Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Simple mitzvot. Very understandable and expectable from an observant orthodox Jew.
Then He revealed Himself to Paul in miraculous fashion. I suppose we are left to speculate as to what sort of job Christ did in His revelation.
I don't know. I have difficulty believing that when He said "it's finished (accomplished)" He meant that St. Paul was supposed to add to His teaching because somehow it wasn't finished, that somehow He left his mission incomplete!
As for Revelation, was not Christ Himself the fullness of God's revelation? We needed Revelation on top of that? As if Christ didn't finish His mission?
Think about it, in Apostolic thinking Christ dying on the cross served as kind of a "nudge" to mankind. It made it possible for man to decide for himself whether to do good deeds and partake of the sacraments, etc.
That is "negative?" There were was no "nudge," just God's unlimited mercy that offered life to all those who would come to Him. And, yes, by destroying death, we believe He freed us to come to Him or to reject Him; The consequences of our choices are clear.
NOW, with Paul, the corollary would be that God gave Paul a "nudge"
Yes, to save the Church, not to do a sequel to Christ's ministry.
Kosta, you know me and my sneaky lawyer ways. :) So, I was very careful to say "This QUOTE was said BEFORE ..." The quotes of John 10 were SPOKEN in real life before the failure of the Jews to embrace Christianity (that you described). So, either my point (that John says that Christ's sheep never changed and were always given by the Father, including Gentiles) remains unaddressed, or John 10 has made up quotes.
But Acts Chapter 1 shows us that the Apostles did not know that, and one of then was St. John. Now, it doesn't mean that St. John lied when He wrote it, but that the full nature of Christ's ministry became known to the Apostles after the fact. Any cursory study of ancient manuscripts will tell you that ancient writers use quotes in a distinctly different manner then we do.
Ancient usage of quotes is not verbatim transcription of someone's utterances, but what the author believed that someone intended to say. This flies in the face of usage of quotes just as our terminology (coming from OT) is given Christianized meaning which differs from that in Judaism.
Isn't this the IDENTICAL argument you are having with Harley over who are "those" in Mark 16, except now it's reversed? :) I do realize it can go both ways, but I just thought it was funny enough to bring up.
No. In Mark 16 it says the believers will exhibit signs. It means all believers. If it were not all, then it would be preceded by some believers...In this case Christ coming for the lost sheep of Israel means all spiritually lost members of Israel, which doesn't include Gentiles as part of His ministry.
It always goes back to context
You bet!
If our observed experience does not match, then we can either declare the scripture wrong, or we can look for an interpretation consistent with the totality of scripture, i.e. that it is true and is God's revelation to us in conformity with 2 Tim. (at least). In addition, a belief that God's word is Holy is one of the presuppositions I have been talking about.
Oh, come on! :) You know the arguments over "many". OK, how do you explain this...what is the meat of your argument here? Were only SOME, but not all "affected" by Adam's sin? Was Christ sent to save some of the lost but not all, according to Apostolic theology? If He shows no favoritism then how were they selected? This falls apart so quickly....
Much a saying' about nothing, FK. What "some" means is that some will benefit from His sacrifice, but not all. Some will come to Him and be saved; other will reject Him and be lost. His intention was for all of mankind, but He also reminds us that not all will take advantage of His freely offered mercy.
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. - Romans 10:19
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. - Romans 11:11
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. - Revelation 15:3
Oh, c'mon, that's one of those concoctions, a little bit from here and a little bit from there to make it sound like it's somewhere in the scripture all in one neat little package. It's obviously biblical engineering;
Let's look at it closely:
"And take the helmet of salvation"—from Isa 59:17
"and the sword of the Spirit"—Isa 49:2,
and Hos 6:5
(notice how the words of God here don't "save" but kill)
"[the Spirit] which is the word of God"—not fund in this context anywhere in the OT (Oh, no, what did the Bereans do!?)and is completely Paul's own construct.
So, what we have here is a collage of two different chapters of Isaiah and one addition made by Paul, neatly packaged as a Biblical statement.
This is like cutting and pasting from various editions of the NY Times the following words Red, Sea, blue, the, not, red, is, but and claiming the NYT says "the Red Sea is red and not blue!"
You see, without the knowledge, their whole belief falls apart. Yet when challeneged to porve what they know they can't. That's the point when they say "you don't have eyes and ears..." Very convincing...LOL.
Is questioning the same as rejecting? I reject your notion that it is.
“God has named us all and freely offers His Grace to us all; we are free as well to accept or reject that Grace.”
This is an example of one putting man’s will above God’s sovereignty. Ephesians 2:
“4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
the_conscience: No doubt you base this upon incontrovertible empirical data, using the same methodology as your Bible criticism, and have all the evidence to prove that all the rituals and dogma of the Greek church is directly handed down from the Apostles. (BTW, that would exclude any indirect references to old testament Jewish customs)
kosta The New Testament tells us that the Church received the faith from the beginning and that the Apostles were there to receive it. The point I was making, which you seem to have missed...
the_conscience: That's rich! You've been on this forum making the secular atheist proud in your case against the New Testament and then you turn around and use it as a source for your church? No, I didn't miss your point but that was a nice attempt at subterfuge.
