Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I said God, not Paul. Even Paul admits that he is not commanded by the Lord but is making his own pronouncements, so I am not sure when it is that Paul speaks for himself or when he is the empty cup through which God speaks to us.
Why do you have such a problem with what the Bible teaches?
Why do you have a problem with what the church says the Bible teaches?
FC: Baloney.
Don't leave us in suspense. Make your case.
"Why did Jesus choose the Apostles; why single out anyone at all if there is to be no hierarchy?"
The culture of that day for itinerant rabbis was for them to have students, disciples, who followed him around and learned on the job. When Pentecost came there were more than 120 male disciples and additional women followers. Out of the Jerusalem church after the persecution started the disciples scattered across Egypt, Africa Italy and Greece spreading the Gospel. These weren't Apostles, but disciples. Priscilla and Aquilla and Apollos were converts of these dispersed disciples and they did not look upon the church as hierarchical.
thanks for your reply; I'm sure others have and will discuss the structure of the Church post-Christ on earth.
What I'm still wondering, what an itinerant rabbi having "students, disciples, who followed him around and learned on the job" doesn't quite answer, is: Why did Jesus choose the 12?
thanks very much..
.The Bible DOES speak to the issue of Mary.
IT DOES NOT however even suggest that she was sinless.
Which church would that be?
"Why did Jesus choose the 12?"
He couldn't help it, His Father told Him to.
Jhn 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them."
Yes, and angels came down and interacted with humans many times, so there has to be awareness by at least some, if not all. Plus, doesn't the word "angel" come from the Greek "angelos" meaning "messenger"? Who else would God want to reach by messenger?
You don't believe that it was actually the Prophet Samuel who the witch of Endor called up, do you?
Your points are very valid, and I appeciate your candor.
As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, Protestants really don't hesitate, in general, to use material that is extra-biblical.
Bible dictionaries, commentaries, etc... in use within Protestantism have lots of explanatory and background material that is based on secular scholarship, archeology, Jewish tradition, the deductive reasoning of other Protestant theologians, etc... Protestant pastors have been using such sources for a very long time to spice up their sermons.
The point I made earlier and that I reiterate is that the one class of extra-biblical background and explanatory writings that are essentially never used within classical Protestantism (at least as I have experienced it) are writings done by Christians themselves from the early centuries. These are rigorously excluded from consideration except in very limited situations.
Your perceptions regarding the cultural aspect of our veneration of icons (we have no statues in the Orthodox Church -- strictly forbidden), etc. are quite accurate.
But I would suggest that you might also hold those perceptions in place and move around to look at them from a little different angle. :-)
A way I might put it that more closely reflects what we experience is that we do not make as strict a division between the cultural/social and the religious. In other words, all of this is very much "religious," but then so is everything we do outside of church.
Most Christians would agree that Christianity needs to be a way of life, and not just a religious activity. We would certainly hold that view in spades.
An Orthodox theologian was once asked when, exactly, the Orthodox believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist. He thought for a moment, and replied that it happens sometime between the start of Vespers the evening before and the end of the post-liturgy meal (we're big on breaking bread together after Liturgy -- partly to break our eucharistic fasts together, partly because it just seems wrong to break off fellowship just when things are getting going!)
He was partly joking, but his point was a serious one, both with regard to the fact that we aren't big on defining things to the nth degree, and with regard to the importance of the entire cycle of preparation and post-communion fellowship, some of which is comprised of formal church services, and much of which is time spent in personal prayer, family time, and church family time surrounding the serving of the Divine Liturgy.
The eating of a meal together as a family is just as "religious" as are the prayers before and after the meal. Our daily work is just as sacramental as are the morning and evening prayers we use to begin and end that working day.
So, there is a very real sense in which we are "socializing" with the saints who are portrayed in the "family pictures" (icons) in our church home -- and that those saints are a part of our living culture.
Perhaps the best way to see this is to see the comfort and ease with which our children enter into all of this. They are very much aware, in their child-like way, that they are at home, surrounded by family...
