PDA

View Full Version : The natural law and the nature of the Church



Jerome1
Apr 10th 2008, 11:31 PM
For those of you who aren't familiar with the concept of the natural law, i think the basic principle is that each of us is endowed with a moral code.

In this thread i hope to discuss those who have not heard the gospel, or others who may be ignorant of certain aspects of the gospel and of the christian faith.

This will probably involve discussing different faiths, that is why i put it in WR.

First off i'd like to make the assumption that each of us is endowed with a moral code, or ethics to live by.

I believe there are certain people who can be ignorant or have never heard of christianity, but who by obeying their intrinsic moral code can have an elementary understanding of God.

amazzin
Apr 10th 2008, 11:35 PM
For those of you who aren't familiar with the concept of the natural law, i think the basic principle is that each of us is endowed with a moral code.

In this thread i hope to discuss those who have not heard the gospel, or others who may be ignorant of certain aspects of the gospel and of the christian faith.

This will probably involve discussing different faiths, that is why i put it in WR.

First off i'd like to make the assumption that each of us is endowed with a moral code, or ethics to live by.

I believe there are certain people who can be ignorant or have never heard of christianity, but who by obeying their intrinsic moral code can have an elementary understanding of God.

Interesting. Every assumption has a theory. Care to share the proof you have for this assumption? Not saying your wrong but show us what led you to this conclusion?

David Taylor
Apr 11th 2008, 12:43 PM
In this thread i hope to discuss those who have not heard the gospel, or others who may be ignorant of certain aspects of the gospel and of the christian faith.

I believe there are certain people who can be ignorant or have never heard of christianity

False premise. The Scripture tells us God has set each person in their habitation, and has revealed Himself to them; and they are not ignorant of Him; nor have not ever heard of Him. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."



Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"

Acts 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us"

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing"

Romans 1:18 "God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Romans 2:11 "For there is no respect of persons with God....Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

Psalms 139:1 "O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."

Jerome1
Apr 11th 2008, 06:19 PM
David some of your scriptural verses are out of context to what i am arguing.

For example.

Romans 1:18 "God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

My translation of the bible reads.

Romans1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

(Emphasis added)

In both translations it states,"can be known," and "may be known." Which is future tense and suggests that they have an elementary idea of God, but can attain a greater knowledge of God.

The natural law is the law which all men are endowed with and which is intrinsic to our human nature. This natural law or moral code is sometimes called our conscience. This is what can give us an elementary idea of a creator, because this natural law also includes the ability for us to reach conclusions using reason.

To have a better understanding of God requires divine revelation.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas went into greater detail regarding these ideas.

Scientists have also carried out studies to see if morality is universal and inate within each of us. Here is a link to a theory by an evolutionary biologist asking whether we are endowed with a moral code.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Here is a link to christian author and historian William Craig discussing the subject of morality without the existence of God.

http://www.veritas.org/download/media/A08GAT03.mp3

menJesus
Apr 11th 2008, 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by Jerome1
"In this thread i hope to discuss those who have not heard the gospel, or others who may be ignorant of certain aspects of the gospel and of the christian faith.

I believe there are certain people who can be ignorant or have never heard of christianity"

There are Scriptures pertaining to this, but for the life of me, I cannot find them right now.

And I, personally, believe that a few of us are born WITHOUT a moral code... :(

Jerome1
Apr 11th 2008, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Jerome1
"In this thread i hope to discuss those who have not heard the gospel, or others who may be ignorant of certain aspects of the gospel and of the christian faith.

I believe there are certain people who can be ignorant or have never heard of christianity"

There are Scriptures pertaining to this, but for the life of me, I cannot find them right now.

And I, personally, believe that a few of us are born WITHOUT a moral code... :(

You are probably thinking of the following verses.

Luke12:47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

Romans10:14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

There maybe people with mental disabilities who may be exempt, because they cannot logically conclude certain things like most other people.

menJesus
Apr 11th 2008, 10:34 PM
No, what I am thinking of is a Scripture re: the people who knew Him not...

We had an interesting thread on this a while back, about who God will hold accountable, and why.

But when it comes to the laws, I am clueless... ;)

Athanasius
Apr 12th 2008, 12:36 AM
For those of you who aren't familiar with the concept of the natural law, i think the basic principle is that each of us is endowed with a moral code.

G.K. Chesterton loved children, especially learning from children. I think in this instance we can learn something from children... You don't have to teach them to lie, to be selfish, to look out for number one. From this I would not argue natural law from the specifics of a moral code, but natural law from the concept of a moral code. Even with that said, that we have this weird idea that men ought to behave a certain, we still don't.

The existence of this idea of a moral code is much more for God than is the specifics of that morality.

Jerome1
Apr 12th 2008, 02:35 AM
G.K. Chesterton loved children, especially learning from children. I think in this instance we can learn something from children... You don't have to teach them to lie, to be selfish, to look out for number one. From this I would not argue natural law from the specifics of a moral code, but natural law from the concept of a moral code. Even with that said, that we have this weird idea that men ought to behave a certain, we still don't.

The existence of this idea of a moral code is much more for God than is the specifics of that morality.


Yes we all know how we ought to behave, this is not true for every moral dilemma, but generally speaking.

The question is what happens to someone who obeys their conscience, and earnestly believes in a creator, but does not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian God? What if they believe something different in regards to doctrine regarding the same Judeo/Christian God that you believe in?

Athanasius
Apr 12th 2008, 04:36 AM
Yes we all know how we ought to behave, this is not true for every moral dilemma, but generally speaking.

The question is what happens to someone who obeys their conscience, and earnestly believes in a creator, but does not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian God? What if they believe something different in regards to doctrine regarding the same Judeo/Christian God that you believe in?

Even Satan believes in God and he's a devil still (To steal half a quote from A.W. Tozer). Obeying your conscious, earnestly believing in 'a' creator... Doesn't cut it. If they think different about the Judeo-Christian God then they can back it up with scripture. If not, tough luck.

Jerome1
Apr 12th 2008, 06:14 PM
Even Satan believes in God and he's a devil still (To steal half a quote from A.W. Tozer).

Satan knows there is a God but doesn't obey him.


Obeying your conscious, earnestly believing in 'a' creator... Doesn't cut it. If they think different about the Judeo-Christian God then they can back it up with scripture. If not, tough luck.

Thats a paradoxical argument, if they don't believe in the Judeo/Christian God how can they prove it from the Judeo/Christian scriptures?

What about a Muslim for example who obeys the dictates of his conscience, lives a life of charity, believes in a creator, but has never heard of the gospel?

Jerome1
Apr 12th 2008, 10:46 PM
The point i'm making is that culpability depends on knowledge. Each of us is endowed with the natural law or conscience so we have no excuse for not obeying our conscience.

If i understand the concept correctly, the natural law is like a prerequisite to the eternal law, or a better understanding of the revelations of God.

Therefore people can be guilty of suppressing both the truth of the natural and the eternal law.

Obeying both the natural and eternal law brings us closer to God, willfully suppressing them distances us from God.

Jerome1
Apr 15th 2008, 07:29 PM
As we are all endowed with the natural law(conscience) we can also receive personal revelations. Not everyone is endowed with the ability to receive and interpret revelations such as Daniel being able to interpret King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, or Joseph being able to interpret the Pharaoh's dream.

At the Council in Jerusalem in Act15:1-21 the disciples instruct the members of the church concerning food sacrificed to idols and fornication. Were these instructions binding on the members of the whole church?

Also generally speaking protestants and the Orthodox church accept the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.

If you accept these councils as authoritative, does that mean you reject any teaching that contradicts them?

David Taylor
Apr 15th 2008, 07:34 PM
It's alot simpler than you seem to be making Jerome.


When someone seeks the Lord, with their heart, they will find Him.

He is not very vary from any one of us.

Abraham, living in Chaldea amongst all the pagans, no councils, no churches, no creeds or anything there....and He was a faithful, fervent child of God.

It's no different than anyone along the Amazon River in Brazil, the Nile River in Egypt, or the Moon.

Br. Barnabas
Apr 15th 2008, 08:24 PM
It's alot simpler than you seem to be making Jerome.


When someone seeks the Lord, with their heart, they will find Him.

He is not very vary from any one of us.

Abraham, living in Chaldea amongst all the pagans, no councils, no churches, no creeds or anything there....and He was a faithful, fervent child of God.

It's no different than anyone along the Amazon River in Brazil, the Nile River in Egypt, or the Moon.

But Abraham was given special revelation which as I believe Jerome was trying to point out very few people have. If one is not given special revelation and they follow the natural law (conscience) then is it possible to be saved.

Jerome answering your original question I would say that if anyone is able to worship the creator instead of the created and follow their conscience then God will have mercy on them. I would suggest looking at C.S. Lewis' last book in the Chronicles of Narnia The Last Battle where Aslan talks about anyone that worshiped Tash because they did not know about Aslan it will not be counted against them. Because if they had known about Aslan then they would have worshiped him. I am not saying that Lewis is correct, and it is important to note that he is not a theologian and never claimed to be one. But it is an interesting theory nonetheless.

I also have a friend that believes in Lewis' idea of Purgatory, see The Great Divorce. Because he thinks that it should/could be a place where people that have never had a chance to hear the Gospel should be given a chance to hear it there. I do not really agree with him to much on that but again an interesting idea.

David Taylor
Apr 15th 2008, 08:33 PM
But Abraham was given special revelation which as I believe Jerome was trying to point out very few people have.

The Bible tells us that all men have been given sufficient revelation of the Lord. Abraham no different that joe-blow eating grubworms in the Ugandan Jungle....Abraham responded to the Lord; and the Lord built a relationship with Abraham that is possible for all men.

Nothing special about Abraham other than he responded to the Lord in faithfully seeking and following Him; while many choose to reject the Lord and follow their own way.




If one is not given special revelation and they follow the natural law (conscience) then is it possible to be saved.

Everyone that God creates, he gives special (or sufficient) revelation to, to become saved.



I also have a friend that believes in Lewis' idea of Purgatory, see The Great Divorce. Because he thinks that it should/could be a place where people that have never had a chance to hear the Gospel should be given a chance to hear it there. I do not really agree with him to much on that but again an interesting idea.

This is reverse apologetics here. Creating a 'purgatory place' to fulfill a false premise that purgatory is needed.

Purgatory is not needed; because God has set the habitation of all men in place; and is not very far from any of us, and if we seek Him; we will find Him.

There is no people who don't get the chance....to believe there is, is to believe God Almighty is big enough to create the Universe; but not quite up to the task of sufficiently revealing Himself to those He creates.

Jerome1
Apr 15th 2008, 10:19 PM
But Abraham was given special revelation which as I believe Jerome was trying to point out very few people have. If one is not given special revelation and they follow the natural law (conscience) then is it possible to be saved.


Yes, this is a good summary of what I have been trying to say. I'll get the CS Lewis novels you recommended from the library this week.


The Bible tells us that all men have been given sufficient revelation of the Lord. Abraham no different that joe-blow eating grubworms in the Ugandan Jungle....Abraham responded to the Lord; and the Lord built a relationship with Abraham that is possible for all men.

Abraham responded to a devine revelation that not all of us encounter. I'm making a distinction between devine revelation and the natural law.


Nothing special about Abraham other than he responded to the Lord in faithfully seeking and following Him; while many choose to reject the Lord and follow their own way.


Nothing special about Abraham, who offered to sacrafice his son Isaac to God. Who God made a great nation of, and who's decendant gave birth to God incarnate?


There is no people who don't get the chance....to believe there is, is to believe God Almighty is big enough to create the Universe; but not quite up to the task of sufficiently revealing Himself to those He creates.

They get the chance to obey their conscience, but they may not have received a special revelation in order to follow the devine law.

Luke12:47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

(Emphasis added)

This suggest knowledge or lack thereof can effect ones culpability for sins committed.

David Taylor
Apr 15th 2008, 11:00 PM
You're seem to be teaching a works-based system here, that seems to deny God's ability to reveal Himself sufficiently to each of those created in His own image.

Noone can effect the cupability of ones own sins; all sins, for all men, fall upon Jesus alone for cupability. There is no excuse.

Have they not heard? Has the sound not gone out?

Yes it has. But men's hearts are wicked, and prefer themselves, over their Creator as Abraham and all men of faith do.

Jerome1
Apr 17th 2008, 02:51 PM
You're seem to be teaching a works-based system here, that seems to deny God's ability to reveal Himself sufficiently to each of those created in His own image.


You have to obey the natural law, and the devine law(If you are aware of it)

What if Abraham had disobeyed God and not offered his son Isaac to him?

God has the power to reveal himself to whomever he pleases, but it is those who act on those revelations who are justified by works and not by faith alone.


Noone can effect the cupability of ones own sins; all sins, for all men, fall upon Jesus alone for cupability. There is no excuse.


If our knowledge or lack thereof does not effect our culpability(In terms of punishment) then how do you explain Luke12:47?

David Taylor
Apr 17th 2008, 09:00 PM
You have to obey the natural law, and the devine law(If you are aware of it)

What if Abraham had disobeyed God and not offered his son Isaac to him?


Not gonna play 'what-if' games. The scriptures tell us that "Abraham believed God" and was "justified by his faith". (not his works).

Works follow faith unto justification. Works never generate justification to the exclusion of faith.

James 2:21 "Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did"

Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace"





God has the power to reveal himself to whomever he pleases, but it is those who act on those revelations who are justified by works and not by faith alone.

If our knowledge or lack thereof does not effect our culpability(In terms of punishment) then how do you explain Luke12:47?

God, because of His transcendent power, as revealed Himself to all men.....not whomever he pleases.

It is not the work of 'acting on revelations' that justifies a man; but rather, the working of the Holy Spirit meted with believing faith that justifies a man, and results to good works.

