Posted on 02/10/2013 6:24:05 AM PST by don-o
I commend you in that - So many would never even begin to really look at such things. I too had such a moment, where I had to throw everything on the altar to see what burned and what did not. What is funny about that is that we two, faced with the very same dilemma, wound up so diametrically opposed. : )
The sola scriptura assertion that I had embraced without question began to trouble me because my religious tradition (Baptist and nondenom Bible church) was pretty good at pointing out the erro.rs of not only Rome, but also the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Charismatics, etc. Yet, they ALL affirmed sola scriptura.
I am technically a Calvinist, so I get that... probably better than a Baptist would! : )
I was left with two alternatives:
1. There was deception – they did not all follow the sola principle
2. The sola principle was flawed.
So far, so good.
I recognized that human sinfulness could account for my #1. Yet, why did I not see examples of sola believers coming together? Should not constant Bible study and the leading of the Holy Spirit be tending towards more unity?
I think that is not quite right - Unity in Yeshua is not necessarily signified by a singular organization, anymore that YHWH's creation is made up of one single specie. There is GREAT diversity in everything YHWH does, and I think it is very healthy that Protestants/Evangelicals have such a wide and varied form.
Note well what our Lord prayed in John 17:21.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Unity for unity's sake is not what He meant - If we are all one in apostasy, what profit is there? That is, after all, what the accuser would most certainly prefer. And at the end, there cannot be perfect unity without unity in Spirit and in truth.
That is not to be found in the Roman church - That much I know to be true, without any reservation... And while I respect the Orthodox quite a bit more (by an order of magnitude) her close kinship to her sister only leads me to the obvious conclusion that the great apostasy must surely have been ancient, certainly originating before the schism (no offense meant, just my look-see on it).
Why is the trend exactly the opposite that we see under the banner of sola scriptura? ; i.e. more fragmentation?
That assumes that such fragmentation is an unhealthy thing. That fragmentation can often be very healthy. PresbyterianUSA is no longer the principal organ of Presbyterian orthodoxy. Even though it is the largest and oldest Presbyterian denomination, it has fallen deep into apostasy, not only against the Word of YHWH, but even against it's own confession. And it is hemorrhaging members because of it.
Unlike the hierarchy maintained by Rome, the ability and penchant for fragmentation allows Protestants to deal with such a thing - They just 'come out of her', just like they did to Rome... Two relatively new shoots have sprung up, The Presbyterian OPC and the PresbyterianPCA (among others), which are fed from the same Westminster root, but lacking the rottenness of the old tree, which will certainly be nothing but a stump before long... But Westminster lives on in those young shoots.
There is a lesson in that. Try to find where the prophecy is to affirm the 'He shall be called a Nazarene' claim. No where is Yeshua called a Nazarene in the OT. The prophecy does not exist. What was misinterpreted is the root of 'Nazarene' which is 'Netzer'. And a 'Netzer' is a very specific type of shoot which comes up at a distance (both in time and space) from the old tree, but is the continuation of the old tree's root. Such a shoot could indeed be considered a fragment, but the root is the same, and the resulting tree is exactly the same as the old one, right down to the DNA. All it is missing is age and rottenness.
Those same up-springing shoots are now evident coming from the Lutherans and Anglicans too... How then can it be bad to be a 'Netzer'?
And I would add that the old hierarchical tree of Rome has no ability to shed itself of it's apostasy - It may be better at withstanding it from entering in, but if and invariably when it does, it has no means of sending forth a new shoot. And because of that, it must surely end as a rotten old stump.
'Consider the Olive tree', indeed!
But in saying that, I admit my own reasoning against your listed conclusion above: I have to conclude that '1. There was deception – they did not all follow the sola principle' is the correct answer: Too much Rome remains within them...
So for me, the lesson of the Netzer goes to something purer and older than Rome or it's Protestants. Yeshua as a Netzer must certainly be of the older root - The same root that has always been, as His Tree will be exactly what has always been, less the rot of apostasy... *NOT* something new. So tell me FRiend, which church do you see that looks like that? Certainly not those springing from Rome or Greece.
I’m not sure what exactly this “older and purer” something is. We have accounts in the Bible of early Christian worship. It developed from Temple and synagogue. Rather than ramble on with my own thoughts, I post this web page on early Christian liturgics.
