I do not speak any other language than English. Please speak English to me. (Looks like you are a little hot under the colla' Bro)
I understand the context of Mark very well...John's disciples were questioning Jesus because they did not keep the traditions of men - the extensive washing of hands before they ate. They held man's tradition to be above the commandment of God.
It's pretty simple when you read it. Not rocket science. Ya know.
This reasoning can be applied to anything that makes a tradition, like what you call the eighth day sabbath - and elevate it over the word of God. And about that - The eighth day thing, The days of the week biblically are numbered. You cannot find the first day of the week being called the 8th day anywhere in the Bible. It's called the first day.
There is however a FEAST DAY called the Eighth Day, it is observed once a year. By folks that know about it. The Seventh Day, however, is the only day in the Bible that has a name. It's called the Sabbath Day.
So, if you reason that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, the 7th day is the only day The God of Abraham, Issac and Israel called the Sabbath day. No matther what Good Saint so and so said in 69AD or whenever the frack. Men changed that day, men changed the tradition, and those men also formed the RCC. They esteem the tradition of men greater than the Commandment of God.
You may do what you like - But don't try to say all of this spookery is biblical, because it is not. It is religious, yes. But what you are spewing is not from the Bible.
Peace,
Rachel
Rachel,
I am actually surprised by what you just wrote there. By your screen name and by the lingo you like applying in your posts, I would take you to be making yourself to be in a Messianic Jewish denomination. Now I don't know if you are a convert or if you were born to it; regardless, I'd think you'd be at least familiar enough with the Mishnah (part of the Babylonian Talmud) to recognize what I wrote.
The section of the Scriptures I was citing was Marcus 7:1-13:
7
1
Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
2
they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
3
(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
4
and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5
And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"
6
And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
8
You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men."
9
And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!
10
For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
11
but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) --
12
then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13
thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
14
And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15
there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
16
17
And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
18
And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,
19
since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
20
And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
21
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."
The Mishnah is the first part of the Talmud. It captures the oral rabbinical tradition and was compiled during the Rabbinic age (around the second century). It is divided into six major divisions, or Seders. Seder Kodashim is the fifth seder and deals with "Holy Things," such as sacrifices, the Temple worship, and dietary laws. It is further divided into eleven subsections, or Tractates. Arakhin is the fifth out of 11 tractates witthin Seder Kodashim and deals with a person dedicating their value to the Temple or dedicating a field.
The verses (Mishnayot) of Tractate Arakhin that I quoted outline that property dedicated to the temple could not be used to repay debts to other individuals.
The citation from Leviticus that I mentioned outlined the rules for returning property and forgiving debts during the Jubilee year (once every 50 years).
How does that relate to Marcus 7:1-13 (or Matthias 15 as a parallel reference)?
Certain of the Pharisees abused the tradition of Qorban (the term used when property was dedicated to the Temple, as described in Tractate Arakhin) to avoid having to take care of their responsibilities to their parents (thus violating the fourth commandment of the Decalogue). They would pronounce their possessions as Qorban (dedicated to the Temple), thus making it not usable to take care of their obligations to parents or other family members or debtors, and then would get it returned to them under the next Jubilee Year (after their parents were dead and gone).
Jesus rightfully condemned this misuse of the oral tradition...in order to violate the commandment of God.
Sorry for using the Talmudic references, though. I was trying to put it in terms that you, as a Messianic Jew, would appreciate. Any mumbo-jumbo was your variety of mumbo-jumbo, not mine. Hopefully the above clarifies it for you.
You obviously are not paying attention. Mark didn't write ALL of the above.
Let me run something by you, Mark...
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (I know you are familiar with this one)
When St. Peter wrote this, what was considered scripture? And what was considered "prophecy of the scripture"? Think about it really carefully...the Canon of the New Testament would not be established for a couple of hundred years after he wrote those words...
Now, my Bible is one book. Many writers, one central theme. The above verses say they spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. And then they wrote it down. We know this because our eyes have seen it, and our hands can touch the Word of Life, right? (You may disagree, but to me the Bible is one book, God can do stuff like that. Pretty nifty trick, huh Mark?)
And who established that Canon of the Scriptures? Who determined that the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter was Canonical and that the Didache wasn't? When did that determination happen?