Ok... Why did His Father tell Jesus to choose the 12?
Here are some of my nominalist reasons for [supporting] that belief [Church's belief on infant baptism]:
(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, ... taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).
Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison. What do you think of this passage? :
Rom. 2:25-29 : "25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker."
"28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
If the comparison that St. Justin Martyr makes is correct, then this would seem to confirm that baptism is only good until the first sin. It also seems to imply that anyone who is not baptized, but yet believes, is still fine in the eyes of God. I would agree with that. Finally, from my POV, this "could" also be seen as favoring a believer's baptism, since how could any man receive praise from God unless he is a believer?
(6) St. Augustine made it clear that the custom of baptizing infants was a "tradition of the apostles" De Genesi ad Literam X:39. He was adamant that "infants who die before baptism" cannot obtain remission of the original sin."
It's interesting because I have my own little "situation" concerning this kind of thing. I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world. So, I can't say that God throws out "free passes" as time goes by. This leaves open the possibility that some innocent children, or aborted babies, etc. are not on the list. Of course, they could all be on the list. There's no way for me to know. So if I understand the Reformed view on this, and if I am to be consistent, then I have to leave open the possibility.
(8) Baptism is adoption of man by Christ (St John of Damascus, Book IV, VIII:5). What he is saying basically is: there is no age limit when God may adopt us.
Yes, this ties in with above, and I agree that there is no age limit. I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer.
10) Let's not forget that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).
That is a fair point for those who believe that the Spirit indwells at Baptism. (I just don't happen to be one of those people. :)
(12) Surely, you must agree that God is not limited by our age of reason or, as Tertullian would say, our "spiritual puberty," for us to have our sins remitted by His Grace. The Church understood that from the beginning, and still does, even I.
Yes, I agree with you in principle, that no one is barred from heaven based on age, even in the womb. -- And on this whole subject, as I have said to Joe before, and others I'm sure, infant baptism has never been a matter of serious controversy for me. Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no problem. They have both since been baptized as believers. So, my main disagreements would be much less over the fact of infant baptism, and much more over the meaning behind it.
BTW, for anyone who doesn't already know, and would be interested in knowing where I'm coming from in a believer's baptism, here are some scriptures I would use in support:
1. Mark 16:15-16 : 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation, only unbelief does, even though baptism was just mentioned in the same sentence.
2. Acts 2:41 : Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Unbelievers, such as infants, were not baptized.
3. Acts 8:12 : But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Only when they believed were they baptized.
4. Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
Nothing is required of men to be saved, except God's sovereign decree. No oath, no pledge, no sprinkling of holy water, no sign of the cross, no payment rendered, no piety, no persuasion, no effort on man's part in the slightest. We are either numbered among the elect, or we're not. If we are, we will receive Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ and we will recognize that our salvation lies in the accomplished work of Christ upon the cross...all in due time, according to His will.
Infant baptism reaffirms God's covenant family structure between the child and God, between the family and God, and between the family and the congregation of professing Christians. It is a sign and seal of our birthright as God's children.
And it involves our righteous cooperation not in the slightest. It is all of Him who bestows the blessings.
Now, why aren't we asleep? 8~)
If you have to ask, then you are not in it. There is only one Church.
I think that is a very valid point. Protestants rarely go back to the writings of the early church father. I never did, only because I thought most Christians were in agreement on many of the issues that we discuss here. Protestants are ignorant of history and it shows.
It was only after reading some of these disagreements that I thought one has to go back to the early church fathers and look at the history of the Church. Trouble is, as we see here, there are different ways to interpret history and the church fathers (like Augustine).
One thing I do appreciate about the Orthodox and the (cough) Catholics is the references to the fathers. I wish more of my Protestant brothers would do the same. As some may know, given a reference and the opportunity, I will go out and read the work. However, while the early fathers might have been godly men, I don't revere them and often read them with a critical eye-exactly the same way I read Calvin, Wesley and Spurgeon. I'm basically a cynic.