Were works possible for justification, we could save ourselves and wouldn't need a saviour.

Galatians 3:8 "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith" not justify through works

Galatians 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Galatians 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. "


Luke 12:47 (And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. ) is explained simply, in that anyone who has a claimed faith in word of tongue, but not a true, life-changing faith (that is followed by actions and deeds representative of that faith), is no person of faith at all; and do not belong to the Lord.

Jerome1
Apr 17th 2008, 11:03 PM
Not gonna play 'what-if' games. The scriptures tell us that "Abraham believed God" and was "justified by his faith". (not his works).

Works follow faith unto justification. Works never generate justification to the exclusion of faith.



I never claimed that works with the exclusion of faith generate justification, i said both must work together.


God, because of His transcendent power, as revealed Himself to all men.....not whomever he pleases.

Yes God reveals himself to all men through the natural law, i was referring to devine revelations.


Were works possible for justification, we could save ourselves and wouldn't need a saviour.

We have to make a choice to believe and obey God or not. We choose to believe and obey God or we don't. In that sense we are each responsible for our own salvation, and that is because of Christ's sacrifice.


Luke 12:47 (And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. ) is explained simply, in that anyone who has a claimed faith in word of tongue, but not a true, life-changing faith (that is followed by actions and deeds representative of that faith), is no person of faith at all; and do not belong to the Lord.

I agree, but what of the person who didn't know what his master wanted and received a light beating? He done the same as the servant who knew what his master wanted, but received less punishment because of lack of knowledge.

Jerome1
Apr 20th 2008, 10:24 PM
So if protestants and Orthodox christians accept the first seven ecumenical councils as authoritative, then what is your source of authority for doctrines that guide or divide the church?

David Taylor
Apr 21st 2008, 05:48 PM
what is your source of authority for doctrines that guide or divide the church?

The source of authority for doctrines that guide the church are:

The Holy Spirit and the Word of GodJohn 14:26 "the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Romans 15:4 "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Acts 17:11 "they received the word [of God] with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. "

Hebrews 4:12 "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "


The source that divides the church:

Vain traditions of men, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor instructed through God's WordColossians 2:6 "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. "

Matthew 15:3 "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. "

Mark 7:7 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition"

Scruffy Kid
Apr 21st 2008, 06:35 PM
I agree that it is very important to adhere unswervingly to what God teaches us, and to distinguish what God says from merely human ideas. This requires careful discernment. Thus I applaud David Taylor's concern as expressed here. However, contrasting "the word of God" and "the Holy Spirit" as over-against "tradition" may not always take us very far in making that discernment.

what is your source of authority for doctrines that guide or divide the church?
The source of authority for doctrines that guide the church are:

The Holy Spirit and the Word of God
... John 14:26 [about the Holy Ghost teaching us] ...
Romans 15:4 [about the scriptures] ...
Acts 17:11 [about the word they received, and searching the scriptures] ...
Hebrews 4:12 [about the word of God] ...
The source that divides the church:
Vain traditions of men, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor instructed through God's Word
Colossians 2:6 [ "Beware ... philosophy ... after the tradition of men, ... and not after Christ."
Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:7 [Jesus on traditions of washing used to nullify the commandments] ... I have two specific concerns here.

Scripture's view of "tradition"

One has to do with the common use of the word "tradition" as a kind of sign of what the Christian should avoid.

The word "tradition" does not appear in the KJV / AV translation of the OT; but it appears in some seven passages in the NT.
Two of these (Mark 7, Matt. 15) concern Jesus' objection to the Pharisees using traditions about the ceremonial washing of hands to object to what Jesus is doing, and, worse, to circumvent the command to honor one's Mother and Father. Jesus does not seem to be objecting to tradition -- even human tradition -- in general, but to this particular usage of it to flout His own work, and the plain meaning of one of the 10 commandments.

Two passages (Col. 2:8 and I Peter 1:18) in the Epistles refer to those traditions of the Jews and of philosophical schools which lead away from Christ. This is negative toward those traditions, but does not discuss in general terms whether or not there is a right place for Christian tradition in helping us understand what God has taught us.

Two passages (II Thes. 2:15 and II Thess 3:6) command the believers to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." This seems to emphasize that the traditions of the Christian community, the Church, are a means of helping us hold to Christ, and generally to refer to tradition -- what is handed on -- in a positive light.

One passage seems not strongly relevant, Gal. 1:14, in which Paul says that before his conversion he was "exceedingly zealous in the traditions of my fathers", that is, in the ways of the Jewish people. Overall, there does not seem to be any particular negative attitude toward tradition, except where that tradition directly contravenes the Scriptures; and one might argue that several of these passages see Christian tradition as having a valuable, even a required, role. Thessalonians seems to class oral tradition and the written Epistles together as ways in which the Churches have been instructed.

I'm not trying to make any particular argument about the role of tradition here, but only to observe that the criterion of whether something is handed on in the church (tradition) does not seem to be dealt with negatively in any of these passages; and sometimes seems to be dealt with as a part of the transmission of Apostolic teaching.

[B]Being aware of how tradition necessarily influences us

It also seems to me that inevitably our reading of Scripture is influenced by the way we were taught, and the particular Christian groups from whom we learned the faith. Thus, many on this board make much of phrases such as "sola scriptura", "sola fides", "sola gratia" and so on. Almost all of us support the doctrine of "the trinity" and "the deity of Christ" and so on. Generally, the board leadership has come down strongly against "modalism" and other classical heresies. This is all very proper, IMO. But the phrases do sum up traditional doctrines and understandings of scripture.

Even using the phrase "word of God" for the Scriptures is more a matter of ancient church tradition, many scholars think, than how the Scriptures themselves talk. In the Scriptures the phrase "Scriptures" is used for the Scriptures" and the phrase "word of God" or "word of the Lord" usually used to indicate God's message coming directly to a particular person, often as spoken by God to the Prophets, or to the Apostles' (oral) teaching. (See if you can find just one reference in Scripture where the phrase "word of God" clearly refers to the Scriptures. Many scholars say there is no unambiguous such reference.) Thus our readings of the Bible are always somewhat influenced by Church tradition, although that tradition builds upon the Scriptures. This seems to me inevitable.

The teaching of the Holy Spirit

Certainly, the text of Scripture is very well established. Thus, though we may disagree over interpretation it does not seem to me that there is any serious disagreement over the text itself, among Protestants. (Obviously, we disagree with Catholics and Orthodox about the books we regard as "the Apocrypha" and they as "Deutero-Canonical".)

But what it is that the Holy Spirit teaches us is something concerning which various believers will disagree. It is easy enough for anyone (or any sect) to suppose that what he believes (or, they believe) strongly the meaning of Scripture to be in a particular passage -- or life circumstance -- is what the Holy Spirit is saying to him (or them). How, then, do we distinguish what I, or my group, happens to believe the Spirit inspired (but which someone from another group might regard as our human traditions) from the true and evident witness of the Spirit?

One understanding is that what the Holy Spirit has to say is said to the Church universal: that we can be confident that God has led the great bulk of Christians through the ages, by His Holy Spirit, in acknowledging basic Christian doctrines such as Jesus' full humanity and divinity, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the centrality of the Cross, basic Christian morality, and so on. Roughly this is what I would say: I have great confidence that God led the Church aright in the basic creeds and confessions, which are close to the Scriptures, but clarify important doctrines, such as the Trinity, and the full humanity and divinity of Christ. I have great confidence in the consensus of faithful Christians through the ages, for instance on its moral teaching, because I believe that God has led them by His Holy Spirit. Jesus says that God will establish the Church, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

If we mean something other than this by the witness of the Holy Spirit, then in practice it seems that the claim of inspiration by the Holy Spirit is hard to distinguish from what any man or any sect comes up with. If what we mean is the broad witness of the Church, of Christians, through the ages, "Mere Christianity", then it seems we have something well-defined and definite, and not easily distorted by any new person starting a sect or claiming to have heard specially from God. But in practice, also, believing what faithful Christians have adhered to through the ages might also be called by someone else "holding to Christian tradition."

Deep unity among believing Christians:
Common Christian tradition, and the work of the Holy Spirit

Thus many people see a strong consensus among the Christian tradition across the dividing lines that separate Catholic, Orthodox, Reformation Churches, Baptist and Anabaptist Churches, and Pentacostal and Charismatic churches. In my experience working with believers, and church leaders, from all these traditions, there are very similar emphases. All believe that Christ Jesus is Lord and God, that He died to save us from our sins, that only by His death and resurrection are we saved, that the Scriptures are reliable and true, that the cross must be central in our lives, that prayer is essential, that there is One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that all humankind will be judged and enter into everlasting life or everlasting death, that we must live chaste lives and forgive and help the poor and not trust in ourselves but in God and in Christ, worshipping God with thanksgiving, and so on. When I work together with other believing Christians I find great unanimity of basic doctrine and of spirit, despite various denominational and doctrinal differences. I see all, in various ways, holding faithfully to what has been passed on to us by the Apostles, from Christ. This is what I understand by "Christian tradition" and the work of the Holy Spirit among believers.

Revinius
Apr 22nd 2008, 03:53 PM
I think much of this argument works on the premise that God doesnt control where someone is born or what culture they are born into. The assertion that a Muslim person who leads a moral life will gain entry to heaven on that rationale alone. Although he has a concept of God, his concept is that of the Muslim notion of "Allah", which is not the one true God. If Jesus says he is the way the truth and the life and noone is to go to the father but through him then it logically necessitates that if a Muslim doesnt acknowledge Jesus then he doesnt know God. Regardless of his opinions on God, no Jesus no knowing God.

Jerome1
Apr 24th 2008, 07:46 PM
The source of authority for doctrines that guide the church are:
The Holy Spirit and the Word of God


If the bible and the Holy Spirit are the only authorities for defining doctrine, then why is there so much contradiction among the many denominations?

Once a belief contradicts another belief, only one or neither one can be correct.



Vain traditions of men, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor instructed through God's Word


How do you know the difference between vain traditions and the traditions Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to in 2Thessalonians2:15?



If Jesus says he is the way the truth and the life and noone is to go to the father but through him then it logically necessitates that if a Muslim doesnt acknowledge Jesus then he doesnt know God. Regardless of his opinions on God, no Jesus no knowing God.


Jesus is the way the truth and the life, but is it possible for a person to have an elementary understanding of God/Jesus by obeying their conscience?

Revinius
Apr 25th 2008, 04:19 AM
Jesus is the way the truth and the life, but is it possible for a person to have an elementary understanding of God/Jesus by obeying their conscience?

Well we are made to worship and if we dont worship Jesus we will worship other things. I think secretly in our heart of hearts we know some truths to be self-evident, but our sin blocks out the ability to tap into those truths. Its only through the changing of our hearts by God that we can enter into relationship with him. His election can be a little mysterious at times from our perspective. There has been isolated cases of people in rural areas untouched by Christianity that have simply been moved to discover this son of God that has entered their heart.

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 03:41 PM
Well we are made to worship and if we dont worship Jesus we will worship other things. I think secretly in our heart of hearts we know some truths to be self-evident, but our sin blocks out the ability to tap into those truths. Its only through the changing of our hearts by God that we can enter into relationship with him. His election can be a little mysterious at times from our perspective. There has been isolated cases of people in rural areas untouched by Christianity that have simply been moved to discover this son of God that has entered their heart.

Yes our sin desentsitizes us and distances us from the truth.

Revinius
Apr 26th 2008, 04:51 PM
Yes our sin desentsitizes us and distances us from the truth.

Indeed, you convince yourself of something often enough and eventually you will believe it.

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 08:23 PM
Indeed, you convince yourself of something often enough and eventually you will believe it.

Exactly, it's not that people do not know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. They suppress the truth which we all innately have to a degree.

I find the subject very interesting, i heard by coincidence bishop Fulton Sheen give a very good discussion on it on television the other day.

Basically i believe if we accept the natural law grace will extend to us and we will be given greater ability to discern both the natural and devine law. If we suppress the truth we are not entrusted with sufficent grace in order to be able to understand the more complicated aspects of the law, both natural and devine.

I think the parable of the talents summons up this analogy well. If we don't use what we are given wisely it will be taken from us and we will be considered lazy and useless servants. If we accept and use what has been given to us it will increase tenfold.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 03:19 AM
The other issue i wanted to discuss in this thread is the nature of the Church. Basically meaning what constitutes the Body of Christ?

Would it be an accurate portrayal of the protestant view to say that the Body of Christ is made up of all, "born again believers," who have accepted Christ as their Lord and saviour?

This in essence means that the Church is a purely spiritual entity with no visible or authoritative structures and is without legislative powers to govern the Church.

In which case, were the first seven ecumenical councils authoritative, or can they be discounted?

Br. Barnabas
May 2nd 2008, 03:27 AM
The other issue i wanted to discuss in this thread is the nature of the Church. Basically meaning what constitutes the Body of Christ?

Would it be an accurate portrayal of the protestant view to say that the Body of Christ is made up of all, "born again believers," who have accepted Christ as their Lord and saviour?

This in essence means that the Church is a purely spiritual entity with no visible or authoritative structures and is without legislative powers to govern the Church.

In which case, were the first seven ecumenical councils authoritative, or can they be discounted?

I would say that not all protestants believe that, many evangelical ones would. I do not believe that and I have a very high view of Church authority and hold that the 1st four councils were ecumenical and that they were authoritative. But then again I am a very high Anglican more Anglo-Catholic with a bit of Orthodox ideas and mysticism mixed in. So I am not like most protestants.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 02:28 PM
I would say that not all protestants believe that, many evangelical ones would. I do not believe that and I have a very high view of Church authority and hold that the 1st four councils were ecumenical and that they were authoritative. But then again I am a very high Anglican more Anglo-Catholic with a bit of Orthodox ideas and mysticism mixed in. So I am not like most protestants.