Fact of the matter is that they were individual writings, written by different authors, inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church determined at the Council of Hippo (in the province of Carthage) which of the apostolic writings were to be considered scriptural and which writings were not...in 393 AD! Not my opinion. Just a historical fact that can be verified by multiple sources...
Now, check this one out...
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Now, this verse from the Bible reders to: The Law (OT) and the Testimony - a common reference to the NEW TESTAMENT. Pretty nifty how God did that, huh Mark?
Again, you should be reading the word of the prophet Isaias in the context it was written, rather than yanking random verses out an applying them to your gain. Doing the latter is a real mishandling of the scriptures:
Isaias 8
16
Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples.
17
I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him.
18
Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
19
And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
20
To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn.
21
They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry; and when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will curse their king and their God, and turn their faces upward;
22
and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness.
By the way, the KJV mistranslation of verse 20, above, misrepresents the word "shachar" -- it should be translated "dawn." (look at a Hebrew-English interlinear if you doubt it).
I do this to show you that the verses I used in the above quote of yours come from The Law and the Testimony. And you missed it, Mark. The point is that God made sure if you read the Bible as one Book, you will se when Moses said "Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you..." and when John said, "whosoever addeth to or taketh away from..." (Paraphrased) It is talking not about the Words of Moses or John, but it is talking about GOD"S HOLY WORD!!!
And if you misapply the words of Isaias by taking them out of context (the context clearly shows that he was talking about the people of Israel consulting diviners and mediums), then you are handling the Word of God deceitfully (cf 2 Cor 4:2), not "rightly handling the word of truth" (cf 2 Ti 2:15).
Holy Men Of God Wrote God's Word. It is HIS. Not John's. And it is one. The Law and the Testimony.
That is my point, Mark.
Do you understand what I am saying? Not asking you to agree with it, just understand whay I am saying. I certainly understand what you are saying. Please try to do the same with me.
Thank You,
RachelYsrael
PS...I am sure you noticed I did not include the scripture references...Maybe you would like to look them up. Search the scriptures, Mark....
I understand what you're trying to say. You are trying to wrap a fundamentalist theology that misapplies the scriptures around a veneer of Messainic Judaism. Honestly, I am not impressed.
But I will pray for your soul. Because I do not perceive that you are doing this out of evil, but out of being deceived.
Hi Mark,
Do you not think it possible that the Creator of the Universe, that pulled the dry land out of a ball of water, and hung it in the heavens without rods nor beams...
That made man from the dirt, the ground we walk upon, that spit in Adam's nose and gave him breath-life, and made him to be self healing, self replicating and in the image of His Very Self...
Do you not think it possible that He personally had those seven books removed from His Holy Word?
In His Service,
RachelIsrael
No I don't. Thanks.
I think a man who thought he was wiser than the Paraclete decided out of pride took some precipitous actions and his followers have been trying to justify those actions for 500 years since.
But thanks for asking. (and think of the inconsistency of your last statement)
But I will pray for your soul. Because I do not perceive that you are doing this out of evil, but out of being deceived.
No I don't. Thanks.
I think a man who thought he was wiser than the Paraclete decided out of pride took some precipitous actions and his followers have been trying to justify those actions for 500 years since.
But thanks for asking. (and think of the inconsistency of your last statement)
Well Mark,
I truly appreciate our discourse, but I am throwing in the towel here. It was fun while it lasted, and thanks for for the prayer. I have a bad cold.
It probably would have gone a bit smoother had a slightly less bias or religion tainted view of history been the basis for the discussion. As it was several comments were made be both parties that cannot be documented historically. But they are what some church or other teaches as "historical truth", so I won't argue.
Please do not throw in the towel...I was enjoying the discourse.
It probably would have gone a bit smoother had a slightly less bias or religion tainted view of history been the basis for the discussion. As it was several comments were made be both parties that cannot be documented historically. But they are what some church or other teaches as "historical truth", so I won't argue.
Please do not throw in the towel...I was enjoying the discourse.
I try to keep my discussion Biblical - I don't rely too much on so called church history. I think Mark is more concerned with that history and the traditions of men than he is with Thus Sayeth the Lord...It's night and day here. We are talking about different things. I don't want to talk about what I believe to be false religion. Why don't you give it a go?
It is a great discussion and I wish I had more time to do more than just skim through it.
Rachel, hopefully you do want to discuss and consider the possibilities rather than preach at us and expect everyone to simply agree with your viewpoint. :)
Hi Mark,
Do you not think it possible that the Creator of the Universe, that pulled the dry land out of a ball of water, and hung it in the heavens without rods nor beams...
