Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
Try reading it again.
I merely pointed out that the phrase "nearly the whole city" does not mean "the church", so whatever Luke was descrining is not a church worship service, but rather an evangelistic service of sorts. Some gentiles came to Christ and were baptized after this all happened. See verse 48.
TCYet another sign of last day sabbatarian desperation.
No, it's not. That guy said some really mean stuff about a whole lot of people. He straight up called for a curse on the houses of Jews and Christians alike. In contrast, the SDA church claims to be THE end times Church and their doctrine states that the first resurrection is it - no second chance. But they do not teach that only SDA members are in that resurrection. I remember Pastor Ross specifically saying that the SDA doesn't condemn or presume to judge anyone. The SDA does not know who is called and to what measure. Mullah Calvin apparently does.
Thanks for playing.
Psssst! Who is Ellen White????
Ellen White was born Ellen Topcat on a farm in the Northeast in the early 1800's.....
The essentials are not there.
1. There is no mention of the wine, the cup of communion. Without the wine, it's not the Lord's Supper.
2. There is no mention of any type of ceremony. No mention of any reverence associated with it. No blessings asked. No mention of taking it "unworthily".
3. It's not even called the "Lord's Supper". Clearly the term "kuriakos deipnon", the Lord's Supper, is known to be extant since it's mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. But it IS not used in Acts 20.
This was an unremarkable meal. Something that happened, and happens, all the time. That's not even the point. The only reason it's mentioned at all is that it was a testament to God's healing powers, through Paul, because on that night God used Paul to bring a dead boy back to life.
What is really conspicuously missing is any mention of a synagogue or worshiping on the last day sabbath of the Jews in Acts 20.
Who cares? The point was to relate the story of the miraculous healing during a fellowship meal following the sabbbath.
On 54 acres??????
Otherwise your comments have little impact on those of us who follow the practices of the apostles.
That is a key phrase; when you should be following the Holy Word of G-d not the Traditions of man !
b'shem Y'shua
Matthew 23:15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites!
You travel over land and sea to win a single convert,
and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
That is a key phrase; when you should be following the Holy Word of G-d not the Traditions of man !
Let us just be clear, are you denying that the apostles spoke authoritatively for God Himself, or that their practice as given in the NT is not to be considered normative for the church of God?
Well that just about sum up this conversation.
Well.....she wasn't my precursor and prophetess, because I can find no record of her celebrating Passover....or for that matter...any other of God's Holy days.
Sorry Topcat....wrong time....wrong station! I'm sorry...I cannot even say "Nice Try" because it was pathetic.
"God's annual Festivals are listed in Leviticus 23 and in Deuteronomy 16. These God-given holy days were commanded to be observed "forever" (Leviticus 23:14, 21, 31, 41). The Apostolic Church observed the annual Sabbaths (Acts 2; 12:3-4; 18:21; 20:6, 16; 27:9; 1 Corinthians 16:8). These Sabbaths will continue to be observed during Christ's millennial rule (Zechariah 14:1, 9, 16-19)."
What is the deal with your Ellen White fetish? You're apparently the only one on the board interested in her.
First, I note that Mr. Maoz engages in the age-old fallacy of trying to use the New Testament to unfavorably contrast Judaism and Christianity. For example, he quotes from Luke 18, claiming that the words of the Pharisee universally represent Judaism in the 1st century and beyond. He conveniently misses this obvious point: Both the publican and the Pharisee were Jewish followers of the faith of YHVH known as Judaism! Nowhere does Yeshua state or even hint that the publican was what we now call a Christian. One can only read such a conclusion back into the text by a careless bit of eisegesis.
Yeshua’s point was in contrasting the conditions of two hearts, the religiously proud versus the humble and repentant. One could tell the exact same parable as “The Reverend and the IRS Agent” and it wouldn’t change its meaning one iota.
So right off the bat, Maoz engages in very, very poor interpretation of the text. Fortunately, his speech improves as he goes on, but he so nearly sinks it at the beginning that it simply must be pointed out.