Doesn't the Episcopal Church accept the first seven councils as authoritative?

I think the Orthodox accept the first seven along with the Anglican,Lutheran and Methodist churches, and the Oriental Orthodox accept the first four.

Some Orthodox also accept the fourth and fifth Councils of Constantinople as authoritive.

Br. Barnabas
May 2nd 2008, 05:05 PM
Well in the Articles of Religion it took out Article 21 which talked about the councils. I know about the first 4 pretty well I will have to look up 5-7. But I think that we do think that they are ecumenical.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.

[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

So it seems that they did not hold as high a view as I do of them. I do know that we believe they stop becoming ecumenical when not every orthodox bishop is not at least invited.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 05:42 PM
So it seems that they did not hold as high a view as I do of them. I do know that we believe they stop becoming ecumenical when not every orthodox bishop is not at least invited.


Are you a member of the Episcopalian Church?

I believe both the Orthodox and RCC views the ecumenical councils as more binding on the universal church(Infallible). The episcopalian and other protestant denominations view them as authoritative, but prone to error.

The point is that the three main branches of christianity accepted authoratative and legislative councils to guide the whole church.

I'm curious to know were protestants think these councils erred?

Br. Barnabas
May 2nd 2008, 06:09 PM
I do not belong to the Episcopal Church, I am part of the Anglican church, namely the Anglican Mission in America, from Rwanda. We don't really believe that a lot of the Episcopal bishops are Christians anymore. Sorry to any ECUSA people. We find that bishops like the former Bishop John Shelby Spong who think you can have Christianity without Jesus are wrong. I know there is a church one town over from the city I live in that pray Buddist, Hindu, Islamic, and Universal prayers around their alter. The Africans don't really see that as Christian behavior and so they have started their own Anglican mission to America.

Like I said being a pretty high Anglo-Catholic guy I don't really see that they are prone to err. I would not say that they are inerrant. But I don't think that they erred in their theology either. I have agreed with the canons that I have read from the councils.

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 06:13 PM
The early councils are much the same as the early theologians. Augustine, Tertullian, Iranaeus etc all have good things to say regarding doctrine, but i would hardly call what they say scripture.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 09:00 PM
Like I said being a pretty high Anglo-Catholic guy I don't really see that they are prone to err. I would not say that they are inerrant. But I don't think that they erred in their theology either. I have agreed with the canons that I have read from the councils.

If you cannot find error in them, why do you regard them as prone to error?

Do you think these councils were comparable to the Council at Jerusalem in Acts15?

I am assuming that you don't believe the Council at Jerusalem was prone to error because it is recorded in the bible?

Br. Barnabas
May 2nd 2008, 09:38 PM
I did not say that they were prone to error. I said "I don't really see that they are prone to err." I was disagreeing with what the Articles said. I think that the other ones are comparable to the Council of Jerusalem but the other ones could have erred. Not because they are not in the Bible but because the Apostles were the ones who decided things in the Council of Jerusalem. Where as the other ones were by the Fathers who, being as great as they are and having apostlic secusession they were not the Apostles themselves. It has little to nothing to do with the Council of Jerusalem being in the Bible.

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 03:10 PM
I did not say that they were prone to error. I said "I don't really see that they are prone to err." I was disagreeing with what the Articles said. I think that the other ones are comparable to the Council of Jerusalem but the other ones could have erred. Not because they are not in the Bible but because the Apostles were the ones who decided things in the Council of Jerusalem. Where as the other ones were by the Fathers who, being as great as they are and having apostlic secusession they were not the Apostles themselves. It has little to nothing to do with the Council of Jerusalem being in the Bible.

Prone to error means that theoretically they can err.

We see in Acts15 the church convening a council and deciding on important matters for the universal church. We also seen this down through the centuries with all main branches of christianity accepting them as authoritative councils governing the whole church.

This clearly showed a visible and legislative body that decided on important issues regarding the church.

Was this system better for universal unity and clarity of doctine?

Br. Barnabas
May 3rd 2008, 05:00 PM
Prone to error means that theoretically they can err.

We see in Acts15 the church convening a council and deciding on important matters for the universal church. We also seen this down through the centuries with all main branches of christianity accepting them as authoritative councils governing the whole church.

This clearly showed a visible and legislative body that decided on important issues regarding the church.

Was this system better for universal unity and clarity of doctine?

I believe that the councils were both for unity and for the clarity of doctrine. I find it hard to believe that the councils did err, but I think that it would be possible, a very slight chance. I take them as authoritative but not perfect. And for that reason and a few others I am an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic.

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 08:47 PM
I believe that the councils were both for unity and for the clarity of doctrine. I find it hard to believe that the councils did err, but I think that it would be possible, a very slight chance. I take them as authoritative but not perfect. And for that reason and a few others I am an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic.

If you think they could err, can you give me any examples where you think they might have erred?

Revinius
May 4th 2008, 03:14 AM
If you think they could err, can you give me any examples where you think they might have erred?

How do you think you can er? Same for them.

Jerome1
May 4th 2008, 03:29 PM
How do you think you can er? Same for them.

As a RC i believe anything that does not align with RC doctrine is in error.

I can err because i don't claim to be infallible.

I know that protestants believe that the first seven councils were authoritative but were prone to error. What was contained within the first seven councils that could be considered prone to error?

Revinius
May 4th 2008, 04:32 PM
As a RC i believe anything that does not align with RC doctrine is in error.

I can err because i don't claim to be infallible.

I know that protestants believe that the first seven councils were authoritative but were prone to error. What was contained within the first seven councils that could be considered prone to error?

I dont think its about what was in the councils so much as those who made up the council. They were probably very Godly men but they are like you or i and are potentially prone to error. As i mentioned above, great authors like Augustine or even Calvin were Godly men, and i find what they write on scripture to be helpful (like any commentary) but i dont regard it as the Word of God. Regardless of whether or not i agree with what the councils say, the councils werent at least apostolic and as such i dont hold them in as high and esteem as to grant them a status as inspired directly by the Word.

Jerome1
May 7th 2008, 07:24 PM
I dont think its about what was in the councils so much as those who made up the council. They were probably very Godly men but they are like you or i and are potentially prone to error. As i mentioned above, great authors like Augustine or even Calvin were Godly men, and i find what they write on scripture to be helpful (like any commentary) but i dont regard it as the Word of God. Regardless of whether or not i agree with what the councils say, the councils werent at least apostolic and as such i dont hold them in as high and esteem as to grant them a status as inspired directly by the Word.

What is contained within the first seven councils that you would consider to be prone to error?

This would be the first question i would ask myself if i felt they were prone to error or not divinely inspired.

Revinius
May 8th 2008, 03:50 PM
What is contained within the first seven councils that you would consider to be prone to error?

This would be the first question i would ask myself if i felt they were prone to error or not divinely inspired.

You just quoted an extract from me stating my answer to your question.:confused :B

The first question i would ask myself is who were these men and what makes them different to men such as myself or yourself?

Jerome1
May 12th 2008, 11:13 PM
You just quoted an extract from me stating my answer to your question.:confused :B

The first question i would ask myself is who were these men and what makes them different to men such as myself or yourself?

Depending on what denomination you belong to, they were men who lawfully succeeded the apostles and with that succession came the authority to govern the church.

Revinius
May 13th 2008, 02:50 AM
Depending on what denomination you belong to, they were men who lawfully succeeded the apostles and with that succession came the authority to govern the church.

See, the whole idea of passing down authority at the church level (like that of kings) is what i disagree with. I dont care about the denomenation junk, but what i do care about is weighing up the falibility of man with the infalibility of God and hopefully leaning towards the latter every time.

Jerome1
May 13th 2008, 03:08 AM
See, the whole idea of passing down authority at the church level (like that of kings) is what i disagree with. I dont care about the denomenation junk, but what i do care about is weighing up the falibility of man with the infalibility of God and hopefully leaning towards the latter every time.

The RCC claiming that it is infallible when defining doctrine is a pretty big claim.

The questions i personally asked were, if it is it wont have contradicted itself when making infallible pronouncements?

It's teachings have to be in accordance with scripture.

There has to be support from the early church fathers supporting their doctrines.

An explanation on the benefits of infallibility.

Ofcourse prayer and guidance from the Hoily Spirit.

It is up to each individual to investigate these things for themselves.

Revinius
May 13th 2008, 04:01 AM
The RCC claiming that it is infallible when defining doctrine is a pretty big claim.

The questions i personally asked were, if it is it wont have contradicted itself when making infallible pronouncements?

It's teachings have to be in accordance with scripture.

There has to be support from the early church fathers supporting their doctrines.

An explanation on the benefits of infallibility.

Ofcourse prayer and guidance from the Hoily Spirit.

It is up to each individual to investigate these things for themselves.

Indeed, but one must remember that consistently getting things right doesnt mean one is infallible. Its just may mean one is fallible and happens to get things right.

Jerome1
May 13th 2008, 10:39 AM
Indeed, but one must remember that consistently getting things right doesnt mean one is infallible. Its just may mean one is fallible and happens to get things right.

2000+ years is a long time to go without claiming to have made a mistake or contradicted a previous doctrine.

No other earthly institution claims to be infallible, so it's important to investigate it's claims.

Then when deciding if Christ instituted a visible church I looked at how devine revelation was entrusted to the Jews. Was there a hierarchy or a system in which they received devine revelation, could their teachings be trusted even if their actions were less than admirable at times. Did God entrust them with his oracles even though they did not always act in accordance with those devine revelations?

These are the kinds of questions i needed answered to see if these claims had any merit.

David Taylor
May 14th 2008, 11:11 AM
No other earthly institution claims to be infallible, so it's important to investigate it's claims.



The LDS Quarum of 12/priesthood/Prophet
The WTB&TS


At least those two other institutions claim infallibility.




Then when deciding if Christ instiOT to the Jews. Was there a hierarchy or a system in which they received devine revelation, could their teachings be trusted even if their actions were less than admirable at times. Did God entrust them with his oracles even though they did not always act in accordance with those devine revelations?


So are you saying that before the RCC and the Pope, The system of Judaism in the OT was the keeper of infallible revelations?

Jerome1
May 14th 2008, 01:54 PM
The LDS Quarum of 12/priesthood/Prophet
The WTB&TS

At least those two other institutions claim infallibility.


It is very easy to pick holes in LDS and Jehovahs Witnesses theology, the rejection of the Trinity for example. Neither can trace their origins back to Christ and the apostles also.


So are you saying that before the RCC and the Pope, The system of Judaism in the OT was the keeper of infallible revelations?

Yes they were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2) which are infallible.

David Taylor
May 14th 2008, 02:23 PM
It is very easy to pick holes in LDS and Jehovahs Witnesses theology, the rejection of the Trinity for example. Neither can trace their origins back to Christ and the apostles also.

They both claim they can; especially mormonism. So again, it is one religion claiming diving infalibility.

It is also very easy to pick holes in RCC theology; therefore why protestants reject the infalibility claim of the RCC and their pope.



Yes they were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2) which are infallible.

Caiaphas and the other religous leaders following Judaism rejected Jesus and wanted to kill him. That wasn't an example of the OT oracles of God being infallible....yet they were the leadership of Judaism.

A Clear demonstration that OT Judaism and its head was not infallible.

Again, the infalibility came with God; not with religious rulers who were in opposition to God with their false traditions, claims, and beliefs.

So to claim that the RCC and its religious leader(s) can speak infallible in the same manner, is void.

Jerome1
May 14th 2008, 02:54 PM
They both claim they can; especially mormonism. So again, it is one religion claiming diving infalibility.

It is also very easy to pick holes in RCC theology; therefore why protestants reject the infalibility claim of the RCC and their pope.


To my knowledge there is no objective historical evidence that supports any kind of succession from Christ and the Apostles to the LDS. They also reject Trinitarianism in favour of a Godhead explanation of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.


Caiaphas and the other religous leaders following Judaism rejected Jesus and wanted to kill him. That wasn't an example of the OT oracles of God being infallible....yet they were the leadership of Judaism.

Caiaphas as high priest recognized that Jesus was about to die for the nation in John11:49-53.

John11:49 But one of them Cai-a-phas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

(Emphasis added)

Cai-a-phas spoke the truth he was prevented from teaching error, because he sat on the seat of Moses(Matthew23:2).

Revinius
May 14th 2008, 05:16 PM
Cai-a-phas spoke the truth he was prevented from teaching error, because he sat on the seat of Moses(Matthew23:2).

I think he was more talking of Rome smashing them for Jesus raising an insurrection against Herod. This did actually happen later in 70AD and its quite clear the political climate of Judea at the time was tense.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 03:40 AM
The final subject i wanted to discuss in this thread is who or what constitutes(hope i'm using this word in the right context) belonging to the Body of Christ?

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 03:54 AM
The final subject i wanted to discuss in this thread is who or what constitutes(hope i'm using this word in the right context) belonging to the Body of Christ?

I would say those people who believe in the main [doctrinal] assertions of Scripture. I'll try to list them... But I'm sure I'll miss a few or bungle them. Which really, I should know them. So if I do bungle some, correct me and I'll learn em' for good ;)

In no particular order...



Humans are fallen, sinful and possess no means to save themselves
Sin separates us from God
Humanity needs a Savior, found in Christ, to reconcile us with God
Jesus Christ is God incarnate, born of a virgin
Jesus was crucified on a cross, died, was resurrected [physically] and ascended into Heaven of His own power
Jesus Christ is part of the Triune God
That there is only one God
Christianity is the only path that leads to the Father
Salvation is a gift of God, unattainable through works
All scripture is plenary verbal inspired by God

I'm sure I'm missing something... Anyway, forgive the wording. I'll improve the wording 'next time' ;\ Hrrm.

