OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:22:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Messianic Judaism  (Read 32851 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #90 on: November 28, 2009, 09:06:13 PM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #91 on: November 28, 2009, 10:08:58 PM »

I have no interest in why you've added other traditions, dropped certain traditions or altered some traditions, but the fact is you did. I and other Nazarenes are only interested in the following:

1) only including Traditions of Apostolic origin preserved by the EO, OOs, RCC & COE into our liturgical rite
2) reinstating the Traditions of Apostolic origin which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE have abandoned
3) restoring the Apostolic Traditions which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE has altered to their original forms, or failing that, their most ancient forms.

That's all.

This is crafting the faith in your own image, period.  It's you and your friends in whatever kind of lose network you've established online mining the ancient churches for what you want you take from them.  There is no way to effectively reconstruct the past, period.  You cannot recapture it.  And even if you could, I doubt it would be much more appealing to the Jews than any other form of Christianity.

Creating a religion from the ground up is very exciting, however it's still not something from the "top down", but rather from the "ground up."  It's fashioned according to your own tastes and whims; it's certainly not delivered. 

Why do you even want to be the one who gets to arbitrate what is and is not of Apostolic origin?  It's a failure from the outset!
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #92 on: November 28, 2009, 11:24:12 PM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.

With the sabbath over, we can all roll up our sleeves and get back to work.  Wink

I agree that the gospel went to the Jews first. Wouldn't you agree, however, that there's always a new generation of Jews to reach just as there's always a new generation of yet-to-be reached Gentiles? Indeed, there's always more work to do on the Great Commission. Right?

The apostle Paul willingly adapted to the culture of whatever people he was witnessing to:

"... Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New King James Version).

Isn't the salvation of all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, sufficient reason to adapt an order of worship to appeal to them?

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

Having lurked at this site and others promoting Eastern Orthodoxy, I've been troubled to see squabbles over questions such as which calendar to follow and whether to have pews. Would it be a big deal to let people follow a lunar liturgical calendar if they consider it proper?

Have you considered Romans 14 lately? The Orthodox Study Bible includes this comment regarding the apostle Paul's instructions on respecting one another's scruples:

"In Orthodox Christianity, there are things that cannot be compromised, and there are areas of flexibility. God is gracious and allows diversity in doubtful things (v. 1), matters not related to essential doctrines and moral teachings. The weak in the faith are people who assign primary importance to secondary matters. The two examples of flexible areas given here involve food restrictions (v. 2) and the observance of liturgical calendars (v. 5), things which the weak might try to use to judge others or to divide the Church. In both cases, we are commanded to give flexibility to others just as God Himself does (v. 3)."

Clearly, the primitive assemblies were to be flexible, and insistence on Sunday worship along with use of a Julian calendar could be a sign of weak faith. Right?

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #93 on: November 29, 2009, 02:45:18 AM »

You are conflating two conversations-
One possible conversation is what the Orthodox Church can or should do to improve its outreach to various groups. That's an important conversation, and one that should occur even more than it does (although it does occur). However, that's an internal conversation. Those who have not joined themselves to the Bride of Christ, who have not submitted themselves to the authority of the Apostolic tradition, are not in a position to debate what is proper to that Tradition and what is not, to determine what contributes to theosis and what detracts from it, what they actually need vs what they want.

The other conversation is what groups who are not part of the Apostolic Church can do to make more converts, to make themselves more appealing to certain target groups. Like the first one, that's an internal conversation. Since you do not accept the authority of the Apostolic Tradition, you are free to do whatever you want, and Orthodox input is a simple, "You should accept the Tradition. As long as you are picking and choosing as you will, you will never understand it."


insistence on Sunday worship

This is a perfect example. It was the Jewish Apostles, those who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry, who beheld His Resurrection, and who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who established 'the Lord's Day', the day of His Resurrection following His Sabbath in the tomb, Sunday as the pre-eminent day of worship for those who would follow the risen Christ. By rejecting it, you are not 're-establishing' the Jewish Church--you are rejecting the Jewish Church Christ actually established in favor of some artificial construct you think makes more sense. Sorry, I'll stick with St. Peter.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #94 on: November 29, 2009, 11:11:05 AM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.