Why does it matter? Sola scriptura, friend, makes you the pope and the church all in one!
Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison
The only comparison between Jewish circumcision and Baptism is that both represent a covenant with God. The people were not sure if the number of days used by the Jews was significant or not. That's why they asked if it had to be on day 8 after the birth. But, as usual, Christianity is but a pale reflection of Judaism, which is evident from St. Justin Martyr's dismissal.
I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world
That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.
I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer
Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian. Those who are not in the Church usually consider it a nominalist symbol, just like the breaking of the bread. Those who are not Christian can indeed be God's elect, but anyone, believer or not, who is not in covenant with Christ is not a Christian.
Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons...They have both since been baptized as believers
Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans. It all goes back to the understanding of baptism as a Sacrament and not a mere ritual.
One thing however, that was amazing is that Anabaptists were way ahead of their times in terms in some ways. They were the founders of pacifism, believing in non-violence and opposing war. In fact, in Germany in the 16th century it was said that if a man does not drink excessively, and does not abuse his family and servants, he is probably an Anabaptist!
"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation
Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved. So, baptism and faith go hand in hand; but those who are baptized and cannot believe (infants) are not condemned because it is not their fault.
Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized
Entire household includes children/infants. Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.
I have also noticed your comments that baptism is good only until the next sin. That's why we have confession/repentance and communion -- it's a renewal of our state of being baptized because we certainly do not keep it holy and clean.
Thank you for your very kind words and for your most thorough and complete answer. :)
In fact, some might even go so far as to insinuate that these two verses [Matt. 13:55-56] single handedly discredit Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, ... In fact, I can't think of any other reason why so much time and energy would be dedicated by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to making the point that Mary the Mother of our Savior had an active sex life after the birth of the Christ. It is, after all, a question which has no bearing on the theology of salvation for these two movements.
Well, I would never be one to think that an honest disagreement about a couple of verses like these would mean the downfall of a faith. So I'm not in that camp. :) I don't think of this as being "core" theology on either side. But I do find it a very interesting topic, so I enjoy debating it, and learning what others think and why. I think that if there are some people out there who make a federal case out of this, that my "guess" would be that the real issue is one of "scripture versus Tradition", generally.
(When last I was on FR, someone pinged me about half a dozen times to tell me that "Jesus and Mary had sex." According to this person, she knew this because, "God said so.")
LOL! I'll call Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. This has "Da Vinci Code II" written all over it! :) Come to think about it, perhaps this person was thinking of Da Vinci Code I, and the other Mary. I hate that book. :)
[On who is "James" in Matt. 13:55-56:] So the Gospels concur that James, “the brother of our Lord” was actually not the son of Joeseph, but rather of Alphaeus.
But that's only in a two-James world! :) James was a common name, why couldn't there have been three of them (or even four)? We could have the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, the Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (James the Less), and the "later" Apostle James, the son of Mary and Joseph, and half-brother of Jesus.
I see your tie between identifying James in Gal. 1:18-19 as an Apostle, and then listing all the Apostles named "James" from the original 12. That makes perfect sense. But we know that the original 12 named Apostles did not constitute an exhaustive list. Not only did Paul come later, but wasn't Matthias also named as a "new" Apostle? I think some also consider Barnabas to be an Apostle. I would submit for consideration that James, the half-brother of Jesus was a "third" James and was just such a late-coming Apostle to the scene. I do think this is the same James in Gal. 1:19 (the first reference to James, half-brother of Jesus, as an Apostle), and in Acts 15 (James, son of Zebedee was already dead [chap. 12], and James the Less may not have had the stature to lead an entire council.), and the author of the Book of James. My little theory "could" be supported by the following
1 Cor. 15:5-8 : ... 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
To me, this clearly indicates a third James, since it does not say "then to the rest of the Apostles". At the time referenced in this passage, Paul, like James, brother of Jesus, was not yet an Apostle. That is why James and Paul are listed separately and apart from "all the Apostles".