David Taylor
May 21st 2008, 04:20 AM
The final subject i wanted to discuss in this thread is who or what constitutes(hope i'm using this word in the right context) belonging to the Body of Christ?

Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us

I Corinthians 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

I Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together

Ephesians 5:23 Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. For we are members of his body

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 02:31 PM
Thanks, i agree that those who constitute the Body of Christ will adhere to devine revelation, when they are aware of it. I do believe culpability depends on knowledge, and as God is the only one who can judge how culpable a person is regarding his or her acceptance of devine revelation, it is wrong to judge others concerning their level of culpability.

The RCC recognizes that everyone who has been validly baptized, even in a Protestant denomination, to be Catholic until they consciously apostasize. If they have been baptized outside the catholic church they would also not have access to the sacraments, altough the catholic church accepts that the Eastern Orthodox church and the Oriental Orthodox church have valid sacraments. I believe it also accepts(but would need to clarify) that baptisms and marriages can be performed validly outside of the aforementioned churches.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 05:37 PM
Caiaphas as high priest recognized that Jesus was about to die for the nation in John11:49-53.

John11:49 But one of them Cai-a-phas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

(Emphasis added)

Cai-a-phas spoke the truth he was prevented from teaching error, because he sat on the seat of Moses(Matthew23:2).

Caiaphas spoke a truth but he didn't speak the truth. There is a difference. What's interesting, is that man didn't even see Jesus as God. It would not be the first time nor the last time God used someone that was against him to prophesy. Caiaphas prophesied, as scripture says, because of his position of high priest. But he led many away from Jesus because of his position as well. That is a shame.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 11:04 PM
Caiaphas spoke a truth but he didn't speak the truth. There is a difference. What's interesting, is that man didn't even see Jesus as God. It would not be the first time nor the last time God used someone that was against him to prophesy. Caiaphas prophesied, as scripture says, because of his position of high priest. But he led many away from Jesus because of his position as well. That is a shame.

I'm not claiming that Caiaphas always spoke the truth, i am claiming that he was prevented from teaching error when he presided over the council in John11:45-57.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 11:10 PM
I'm not claiming that Caiaphas always spoke the truth, i am claiming that he was prevented from teaching error when he presided over the council in John11:45-57.

I know what you are claiming. And I am refuting it. He presided over the council that sought to crucify Christ which was clearly wrong.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 11:17 PM
I know what you are claiming. And I am refuting it. He presided over the council that sought to crucify Christ which was clearly wrong.

I know he presided over the council, but he still proclaimed what the purpose of Christ's crucifixion would accomplish. That is why it states that they sought to put him to death after he said it(John11:53).

Revinius
May 23rd 2008, 03:20 AM
Was Caiphas not teaching error when he denounced Jesus as blasphemous?

Jerome1
May 23rd 2008, 07:46 AM
Was Caiphas not teaching error when he denounced Jesus as blasphemous?

To my knowledge Caiaphas never denounced Jesus as a blasphemer when Christ was brought before the Jewish Council. Moreover it has just occured to me that one of the reasons the Jews might not have stoned Christ themselves as they killed Stephen in Acts7:4 is because they could not condemn him, because they were prevented from condemning him. Therefore they had to hand him over to the Romans to be crucified, because they could not do it themselves.

It seems plausible if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2), that they couldn't condemn an innocent man according to their law, and would have to hand him over to the Romans if they wanted him crucified. Note also that Pilate was going to release Christ, and the Jews basically accused Christ of insurrection and told Pilate that if he claimed to be a king he was an enemy of the Emperor. They couldn't condemn him according to their own law, so they had to lay other charges on him.

Before you ask how they could stone Stephen and not Christ, my answer would be that the Jews were no longer entrusted with the oracles of God when Stephen was stoned(Which was after Christs death and resurrection). The oracles of God were then entrusted to the church.

When Paul is talking about the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God, he uses the word, "were," which is past tense.

David Taylor
May 23rd 2008, 12:31 PM
To my knowledge Caiaphas never denounced Jesus as a blasphemer when Christ was brought before the Jewish Council.

It seems plausible if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2), that they couldn't condemn an innocent man according to their law

Incorrect...

Matthew 26:57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.

John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Jerome1
May 23rd 2008, 02:35 PM
Incorrect...

Matthew 26:57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.

John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.


When Caiaphas puts Jesus under oath regarding the destruction of the temple and about whether he was the Messiah the Son of God. Jesus said, "You have said so."Caiaphas meant the literal temple, and Jesus didn't disagree with him, therefore was Caiaphas saying he blasphemed because he thought he was going to destroy the literal temple, or because he claimed to be the Messiah, or both?

It was blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God, so why didn't the Jews stone Christ as they stoned Stephen?

If Christ claimed to be the Son of God, then technically he blasphemed because it was blasphemy to make such claims. Note that Caiaphas didn't denounce that Christ wasn't the Son of God, but he was correct in asserting that claiming to be the Messiah was blasphemy.

If you are familiar with the case of pope Honorius and the heresy of Monthelitism(claiming that Christ only had one will)
People accused Honorius of supporting this heresy, but instead he failed to quell the heresy by not stating that Christ had two wills(devine and human) He sat on the fence so to speak.

It's like Caiaphas saying that claiming to be the Son of God is blasphemous, but not actually denying that Christ was the Son of God.

*Just thought i'd add a disclaimer, and say that i don't know the RCC's position on why Christ was handed over to the Roman's instead of being executed by the Jews. I don't want people to think i'm giving the position of the RCC. It is my opinion that it is plausible that the Jews didn't execute Christ, because they couldn't condemn him according to their law.

Was Christ officially crucified for insurrection by the Romans, or because the Jews found him guilty of blasphemy?

Revinius
May 24th 2008, 05:15 AM
To my knowledge Caiaphas never denounced Jesus as a blasphemer when Christ was brought before the Jewish Council. Moreover it has just occured to me that one of the reasons the Jews might not have stoned Christ themselves as they killed Stephen in Acts7:4 is because they could not condemn him, because they were prevented from condemning him. Therefore they had to hand him over to the Romans to be crucified, because they could not do it themselves.

It seems plausible if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2), that they couldn't condemn an innocent man according to their law, and would have to hand him over to the Romans if they wanted him crucified. Note also that Pilate was going to release Christ, and the Jews basically accused Christ of insurrection and told Pilate that if he claimed to be a king he was an enemy of the Emperor. They couldn't condemn him according to their own law, so they had to lay other charges on him.

Before you ask how they could stone Stephen and not Christ, my answer would be that the Jews were no longer entrusted with the oracles of God when Stephen was stoned(Which was after Christs death and resurrection). The oracles of God were then entrusted to the church.

When Paul is talking about the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God, he uses the word, "were," which is past tense.

According to the Mishnah the trial itself wasnt actually an authoritive trial (unlike that of Stephen) mainly because of its context which i dont really want to go into. But the extra-biblical evidence (Mishnah, Talmud, Josephus etc) indicates that the right to capital punishment was taken away from the Jews, thus requiring the Romans to punish for capital crimes if they deemed fit. Stephens execution was more of a lynching in response to the trial if you read the text.

In any case, this is a side matter. Caiphas was instrumental in the killing of Jesus, he denounced Him with the rest of the Sadducees and he died. God used an evil man to bring about His glory.

Jerome1
May 24th 2008, 04:14 PM
According to the Mishnah the trial itself wasnt actually an authoritive trial (unlike that of Stephen) mainly because of its context which i dont really want to go into. But the extra-biblical evidence (Mishnah, Talmud, Josephus etc) indicates that the right to capital punishment was taken away from the Jews, thus requiring the Romans to punish for capital crimes if they deemed fit. Stephens execution was more of a lynching in response to the trial if you read the text.

In any case, this is a side matter. Caiphas was instrumental in the killing of Jesus, he denounced Him with the rest of the Sadducees and he died. God used an evil man to bring about His glory.

I'm not claiming that the Jews were always righteous, i'm saying that they were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2). God by his very nature is infallible, so it follows that the instructions he gave the Jews were also without error. I don't know what process the Jews would have used to determine when they had received an oracle from God.

In the RCC they teach that the pope has to meet strict criteria, so i am assuming that the Jews had some kind of method when receiving the oracles of God. Calling authoritative councils may have been one of them.

Jesus tells the crowds in Matthew23:2 to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them because they sit on the seat of Moses. To my knowledge there is no mention of, "a seat of Moses," in scripture. Would Christ instruct the crowds to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them if the teachings were prone to error?

The only seat i can think of when examining the scriptures is the mercy seat on the arc of the covenant(Exodus25:17).

When the Jews took someone outside the city to stone them(as they did to Stephen), wasn't it their intention to stone them to death?

1Kings21:13,Acts14:19.

Revinius
May 25th 2008, 04:07 AM
When the Jews took someone outside the city to stone them(as they did to Stephen), wasn't it their intention to stone them to death?

1Kings21:13,Acts14:19.

Pharisaic law of the Mishnah states that a capital sentence can only be issued a day after the trial (for time to consider sentence). Stephen was dragged out and executed in a classic lynching at the crowds rage, after all he had just told them their reason for existance was wrong.

Revinius
May 25th 2008, 04:08 AM
When the Jews took someone outside the city to stone them(as they did to Stephen), wasn't it their intention to stone them to death?

1Kings21:13,Acts14:19.

Pharisaic law of the Mishnah states that a capital sentence can only be issued a day after the trial (for time to consider sentence). Stephen was dragged out and executed in a classic lynching at the crowds rage, after all he had just told them their reason for existance was wrong. This makes sense in light of the trial of Jesus, given the Talmud states that before the destruction of the second Temple, the right of the Jews to issue capital offences themselves was 'taken away'.

Jerome1
May 25th 2008, 02:11 PM
Pharisaic law of the Mishnah states that a capital sentence can only be issued a day after the trial (for time to consider sentence). Stephen was dragged out and executed in a classic lynching at the crowds rage, after all he had just told them their reason for existance was wrong. This makes sense in light of the trial of Jesus, given the Talmud states that before the destruction of the second Temple, the right of the Jews to issue capital offences themselves was 'taken away'.

Are you Jewish Revinius?

Do you not think it was the crowds intention to kill Stephen when they dragged him out of the city?

I thought there was also another reason for dragging those they intended to kill outside the city(something to do with touching dead bodies?)

Revinius
May 26th 2008, 04:19 AM
Are you Jewish Revinius?

Do you not think it was the crowds intention to kill Stephen when they dragged him out of the city?

I thought there was also another reason for dragging those they intended to kill outside the city(something to do with touching dead bodies?)

No, and you arent addressing the point i challenged you on.

Jerome1
May 26th 2008, 05:28 PM
No, and you arent addressing the point i challenged you on.

What point were you challenging me on, that they did not intend to kill Stephen?

If you were charged with blasphemy you were dragged outside the city and stoned(Leviticus24:10-23.) I am assuming that they dragged the body outside the city to prevent themselves from becoming unclean by touching it(Number19:11-22) Why would they drag Stephen outside the city if they did not intend to kill him? Why would Saul give his approval when Stephen was executed?

Like i said i don't know the Judaic system that they would have used to determine what should be passed as authoritative legistation. My point still remains that they did not charge and execute Christ with the charge of blashemy.

To use a crude analogy, it is like a legaslative court bringing a police officer to court and telling him it is against the law to impersonate a police officer. But then not being able to prosecute the police officer because he is who he claims to be.

Why did the Jews not hold an authoritative council and charge Christ with not being who he claimed to be, and duly execute him? The fact is they had to bring charges of insurrection against him, and had him executed according to the Roman's law and not their own.

Revinius
May 27th 2008, 03:16 AM
What point were you challenging me on, that they did not intend to kill Stephen?

If you were charged with blasphemy you were dragged outside the city and stoned(Leviticus24:10-23.) I am assuming that they dragged the body outside the city to prevent themselves from becoming unclean by touching it(Number19:11-22) Why would they drag Stephen outside the city if they did not intend to kill him? Why would Saul give his approval when Stephen was executed?

I do not contest the dragging out of the city part (i dont know where you get that from) what i do contest is that the execution was carried out hastily and not according to Pharisaic law. Drawing a comparison between Jesus execution and that of Stephen its plain to see with the the extra-biblical text that Stephens execution was in violation of the Mishnah which to the Jews of the mid to late 1st Century and onwards WAS scripture (we all know how authoritive scripture is for Jews).


Like i said i don't know the Judaic system that they would have used to determine what should be passed as authoritative legistation. My point still remains that they did not charge and execute Christ with the charge of blashemy.

Thats a highly contested issue historically and you should not be so hasty to make that claim without first looking into the historical texts. From my study, i would say that Christ was executed purely because he kept saying he was God. Simply put, he was blasphemous. But in any case you need to study such things yourself. Read the Roman sources on execution protocol, read Josephus, read the Mishnah and Talmud before making your claim. Be thorough. ;)


To use a crude analogy, it is like a legaslative court bringing a police officer to court and telling him it is against the law to impersonate a police officer. But then not being able to prosecute the police officer because he is who he claims to be.

Stephens trial was lawful (even if the execution wasnt), Christs wasnt. To mention a few inconsistencies (as their are heaps which would take up way too much time): The Sanhedrin met at night which isn't lawful; Pilate told them to judge him on their own law (complex side issue); the court did not meet after one day to rediscuss the case/execution as was law; the Sanhedrin was not to meet before any festival day by law; Caiaphas rent his clothes (somewhat odd considering they were sacred vestments whose specifications were handed down by God). Havent time to write more, but look at the issue for yourself.


Why did the Jews not hold an authoritative council and charge Christ with not being who he claimed to be, and duly execute him? The fact is they had to bring charges of insurrection against him, and had him executed according to the Roman's law and not their own.