To address your expressed contempt for all things hierarchical, I would point to the book of Acts, specifically the council that was convened to decide what to do about the Gentiles.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Here is an organized structure of authority. (Note the three – church, apostles and elders.) We Orthodox like to remind the Catholics that it was James, not Peter, who spoke the decision of the assembled council. Regardless, here is recognized authority, exercised under the Holy Spirit, by James’ declaration. Hierarchy.
I do not seeing evidence of a brand new shoot in early Christian worship as recorded in Scripture. The fact that the Apostles kept the hours of prayer at the temple, and later in Acts chapter 21, Paul is in the Temple for seven days performing a purification ritual…this indicates conscious continuation, a connection to what had been before.
This is important because Orthodoxy (or orthodoxy) consists of both right belief and right worship. When I went searching, I looked at who made verifiable claims to this. I narrowed it down to the Catholics and the Orthodox. My attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy began the sealing of the deal. “Come and see.” In a borrowed space, not ornate in the least, I witnessed worship that was worthy of God. Grappling with the belief part took a while.
Returning to the “netzer”, I believe this is the passage – Isaiah 11:1-2.
11 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
This a referring to the person who would be Messiah. It’s quite a stretch to transfer this to the Church that our Lord said that He would build upon the rock of Peter’s confession.
I’m not sure what exactly this “older and purer” something is. We have accounts in the Bible of early Christian worship. It developed from Temple and synagogue. Rather than ramble on with my own thoughts, I post this web page on early Christian liturgics.
Thanks for that site. My what an exhaustive treatise. I must confess, however, that I only lightly perused the stuff concerning 600AD onward, as I suspect that the great apostasy was already well under way by that time.
But I think the article, while declaring some credence in the origin of Christian liturgy within Jerusalem and in the synagogue, I think it glosses over the Faustian bargain made with Constantine. And probably to your surprise, it is not the syncretism encountered there (or perhaps shortly before or after), but rather the acceptance of Christianity without it's Jewish roots, which IMO, introduced a vacuum by which (and into which) that syncretism was inhaled.
I do understand that Judaism rejected the Nazarenes, and that played some part in the split, but from the point of Rome's acceptance onward, Christianity could not any longer claim relation to Judaism, even as a red-headed stepchild, because the symbiosis which occurred upon that occasion aimed directly at the rift between Judaism and Christianity and tore them asunder.
I come from a weird angle on this because I do believe the sacraments and liturgies of Judaism (of the Temple and synagogue), not to mention the Holy Days, are prophetic by design. Their practice was always meant as a rehearsal for something to come, even those things which were remembrances of what seemingly had gone by. Such things being rejected, there is no longer a valid purpose, and one is left with 'a form of godliness while denying His power'. Just sayin.
The article touched on that, suggesting that the things of Judaism were no longer necessary, since the coming of Yeshua fulfilled it all. I reject that explicitly, and find such an idea akin to replacement theology - Even a passing knowledge of the Old Testament will leave one knowing that it isn't all fulfilled. Not by a long shot.
To address your expressed contempt for all things hierarchical, I would point to the book of Acts, specifically the council that was convened to decide what to do about the Gentiles.
As a point of order, I do not have contempt for all things hierarchical.
[...] We Orthodox like to remind the Catholics that it was James, not Peter, who spoke the decision of the assembled council. [...]
Yeah, I've gone there a time or two myself. :D
Here is an organized structure of authority. (Note the three – church, apostles and elders.) [...] here is recognized authority, exercised under the Holy Spirit, by James’ declaration. Hierarchy.
Even the most congregational of non-denom churches have a similar structure, less the Christian 'nobility'... So it isn't hierarchy per se, but rather the interpretation of what proper hierarchy should be. My interpretation of the passage you presented is probably not the same as yours. I certainly do not see the sort of hierarchy claimed by Rome.
But be that as it may, I was speaking more toward lateral organization being more likely to shed heresy than vertical organization. That is not necessarily pointed only at Rome (or y'all)... Many Protestant organizations have too much overhead also. It is easy to see the same principle at work in corporations and governments as well - The more layers between the top and the bottom, the harder it is to turn direction... Which is to your advantage, btw, providing the direction is true. I do not think that is so. The inventions of the last 2k years stand as evidence.
