why can't she discuss her thoughts about holding tongues in bible study when you can parent people on how they shouldn't say anything that might rock someone's boat?
...his followers would be allowed in the synagogues but rather, someone who "confessed Christ".
sorry, what's the difference? you're really caught up in your modern dogma of being 'saved'. so if i don't go to a school and get shot at cause i stand up and say 'i believe in god the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in....' then i'm not a "confessor" and i have no claim to salvation? get off it.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-04-2004 12:03 PM
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-04-2004 12:10 PM
And it is relevant that the apostles that supposedly KNEW Jesus in the flesh stayed faithful Jews . . .
quote: Posted in reply by dpardo
Even a cursory reading of Acts refutes what you say. Acts 11 says: . . .
IMO, the main point that Ramoss was making is that the apostles (who learned directly from Jesus) apparently did not abandon Judaism either before or after the crucifixion.
In Acts, chapter 21, James admonishes Paul about allegedly teaching Jews to abandon the Law and the customs of Moses (i.e., Judaism).
quote: Acts 21:20-21
(James, etal, says to Paul): Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Law.
And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses (which was exactly what Paul was doing); saying that they ought not to circumcise children, neither to walk after the customs.
It is often said of this that the apostles simply didn't (at this point in time) fully understand God's plan of salvation. And that this further understanding was subsequently given to Paul
However, this contention seems untenable in light of Jesus' visitation to the apostles immediately following the crucifixion as portrayed in the gospel of Luke:
quote: Luke 24:45 & 47
Then opened he (the risen Christ) their (the apostles) understanding that they might understand the scriptures (i.e., at this time, the Hebrew scriptures or "the OT").
(47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Thus, even having learned from Jesus personally and having had their understanding "opened" by the risen Christ, the apostles and their followers in Jerusalem remained "zealous for the Law" and admonished Paul about teaching any Jews to do otherwise. (In fact, even requiring Paul to undergo a purification ritual involving an animal sacrifice as an example of his adherence to this Law as a Jew himself.)
Therefore, it would appear that the concept of "repentance and remission of sin in (Jesus) name" had a different basic meaning for the apostles than that later expounded by Paul.
And if they (the apostles) learned directly from Jesus, and were given understanding of the scriptures from the risen Christ, and were still of the opinion that they were to practice the precepts of Mosaic Law and temple Judaism (including animal sacrifices for the remission of sin), by what authority could Paul or anyone else question this understanding?
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-04-2004 04:17 PM
Better for me to simply say, "I am struggling with this section" or, "I do not understand this section".
except that i am NOT struggling with that section, nor do i not understand it, so neither of those would be accurate decisions of my position.
instead, i understand and it is my educated opinion that the book of john carries no weight, and is an unreliable source. i have a similar opinion of the epistles: they are the advice of men, not the law of god.
if this simple observation that the bible is a fallible set of documents causes you to question your faith.... good. you should question. there is nothing wrong with asking questions.
but more importantly, your faith should not be based on a book. christianity is a personal relationship with god, not a reading assignment. i question and i learn about the bible because it's interesting, not because it's the cornerstone of my faith. i've found the bible to be outright faked in some sections (like deuteronomy), but i'm still a believer, and still a christian.
i'm not hurting anyone's faith here; i'm just a student of the bible. if reading the bible and understanding the bible hurts your faith, maybe it's misplaced. and if asking questions hurts your faith, maybe you never really had it.
quote:When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
yes, it does. because we have to know about it somehow. otherwise, we're just making stuff up.
why jewish literature? well, you still haven't answered my quotes from the koran.
The question is, did Jesus and the Apostles actually live, preach, and teach?
i believe they did, but in truth i do not actually know for sure. we have no record of jesus outside of the new testament. and there is a reason that that is not regarded as history.
and as i've pointed out, i believe some of the apostles to be WRONG.
But, if they did, and the evidence indicates that they did, then they presented God's offer to the Jews (and Gentiles).
some of them, at least.
when god presented his children with the (first) covenant, the ten commandments, it was a contract that all of israel was held to. how were the ten commandments presented? did everyone hear them, or just moses who had to write them down and present god's word to the people?
Well it appears you missed the whole point of my Message 176.
It had nothing to do with what you answered or didn't answer. The point was that this thread, because of the forum it was in and statements made before you entered the discussion, should have impressed upon you that we were going to work with facts and not just faith and belief.
The fact that I don't feel that the Book of John is a reliable source, tells you that to use that book to prove your point, you would first have to have a discussion to convince me why it does hold authority.