The Talmud clearly states as i have already mentioned that the right to try people for capital punishments was taken away shortly before the destruction of the Temple in AD70. I dont know why they didnt convene a legal trial, perhaps they knew He wasnt going to be convicted by honest testimony and so had to get Him taken care of quickly. Such a case carries more weight seeing how keen they were to get Pilate to kill Him that they would worry him over potential insurrection - the Sanhedrin carried political clout and Judea was a hot bed of potential rebellion as seen in the Hellenisation movement that led to the Maccabean revolt earlier.

Jerome1
May 27th 2008, 05:10 PM
I do not contest the dragging out of the city part (i dont know where you get that from) what i do contest is that the execution was carried out hastily and not according to Pharisaic law. Drawing a comparison between Jesus execution and that of Stephen its plain to see with the the extra-biblical text that Stephens execution was in violation of the Mishnah which to the Jews of the mid to late 1st Century and onwards WAS scripture (we all know how authoritive scripture is for Jews).


I posted scriptural references to the laws governing the touching of dead bodies and the practice of taking people outside the camp to stone them to death. The reference to Stephen being dragged outside the city is in Acts7:58.

I don't know the Jewish law governing executions, but if the authoritative council found Stephen guilty of blasphemy and duly executed him, wouldn't that show they were in error? From the scriptures i don't think a judgment was passed, but an indication that the execution was approved by the council was that Saul was present and he gave his approval.



Thats a highly contested issue historically and you should not be so hasty to make that claim without first looking into the historical texts. From my study, i would say that Christ was executed purely because he kept saying he was God. Simply put, he was blasphemous. But in any case you need to study such things yourself. Read the Roman sources on execution protocol, read Josephus, read the Mishnah and Talmud before making your claim. Be thorough.


Pilate was a subordinate to Caesar, and if Caesar found out that Pilate did not punish a man who claimed to be a king, it would have meant negative repercussions for Pilate, possibly even death. In that context, Pilate would have known the danger in letting Christ go. The Jews who accused Christ would also have been aware of the risks to Pilate if he let him go.


The Talmud clearly states as i have already mentioned that the right to try people for capital punishments was taken away shortly before the destruction of the Temple in AD70. I dont know why they didnt convene a legal trial, perhaps they knew He wasnt going to be convicted by honest testimony and so had to get Him taken care of quickly. Such a case carries more weight seeing how keen they were to get Pilate to kill Him that they would worry him over potential insurrection - the Sanhedrin carried political clout and Judea was a hot bed of potential rebellion as seen in the Hellenisation movement that led to the Maccabean revolt earlier.

How long before the destruction of the Temple in AD70? The Jews tell Pilate that they are not permitted to put anyone to death in Acts18:31, but it seems these laws were disregarded when it came to the stoning of Stephen(Acts7:54-60), and Paul(Act14:19-20)

Revinius
May 29th 2008, 05:17 AM
I posted scriptural references to the laws governing the touching of dead bodies and the practice of taking people outside the camp to stone them to death. The reference to Stephen being dragged outside the city is in Acts7:58.

I don't know the Jewish law governing executions, but if the authoritative council found Stephen guilty of blasphemy and duly executed him, wouldn't that show they were in error? From the scriptures i don't think a judgment was passed, but an indication that the execution was approved by the council was that Saul was present and he gave his approval.

As pointed out, the Mishnah is regarded as scripture. Jews wouldnt have wilfully disobeyed direct command of scripture unless it was a spontanious act of those present to drag him out.



Pilate was a subordinate to Caesar, and if Caesar found out that Pilate did not punish a man who claimed to be a king, it would have meant negative repercussions for Pilate, possibly even death. In that context, Pilate would have known the danger in letting Christ go. The Jews who accused Christ would also have been aware of the risks to Pilate if he let him go.

Caesar wouldnt have cared less regarding some 'Jewish holy man'. What he would have cared about is the risk of uprising that the Sanhedrin could have orchestrated and indeed was their inferred threat to Pilate if he didnt crucify Christ. Pilate was a military governer and would have only been interested in military matters. Herod was primarily responsibly for the political aspects of the region (thus the title Tetrarch, King or Judea). Pilates only concern was guys with pointy things being stirred up from guys at the Temple.



How long before the destruction of the Temple in AD70? The Jews tell Pilate that they are not permitted to put anyone to death in Acts18:31, but it seems these laws were disregarded when it came to the stoning of Stephen(Acts7:54-60), and Paul(Act14:19-20)

'Shortly' :P

Indeed, and because Stephen execution is an anomally, and the wording of the text does point to it being a lynching, one can plausibly presume that Stephens execution, but not trial, was unlawful.

Jerome1
May 29th 2008, 08:40 AM
As pointed out, the Mishnah is regarded as scripture. Jews wouldnt have wilfully disobeyed direct command of scripture unless it was a spontanious act of those present to drag him out.


Isn't the Mishnah a part of the Talmud which is of secondary importance after the Hebrew bible? The Mishnah would probably be comparable to the Canon law of the RCC.

They dragged both Paul and Stephen out of the city in accordance with Levitical law, which shows that the executions were premeditated and not done spontaneously(they thought they had killed Paul). Paul was also a Pharisee and gave his approval to Stephens execution.



Caesar wouldnt have cared less regarding some 'Jewish holy man'. What he would have cared about is the risk of uprising that the Sanhedrin could have orchestrated and indeed was their inferred threat to Pilate if he didnt crucify Christ. Pilate was a military governer and would have only been interested in military matters. Herod was primarily responsibly for the political aspects of the region (thus the title Tetrarch, King or Judea). Pilates only concern was guys with pointy things being stirred up from guys at the Temple.


There was probably a combination of reasons why Pilate did not release Christ, the threat from an uprising would have been one. The Jews veiled threat to him if he let go someone they accused of insurrection. The Jews weren't permitted to put anyone to death(it also indicates that this was to fulfill the kind of death that Jesus had told them he would go through, Acts18:32).


Indeed, and because Stephen execution is an anomally, and the wording of the text does point to it being a lynching, one can plausibly presume that Stephens execution, but not trial, was unlawful.

The trial may have been lawful and the execution unlawful, but that only goes to prove my point that the Jews could not identify that Stephen had spoken the truth, their judgment and execution of Stephen meant they were in error.

They also tried to execute Paul without trial in Acts14:19-20.

Revinius
May 29th 2008, 02:06 PM
Isn't the Mishnah a part of the Talmud which is of secondary importance after the Hebrew bible? The Mishnah would probably be comparable to the Canon law of the RCC.

The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah. An orthodox Jew would say that the Mishnah is the Word of God inspired (just as we say that of the NT).


They dragged both Paul and Stephen out of the city in accordance with Levitical law, which shows that the executions were premeditated and not done spontaneously(they thought they had killed Paul). Paul was also a Pharisee and gave his approval to Stephens execution.

Pharisees had no jurisdiction to deliver punishment as they weren't Levites. Its not the fact that the dragged them (although the timing conflicts with the law of the Mishnah), its how they dragged them: Acts 7:57-58:At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. This wasnt a judicial sentencing, this was a lynching. Like white supremicists with a black man looking for a tree, they rushed him outside and smashed rocks against his head. In an act of passionate murder, made in reaction to what he said and not the hand of a judge, they killed him.


There was probably a combination of reasons why Pilate did not release Christ, the threat from an uprising would have been one. The Jews veiled threat to him if he let go someone they accused of insurrection. The Jews weren't permitted to put anyone to death(it also indicates that this was to fulfill the kind of death that Jesus had told them he would go through, Acts18:32).

Indeed, but when he told them they did not understand.


The trial may have been lawful and the execution unlawful, but that only goes to prove my point that the Jews could not identify that Stephen had spoken the truth, their judgment and execution of Stephen meant they were in error.

Perhaps, Stephen got some stuff wrong (like his notiong that the Temple wasnt as divinely inspired as the Tabernactle :confused). Yeah, so my original point was that Jesus trial wasnt authoritive according to the extra-biblical AND biblical sources.


They also tried to execute Paul without trial in Acts14:19-20

Yup, and they did so in a way similar to Stephen, passionate and foolish.

Jerome1
May 29th 2008, 03:48 PM
The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah. An orthodox Jew would say that the Mishnah is the Word of God inspired (just as we say that of the NT).


The Mishnah is included in some Talmuds and is also printed on it's own. From what i understand the Mishnah is the written form of the oral law given to Moses and is held as devinely inspired. Not all Jews accepted the Misnah as authoritative, some only held the Torah/Tanakh as authoritative.


Pharisees had no jurisdiction to deliver punishment as they weren't Levites. Its not the fact that the dragged them (although the timing conflicts with the law of the Mishnah), its how they dragged them: Acts 7:57-58:At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. This wasnt a judicial sentencing, this was a lynching. Like white supremicists with a black man looking for a tree, they rushed him outside and smashed rocks against his head. In an act of passionate murder, made in reaction to what he said and not the hand of a judge, they killed him.

I'm not asserting that Paul was involved in Stoning Stephen, but that he was there and gave his approval. You would have a hard time in a court trying to prove that Stephens death was not premeditated and deliberate given the circumstances.


Perhaps, Stephen got some stuff wrong (like his notiong that the Temple wasnt as divinely inspired as the Tabernactle :confused). Yeah, so my original point was that Jesus trial wasnt authoritive according to the extra-biblical AND biblical sources.

The Tabernacle was the centre peice of Jewish worship and contained the ark of the covenant. It was also portable, and could be moved to different temples depending on the circumstances. Stephen told the council that God does not dwell in houses made with human hands. I don't see how this contradicted anything that the Jews taught, they believed God made himself present in the ark of the covenant, but that he was also not confined to temples made with human hands. I think they would have been more offended by Stephen's accusations of apposing God and not obeying the laws that they were given.



Yup, and they did so in a way similar to Stephen, passionate and foolish.


Again it shows that their stoning of Paul was deliberate and premeditated, like their stoning of Stephen. It also begs the question why couldn't they hold an authoritative council and condemn Jesus and execute him as they did to Stepehen, and as they tried to do to Paul(without trial). It gives less credence to their claims to Pilate that they were not permitted to put anyone to death, when they had such disregard for this law when it came to how they treated Stephen and Paul.

Revinius
May 30th 2008, 08:44 AM
The Tabernacle was the centre peice of Jewish worship and contained the ark of the covenant. It was also portable, and could be moved to different temples depending on the circumstances. Stephen told the council that God does not dwell in houses made with human hands. I don't see how this contradicted anything that the Jews taught, they believed God made himself present in the ark of the covenant, but that he was also not confined to temples made with human hands. I think they would have been more offended by Stephen's accusations of apposing God and not obeying the laws that they were given.

Stephen asserts that the Tabernacle is more divinely inspired than the Temple which plainly contradicts Gods commands to Solomon regarding the Temple. It doesnt seem a problem to me, Stephen was just a man who got something wrong, a Godly one but just a man.


Again it shows that their stoning of Paul was deliberate and premeditated, like their stoning of Stephen. It also begs the question why couldn't they hold an authoritative council and condemn Jesus and execute him as they did to Stepehen, and as they tried to do to Paul(without trial). It gives less credence to their claims to Pilate that they were not permitted to put anyone to death, when they had such disregard for this law when it came to how they treated Stephen and Paul.I have lost where we are at in this discussion and really cant be stuff to leave back through all the text. :P

From memory we were talking about the High Priest/Sanhedrin's right to condemn people on the principle of the infallibility of the priesthood. I have shown that there is no clear case of infallibility in this area from the cases of Stephen and Jesus.

Jerome1
May 31st 2008, 02:47 AM
Stephen asserts that the Tabernacle is more divinely inspired than the Temple which plainly contradicts Gods commands to Solomon regarding the Temple. It doesnt seem a problem to me, Stephen was just a man who got something wrong, a Godly one but just a man.


I don't see where Stephen asserts this, are you talking about his reference to the Most High not dwelling in houses made with human hands? I don't see how this contradicted anything that the Jews already knew.

I am not sure what you mean by the Tabernacle being more devinely inspired? God gave specific instructions on how both were to be made, in that sense they were both devinely inspired, however the high priest was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies. This contained the ark of the covenant.



From memory we were talking about the High Priest/Sanhedrin's right to condemn people on the principle of the infallibility of the priesthood. I have shown that there is no clear case of infallibility in this area from the cases of Stephen and Jesus.


I disagree, there is a clear difference between both of their cases and how they were resolved by the Sanhedrin.

Revinius
May 31st 2008, 04:23 AM
I don't see where Stephen asserts this, are you talking about his reference to the Most High not dwelling in houses made with human hands? I don't see how this contradicted anything that the Jews already knew.

I am not sure what you mean by the Tabernacle being more devinely inspired? God gave specific insructions on how both were to be made, in that sense they were both devinely inspired, however the high priest was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies. This contained the ark of the covenant.

Acts 7:44"Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. 45Having received the tabernacle, our fathers under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, 46who enjoyed God's favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.47But it was Solomon who built the house for him.
48"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says:
49" 'Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
50Has not my hand made all these things?'



It reads like he is comparing the tabernacle as superior to the Temple mate.



I disagree, there is a clear difference between both of their cases and how they were resolved by the Sanhedrin.

There is a difference but you cant provide me with a plausible explanation for the high priest being blessed with infallibility.

Jerome1
May 31st 2008, 10:00 AM
It reads like he is comparing the tabernacle as superior to the Temple mate.


There was a tabernacle before there was a temple, and only the cheif priest could enter the Holy of Holies which contained the ark of the covenant. The tabernacle would have been considered more sacred than the temple itself. Stephen said the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands. This did not contradict Jewish law, they would have been aware that Gods presence was not restricted to the ark of the covenant.