I do not seeing evidence of a brand new shoot in early Christian worship as recorded in Scripture. The fact that the Apostles kept the hours of prayer at the temple, and later in Acts chapter 21, Paul is in the Temple for seven days performing a purification ritual…this indicates conscious continuation, a connection to what had been before.
Most emphatically true. But then, the synagogue should be evident within the church today, no? It is not.
Returning to the “netzer”, I believe this is the passage – Isaiah 11:1-2. [...] This a referring to the person who would be Messiah. It’s quite a stretch to transfer this to the Church that our Lord said that He would build upon the rock of Peter’s confession.
As a first point, that is not the only reference to the Branch. There are many.
And secondly, how can it be that His Church is not a reflection of Him? He is the ultimate example. And He did not 'go along to get along' with the assembly of His day. To my knowledge, every single time he got cross-threaded with the priests and scribes, it was over their inventions and novelties. It isn't even arguable that he was pointing back to Moses, and away from the Talmud... What do you suppose He would do in our day?
I do not think that His description as a netzer is limited to his bloodline, because his bloodline is only tangentially important (fulfilling the Davidic Covenant and establishing legal legitimacy as heir apparent) His primary inheritance is as the Seed of Abraham, and His true inheritance springs directly from the Father.
I will say that the Orthodox have much less in the way of “administration”. We believe that every Orthodox Church in communion with its Bishop possesses the fullness of the faith and that the Bishops, in communion with each other preserve and transmit that fullness.
The idea of a Constantinian apostasy reminds me how enthusiastically I once embraced “The Trail of Blood”. When I began an honest search for the “one holy and apostolic church”, I recognized groups that Caroll had declared to be Baptist forefathers – Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians. The Church (pre-Schism) declared them to be heretics.
Here is a stark choice. I made mine. What say ye? What’s your lineage?
I am pleased that you looked at that site on early liturgics. I am intrigued by your ideas on how Christianity should relate to Judaism. I looked at the Noahides – in fact I went to hear Vendyl Jones at a nearby Baptist church where he had pastored. I disqualified them when I perceived that they held a low view of Jesus.
I am aware of that sentiment, and please accept my apologies if you feel like I am goading you in that direction. That isn't intended. But there is a fairly ethereal time, prior to the schism, and after the Early Church (Let's just define that as the Church as governed by the original Apostles) wherein y'all claim unity with Rome, and thereby, claim to have sprung from a common root. That interim and that root are my focus wrt 'ROME' (be it empire or church, which is often hard to distinguish), and any reference accusing you (y'all) as Rome would fall into that time frame. You are welcome to leave any more recent dirty laundry in the hamper, as it were. :)
I will say that the Orthodox have much less in the way of “administration”. We believe that every Orthodox Church in communion with its Bishop possesses the fullness of the faith and that the Bishops, in communion with each other preserve and transmit that fullness.
I am aware of the difference, and I find your administrative structure to be far more palatable, and defensible wrt the Word. I can appreciate the more collegiate structure, which I think is the point.
The idea of a Constantinian apostasy reminds me how enthusiastically I once embraced “The Trail of Blood”. When I began an honest search for the “one holy and apostolic church”, I recognized groups that Caroll had declared to be Baptist forefathers – Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians. The Church (pre-Schism) declared them to be heretics.
I am conversant with the 'Trail of Blood'. I don't agree entirely, but I am close. As a concept, I think the Church can be found under the sword, not holding one... As to whether one is heretic or not, that would presuppose the church involved has the authority to make such a determination - I don't see that authority. It was born of coercion, and remains exactly that. And it also presupposes that the history (as developed exclusively by that same church) is accurate, which I will outright deny.
As to a specifically 'Constantinian apostasy', I tried somewhat to distance myself from that exactly - I don't embrace the idea for the reasons that most do.
Here is a stark choice. I made mine. What say ye? What’s your lineage?
LOL! Ahhh. !!!TRADITION!!!. I think there is sufficient evidence in the Word that we are not supposed to pay homage to lineage. What matters is the Word. The original Contract. I care not a whit for traditions of men.
I am pleased that you looked at that site on early liturgics. I am intrigued by your ideas on how Christianity should relate to Judaism. I looked at the Noahides – in fact I went to hear Vendyl Jones at a nearby Baptist church where he had pastored. I disqualified them when I perceived that they held a low view of Jesus.