That made man from the dirt, the ground we walk upon, that spit in Adam's nose and gave him breath-life, and made him to be self healing, self replicating and in the image of His Very Self...
Do you not think it possible that He personally had those seven books removed from His Holy Word?
In His Service,
RachelIsrael
Rachel,
Actually God did not have those books removed from what some consider the entire collection of "His Holy Word" (your term) - MAN had them removed from what some use as their "Bible", but that is by no means an indication of what God intended as the end all and be all of "His Holy Word".
I try to keep my discussion Biblical - I don't rely too much on so called church history. I think Mark is more concerned with that history and the traditions of men than he is with Thus Sayeth the Lord...It's night and day here. We are talking about different things. I don't want to talk about what I believe to be false religion. Why don't you give it a go?
Do you study any sources outside of your bible? Do you use word study concordances? Atlas, geography and biblical history resources?
It might be wise to consider how that bible you so revere came to be and how it came to be in the form, content and translation that you have today.
Limiting yourself to only Genesis-Revelation as found in your standard KJV limits God, doncha think?
I'm just suggesting that you consider the possibility that you might be limiting God. Have you seen this show?
"How can you say, "We are wise because we have the law of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it so badly?"
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie."
Jer 8:8
Sorry for your cold, Rachel. I hope you feel better soon.
It is a great discussion and I wish I had more time to do more than just skim through it.
Rachel, hopefully you do want to discuss and consider the possibilities rather than preach at us and expect everyone to simply agree with your viewpoint. :)
Rachel,
"Doctrinal
This forum is for the discussion of religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. Since this site is not a religious site, keep all doctrinal discussions in here. "
You put me in check, Belle. I forgot that when I talk bookk around here, folks say I am "Preaching". Please note what the doctinal forum is for - Religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. The thing is, this tells me I can discuss what I believe in here, so I will discuss what I believe.
As to using concordances and maps, of course I do. Don't you? I just don't put much faith in "Established Church Doctrine" after around 100AD. The original Christians believed a bit differently than "Church Fathers" that wrote creeds and held those councils, and more in keeping with the scriptures (Genesis to Malachi).
It seems if I could go point by point over all these things Mark has posted and compare them to JUST the Bible, and show how they are contrary to JUST the Bible, you would say I am Preaching at you all.Implying that you don't like what I am saying. And that mindset is correct - Jesus said it would happen.
While I give little doctrinal weight to the writings of the RC saints, I think that what Mark posted is signicifant
in that it shows that some people in the Western Church had at least a general/cursory understanding of some
of the things that VP claimed hadn't been known since the first century.
It's been such a while since this thread started mentally, but I think I agree...Have to go back and read. Hmm. I remember>>>The similarities between The Way and RCC doctrine (Which I believe is 95% of ALL major christian denominations)
I also find Church history and tradition somewhat facinating for the simple reason that it can help us understand
how and why many Christian doctrines were developed...
I too was facinated by early church history. I read everything I could get my hands on about the hows and whys certain groups thought to change times and laws. Basically it was to control the people and get their money, and keep them in ignorance.
- and how many have evolved -- from the time of the
apostles through both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church's into Proterstantism and now in to modern
Evangelic & Pentecostal Christianity -- and other current movements such as the now popular and growing
"prophetic movement and even stuff like "Jews For Jesus".
I like the jews for jesus - but it is not new. In fact, it is the oldest so called Christian movement. The first Christians were Israelites, many of them from the Tribe of Judah. And "church history" clearly shows how what they believed was eradicated by roman church doctrine.
I guess I am just very passionate about the Bible. I see so many contradictions in what "The Church" teaches" as opposed to what the Bible says. After leaving the way, I wondered around various churches, and I got into reading my Bible. And I saw just so much...at odds with each other. I decided one day that I would try my best to obey the Bible. Put my trust in God. Be accountable. Stop the Grace game...I got called, now I want to be chosen. I want to endure till the end. I realized that for me, the best way is through the straight and narrow path, rather than the broad and wide road, if you get my drift.
This forum is for the discussion of religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. Since this site is not a religious site, keep all doctrinal discussions in here. "
You put me in check, Belle. I forgot that when I talk bookk around here, folks say I am "Preaching". Please note what the doctinal forum is for - Religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. The thing is, this tells me I can discuss what I believe in here, so I will discuss what I believe.