What made the temple sacred, the building or the ark of the covenant contained within it?

Matthew23:19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So who ever swears by the altar, swears by it and everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.



There is a difference but you cant provide me with a plausible explanation for the high priest being blessed with infallibility.


Caiaphas didn't hold an authoritative council and charge Christ with blasphemy, and duly execute him.

In John11:49-53 he prophesied why Christ was to be crucified. It states that he didn't say this on his own, but because he was high priest.

Jesus tells the crowds in Matthew23:1-3 to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them.

The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2).

Revinius
May 31st 2008, 03:11 PM
There was a tabernacle before there was a temple, and only the cheif priest could enter the Holy of Holies which contained the ark of the covenant. The tabernacle would have been considered more sacred than the temple itself. Stephen said the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands. This did not contradict Jewish law, they would have been aware that Gods presence was not restricted to the ark of the covenant.

What made the temple sacred, the building or the ark of the covenant contained within it?

So yes Stephen is incorrect in asserting the tabernacle to be greater than the temple. Both came from divine instruction.


Caiaphas didn't hold an authoritative council and charge Christ with blasphemy, and duly execute him.

In John11:49-53 he prophesied why Christ was to be crucified. It states that he didn't say this on his own, but because he was high priest.

Yes but he was driven by a sinful desire to slay Him for the wrong reasons. He might have known what he had to do, but he didnt know why and he most certainly wasnt filled with the spirit as were the previous prophets.


Jesus tells the crowds in Matthew23:1-3 to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them.

Certainly, the Pharisees were on the ball much of the time, its only when legalism becomes and issue that Christ scolds them. Have a look through Maccabees, there is some solid stuff in there regarding Pharisaic thought.


The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2).

Yes, the prophets.

Jerome1
May 31st 2008, 04:22 PM
So yes Stephen is incorrect in asserting the tabernacle to be greater than the temple. Both came from divine instruction.


I don't believe Stephen asserted that the tabernacle was greater than the temple.

You missed my point, was it the tabernacle that made the temple sacred? The tabernacle contained the arc of the covenant which the high priest could only enter once a year. If you believe that Stephen said the tabernacle was of greater importance than the temple, how is that wrong? Which was more sacred, the temple, or the tabernacle which contained the arc of the covenant?



Yes but he was driven by a sinful desire to slay Him for the wrong reasons. He might have known what he had to do, but he didnt know why and he most certainly wasnt filled with the spirit as were the previous prophets.


How do you explain him being able to prophesies explaining why Christ was going to be crucified?


Certainly, the Pharisees were on the ball much of the time, its only when legalism becomes and issue that Christ scolds them. Have a look through Maccabees, there is some solid stuff in there regarding Pharisaic thought.

Why did Jesus tell the crowds the do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them if their teachings were prone to error?

Revinius
Jun 1st 2008, 04:42 AM
I don't believe Stephen asserted that the tabernacle was greater than the temple.

You missed my point, was it the tabernacle that made the temple sacred? The tabernacle contained the arc of the covenant which the high priest could only enter once a year. If you believe that Stephen said the tabernacle was of greater importance than the temple, how is that wrong? Which was more sacred, the temple, or the tabernacle which contained the arc of the covenant?

Both contained the arc mate, and both were built under divine instruction.


How do you explain him being able to prophesies explaining why Christ was going to be crucified?

How do i explain many prophecies that come from multiple sources? I cant. But i do know that Satan can twist, and the high priest showed no fruit that he was a man of God. God used Caiphas's evil against him, just like he used the babylonians against Israel. Were they divinely infallible because they were Gods tool of destruction? No.


Why did Jesus tell the crowds the do whatever the Pharisees and scribes teach them if their teachings were prone to error?

Pharisees werent Levites mate, and there were many hundreds of them (perhaps thousands). They were men who tried to make priestly law applicable in the day to day living of a Jew, and given the rise of Hellenisation in the period prior to the time of Jesus, one can easily see how maintaining Jewish customs at every level may have been important. I do whatever my pastor teaches me from the Word, does that make him infallible? The Pharisees were in the same situation, teaching the people from Gods Word, and they got alot of it right (eg the law is a vehicle for the projection of faith).

Jerome1
Jun 1st 2008, 11:36 AM
Both contained the arc mate, and both were built under divine instruction.



Both were built under devine instruction. The tabernacle containing the arc of the covenant was portable and was brought into the temple. Moreover, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle containing the arc of the covenant, so it is obvious that it was the most sacred part. Why was only the high preist allowed to enter the Holy of Holies if the temple and the tabernacle were of equal importance?



How do i explain many prophecies that come from multiple sources? I cant. But i do know that Satan can twist, and the high priest showed no fruit that he was a man of God. God used Caiphas's evil against him, just like he used the babylonians against Israel. Were they divinely infallible because they were Gods tool of destruction? No.


Can you give me one example of a babylonian prophesying under the divine guidance of God, i can't think of one?


Pharisees werent Levites mate, and there were many hundreds of them (perhaps thousands). They were men who tried to make priestly law applicable in the day to day living of a Jew, and given the rise of Hellenisation in the period prior to the time of Jesus, one can easily see how maintaining Jewish customs at every level may have been important. I do whatever my pastor teaches me from the Word, does that make him infallible? The Pharisees were in the same situation, teaching the people from Gods Word, and they got alot of it right (eg the law is a vehicle for the projection of faith).

You're missing the point, Jesus told the crowds to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes taught them, would Jesus have done this if their teachings were prone to error?

Should you do whatever your pastor teaches you from the word?
Does that make him infallible?

I'm sure your pastor doesn't claim to be entrusted with the oracles of God, or that Christ told people to do whatever he teaches, so no it doesn't make your pastor infallible.

Revinius
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:17 AM
Both were built under devine instruction. The tabernacle containing the arc of the covenant was portable and was brought into the temple. Moreover, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle containing the arc of the covenant, so it is obvious that it was the most sacred part. Why was only the high preist allowed to enter the Holy of Holies if the temple and the tabernacle were of equal importance?

Both had holies of holies mate.


Can you give me one example of a babylonian prophesying under the divine guidance of God, i can't think of one?

Thats not the point, the point is both Caiphas and Babylon were evil tools of God. God used both to do His will. Does it change if God actually sent him a message which he would knowingly misconstrue? Not in the scheme of things. Caiphas wasnt a Godly man like the prophets of the OT, he was not filled with the spirit and was merely another evil tool (like Babylon) being used to demonstrate God to the nation of Israel.


You're missing the point, Jesus told the crowds to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes taught them, would Jesus have done this if their teachings were prone to error?


Yes i believe he would, the Pharisees are sinners, and can rightiousness dwell with sin? No. The spirit didnt dwell in them and thus their sin was still something that seperated them from God (they didnt have Jesus in their hearts yet). They can only be as leaders in the church (as many probably became) and their knowledge of scripture would have been unparalleled. Read the Mishnah and Talmud, there is alot of wisdom there, pity it doesnt have the key of Christ to make it something of God.


I'm sure your pastor doesn't claim to be entrusted with the oracles of God, or that Christ told people to do whatever he teaches, so no it doesn't make your pastor infallible.

So what gives you the right to claim that the Pope has the sovereignty of which you speak? My pastor or even i could have as much sovereignty for all the parity in revelation (compared to the Word) that has come from the pope.

Jerome1
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:18 AM
Both had holies of holies mate.



The tabernacle had the Holy of Holies. You just avoided the question, was the part of the temple that contained the ark of God more sacred than the rest of the temple, yes or no?

Matthew23:19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So who ever swears by the altar, swears by it and everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

(Emphasis added)



Thats not the point, the point is both Caiphas and Babylon were evil tools of God. God used both to do His will. Does it change if God actually sent him a message which he would knowingly misconstrue? Not in the scheme of things. Caiphas wasnt a Godly man like the prophets of the OT, he was not filled with the spirit and was merely another evil tool (like Babylon) being used to demonstrate God to the nation of Israel.


It's a very important point to the legitimacy of the claims that we are discussing.

God's promise was to the Jews not the Babylonians, so even if the Jews were faithless it didn't nullify the faithfulness of God(Romans3:3).

I could give countless examples of the Israelites disobeying God, it didn't nullify Gods promise that the scepter shall not depart from Judah(Genesis49:10)


Yes i believe he would, the Pharisees are sinners, and can rightiousness dwell with sin? No. The spirit didnt dwell in them and thus their sin was still something that seperated them from God (they didnt have Jesus in their hearts yet). They can only be as leaders in the church (as many probably became) and their knowledge of scripture would have been unparalleled. Read the Mishnah and Talmud, there is alot of wisdom there, pity it doesnt have the key of Christ to make it something of God.


You think Christ would tell people to obey the Pharisees and scribes if they were prone to teach error and therefore lead the people into sin?

James1:13 No one, when tempted, should say, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.

(Emphasis added)


So what gives you the right to claim that the Pope has the sovereignty of which you speak? My pastor or even i could have as much sovereignty for all the parity in revelation (compared to the Word) that has come from the pope.

This isn't a RC apologetics forum, so i can't go into details as to why. There are plenty of sources with evidence to make up your own mind. It comes down to how you interpret Christ's promise to Peter. Either he endowed him and his successors with the ability not to lead the church into error, or he didn't. If the claim is a RCC invention, it will fail. If it isn't then no one will be able to resist it, even those from within the RCC.

Revinius
Jun 2nd 2008, 03:07 PM
The tabernacle had the Holy of Holies. You just avoided the question, was the part of the temple that contained the ark of God more sacred than the rest of the temple, yes or no?

Matthew23:19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So who ever swears by the altar, swears by it and everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

Stop straw manning me dude, the Temple and the Tabernacle were as important as each other. The tabernacle wasnt inside the temple as you seem to be inferring, there was no tent in the holy of holies, just the arc etc.


It's a very important point to the legitimacy of the claims that we are discussing.

God's promise was to the Jews not the Babylonians, so even if the Jews were faithless it didn't nullify the faithfulness of God(Romans3:3).

We can make this discussion go on forever if we keep throwing spanners into each others arguments for their own sake, lets not beat around the push with questions leading to points we could simply just explain straight away. Evil is evil, and although God used His people as a light unto the world he also used evil people (including Jews) to teach Israel lessons in faith.


I could give countless examples of the Israelites disobeying God, it didn't nullify Gods promise that the scepter shall not depart from Judah(Genesis49:10)

I am sure you could give countless examples of you disobeying God as could everyone here. The faithfullness has little to do with Him using Caiphas as a tool, although it clearly shows Gods ability to use people for His own glory.


You think Christ would tell people to obey the Pharisees and scribes if they were prone to teach error and therefore lead the people into sin?

Christ tells us to obey our elders even though he knows they can teach error. Its all about comparison to the Word now and faith in the one who is it. Most of the Pharisees had faith, some became legalists while others truly were faithful to the teachings of the Torah and the faith in which it was given. God doesnt make men infallible, he is the only one who is infallible.


James1:13 No one, when tempted, should say, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.

You are either training to use a long bow here (stretching your point quite far) or the above quote has little bearing on the above point you are making. :confused


This isn't a RC apologetics forum, so i can't go into details as to why. There are plenty of sources with evidence to make up your own mind. It comes down to how you interpret Christ's promise to Peter. Either he endowed him and his successors with the ability not to lead the church into error, or he didn't. If the claim is a RCC invention, it will fail. If it isn't then no one will be able to resist it, even those from within the RCC.

Ok so, the RCC contradicts alot of the Word, Popes were instrumental in starting alot of bloodshed and frankly i dont care for gold jewelry and fine robes. But anyway, i shouldnt slander and enforce my own prejudices against people who i believe are the opposite of who Christ was so we should prolly end it there before we lose focus on your OP.

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:49 AM
Stop straw manning me dude, the Temple and the Tabernacle were as important as each other. The tabernacle wasnt inside the temple as you seem to be inferring, there was no tent in the holy of holies, just the arc etc.


The ark would have been considered the most sacred object among the Jews. When i say tabernacle i am referring to the objects of worship that were contained within the tabernacle.

Hebrews9:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that buded, and the tablets of the covenant.

(Emphasis added)

My point was/is that there was/were areas of the tabernacle/temple that were considered more sacred than others.

I have already said that i don't believe Stephen asserted that the tabernacle was greater than the temple. The ark also was gone by the time of Christ.


We can make this discussion go on forever if we keep throwing spanners into each others arguments for their own sake, lets not beat around the push with questions leading to points we could simply just explain straight away. Evil is evil, and although God used His people as a light unto the world he also used evil people (including Jews) to teach Israel lessons in faith.


You're missing the the point again. Did God break his promise to the Israelites due to their unfaithfulness?



I am sure you could give countless examples of you disobeying God as could everyone here. The faithfullness has little to do with Him using Caiphas as a tool, although it clearly shows Gods ability to use people for His own glory.


God made a promise to the Israelites. My point was that God's promise or faithfulness wasn't nullified, inspite of certain Israelites who transgressed his ordinances. Therefore Caiaphas still received a devine revelation from God(being high priest that year) despite the councils intentions to find Christ guilty of blasphemy.


God doesnt make men infallible, he is the only one who is infallible.


What about the authors of the bible, did God prevent them from making any errors?



You are either training to use a long bow here (stretching your point quite far) or the above quote has little bearing on the above point you are making.


My point was that you said Christ would tell people to do what the Pharisees and scribes teach even if they were prone to error. Isn't that the same as implying that God can tempt us to sin, which scripture tells us God cannot do? If Christ told the crowds to obey teachings that were prone to error, isn't that the same as leading people to sin?