I don't really know how they should relate exactly. I will leave that to better men than me. But I do pay attention to the words written in red, and Yeshua commanded us to DO and TEACH the Torah. Noachism cannot be true in the light of that (if one believes Yeshua), but then, the same could be said of mainstream Christianity. And Judaism is no better, as the very Pharisaical concepts that Yeshua condemned are continued in them to this day.
Take a look at the prophets - We already know how it is going to turn out. The whole world will be keeping Torah. They will all make the three pilgrimages to Jerusalem every year, or they will get no rain. The Law will go forth from Jerusalem. The Eternal King will be there on David's Throne ruling all of earth with a rod of iron (justice). These things are explicitly declared. How does Christianity figure to get from here to there?
Fair enough. It is correctly called the “one holy and catholic apostolic church.”
LOL! Ahhh. !!!TRADITION!!!. I think there is sufficient evidence in the Word that we are not supposed to pay homage to lineage. What matters is the Word. The original Contract. I care not a whit for traditions of men.
Well, Paul certainly felt the need to remind folks of THEIR lineage – that HE was their spiritual father. And when he was instructing Timothy:
Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2: 1-2
Are there multiple warning against false teachers? Absolutely. But that fact does not preclude true teachers. And Paul is telling Timothy how to be one –– to teach what he had been taught. You will search in vain to find him advising Timothy to read his Bible.
Snip - These things are explicitly declared. How does Christianity figure to get from here to there?
I’m thinking the “new heavens and new earth” comes into play.
Wish I had thought that one out better. I certainly should have accounted for 2 Timothy 3:15, which gets cited often here.
But, that instruction says nothing in the least about sola scriptura.
I would contend with you in that. There is no way that the “one holy and catholic apostolic church” of today (or even of 400AD) is derived from 'The Way' of Yeshua, or if it is, it is so apostate as to have no relevance to that root. So I will stick with the 'Early Church', but thanks anyway.
Well, Paul certainly felt the need to remind folks of THEIR lineage – that HE was their spiritual father. And when he was instructing Timothy [...] Are there multiple warning against false teachers? Absolutely. But that fact does not preclude true teachers. And Paul is telling Timothy how to be one –– to teach what he had been taught. You will search in vain to find him advising Timothy to read his Bible.
Then there should be no contention about the myriad of Protestant churches, or the novelties invented by Rome, or the departures of the Orthodox either, for that matter. Once something has been 'taught', succeeding generations are only doing as you suggest... And therein lies the problem with traditions. Without SOMETHING to meter or regulate the process, how does one know that what is being taught is true? How would one know if heresy crept in centuries ago? After all, those things taught then are considered sacred today. There needs to be a standard to measure by, and there has always only been one such standard.
Look, this is a simple thing:
I was a contractor of one kind or another for most of my life. The contract I entered into was drawn up at the beginning, and defined the description and scope of the work. And that contract was ever the principal instrument governing the ongoing day-to-day operation. There was no thing that could be performed outside of that contract, and my obligation was to perform the very letter of every single thing that the contract detailed, not only to to the satisfaction of those I was bound to, but also to the satisfaction of my peers, and ultimately, to the satisfaction of a court of law.
If any sort of contention were to arise, It wasn't the feelings of the participants that held sway, nor their thinking, nor even the quality of the work. What mattered, ALWAYS, was the letter of the contract, performed in good faith.
YHWH has entered into a contract (covenant) with Man. What is interesting about that, is that Man is not a signor of that covenant. Only YHWH passed between the halves. Only YHWH is bound to the work. And that originating contract is set in stone - The language is such that there can be no alteration. No change-orders can be honored, and YHWH is bound by the most tremendous force imaginable (His own word) to perform the work to the very letter of the contract. And the stakes could not be higher. You can bet money that YHWH will perform that work with the perfection of God.
But for our conversation, the important part is the fact that no change is allowed for. Ergo, the originating document (roughly speaking, the books of Moses, the Torah) MUST be held inviolate, and any agent, be it forefather, judge, apostle, prophet, disciple, or even Yeshua himself, must primarily and principally be serving that contract. ANYTIME one sees 'change' purported through one of these genuine agents, one had best go back to the originating document in order to interpret, because no change can be tolerated. So either the change is a misinterpretation, or the one advocating change is false. Period. That needfully must extend to the authority of any church as well, else the church is false, and has no authority... Because it is the original document that gives them the authority in the first place (Melchizedek).