I guess I'll just do the same, instead of what you so caustically suggested yesterday.
I don't want to talk about what I believe to be false religion. Why don't you give it a go?
I will talk about whatever I feel like talking about. Just like you. You call it false religion, I may not. We can discuss it honestly but I will not be preached to by you or anyone else. I am certain that you feel the same so why don't we try a little common courtesy and some mutual respect. So what do you think Huh Rachel?
Actually God did not have those books removed from what some consider the entire collection of "His Holy Word" (your term) - MAN had them removed from what some use as their "Bible", but that is by no means an indication of what God intended as the end all and be all of "His Holy Word".
This is historical fact. You can remove history from your discussions if you wish but it IMHO would not be honest. Church history directly affects Bible history. God has no hands but ours...sometimes they dont always do what they are told but they usually do something.
While I give little doctrinal weight to the writings of the RC saints, I think that what Mark posted is signicifant
in that it shows that some people in the Western Church had at least a general/cursory understanding of some
of the things that VP claimed hadn't been known since the first century.
I also find Church history and tradition somewhat facinating for the simple reason that it can help us understand
how and why many Christian doctrines were developed - and how many have evolved -- from the time of the
apostles through both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church's into Proterstantism and now in to modern
Evangelic & Pentecostal Christianity -- and other current movements such as the now popular and growing
"prophetic movement and even stuff like "Jews For Jesus".
I guess I am just very passionate about the Bible. I see so many contradictions in what "The Church" teaches" as opposed to what the Bible says. After leaving the way, I wondered around various churches, and I got into reading my Bible. And I saw just so much...at odds with each other. I decided one day that I would try my best to obey the Bible. Put my trust in God. Be accountable. Stop the Grace game...I got called, now I want to be chosen. I want to endure till the end. I realized that for me, the best way is through the straight and narrow path, rather than the broad and wide road, if you get my drift.
It's been a blast,
RachelYsrael
You know, Goey, the funny thing is that I don't know of any doctrines of the Church that don't have their origins from scripture or, at a minimum, from "pre-Nicene patristic writings." (although I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any actual doctrines that do not have their origin at least alluded to in the Scriptures.
For example, the belief against abortion is alluded to in the Scriptures, but it is explicitly condemned in the Didache (dating from around 75-80AD): "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."
So does that place the Didache as the source of the belief? No, the belief that a child in the womb is alive is scriptural, and thus we can conclude that the intentional termination of that life is a murder...but the Didache tells us that at least the group of Christians who wrote and maintained the document held that belief strongly, as well.
It's funny that restorationist groups like TWI talk about wanting to return to the beliefs of the early Church and get rid of all the pagan Romanist influence, and in the interpretation of scripture, they will look at a bunch of references like "manners and customs of the Bible...(generally written in the 19th and 20th Centuries...2000 years after the early Church)...but they consistently refuse to look at early Patristic writings (written in the time of the early Church and before "Constantine paganized Christianity"), which would actually show what the early Christians believed and how they practiced! For a true restorationist, I would think that they'd be passionate about referring to the pre-Nicene Fathers so that they could get it right and get rid of the modernist influence on religion.
But, hey, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...
Rachel,
I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of the Mishnah and study it along with the scriptures...it will greatly strengthen your understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT prophesies and will help explain a lot of what was written in the NT.
But, again, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...
For example, the belief against abortion is alluded to in the Scriptures, but it is explicitly condemned in the Didache (dating from around 75-80AD): "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."
Do you have a web link or a book to recommend to me where I can read this? I'm not doubting you on the contrary you have piqued my interest. I'll google it but I want to be certain that I am looking at the same document as you.
Do you have a web link or a book to recommend to me where I can read this? I'm not doubting you on the contrary you have piqued my interest. I'll google it but I want to be certain that I am looking at the same document as you.
Rachel, you may be interested in The Jewish Study Bible – if you don't already have one. It combines the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh translation along with explanatory annotations, introductions, and essays by leading biblical scholars. I purchased one last year and love the wealth of information it has! Oh, don't think I've said so yet - welcome to Grease Spot!
That Christian Classics Ethereal library is awsome. I had managed to find the Early Christian Writings in the google. Great stuff, Thanks!