I've just been holding up the mirror hoping that you see your bipolar epistemolgy. The only way you'll know God is if you see yourself as you are and the only way you'll know yourself as you are is if you know God in is utter holiness. I'm just the mirror holder and I can't effect the scales falling from your eyes but I pray the sovereign Holy Spirit might effect it.
Sorry, I haven't had time to follow this tread but this did catch my attention. I find the Orthodox Church to be more honorable in their beliefs. While I strongly disagree with their views and believe it is heretical in nature, there is a consistent pattern of how they arrived at it. However, their view is built upon Cassian's point of view that was considered heresy by the Roman Catholics at one time.
I mean this with the utmost respect and sincerity, but I find the doctrine of Roman to be nothing more than a gobblygook mess. It is an idolatry nonsensical doctrine that Catholics can't even keep straight; raising Mary and the Church far higher than our Lord Jesus. Catholics can't even define what it means to venerate something-but they certainly know how to venerate a plastic statue of Mary that sits in the corner or to bury a statue of Joseph next to the realty sign so the house will sell. Catholics say they have a great respect for the scriptures, but in truth, like the Orthodox, they don't. Their actions of trying to destroy the trust in the scriptures and where they come from belies what is purported. The early fathers never had any doubt as expressed here. It doesn't surprise me to see the Roman Catholics slowing moving back towards the erroneous teachings of the Orthodox because they can't figure out simple concepts like "a chosen nation". It is rather laughable, IMHO, that you would suggest that I would twist and corrupt history when Catholics won't even admit an edict from the "infallible" Pope was rescinded. History is constantly being rewritten by the Catholics. Shall I pull out the 4th Lateran Council of 1211 which states you can't be saved unless you belong to the Church? That is still on the books. You look in the Catholic records and there is enough to hang you. But the mantra with Catholics is given enough time and perhaps no one will look in the records.
History is constantly being rewritten by the Catholics. Shall I pull out the 4th Lateran Council of 1211 which states you can’t be saved unless you belong to the Church? That is still on the books. You look in the Catholic records and there is enough to hang you
= = =
INDEED!
I was not making an argument against the "continuing and ancient character of [your] divine liturgies". My point was to show kosta his empirical epistemology is untenable and that he applies it differently for the word of God and the Greek church.
But since you brought it up K, it is disappointing that the Greek church never matured as the author of Hebrews called the Church to do. Why is it that the Greek church is still playing with the old covenant when a better covenant has been installed? Why is it that the Greek church is still playing with copies and shadows when what those represented to the Jews has been fulfilled in Christ?
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity....For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also....For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated form sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
“But since you brought it up K, it is disappointing that the Greek church never matured as the author of Hebrews called the Church to do. Why is it that the Greek church is still playing with the old covenant when a better covenant has been installed? Why is it that the Greek church is still playing with copies and shadows when what those represented to the Jews has been fulfilled in Christ?”
:) That’s OK tc; we don’t worry too much about those sorts of ideas. If you were here, I’d offer you cup of kafe and perhaps a nice piece of baklava.
***If you were here, I’d offer you cup of kafe and perhaps a nice piece of baklava.***
A black wool facemask? Oh, that’s balaklava :>)
I’ve tried baklava. It tastes very good, but way too sweet for me.
***:) That’s OK tc; we don’t worry too much about those sorts of ideas. If you were here, I’d offer you cup of kafe and perhaps a nice piece of baklava.***
No, I suppose not and thanks for the offer. If you get to this side of the world I have coffee and cinnamon rolls ready for you. ;)
I have frequently acknowledged that my quotes are from the NAB. I freely say to the world that the Church is the pillar of truth, not some power hungry tyrant who murdered many in Geneva. If it was not clear to the heathen that this is so, then I apologize for not making it clear this time.
We Christians do not say that we either merit (on our own) or earn our salvation. I suppose that those posts have as little relevance as the four Gospels do to the Reformed.
***Just because you’ve read Webster’s definition of “gnostic” and thus have some vague understanding of gnosticism as having something to do with “knowledge,” this does not mean all “knowledge” is incorrect or gnostic.***
I have read the Church Fathers’ definitions of Gnosticism and have specific knowledge of their understanding of it. I have read of their battle against this early great evil and how it nearly finished the Church. I find it despicable that modern day self-identified Christians proclaim it, without claiming it, after all these centuries.
***Some knowledge is actually God-given.***
Can you show that yours is? Do you have anything other than a misinterpretation of St. Paul? Is your Bible that much lighter with the four Gospels removed? Or more understandable?
Amen, irish. The church will never get them into heaven, only into deception.
Thank you very much.
***I have Jesus Christ as my savior.***
He is the only one who can.
***it is he who took my broken body and gave me life***
Broken? Or simply without grace. Those are two different conditions, my friend.
***My God did it for me***
We don’t have a god. Our God has us. We are His creatures and He is our Creator. We do not create a god in our own image, keep him on the hall stand, and pat his head for luck as we walk by.
***Worship your church if that makes you happy. ***
We do not worship the Church of Jesus Christ. We only worship Him.
***Worship your idols, worship your church, enjoy your life, as long as it lasts.***
We have no idols, not even Reformed ones. But we do not claim to have authority from the Holy Spirit to act as we will, based upon that indwelling Spirit. When we sin, it comes from us. When the Reformed sin, it comes from the Reformed God.
Your tag line says it all. Have a day.
We love the Isaacs. What great family harmony. Can’t beat it.
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.