In that sense, tradition can be good or bad... And it is paramount to determine the difference. That determination cannot arise out of tradition, as such circular reasoning cannot be the basis for authority. The standard must be something else. Something fixed. Something that every generation can measure by.
Sola-scriptura baby, all the way. And within that, sola-Torah. The only standard one can measure against is the contract.
I’m thinking the “new heavens and new earth” comes into play.
Not according to the Word. First of all, there is a discrepancy in the use of 'new'. The Torah says these things are eternal. Even so, the renewed heaven and earth are after the millennial reign, not before.
Do you have confidence that you have a true and accurate copy of the contract? How so?
Who or what is the agent who safeguards and verifies the content of the contract?
No, I am not sure (I do not take it for granted). But the Masoretic interpretation (to which I adhere) has been confirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which extend fairly far back - And the point is moot, as the differences in the first five books are rather negligible in any traditional interpretation. And while you might rightly accuse me of having to rely upon English translations, I am fairly familiar with all of the major families wrt originating texts. My preference for the Masoretic texts come from that familiarity. That does not stop me however, from examining the particulars of all sources when struggling with something I don't understand... Just the same way I work out of a KJV, but I am not afraid of interlinear comparisons with other translations.
Who or what is the agent who safeguards and verifies the content of the contract?
Technically, that would be the Hebrews - They were the ones entrusted with the Oracles of YHWH. But, I think that YHWH safeguards at least the 'milk' of the thing, though to find the 'meat' of the matter one must be more particular. Even so, it is reasonably true that folks tend to preserve the Word generally (at least that is fairly true of the major historical families of text)... It tends to be tradition wherein alterations are effected.
Let me try from a different angle.
A legal contract requires a witness that it was well and truly agreed to by the parties. He can be brought to court to testify to that.
Who / what is your witness that the Masoretic text is an accurate communication of God’s dealing with man?
Well, not to be technical again, but such a thing would require TWO witnesses, not one. But since Man is not party to the contract (it was not agreed to, as only YHWH walked through the halves), the witness(es) would come from YHWH. We are getting into the "Two Witnesses' of Revelations here to some degree. And YHWH identifies the 'two witnesses' as Ephraim and Judah in the prophets... So if you are looking for two witnesses among men, I would defer to that in some form.
But each book contains two witnesses anyway - The Word and the Prophecy, which are intimately woven together to the point that each of the books stand alone as Holy Writ... and internal reference combines the books together as a whole... which I tend to follow more than any 'canon' produced by Man.
mmm...
The original text of the Five Books of Moses was received from Moses after he taught orally for forty years. This was after he ascended Sinai and learned from God directly. That text was consonants only and their meaning was determined by usage and the transmitted oral teachings of Moses.
Those original scrolls and copies were kept in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple available for copying and proof-reading other copies.
The much more recent ‘Masoretic text’ established conventional pronunciation and punctuation for reading but has never actually determined meaning. The consonantal lettering was already settled.
The burden of proof would lie with those challenging Masoretic authenticity. The mere existence of ancient texts with intentional or unintentional changes tells nothing about the authenticity of those similar texts, except to arouse suspicion.
And btw, I know what you are fishing for here, pal. You are not going to get me around to admitting that there is any organization on the planet that has faithfully guarded a 'deposit of faith', because there isn't a single one that has done so. Each and every one is following the traditions of men, and not the Word of YHWH. It seems it is the very hardest thing for humans to do - Always adding to it, always taking away.
It seems apparent to me where that deposit must therefore be.
I cannot help but characterize a God who deals as you describe as a prankster, at best; a capricious one at that.
You make it way too occult (hidden from view). I came to believe that normally, God acts normally. I believe He has left sure marks for us to locate the Church - His Body.
This suspicion of “traditions of men” I suppose goes hand in glove with the concept of total depravity, which I don’t buy, either.
And the obsession with Torah is just difficult for me to process as a Christian. Paul says the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. And Christ God reconciled us to Himself. I can’t find room for Torah in the reconciliation.
Not at all - The God I describe has changed *nothing* since the beginning. The God I describe said the very same thing to the Jews that He says to us - A capricious prankster would change the deal in the middle to where what He promised in the beginning means nothing.