I'm not a Catholic but I do believe that the Bible that we have today is unequivocally and forever linked to what the "early Church Father's" did in their time. Hence for me at least an understanding of their interpretation of the teachings of Christ and his apostles is very important stuff to know.
Although I must admit that some of the writings of Clement of Alexandria make me think that the man was just slightly unhinged. I guess every Church has to have a few just to keep things interesting.
Thanks T-Bone, I just ordered the book. It will save me a bunch of time looking stuff up.
I guess I do not understand how one can only use the bible as the sole source of information and foundation of everything - comparing everything else to what the bible says and using only the bible to prove that the bible is what one professes it to be without the background information of how it came to be.
That's just ill informed circular reasoning, isn't it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
13
9
16
Popular Days
Jan 12
22
Jan 9
14
Jan 10
10
Dec 31
5
Top Posters In This Topic
markomalley 15 posts
Eyesopen 13 posts
JeffSjo 9 posts
RachelYsrael 16 posts
Popular Days
Jan 12 2008
22 posts
Jan 9 2008
14 posts
Jan 10 2008
10 posts
Dec 31 2007
5 posts
markomalley
Rachel,
I am actually surprised by what you just wrote there. By your screen name and by the lingo you like applying in your posts, I would take you to be making yourself to be in a Messianic Jewish denomination. Now I don't know if you are a convert or if you were born to it; regardless, I'd think you'd be at least familiar enough with the Mishnah (part of the Babylonian Talmud) to recognize what I wrote.
The section of the Scriptures I was citing was Marcus 7:1-13:
The Mishnah is the first part of the Talmud. It captures the oral rabbinical tradition and was compiled during the Rabbinic age (around the second century). It is divided into six major divisions, or Seders. Seder Kodashim is the fifth seder and deals with "Holy Things," such as sacrifices, the Temple worship, and dietary laws. It is further divided into eleven subsections, or Tractates. Arakhin is the fifth out of 11 tractates witthin Seder Kodashim and deals with a person dedicating their value to the Temple or dedicating a field.
The verses (Mishnayot) of Tractate Arakhin that I quoted outline that property dedicated to the temple could not be used to repay debts to other individuals.
The citation from Leviticus that I mentioned outlined the rules for returning property and forgiving debts during the Jubilee year (once every 50 years).
How does that relate to Marcus 7:1-13 (or Matthias 15 as a parallel reference)?
Certain of the Pharisees abused the tradition of Qorban (the term used when property was dedicated to the Temple, as described in Tractate Arakhin) to avoid having to take care of their responsibilities to their parents (thus violating the fourth commandment of the Decalogue). They would pronounce their possessions as Qorban (dedicated to the Temple), thus making it not usable to take care of their obligations to parents or other family members or debtors, and then would get it returned to them under the next Jubilee Year (after their parents were dead and gone).
Jesus rightfully condemned this misuse of the oral tradition...in order to violate the commandment of God.
Sorry for using the Talmudic references, though. I was trying to put it in terms that you, as a Messianic Jew, would appreciate. Any mumbo-jumbo was your variety of mumbo-jumbo, not mine. Hopefully the above clarifies it for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
When St. Peter wrote this, what was considered scripture? And what was considered "prophecy of the scripture"? Think about it really carefully...the Canon of the New Testament would not be established for a couple of hundred years after he wrote those words...
And who established that Canon of the Scriptures? Who determined that the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter was Canonical and that the Didache wasn't? When did that determination happen?Fact of the matter is that they were individual writings, written by different authors, inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church determined at the Council of Hippo (in the province of Carthage) which of the apostolic writings were to be considered scriptural and which writings were not...in 393 AD! Not my opinion. Just a historical fact that can be verified by multiple sources...
Again, you should be reading the word of the prophet Isaias in the context it was written, rather than yanking random verses out an applying them to your gain. Doing the latter is a real mishandling of the scriptures:
Isaias 8
By the way, the KJV mistranslation of verse 20, above, misrepresents the word "shachar" -- it should be translated "dawn." (look at a Hebrew-English interlinear if you doubt it).
And if you misapply the words of Isaias by taking them out of context (the context clearly shows that he was talking about the people of Israel consulting diviners and mediums), then you are handling the Word of God deceitfully (cf 2 Cor 4:2), not "rightly handling the word of truth" (cf 2 Ti 2:15).I understand what you're trying to say. You are trying to wrap a fundamentalist theology that misapplies the scriptures around a veneer of Messainic Judaism. Honestly, I am not impressed.