If Mary, mother of James the Less, also had a son named Joses, I'm not sure that is proof of anything either way, since there could have been any number of people with that name.
Perhaps Judas is Jude, “the brother of James”? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:” (Jude 1:1) So here we see the author of the Epistle of Jude identifying himself as a brother to James. James who? How about James the “pillar.” James who addressed the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, James the brother of our Lord?
Yes, to everything here. If I'm right about James, then this "Jude" would also be a half-brother of Jesus.
The first question we want to ask ourselves is, why does Jude identify himself as the brother of James, and not the brother of our Lord?
One explanation would be that Jude realized the divinity of our Lord, and did not feel worthy to refer to Him as a "sibling" in the normal human sense. Instead, Jude refers to himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ", just as James does. This indicates to me that Jude did recognize the divinity of Jesus.
Now, if we believe that the Epistle of Jude is actually Apostolic, the author would be Jude Thadeus, listed as one of the twelve Apostles.
I don't think that is necessarily so in view of above. Others were considered Apostles later, although I do not know if this Jude actually was considered an Apostle. If he was a blood brother of Jesus and he "was sent", then he would appear, at least, to qualify.
But since, as we have seen that James the brother of our Lord, also listed in Matthew 13:55, 56 is in fact James the Apostle and pillar, it is a reasonable guess to say that Jude the “brother” of James is the same person as “Judas” the brother of James and Jesus.
It's pretty funny that I can truly agree with absolutely everything you are saying here, yet we are talking about two completely different things. :)
The point of the passage [Matt. 1:24-25] is to convey to the reader that Jesus was born to a virgin.
Well, I suppose so, and given the immediately preceding verses, I would take 24-25 to be sort of insurance verses against sex during pregnancy. :) The question I ask is: What is the reasonable implication from these verses?
You stated well my belief that since they were married at that time, that "until" meant until the birth, and thereafter they would have a normal marriage. The counter I have seen to this is that "until" is really like the "unto" used at the end of Matthew when Jesus says He will be with them unto the very end of the age. The argument says that since Jesus would be with them even after that, there is no future assumption or change after the timing element is met (the end of the age).
I disagree with this idea based on the relative contexts of both situations. To me, in the context of what Jesus said, it would be completely counterintuitive for anyone to think that Jesus would be with them unto the end of the age, and then abandon them. That wouldn't make sense to anyone, and I doubt that anyone hearing Jesus say that, or anyone reading about it later, would have come to that conclusion. In this case, the "normal" state simply continues.
In the case of Matt. 1, however, just the opposite is true. Joseph and Mary were man and wife. Their "normal" state would be to be living as man and wife. It makes perfect sense that scripture tells us that they abstained from sex until Jesus was born, that was reasonable and necessary for reasons also plainly given. However, once the requirements were fulfilled, it makes much more sense to me that they would have gone INTO a "normal" state of marriage. It would be counterintuitive for them NOT to have done so. I think the word "until" is the confirming signal for this. It means that the "abnormal" state turns into a "normal" state. To me, this information is useful to the reader, and worth a verse. I see this as the more reasonable implication.
The Scriptures nowhere tell us that Mary had sexual relations with a man, nor do they tell us that she had other biological children.
Well, the scriptures DO say that, but it is a matter of debate as to the interpretation. I would say that the "plain meaning" would strongly favor my side, leaving it to others to prove it wrong. The actual "words" really are there. So, if I said that Paul actually had a wife and 5 kids, and you said that it was nowhere in scripture, then it would be a slam dunk that you were right and all of the burden would be on me to deliver something.
If they did, in fact, have other children, it is hard to believe that Mary would have gone to live with the Apostle John after the death of Christ. Why not just stay with her own children?
A perfectly reasonable question. My personal opinion is, apart from any research, that there were two reasons why John got this job, and not Jesus' half-brothers, James and Jude.