You make it way too occult (hidden from view). I came to believe that normally, God acts normally. I believe He has left sure marks for us to locate the Church - His Body.
How can that be? He is the ONLY one who claims to be God that left an immutable record in advance! I KNOW that to be true, as I have studied the profane in great detail. *NONE* have declared themselves to never change. ALL others leave a method to change things along the way. In fact, to believe otherwise does damage to the very proof He gave that He is the ONE and ONLY... The Great I AM. Any moron can claim to be god and leave a dynamic record that can be changed as his agents see fit. It takes a GOD to say what is so in the end, and say it in the beginning... In ancient times. And what would be more normal than to do exactly what He said, according to the Word He obliged Himself to way back in the day? It is not hidden. It is right there, right in the open, never changing from generation to generation.
This suspicion of “traditions of men” I suppose goes hand in glove with the concept of total depravity, which I don’t buy, either.
No, my suspicion of the 'traditions of men' includes Calvin. And it comes from the examples given in the old covenant... How the Word was distorted at every turn... And it is not a stretch (in view of the prophets) to apply the very same thing to what is happening today (as it was predicted). He described what He wanted then, and the prophets say He'll have what He wants in the end. Look at today and figure if your confession can get from here to there. If it can't, then perhaps you should look at what you believe to be true. That's exactly what happened to me.
And the obsession with Torah is just difficult for me to process as a Christian. Paul says the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. And Christ God reconciled us to Himself. I can’t find room for Torah in the reconciliation.
Then there is no lawlessness, because lawlessness is being without the Torah. There is no wickedness, because wickedness is the twisting of the Torah. There can be no sin, as sin, by it's very definition, is the transgression of the Torah. Without sin, there is no need to confess, and there is no need of Yeshua as the intercessor. Don't believe me - Do a search in the NT for 'commandment' and 'commandments' and see what it says. We are no longer bound by the curses of the law - but we are to be bound to it because we love YHWH. Not because of fear of Him, but because of love for Him. To read it otherwise raises insurmountable dichotomies.
That is not an obsession with the Torah, but rather a keen look at what Yeshua and his apostles said... without the presuppositions and coercions of Roman (or Greek) influence. And that is very hard to do, btw.
Tell me, how do you read the wide vs. narrow road? Doesn't it say that few will find the true path? Doesn't that at least imply the idea that one should avoid the path of the many?
Well, I do not make it the bedrock of deciding on what I believe. What constitutes the wide road? Numbers? So, 200,000,000 Orthodox are on the wide road. Must I limit myself to joining a smaller number? 100,000,000? 25,000. 250? What’s the number?
In Revelation 7, we are not told about a wide or narrow road, but we are told of an immense number
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
If narrowness can’t be qualified by numbers, though, then what meets the standard of narrow? I am left to discover on my own, a narrow road, or failing to find one, to construct that road that I find suitably narrow and walk in it.
That is not an obsession with the Torah, but rather a keen look at what Yeshua and his apostles said... without the presuppositions and coercions of Roman (or Greek) influence. And that is very hard to do, btw.
What will you do with the Council at Jerusalem when the Apostles declared that the Gentiles need not be circumcised? What will you do with the epistles like Galatians4? Especially verse21 to the end,
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
It seems to me that Paul is giving us an opportunity to choose our ancestors here. Why would one choose Hagar of Sinai in Arabia over Isaac’s Mama?
Well, I do not make it the bedrock of deciding on what I believe.
Oh, neither do I.
What constitutes the wide road? Numbers?
So it seems - many vs. few seems to be a numbers game.
So, 200,000,000 Orthodox are on the wide road.
I am sorry if you got the impression I was calling y'all out specifically - I am an equal opportunity offender.
I think that the Temple system at the time of Yeshua is there as an example. As recorded, no religious order escaped his scathing abuse. And for all of their internal strife, we know now that they were arguing over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
That is a caution to me as those leaders, one would suppose, were not evil in and of themselves. They were made wicked by their assumptions. The system that was in place did not spring up suddenly - It was the culmination of many generations. The scribes and Pharisees thought they were on the side of the angels. They thought they were righteous. They were sure of it. But according to Yeshua, they were hell-bound, and hauling the people down with them. That, I think, is a picture of the wide road.
