passover.
6. The Orthodox Synodikon (1583) presumes to cut off those who even SAY the Last Supper was an UN-leavened Passover; and it commands men to only eat *leavened bread in honor of the Resurrection which happened during a Feast that's literally called UN-LEAVENED BREAD!
7. Luke said, and Peter, John, and all the Apostles with Christ Himself, did what Yeastern Unorthodoxy dares forbid (Lk. 22:1,7,8,15,19), and so did Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 5:7,8).
8. Therefore, in consequence, Yeasternism unwittingly presumes to cut off Christ and all the Apostles; meanwhile the Law of God itself says the soul is to be "cut off" (Ex. 12:15) which eats leaven during the Feast of UN-leavened Bread (during which the Resurrection happened), and this includes all of Yeasternism that's under the yoke of its Conciliar goy Talmud that commands them to eat exactly what God forbids and forbids them to even SAY what God truly commanded, and what Christ did with all the Apostles since they kept every jot and tittle of the Law.
9. Both can't be right.
My epistemic ground is the Law of Non-Contradiction; and the Conciliar Talmud of Yeasternism contradicts the written Law of Yah. Only Judaizers exalt their Traditions over God's written Law when they contradict.
10. The orally preached tradition of the Apostles is called The Gospel and has been written down: it is the unique Tradition of Apostolic Judaism which says that Jesus is the telos of the Law & Prophets: not the termination or cessation of the Law but the aim or goal of it. If one does not love the Traditional Apostolic interpretation/application of the Law then they shall be susceptible to the MYSTERY/SACRAMENT OF LAWLESSNESS which was "already at work" (2 Thess.2:7) in the first century.
@JayDyer @MadebyJimbob @The_Crucible
2 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 1
View 4 replies
Load more