But I will pray for your soul. Because I do not perceive that you are doing this out of evil, but out of being deceived.
No I don't. Thanks.
I think a man who thought he was wiser than the Paraclete decided out of pride took some precipitous actions and his followers have been trying to justify those actions for 500 years since.
But thanks for asking. (and think of the inconsistency of your last statement)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Both you and Garth are right. And you can both add Hebrews, Jude, and 2&3 John, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
But I will pray for your soul. Because I do not perceive that you are doing this out of evil, but out of being deceived.
No I don't. Thanks.
I think a man who thought he was wiser than the Paraclete decided out of pride took some precipitous actions and his followers have been trying to justify those actions for 500 years since.
But thanks for asking. (and think of the inconsistency of your last statement)
Well Mark,
I truly appreciate our discourse, but I am throwing in the towel here. It was fun while it lasted, and thanks for for the prayer. I have a bad cold.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow! What an exciting discussion!
It probably would have gone a bit smoother had a slightly less bias or religion tainted view of history been the basis for the discussion. As it was several comments were made be both parties that cannot be documented historically. But they are what some church or other teaches as "historical truth", so I won't argue.
Please do not throw in the towel...I was enjoying the discourse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I try to keep my discussion Biblical - I don't rely too much on so called church history. I think Mark is more concerned with that history and the traditions of men than he is with Thus Sayeth the Lord...It's night and day here. We are talking about different things. I don't want to talk about what I believe to be false religion. Why don't you give it a go?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
It is a great discussion and I wish I had more time to do more than just skim through it.
Rachel, hopefully you do want to discuss and consider the possibilities rather than preach at us and expect everyone to simply agree with your viewpoint. :)
Rachel,
Actually God did not have those books removed from what some consider the entire collection of "His Holy Word" (your term) - MAN had them removed from what some use as their "Bible", but that is by no means an indication of what God intended as the end all and be all of "His Holy Word".
Do you study any sources outside of your bible? Do you use word study concordances? Atlas, geography and biblical history resources?
It might be wise to consider how that bible you so revere came to be and how it came to be in the form, content and translation that you have today.
Limiting yourself to only Genesis-Revelation as found in your standard KJV limits God, doncha think?
I'm just suggesting that you consider the possibility that you might be limiting God. Have you seen this show?
"How can you say, "We are wise because we have the law of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it so badly?"
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie."
Jer 8:8
Sorry for your cold, Rachel. I hope you feel better soon.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
"Doctrinal
This forum is for the discussion of religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. Since this site is not a religious site, keep all doctrinal discussions in here. "
You put me in check, Belle. I forgot that when I talk bookk around here, folks say I am "Preaching". Please note what the doctinal forum is for - Religious/spiritual doctrinal beliefs. The thing is, this tells me I can discuss what I believe in here, so I will discuss what I believe.
As to using concordances and maps, of course I do. Don't you? I just don't put much faith in "Established Church Doctrine" after around 100AD. The original Christians believed a bit differently than "Church Fathers" that wrote creeds and held those councils, and more in keeping with the scriptures (Genesis to Malachi).
It seems if I could go point by point over all these things Mark has posted and compare them to JUST the Bible, and show how they are contrary to JUST the Bible, you would say I am Preaching at you all.Implying that you don't like what I am saying. And that mindset is correct - Jesus said it would happen.
Thanks for your care and concern for my soul.
Edited by RachelYsraelLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
While I give little doctrinal weight to the writings of the RC saints, I think that what Mark posted is signicifant
in that it shows that some people in the Western Church had at least a general/cursory understanding of some
of the things that VP claimed hadn't been known since the first century.
I also find Church history and tradition somewhat facinating for the simple reason that it can help us understand
how and why many Christian doctrines were developed - and how many have evolved -- from the time of the
apostles through both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church's into Proterstantism and now in to modern
Evangelic & Pentecostal Christianity -- and other current movements such as the now popular and growing
"prophetic movement and even stuff like "Jews For Jesus".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I guess I am just very passionate about the Bible. I see so many contradictions in what "The Church" teaches" as opposed to what the Bible says. After leaving the way, I wondered around various churches, and I got into reading my Bible. And I saw just so much...at odds with each other. I decided one day that I would try my best to obey the Bible. Put my trust in God. Be accountable. Stop the Grace game...I got called, now I want to be chosen. I want to endure till the end. I realized that for me, the best way is through the straight and narrow path, rather than the broad and wide road, if you get my drift.