Obviously that would be another thread, therefore, to continue in this discussion with me you would either need to change your tactics and provide verses from the OT as I asked, or start a new thread and try and convince me that the Book of John is a reliable source.
quote:It is possible to discuss any questions and doubts without making statements like this:
As I said the Book of John is an unreliable source. It carries no weight.
It is also possible to discuss any questions and doubts without making statements that try to lay a guilt trip on the questioner, assume that the questioner is not spiritual, or warn the questioner about the path they seem to be following.
Forum Rule #3 Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.
If you wish to continue discussing what should and should not be said, then please start another thread.
I'd appreciate it if we could get back to the OP before we hit 300 posts.
As I stated before, I still have not been shown a clear offer made to the Jews before the death of Jesus.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Thus, even having learned from Jesus personally and having had their understanding "opened" by the risen Christ, the apostles and their followers in Jerusalem remained "zealous for the Law" and admonished Paul about teaching any Jews to do otherwise.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
What Jesus revealed to them was all of the things concerning him in the Old Testament.
I think it's the offer the Church dreamed up to allow them to steal the lands and possessions of Jews, persecute them, drive them out, etc. Kind of like the WMD in Iraq, it was an official excuse to do what seemed profitable at the time. The pious believers support this especially by not asking questions because that would not be believing so endangering their souls and thus the leadership, sacred or profane, do what they want and get maximum cooperation from the faithful.
quote:Phatboy stated that the Gentiles were given the same option that the Jews rejected.
Also Phatboy restates the assertion of an offer in Message 6.
Again, I must emphasize: The Jews individually each had a chance to accept the Messiah, and, many did. As a nation, however, they were cut off after they rejected, as a nation, the Messiah.
dpardo is keeping with Phatboy's NT theme in trying to show me the specific offer made to the Jews.
Unfortunately, they have been unable to show me a clear presentation of "the offer" to the Jewish community or a clear rejection of "the offer" by the Jewish community.
I have found nothing in the NT before the death of Jesus to support such an offer.
As you have shown, James and the Jerusalem Church were still Jews with all the beliefs and rituals that implies.
James was the head of the Jerusalem Church:
A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette 1953 ...James the brother of Jesus became the head of the community....To their neighbours these early followers of Jesus, for they did not yet bear the distinctive designation of Christian, must have appeared another sect of Judaism, predominantly Galilean in membership, distinguished from other Jews by their belief that Jesus was the Messiah and by their expectation of the early return of their Lord. Their leader, James, appears to have been especially conservative in his loyalty to Jewish customs. They continued to use the temple as a place of worship and observed the Jewish law, including its ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary regulations. Even some of the Pharisees joined them.
History of the Church by Eusebius But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.
I don't think the Jews would have been open minded enough to let someone into the holy place who wasn't following the prescribed Jewish laws. Do you?
So I'm still waiting for someone to show me that God told the Jews they had to believe in the messiah or He would disown them.
I don't think they can.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
As Christianity began to differentiate itself from Judaism, there came a split between the various factions. The group around James and that around Mary lost out in the struggle and were submerged by the Pauline factions of newer apostles. Much from that period has been lost and it is only now beginning to come to light.
Does the initial question in this thread actually revolve around the creation of Christianity and do we need to be looking at what became of Thomas, James, Mary and the other early leaders in the church as well as the advent of the Pauline, John influence?
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the apostles learned directly from Jesus and then had their "understanding opened" by the risen Christ.
If, after all this, they still did not understand some of the messianic concepts (as those later expounded by Paul), it had to have been deliberately concealed from them.
In such a case the apostles, who taught the "thousands of Jews who believed" in Jerusalem, were actually preaching a false doctrine (the "true" doctrine having been withheld from them).
The (sometimes called) "veil over the eyes of the Jews" (a common theme in Christian religious doctrine) usually refers to the Jew's rejection of Jesus as messiah. However, if the apostles were being excluded from the understanding which was later given to Paul, then their "eyes were veiled" as well.
This is why I asked dpardo if he was implying that the messianic concepts expounded by Paul were being deliberately withheld from the apostles (and the Jews in general).
The point being that, if the Jews were being deliberately blinded to these concepts, what would have been the nature of the "offer" they were supposedly given?
And, conversely, if the apostles were not having any understanding withheld from them, then their continued practice of temple Judaism must have been the correct course since this understanding would have come from Christ himself.
If the apostles didn't understand then the Jews (in general) could not have been given the same offer as Paul was relaying to the Gentiles.
If the apostles did understand, then their continued practice of temple Judaism was the correct course and Paul was mistaken.