Ok so, the RCC contradicts alot of the Word, Popes were instrumental in starting alot of bloodshed and frankly i dont care for gold jewelry and fine robes. But anyway, i shouldnt slander and enforce my own prejudices against people who i believe are the opposite of who Christ was so we should prolly end it there before we lose focus on your OP.

There have been bad popes and good popes, just as their were bad high priests and good high priests. Faithlessness to ones position does not nullify a promise made by God. If God did endow Peter and his successors with the ability not to lead the church into error, then it wouldn't matter even if Peters successors weren't worthy to hold their position, it wouldn't nullify God's promise.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:57 PM
Wow.... All i can say it that the fact that the Holy Spirit leads to a correct unbderstanding of the Word seems to have been totally left out of this discussion.

Yeshua telling everyone to do and observe what the Scribes and Pharisees do points to the legitimacy of the Word being as it is and standing forever. The Torah and all it entails. However, one needs the Holy Spirit to come to the correct understanding.

It's not that the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching untruths, but they were living it out wrong, and had the wrong motives for doing so as the next verses explain. (which sadly is an ongoing thing even in today's times)

This should be cause for pause to many realizing that the Torah is still as effective as ever. It's the way that the Scribes and Pharisees applied it to themselves which was totally wrong, and therefore they were not righteous., as Yeshua explained.

Now, as for the RCC or any church for that matter being infallible, i say nay, none of the denominations today are infallible, as we have all been far removed from the way Yeshua would have us follow Him, just due to historical shifts which occurred in the following centuries after His death.
This resulted in some scripture twisting by the early church fathers, for whatever personal reasons, i cannot claim to know.

Therefore my assertion would be the Word of God stands as truth on Himself, and man is fallible in interpretation unless man is endowed with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore IMO the church is not any denomination, but those who have the Holy Spirit.
Some are leaders and some are not.

I used to be RCC a long time ago, and it wasn't through them nor through any other denomination thereafter i found infallibility. I found that through the Word of God and the Holy Spirit leading me into truth.

Anyways, i agree with Jerome, that the Jews were given the Oracles of God first, and then the Gentiles also.

It's not limited to a leader or building.
It all boils down to the Holy Spirit.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:34 PM
It's not that the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching untruths, but they were living it out wrong, and had the wrong motives for doing so as the next verses explain. (which sadly is an ongoing thing even in today's times)


I agree, Jesus told the crowds to do all that the Pharisees and scribes teach, but not to do as they do. I'm not suggesting that the Pharisees and scribes were always obedient to the oracles they received, they weren't. What i am saying is that they received the oracles of God regardless of their obedience, because God remained faithful to his promise.


Now, as for the RCC or any church for that matter being infallible, i say nay, none of the denominations today are infallible, as we have all been far removed from the way Yeshua would have us follow Him, just due to historical shifts which occurred in the following centuries after His death.
This resulted in some scripture twisting by the early church fathers, for whatever personal reasons, i cannot claim to know.

What do you mean by infallible, infallible in actions, or infallible in teachings?


Therefore my assertion would be the Word of God stands as truth on Himself, and man is fallible in interpretation unless man is endowed with the Holy Spirit.


It is taught that the infallible teachings of the RCC are received by devine revelation.



Therefore IMO the church is not any denomination, but those who have the Holy Spirit.
Some are leaders and some are not.


This gets into complicated territory, i agree that the Holy Spirit can endow people with certain truths. The RCC teaches that if you are baptized validly, then you are a catholic, unless you consciously apostatizes. Only God can judge each individuals conscience regarding how culpable they are of apostatsy.

Iv'e heard protestant pastors giving sermons that were perfectly compatible with what the RCC teaches.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:22 PM
What do you mean by infallible, infallible in actions, or infallible in teachings?
Mainly i mean that they are prone to errors in teaching the scriptures. Doctrinal errors first and foremost. Many denoms are prone to that infact. This is the reason there are so many denoms out there today. now as for the individual in any of those denoms if endowed with the Holy Spirit will learn to discern and understand what it right and what is wrong.
This is a "come out of her, my people" type of situation... IMO


It is taught that the infallible teachings of the RCC are received by devine revelation.
Which denom would admit error in the doctrines they taught? :lol:


The RCC teaches that if you are baptized validly, then you are a catholic, unless you consciously apostatizes. Only God can judge each individuals conscience regarding how culpable they are of apostatsy.
The only valid Baptism is that of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and God does that one.
The water baptism is an outward act/appearance of an inner desire.


Iv'e heard protestant pastors giving sermons that were perfectly compatible with what the RCC teaches.
The RCC is not my meassuring rod of truth and authenticy... rather the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are my meassuring rod.
And i believe those that measure by the scriptures, and Holy Spirit only will be the ones aware of the deception that will happen at the end times.

But i think we're going off topic a bit.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:40 PM
Mainly i mean that they are prone to errors in teaching the scriptures. Doctrinal errors first and foremost. Many denoms are prone to that infact. This is the reason there are so many denoms out there today. now as for the individual in any of those denoms if endowed with the Holy Spirit will learn to discern and understand what it right and what is wrong.
This is a "come out of her, my people" type of situation... IMO


That is getting into the whole sola scriptura argument. Scripture is one, but not the only source of authority for a lot of christians.



Which denom would admit error in the doctrines they taught?


That is why it is important to test the spirits as John tells us(1John4:1)

Are there contradictions in the denominations teachings? Have their teachings always been consistent? How are they related to Christ and the apostles? Are their doctrines compatible with scripture and what the early church fathers taught?

You are told to test the spirits, so you have to be diligent and through when investigating claims or teachings from a particular denomination.


The only valid Baptism is that of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and God does that one.
The water baptism is an outward act/appearance of an inner desire.

A desire to be baptized can be sufficent, but Christ gave us the great commission, so where it is possible, all believers should be baptized with water using the trinitarian formula.


The RCC is not my meassuring rod of truth and authenticy... rather the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are my meassuring rod.
And i believe those that measure by the scriptures, and Holy Spirit only will be the ones aware of the deception that will happen at the end times.

But i think we're going off topic a bit.

Shalom,
Tanja

This is were interpretation can lead to difficulties. For example, Paul tells us that the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth(1Timothy3:15). Paul also tells us to hold fast to the traditions by word of mouth or by letter(2Thessalonians2:15)

Also mentioned earlier in this thread was that there was a conflict in Judaism also, the majority believed that the Mishnah was received by devine revelation from God to Moses. Others only held the Tanakh as authoritative. It is very similar to the sola scriptura argument today. But Jesus tells the crowds to obey everything that the Pharisees and scribes taught them, and the Pharisees and scribes regarded the Mishnah as devinely inspired. Christ would not have told the crowds this if he did not regard oral tradition as authoritative.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:13 PM
Jerome,

The point it all boils down to is


That is getting into the whole sola scriptura argument. Scripture is one, but not the only source of authority for a lot of Christians.IMO it's not just sola scriptura, but sola Scriptura+Holy Spirit. Both go hand in hand if you don't have one or the other you cannot possibly know for sure if you're really following God's will, because you cannot test one against the other.
Also, i would only accept those that i can tell to be inspired by God as authoritative. Again, what any man tells me has to be in line with the scriptures. Tested by the Word and by the Holy Spirit.

Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

For example, someone could tell me that we don't need to observe the Sabbath... well with looking at scripture and with what the Holy Spirit has shown me to understand i see it differently.
This is just the quickest example i could come up with.
It is also something that is so contra RCC.... I do not see any church having the authority to change something that the Jews had been taught by God for eons.

Again, i don't want to start a debate on that, but it's a quick example of what i see and how i see it working.

The very earliest church fathers were the Apostles, and they were sent out to establish
the kingdom of heaven.
When it comes to divine revelation, it has to be in line with scripture. If in doubt one needs to get on their knees and ask God to show through the Holy Spirit what is or is not truth.
That scripture itself can be read but not understood correctly is evidenced from the earliest times in the OT by people who did things which were not in line with the spirit of the Law. This is what some of the Pharisees and more so even the Scribes were doing. They were living by a rule book without taking any of it to heart, and thus they neglected the weightier matters of the Law, compassion, mercy and grace.


A desire to be baptized can be sufficient, but Christ gave us the great commission, so where it is possible, all believers should be baptized with water using the trinitarian formula.I don't deny that, but all said and done, it matters most that a person is baptized with fire from above, namely the Holy Spirit. This is needed to be lead into all truth.

The Mishnah is full of good points, it's basically the same as many books written by people about their understanding of scriptures. Some is right and some is clearly not in line with the scriptures.
For example Yeshua never derided the Pharisees for their washing of their hands before eating, but rather His complaint was that even with clean hands they were unclean, because of their state of heart. He never said it was bad to wash your hands.
IOW He was not in disagreement with the Mishnah, but pointed out again the weightier matter of the Law being absent.


Paul tells us that the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth(1Timothy3:15). Paul also tells us to hold fast to the traditions by word of mouth or by letter(2Thessalonians2:15)
I would agree with this, but in 2000+ years so much has happened that i think this statement does not hold true 100% of the time anymore.

The church is supposed to hold the truth, but how many denoms out there don't? Just one word for a quick example: Polygamy.

To hold on to the traditions by mouth and or letter.. well look at what traditions were observed and in practice in those days of the Apostles... and then fast forward to the early church fathers like Ignatius and Justin Martyr, and look what they have changed.

This is not holding on to the traditions the Apostles held on to.
This is a clear deviation of the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat, do and observe whatever they tell you to do and observe, but don't do it in the same way they do (cause their heart is in the wrong place)

Now, earlier in the discussion you were talking about a moral nature that everyone has?
I'd like to discuss that a bit, as i have spent much thought on this myself.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:58 PM
IMO it's not just sola scriptura, but sola Scriptura+Holy Spirit. Both go hand in hand if you don't have one or the other you cannot possibly know for sure if you're really following God's will, because you cannot test one against the other.
Also, i would only accept those that i can tell to be inspired by God as authoritative. Again, what any man tells me has to be in line with the scriptures. Tested by the Word and by the Holy Spirit.



There are many interpretations of scripture, it isn't an easy book to fully comprehend. Every denomination has a different interpretation of scripture, they can't all have been lead by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot contradict itself.

What was used before the bible was compiled by the church?



For example, someone could tell me that we don't need to observe the Sabbath... well with looking at scripture and with what the Holy Spirit has shown me to understand i see it differently.


Do you think we should be circumcised, or not eat pork? Christians aren't bound by Jewish traditions.


I don't deny that, but all said and done, it matters most that a person is baptized with fire from above, namely the Holy Spirit. This is needed to be lead into all truth.

Having both is preferable, i agree that the Holy Spirit can lead individuals into truth.


The Mishnah is full of good points, it's basically the same as many books written by people about their understanding of scriptures. Some is right and some is clearly not in line with the scriptures.

The Jews viewed it as equal to scripture, it was oral tradition written down as far as i am aware.


I would agree with this, but in 2000+ years so much has happened that i think this statement does not hold true 100% of the time anymore.


You can't have it both ways, you can't say that doctrine can't contradict scipture, and then say certain parts of scripture don't hold true anymore.


Now, earlier in the discussion you were talking about a moral nature that everyone has?
I'd like to discuss that a bit, as i have spent much thought on this myself.

I think i covered most of the points i wanted to make, if you have anything else to add i'm always willing to learn.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 4th 2008, 02:21 AM
There are many interpretations of scripture, it isn't an easy book to fully comprehend. Every denomination has a different interpretation of scripture, they can't all have been lead by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot contradict itself.

What was used before the bible was compiled by the church?Well you get my point that not all can have been led by the Holy Spirit then.
I never said the bible was easy to comprehend, but this is why we have received the Holy Spirit to help us understand and discern the truth, and meaning of scripture.
The HS leads us into all truth.

What was used before the bible was compiled by the church?

Well in the NT we see that the apostles expounded the scriptures and read in the synagogue every Sabbath... so these scriptures were of course the the Old testament, the Torah and the Prophets.

Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

Act 28:23 When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.


Do you think we should be circumcised, or not eat pork? Christians aren't bound by Jewish traditions.That's a matter of how anyone is understanding the scriptures.
If we're not bound by Jewish traditions which were given by God then we should certainly not be bound by Catholic tradition either to attend Mass on Sunday.
Didn't you earlier say that the Jews were given the oracles of God? Whether any man can correctly understand scripture or not, the Word of God stands unchanging.

As for traditions:

2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

What do you suppose these traditions were?


The Jews viewed it as equal to scripture, it was oral tradition written down as far as i am aware.Yes, no doubt they did, and i do not deny it's of good value. However if it;s not in line with the teaching of the Torah then i would disagree.


You can't have it both ways, you can't say that doctrine can't contradict scipture, and then say certain parts of scripture don't hold true anymore.I believe you misunderstood me.
I wasn't saying that certain parts of scripture doesn't hold true anymore, but rather that the understanding of scripture, namely some doctrines and theology doesn't hold true.
It has changed in 2000+ years of time.
It reminds me of a group of people playing the phone game and after the third person or so things can get quite obscure as far as the original details go.


I think i covered most of the points i wanted to make, if you have anything else to add i'm always willing to learn.Well i read over it earlier, and i will look again, and see what i would comment on. I can't remember now after slugging through 90+ posts before i jumped in. :P

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 4th 2008, 11:39 AM
Well in the NT we see that the apostles expounded the scriptures and read in the synagogue every Sabbath... so these scriptures were of course the the Old testament, the Torah and the Prophets.

The Old Testament was the old covenant, altough some of it is still applicable to christians. The New Testament and the new covenant is a fulfilment of the old. The apostles preached the new covenant, when they cited the Old Testament it was was usually in relation to the new covenant.



If we're not bound by Jewish traditions which were given by God then we should certainly not be bound by Catholic tradition either to attend Mass on Sunday.
Didn't you earlier say that the Jews were given the oracles of God? Whether any man can correctly understand scripture or not, the Word of God stands unchanging.