It's been a blast,
RachelYsrael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I guess I'll just do the same, instead of what you so caustically suggested yesterday.
I will talk about whatever I feel like talking about. Just like you. You call it false religion, I may not. We can discuss it honestly but I will not be preached to by you or anyone else. I am certain that you feel the same so why don't we try a little common courtesy and some mutual respect. So what do you think Huh Rachel?This is historical fact. You can remove history from your discussions if you wish but it IMHO would not be honest. Church history directly affects Bible history. God has no hands but ours...sometimes they dont always do what they are told but they usually do something.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
NO personal attacks!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Sorry Paw, I really wasn't looking to make it personal. My apologies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
??? ... and where did Eyesopen make any personal attacks? I thought her next-to-the-last post made some excellent points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
A post( not from Eyes) was deleted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Oh! My bad... I guess I'm glad that I missed it. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
What post got deleted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Thinking back, I think maybe one of my ... uhhh, not-so-diplomatic posts was ... excised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know, Goey, the funny thing is that I don't know of any doctrines of the Church that don't have their origins from scripture or, at a minimum, from "pre-Nicene patristic writings." (although I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any actual doctrines that do not have their origin at least alluded to in the Scriptures.
For example, the belief against abortion is alluded to in the Scriptures, but it is explicitly condemned in the Didache (dating from around 75-80AD): "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."
So does that place the Didache as the source of the belief? No, the belief that a child in the womb is alive is scriptural, and thus we can conclude that the intentional termination of that life is a murder...but the Didache tells us that at least the group of Christians who wrote and maintained the document held that belief strongly, as well.
It's funny that restorationist groups like TWI talk about wanting to return to the beliefs of the early Church and get rid of all the pagan Romanist influence, and in the interpretation of scripture, they will look at a bunch of references like "manners and customs of the Bible...(generally written in the 19th and 20th Centuries...2000 years after the early Church)...but they consistently refuse to look at early Patristic writings (written in the time of the early Church and before "Constantine paganized Christianity"), which would actually show what the early Christians believed and how they practiced! For a true restorationist, I would think that they'd be passionate about referring to the pre-Nicene Fathers so that they could get it right and get rid of the modernist influence on religion.
But, hey, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...
Rachel,
I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of the Mishnah and study it along with the scriptures...it will greatly strengthen your understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT prophesies and will help explain a lot of what was written in the NT.
But, again, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Do you have a web link or a book to recommend to me where I can read this? I'm not doubting you on the contrary you have piqued my interest. I'll google it but I want to be certain that I am looking at the same document as you.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Early Christian Writings -- the Didache
For a good collection of patristic writings, I'd refer you to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library or New Advent.
Happy reading!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Rachel, you may be interested in The Jewish Study Bible – if you don't already have one. It combines the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh translation along with explanatory annotations, introductions, and essays by leading biblical scholars. I purchased one last year and love the wealth of information it has! Oh, don't think I've said so yet - welcome to Grease Spot!
The Jewish Study Bible
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-7271156-2630217?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Jewish+Study+Bible&x=15&y=18
Eyes Open, I have The Didache in a copy of The Apostolic Fathers – a new translation of early Christian writings:
The Apostolic Fathers
http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers-Jack-N-Sparks/dp/0840756615/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200152332&sr=1-12
MarkOMalley – great input – and as always great posts – I enjoy reading them – very sharp and informative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
That Christian Classics Ethereal library is awsome. I had managed to find the Early Christian Writings in the google. Great stuff, Thanks!
I'm not a Catholic but I do believe that the Bible that we have today is unequivocally and forever linked to what the "early Church Father's" did in their time. Hence for me at least an understanding of their interpretation of the teachings of Christ and his apostles is very important stuff to know.
Although I must admit that some of the writings of Clement of Alexandria make me think that the man was just slightly unhinged. I guess every Church has to have a few just to keep things interesting.
Thanks T-Bone, I just ordered the book. It will save me a bunch of time looking stuff up.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:blink:
I guess I do not understand how one can only use the bible as the sole source of information and foundation of everything - comparing everything else to what the bible says and using only the bible to prove that the bible is what one professes it to be without the background information of how it came to be.
That's just ill informed circular reasoning, isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.