Then it is just a matter of finding out what Yeshua recommended instead.
If narrowness can’t be qualified by numbers, though, then what meets the standard of narrow? I am left to discover on my own, a narrow road, or failing to find one, to construct that road that I find suitably narrow and walk in it.
I don't think that follows. Yes, I believe that one is obligated to look for the narrow road, and I do believe that it is not to be found in any of the various traditions that Christians espouse to... But the truth is necessarily out there - So what does that leave one with?
What will you do with the Council at Jerusalem when the Apostles declared that the Gentiles need not be circumcised?
No, The question at hand was whether the adult converts needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. You might take note of the fact that the conclusion declares that they already have Moses available. What does that do to the traditional interpretation thereof? To me, the things they were told to abstain from were the minimum, so that they could attend synagogue and learn Moses... And evidently, the circumcision was not abolished, as Christians have been circumcised for time immemorial, even to this day.
What will you do with the epistles like Galatians4? Especially verse21 to the end, [...] It seems to me that Paul is giving us an opportunity to choose our ancestors here. Why would one choose Hagar of Sinai in Arabia over Isaac’s Mama?
Do you think it is the Law of YHWH that Paul is calling weak and beggarly? Yet your article above readily admits that not only Paul, but all of the Apostles continued to be observant according to the law. Even as did Yeshua, who is our ultimate example... And as your article declares, the church began in the synagogue, at least implying that those who became the disciples of the Apostles (and thereby, Yeshua) were also observant of Judaism in some fashion (which inherently requires Torah observance). If the law is to be ignored, as is the general Christian consensus, how then do you explain the dichotomy?
My reading of Galatians does not do harm to the law. There never was salvation in the law. That is not what it is for. And that is what Paul is relating. Notice that he says:
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
To me, this adds a flavor of syncretism to the tale. Traditions being formed.
As to the bondage of Sinai being Agar, it seems you assume that again, it is the law itself that causes bondage... How can that, and this also be true:
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
He went farther than that. In Romans 7 he calls it DEAD
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Could it be any clearer?
Do you agree or not: Does Paul have authority to teach Christians? Did Paul receive his teaching by direct revelation or not?
And while I’m at it, who do you say that Jesus is?
He went farther than that. In Romans 7 he calls it DEAD
No he didn't. As an aside, it would be interesting to get your take on who this 'adulterous woman' is, that Paul is referencing... But no, the law is not dead - We are dead to the law. Does that mean we are free to sin? Of course not. Being dead to the law means to rise above it, inherently obeying it... That seems to be the only read that works.
How do we know we love YHWH? when we are walking in his commandments... And his commandments are not grievous. Nor are they in heaven, where we must ascend to achieve them. They are here. They are now. YHWH doesn't change. And He declared his Torah to be eternal. As the living embodiment of that law, How can Yeshua be different?
Could it be any clearer?
Not when taken in context - How can your interpretation survive our Master having directly commanded us to do and teach the Torah? How can it survive the prophets, who declare the Torah will be taught the whole world over, and that people will DO it (to include the Holy Days and Sabbath)?
We are the betrothed of Yeshua. Does a wife obey the laws of her husband's house? And does the Son obey the laws of His Father's house? It MUST be so.
Do you agree or not: Does Paul have authority to teach Christians? Did Paul receive his teaching by direct revelation or not?
Sure. Paul is an apostle, so his authority is unquestionable. But by the same token, his words cannot be used to contradict Yeshua, or the other apostles, or the prophets (all of whom are also unquestionable). And therein lies our main difference, you and I: What was said in the beginning cannot be contradicted. It cannot be added to, nor can it be taken away from, lest YHWH (or Yeshua, or the agents thereof) is made a liar. Yeshua would not do that, and neither would his apostles... And neither should his disciples.
In the same way, I would hold direct statements of Yeshua to be of more value than those of his disciples - That is not to say that the works of the NT are wrong or uninspired, but rather, as a function of interpreting what is said, I would err toward the original, and interpret accordingly.
And while I’m at it, who do you say that Jesus is?
Yeshua must be some form or essence of YHWH, but not for the reasons normally ascribed to... I am not far from Trinitarianism, but I do reject the construct... If for no other reason but that it's creed and concept were formed in coercion, and accepted thereby. Such fruit cannot be of YHWH.
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.