One is that John was the one whom Jesus loved. He was also picked as one of the twelve, unlike either of Jesus' blood brothers. This tells me that both James and Jude did not have faith in Jesus early on. (No problem, they eventually came around.) But Jesus knew that John had been there for Him from the beginning, so it makes perfect sense to me that He would pick the best candidate, regardless of the tradition of picking a blood brother. (Jesus broke such traditions several times.)
The other reason John got the job was that He was THERE. :) As Jesus was dying on the cross, all the other Apostles had fled. Only John was there as an Apostle. That shows tremendous loyalty to me. It is also evidence that John would be the perfect choice to whom Jesus would entrust His mother.
If the men mentioned in Matthew 13:55, 56 are Christ's brothers, then James preaches that true religion before God is to care for the widow and the orphan in their affliction, but he himself did not take care of his own widowed mother.
If I'm following you, then I am assuming that you are assuming that Joseph has died by this time? If that's right, then my answer would be that James was never asked to take care of Mary, his mother. He wasn't an Apostle at that time, he wasn't there at the crucifixion, and he may not have even believed that Jesus was the Christ yet. By my reasoning, John was a far superior choice at the time.
This has been a very interesting discussion so far. Thank you again for your post. :)
I said I would revisit this topic, so here I am.
The best way to understand Jewish mind is to talk to your Jewish friends and ask them. If they invite you to a Passover Seder, please go and learn. You will be astounded to hear them quote from Isaiah and other OT verses. It will bring you very close spiritually to them.
When you ask them, you will get simple, unambiguous, no-nonsesne, reverent answers. They will say things like "we make ourselves acceptable to God by doing good things." Or, "man does not need to be saved." Or "There is only one God, not three."
Basic Judaism, simple enough for a non-Jew to understand states:
all ephases are mine
So, the Judaism of the Pharisees, the rabbinical Judaism of today, is essentially Pelagian: man is good enough to merit a place in the World to Come based on his own conduct, deeds and "purification" (in Shoel or Hades, which some have liked to the Purgatory).
The Sadduccees, the priestly class, did not believe in resurrection because it is not mentioned in the Torah, the Five Books of Moeses. The fact that it appears in later Tanakh, in the disputed book of Daniel, shows that the Sadduccees did not believe it to be a genuine biblical source, but the Pharisees do (although some of the chapters do not appear in their and Protestant versions).
Likewise, the idea of being "saved" is perplexing to them. They will tell you that God already saved the His people (Israel) from Egypt and put them in their promised land, and that God saves us on a daily basis.
Thus, regarding salvation, the Jews will say:
Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.
Judaism recognizes that people have sinful impulses, but Judaism also recognizes that people have an inclination to do good and to be good, and that people are able to choose whether to follow the evil inclination or the good inclination.
It is within our ability to be righteous. The Torah itself says, " The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14). And if we miss the mark, when we fail to fulfill the good laws that G-d has provided for us, then we can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentance and good deeds.
So, while they use the same Book of the Old Covenant that we consider Scripture, they read it differently. They believe that God gave us the Law so that we may make ourselves righteous by obeying it by their own free will and not because God "moved" them to do so.
There are a lot of the same words being used as in Christianity, but without knowing at least the basic principles of Judaism it is easy to fall into a false belief by equating their principles of faith with ours.
Whether Judaism reflect the faith of the OT righteous or not is not ours to determine. Just by seeing how different Judaism is from Christianity, down to the core, is enough to understand that Christianity is not the faith the OT righteous would recognize as their own.
One more interesting aspect is the Jewish concept of the Nature of God. One of these is that God is neither male nor female. As one rabbi said, God has no genitalia. Yet, liturgical Judaism uses the phrase "Avinu Malkeinu," ("our Father, our King.")
Judaism uses the male gender "because it is convenient" (?), but this has probably more to do with the fact that Jewish women were social nonentities at the time Torah was being written. Jews disallow any other being or part of God to be considered as equal or co-equal. The idea of Trinity is blasphemy for the Jews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.