Now to his credit, Maoz is far more fair to Messianism than many. And he is not wrong that some Messianics make the error of falling into Rabbinic Judaism; there’s at least one example on this forum. However, this may no more be legitimately used as an argument against Messianism than the existence of Hyper-Calvinism may legitimately be taken as an argument against the whole system of Calvinism:
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.No system should be judged by its abuses, nor should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.
--Phil Johnson
Now, it is true that Judaism tends to emphasize works over faith, and in fact does not preach faith in line with the Gospel. This is due to two causes: First, a direct reaction to a “dead faith” Christianity which puts creeds above works. As I and others have observed before, for most of two millennia, Christianity and Judaism have both been guilty of defining themselves mostly in opposition to each other.
Second, it is due to the loss of the sacrifice and the Temple. Since there could be no more blood of the sacrifice to atone for sins, as required in Lev. 17:11, the rabbis sought out other means of atonement:
As Rabban Yohana ben Zakkai was coming froth from Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua followed after him and beheld the Temple in ruins. "Woe unto us!" Rabbi Joshua cried, "that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for is laid waste!" "My son," Yohanan said to him, "be not grieved; we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is ACTS OF LOVING KINDNESS, as it is said, 'For I desire mercy and not sacrifice (Hos. 6:6)" (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4:18)As noted in my original article, the need for blood atonement is still recognized in the “ultra-Orthodox” practice of killing a chicken on Yom Kippur, so while of necessity the emphasis in Judaism was transferred to works, the need for blood atonement has not vanished. Too, the idea that one is saved by God’s grace alone, not by “the works of the law” are deeply imbedded in Judaism, as reflected in the Avinu Malkeynu, quoted in my opening article:
The rest of Maoz’s sermon isn’t all that objectionable other than the standard arrogant “only a Calvinist would understand” crack that all Calvinists seem obliged to make. But his main point, that we cannot in the least depend on our own works for salvation, nor can we sanctify ourselves, but must continually rest in the Messiah is spot on. This is 100% true. However, it also sidesteps the practical question which arises once one is already saved: “How now shall we walk?”Our Father and Our King
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and King
Be merciful to us
Be merciful unto us.For we have done no deeds
Commending us unto You
For we have no deeds commending us to You
Be merciful, save us, we pray.
Theological platitudes like “walk by faith,” “walk in the Spirit,” “live in Christ” do not answer that question in any concrete form; indeed, without a foundation on the Rock of God’s Word, they are meaningless:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Mat. 7:24-27)There are four types of people:
1) Those who try to keep the commands of God in the Bible, but who do not really trust Him to forgive their sins. This sort becomes legalistic in deed and/or creed, judging everyone around them for not doing the right works or voicing the right creeds. Outwardly, they can seem smug, or even serene, but inside they are never at peace, because they know that they don’t measure up to God’s standards either, but hope by getting “close enough” that He’ll overlook the rest.I don’t think Maoz would disagree with the above; in fact, he himself, though he’s primarily concerned with Type #1, acknowledges the necessity of being a Type 4 when he points out that those who truly love God naturally seek to do His will.2) Those who “have faith,” but insufficient faith to change their lives. To this person, “faith” is “believing in” something contrary to fact, or in the absence of evidence. They think that by saying the right words, the sinner’s prayer or whatever, they get a free ticket into heaven. What they miss is trusting God enough to not only be able to rest assured of one’s salvation, but enough to want to do things God’s way. These are those who build their house on sand.
3) Those with neither faith nor works. ‘Nuff said.
4) Those who rest assured of their salvation in the Messiah, and trust Him enough to obey His words. Obedience is not done out of fear, as in the first type of person, but out of love. Again, I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved, but because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.
TC, you’ve several times made the accusation that those of us who observe the Sabbath and the other Feastdays are being legalistic. I deny the charge—not that Messianics and Sabbatarians are never legalistic, because some plainly are, but because not all of us are, nor is legalism a condition unique to our fellowships.