Jews were bound to obey the oracles of God in the old covenant, as there is no longer Jew nor Gentile, both are obligated to obey the oracles devinely revealed to the church. Whether you believe those oracles are given to the RCC is another matter.


2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

What do you suppose these traditions were?


It was both oral traditions(spoken word) or written word(the Old Testament, and whatever instructions the disciples gave the church by letter)


Yes, no doubt they did, and i do not deny it's of good value. However if it;s not in line with the teaching of the Torah then i would disagree.

I believe the Mishnah or oral tradition was used to interpret scripture correctly.


I wasn't saying that certain parts of scripture doesn't hold true anymore, but rather that the understanding of scripture, namely some doctrines and theology doesn't hold true.
It has changed in 2000+ years of time.


One of the reasons i am a RC is that i believe the doctrines taught by the church have never changed. They have been expounded upon, meaning they can be understood with greater clarity. An example would be the explanation of the duel nature of Christ(human and devine) at the Council of Chalcedon. It was expounded upon, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't always true.



Well i read over it earlier, and i will look again, and see what i would comment on. I can't remember now after slugging through 90+ posts before i jumped in.


No problem, the last thing i was going to discuss in the thread was Christ's relationship to his church. In other words, when people say there is no salvation except through Christ,(Acts4:12). Is this the same as saying there is no salvation unless you belong to the Body of Christ, which is his church(Ephesians1:22-23)?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 4th 2008, 01:28 PM
The Old Testament was the old covenant, although some of it is still applicable to Christians. The New Testament and the new covenant is a fulfillment of the old. The apostles preached the new covenant, when they cited the Old Testament it was was usually in relation to the new covenant.Well but the Old Covenant is not abrogated..... it's been renewed IMO.
God does not change.


Jews were bound to obey the oracles of God in the old covenant, as there is no longer Jew nor Gentile, both are obligated to obey the oracles divinely revealed to the church. Whether you believe those oracles are given to the RCC is another matter.Here's where i strongly disagree, What the church calls divine relevation and what the Word/the scriptures teach can be worlds apart.
IMO the only divine relevation comes through reading the scriptures as a whole OT and NT as a continuous book as it all complements one another. The Holy Spirit will show you the truth.
You said the Nt is the fulfillment of the Ot, so then the OT is the foundation of the NT.
You take away that foundation, and you sit on shaky ground.

The OT teaches that Jew and the Gentile who attached himself to Israel was to have the same Law. What makes you think that has changed?

You said there's now no longer Jew or Gentile, so how would you reconcile that with the following verses?

Rom 2:25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


The apostles preached the new covenant, when they cited the Old Testament it was was usually in relation to the new covenant.So, what makes you think they taught things no longer in line with the OT? Yes they taught the OT in relation to what Yeshua did and fulfilled, however, the way i see it. is that a careful reading of the NT reveals that what they taught was still in line with the OT scriptures and Laws.
So i agree with your statement, however, not the Spirit of it.


I believe the Mishnah or oral tradition was used to interpret scripture correctly.I agree.


One of the reasons i am a RC is that i believe the doctrines taught by the church have never changed.I totally disagree.... when i read the NT these days after God gave me understanding i see just how much the RC has changed.
Matter of fact, read the NT and then read the letter to the Magnesians by Ignatius. Also, read the Didache, carefully, as it precedes most of this antisemitic stuff Ignatius and Justin Martyr came up with. It actually shows some of what the apostles taught and adhered to before all that was forgotten/dismissed. History also tells a good tale of what happened in the early centuries after the death of Yeshua, and shows a shift away from the teachings of the apostles.
There's just too much in the Nt alone that reads contradictory, until one understands the truth. Then it all falls into place.

Anyways, not trying to rail against any particular denom...i sat in several different ones myself before i sat down with the Word alone.....after that i knew where i belonged.


the last thing i was going to discuss in the thread was Christ's relationship to his church. In other words, when people say there is no salvation except through Christ,(Acts4:12). Is this the same as saying there is no salvation unless you belong to the Body of Christ, which is his church(Ephesians1:22-23)?As far as that's concerned, i'm not so sure that God would condemn someone who adheres to this:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

My mother for example she lives very much by the moral code in her heart. There's times i think she follows the commandments of God better than i do myself.
If the Law is written on those people's hearts then they are possibly following Yeshua through they'd call Him by another name? I.e. conscience, morality, whatever.....
At any rate i do not put it beyond God to give these people a chance to recognize Yeshua and realize that He's real, and accept Him before judgment arrives. That's my prayer at least.


Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 4th 2008, 06:27 PM
Well but the Old Covenant is not abrogated..... it's been renewed IMO.
God does not change.


I agree, the old covenant was the foundation for the new covenant. Christ was the fulfilment of the old covenant, the old covenant prefigured the new.


IMO the only divine relevation comes through reading the scriptures as a whole OT and NT as a continuous book as it all complements one another. The Holy Spirit will show you the truth.

Just as chrisitans are separated on this issue, so were the Jews. A lot of Jews did not accept the oral tradition of the Mishnah as devinely inspired. God gave Moses the ten commandments and the law. Jews also believed that he was given oral commandments in order to interpret the written ones. These oral traditions were passed from generation to generation until they were eventually written down. If this was a prefigurement of the new covenant to come, then what guide do we use to interpret scripture today?


The OT teaches that Jew and the Gentile who attached himself to Israel was to have the same Law. What makes you think that has changed?

You said there's now no longer Jew or Gentile, so how would you reconcile that with the following verses?

It changed because the first covenant was to the Jews, the new covenant included both Jews and Gentiles.

When Paul is speaking of the Jews and the law in Romans chapters two and three, i believe he is relating their laws to the present tense. For example:

Romans3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Paul uses the word, "were," past tense.

Circumcision was a requirement for the Jews as an outward sign that they adhered to Judaism. Baptism is the outward sign that someone adheres to christianity. When i read the verses i think of them in the present tense, i think of circumcision as baptism, and i think of Jews as catholics/christians.


Anyways, not trying to rail against any particular denom...i sat in several different ones myself before i sat down with the Word alone.....after that i knew where i belonged.


Iv'e never read the Didache, but it isn't regarded as infallible teachings.


My mother for example she lives very much by the moral code in her heart. There's times i think she follows the commandments of God better than i do myself.
If the Law is written on those people's hearts then they are possibly following Yeshua through they'd call Him by another name? I.e. conscience, morality, whatever.....
At any rate i do not put it beyond God to give these people a chance to recognize Yeshua and realize that He's real, and accept Him before judgment arrives. That's my prayer at least.

I agree with you, but a person must be willing to learn and not remain willfully ignorant if the dictates of their conscience is guiding them in a certain direction.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 4th 2008, 06:51 PM
It changed because the first covenant was to the Jews, the new covenant included both Jews and Gentiles.Well the Ot included Gentiles in the covenant too.. when the people left Egypt there were quite a few in the mix that were not Hebrew/Israelites.

Exo 12:38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

They were included and had the same Law. So i personally see NO change at all from old to New. Or would you propose they were not present when God spoke from the Mount and gave the Law? Do you propose they did not say "all that the Lord has spoken that we will do"?


Romans3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Paul uses the word, "were," past tense.
Well it speaks to the Jews and Gentiles now being entrusted with thew Oracles of God. Though i do not see how that makes an argument against the Law and it "not" still being valid for the Gentile, rather i would take that as a surefire sign that now all are entitled and responsible for and of the same that God gave first and foremost to the Jews.


Circumcision was a requirement for the Jews as an outward sign that they adhered to Judaism. Baptism is the outward sign that someone adheres to Christianity. When i read the verses i think of them in the present tense, i think of circumcision as baptism, and i think of Jews as catholics/Christians.Circumcision and baptism are two totally different things, one does not substitute the other.
Circumcision was not a sign of adhering to Judaism, but rather it was an outward sign of having the Law written on your heart, and therefore being included in the covenant.
Baptism on the other hand is an outward symbol of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Both are a picture of one completely belonging to the covenant of God. Inward and outward.
Baptism has not replaced Circumcision.




I agree with you, but a person must be willing to learn and not remain willfully ignorant if the dictates of their conscience is guiding them in a certain direction.Well in my mother's case, she was turned off to religion as the bible goes, because of life experiences that came along, and people that really ruined it for her.

She never understood the scriptures the way i do now to begin with, and therefore she does not see a loving God.
So to her it all rings false and untrue. I'd say she was blinded. Who will be held accountable for her blindness i have no clue. And i don't know if it was God's doing or if it was the doing of men that blinded her this way. At any rate God allowed it to be so for now. I trust He will save her.

It reminds me of following scripture:

Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

So IMO there will be several held accountable to that.

Hey, and i want to say i appreciate your thoughtful and kind replies. :hug:

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 5th 2008, 12:14 PM
Well the Ot included Gentiles in the covenant too.. when the people left Egypt there were quite a few in the mix that were not Hebrew/Israelites.



To my knowledge the Gentiles who were included in the old covenant were converts to Judaism.



They were included and had the same Law. So i personally see NO change at all from old to New. Or would you propose they were not present when God spoke from the Mount and gave the Law? Do you propose they did not say "all that the Lord has spoken that we will do"?


Any Gentiles who converted to Judaism before the new covenant complied with Jewish laws. The apostles made decisions at the Council of Jerusalem not to trouble new converts with certain Jewish customs.


Well it speaks to the Jews and Gentiles now being entrusted with thew Oracles of God. Though i do not see how that makes an argument against the Law and it "not" still being valid for the Gentile, rather i would take that as a surefire sign that now all are entitled and responsible for and of the same that God gave first and foremost to the Jews.

Did Gentiles have to be circumcised? Did Gentiles have to abstain from all of the food that Jews were prohibited from eating? What laws are you referring to?



Circumcision and baptism are two totally different things, one does not substitute the other.
Circumcision was not a sign of adhering to Judaism, but rather it was an outward sign of having the Law written on your heart, and therefore being included in the covenant.


If you were a Jewish convert you were circumcised, it was a sign of adhering to Judaism.

Baptism and circumcision both have the same symbolic meaning of adhering to either the old or the new covenant. Circumcision prefigured baptism. Some Jewish christians still hold onto certain Jewish traditions, such as circumcision and observance of the Sabbath, abstaining from certain foods etc.



Hey, and i want to say i appreciate your thoughtful and kind replies.


Thank you.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 04:49 PM
Jerome, not to let you off the hook, but i'm incredibly busy today. If you want some answers to these questions rightaway, as in Gentiles not being troubled with Jewish customs.. etc, i would say, click on my name, and find all my posts. Out of those find all the Law threads i have participated in, and you will get tons of food for thought about this.

The council spoken of in Acts is often read to the effect of the Jewish customs being abrogated... suffice to say i don't see it that way. It's not just Acts you have to consider when trying to find the truth about that, but other books of the NT also.

Anyways, i gotta run.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jerome1
Jun 9th 2008, 01:06 PM
I'll read through some of our posts when i get more time Tanja, thanks.

Final part i wanted to discuss in this thread, does salvation through Christ mean you must be incorporated into his Body the Church?

Jerome1
Jun 10th 2008, 01:42 PM
If the church is the Body of Christ, and we must be incorporated into that Body to attain salvation, does that mean that the church and Christ are the same thing?

If you believe the church is an intrinsic part of Christ, what is your view of the church's teachings being prone to error?

Can this be possible if Christ and the church are the same thing?

Jerome1
Jul 2nd 2008, 01:19 PM
No takers on the previous question?

I was gonna touch on this in another thread, but seeing as it is applicable to this thread i will include it here.

At your particular judgement will you condemn or acquit yourself according to the dictates of your conscience?

David Taylor
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:20 PM
If the church is the Body of Christ, and we must be incorporated into that Body to attain salvation, does that mean that the church and Christ are the same thing?

If you believe the church is an intrinsic part of Christ, what is your view of the church's teachings being prone to error?

Can this be possible if Christ and the church are the same thing?


Christ is not in error. The Church is not Christ, but rather belongs to Christ.

Mark 9:41 "ye belong to Christ"

The members of Christs church, while saved by His blood; are yet sinners and prone to errors. Paul said of himself, a member of Christ's body, that he was a sinner most miserable. Most of us would not claim less.

I Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. "

Christ is the head of the church, the cornerstone. He is the Master, teacher, Leader, Savior and Lord of the body. To Him do we look.

Ephesians 5:23 "Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ"

Jerome1
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:01 PM
Christ is not in error. The Church is not Christ, but rather belongs to Christ.


Paul uses the analogy of the church being the bride of Christ in Ephesians. He quotes Genesis2:24, he calls it a great mystery, and he applies it to Christ and the church.

Why would Paul use this analogy if the church is not Christ?

David Taylor
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:30 PM
Paul uses the analogy of the church being the bride of Christ in Ephesians. He quotes Genesis2:24, he calls it a great mystery, and he applies it to Christ and the church.

Why would Paul use this analogy if the church is not Christ?


You've answered your own question.

The Groom and the bride go together; in unity. The Groom isn't the bride or vica-versa; but they are one with the other.

The great mystery, is that Christ would call us, miserable sinners as we are, out of every tongue tribe and nation, to be his chosen bride.

That He would love us that much to do that for us, despising the shame; is the great mystery.

Jerome1
Jul 3rd 2008, 07:33 PM
I don't think it's a great mystery that Christ was crucified for sinners. That was evident to the earliest christians, Paul calls himself a wretched man in Romans7:24.

He quotes Genesis2:24 were the union between a man and his wife is described as becoming one flesh. An analogy is drawn between Adam and Christ in Romans5:12-21. Eve was created from Adam, and the church is described as the Body of Christ.