Legalism is a condition of the heart which reveals itself in the outward actions and attitudes, not a simple matter of keeping God’s Torah out of faith and love—or else the Apostles were all legalists of the first order. Because legalists are convinced in their hearts—whether they’ve thought it out in their heads or not—that if you don’t do or say such-and-such in just the right way, you’re not really saved, or a Christian. To quote Max Lucado, “Legalism turns my opinion into your boundary.”
Now with that in mind, TC, which of us is the legalist? I, who has only pointed out that the Bible never did away with the Feasts or Sabbath, and who started these threads simply to show what the Feast mean and why they still have value, since in the Apostle Sha’ul’s words, they “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of the Messiah” (Col. 2:17). Or you who barge into this thread to condemn the rest of us for keeping practices which you aver are “not authorized” by the NT, even though you cannot show where the NT changes or forbids the keeping of the Feasts either? I who love and accept both Messianics and those who worship the Lord on Sunday as my brethren in the Lord? Or you who state without a hint of grace, “Christians do not keep the Sabbath.”
It was a good speech, TC. But you’ve evidentially missed Moaz’s real point in your joy at finding some criticism against Judaism and some (not all) Messianics in his words.
Since I've not made any particular comments about what Maoz said, I'm not sure your conclusion is warranted. I was especially interested in your take on the issue of justification as he outlined it.
I'll have to go back and listen again with your comments in mind.
Not a fetish, just trying to establish pedigree.
Besides, with all the beatings that the church fathers have taken either explicitly or implicitly (chants of "paganism" come to mind), surely a reference from Wikipedia to Ellen White's unique -isms can't be too objectionable.
Closer....but yet, "No Cigar"!
To what end? Why not argue scripture for scripture?
Besides, with all the beatings that the church fathers have taken either explicitly or implicitly (chants of "paganism" come to mind), surely a reference from Wikipedia to Ellen White's unique -isms can't be too objectionable.
I don't object, actually, I couldn't care less. But I have to wonder why you seem to want to take the debate away from scripture and on to extra-biblical sources.
I tried earlier in the thread or the last thread to get you to step back or move forward and tell us how you come to your beliefs. What is the end game of your theology? Mine is pretty simple - God does not change the rules, belief in Him changes men to follow them.
Since you want to make this about anything but scripture, and you refuse to post the scripture that repeals the 4th Commandment, I will go off on the tangential bait.
RE: ECF bashing:
Once I discovered all the errors that I had been taught, I set out to find out how did this happen? Even the Apostles had disagreements that made it into scripture. The ECF's had a huge challenge spreading the Gospel to the Nations. IMO, the early Church's purity was eroded the further they got away from Jerusalem. I think that in order to win converts, the first one's started compromising. Baptizing people en masse is risky business, no? This is clear in the Epistles as well as the rebukes the churches get in Revelation. Then as Paul's converts started converting others, and so on, the lines between paganism and Christianity started to become really blurred. Keep in mind, these guys couldn't possibly have the access to the scriptures that we enjoy.
It looks like it all came to a head at the Nicean Council, where purity was compromised for unity.
Anti-Semitism looks like a source of the apostasy. Hellenists and Gnostics weren't big on being judged. Another was Plato-ism and Neo-Plato-ism. These folks saw "truth" in every religion. This was re-inforced as civil Rome conquered land after land and kept running into gods that looked just like the one's back home. So these little nuances creep in, innocently, over time and become the norm. In broad terms, I do not subscribe to a notion that these things were part of a "vast Hellenist-wing conspiracy". I think it was all an accident.
The part that absolutely blows my mind is that here we are with our electronic Bibles and specials on the Discovery or History channels explaining the pagan origins of a whole lot of Christianity. With PhD level theologians who know full well the origins of the errors they teach, and yet they keep teaching them. But, then I remember it is all prophesied:
Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
Why not just ask?
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.