I beg your pardon, are you telling me that the Faithful need no longer share the Gospel with Jews?

{2 Peter 3:9} Mar YAH does not delay in his promises as men consider delay, but he is long-suffering because of you, in that he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but rather [that] everyone should come to repentance.

"Everyone" includes the Jews, yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as Messiah is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nobody but God Himself has the right to declare that a certain group is no longer elligable to be given the chance to choose eternal life, you cannot say that "now the Gospel is meant for the gentiles only". Sorry but this attitude of "the Gospel already went to the Jews first, the first few generations rejected it so now we don't have to share it with them anymore", is not from the Spirit of God - it's Antisemtism pure and simple. YHWH says "I change not" (Malachi 3:6). Messiah did not establish an Antisemtic Church or a racist Church of any kind, this "elitist club mentally" is the same mentality of the Pharisees which Messiah Himself condemned:

{Matthew 23:14} Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! Because you have held the kingdom of heaven closed before men. For you are not entering and those who would enter, you do not allow to enter.

You cannot "cherry pick" who to share the Gospel with, either you share it with EVERYONE (including the Jews) or no one. Refusing to share the gift of eternal life with everyone (including the Jews) means you're not doing the job (the only job) Messiah gave you to do the way He told you to do it. It's not enough to just do "what God says", you must do it the way He told you to do it, partial obedience is not obedience.

Considering what you said above, I suppose I've found another tradition that you hold which is not Apostolic in orign and therefore this verse applies to you:

{Matthew 15:6} And you nullify the word of God because of your tradition.

"By their fruits you shall know them" the Master says. The fruits of this attitude are obvious for those who have studied the history of the Greco-Roman church - Antisemitism, murder, slander, theft and hatred, which continues today. Nazarenes want no part in a church that hates, that's what Islam is for, and I can assure you neither does the Most High who emphatically states that hatred stems from the evil one and not from Him. God is (unconditional) love not hate.

While all gentiles are free to partake of and benefit from the promise made to Israel, that promise was made to Israel and no one else. You are "wild branches" grafted into the original "Olive Tree" but you will always be "wild branches", you will never be the orignal. That does not mean that because you are "wild brances" that you are lower in value or can't enjoy the full benefits of the promise. But it also does not mean that you can claim the promise as your own or horde it from the people to whom the promise was originally made. God's promises stand for all eternity because He is eternal, if His promises are not eternal then He is not God but a fake, and if that's the case then there's no point in putting faith in any of His promises and consequently in worshipping Him:

{Romans 11:17-21} And if some branches were broken off and you who are a wild olive [branch] were grafted into their places and became a sharer of the root and of the fatness of the olive [tree], do not pride yourself about the branches. Now if you pride yourself, you are not bearing the root, but the root bears you. And it may be [that] you should say of the branches that were broken off, "I will be grafted in their places." These [things] are good. They were broken off because they did not believe, but you stand by faith. Do not be elevated in your mind, but have reverence, for if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will also not spare you.

This is crafting the faith in your own image, period.

And I suppose adding traditions that you didn't receive from the Apostles, dropping a few that you did and altering a few others isn't? Yeah right.

It's you and your friends in whatever kind of lose network you've established online mining the ancient churches for what you want you take from them.

There's that "elite club mentality" again. Honestly if you read the NT, you'll notice that Messiah introduced no new tradtions, and the Apostles introduced very few. The bulk of Apostolic Tradition consists of the ordinances in the Torah which God gave to Moses, all Messiah and Apostles really did was reveal the "mysteries" of those ordinances (i.e that they point to Messiah), and adapt them slightly to emphasize this, as well as discard the unacceptable traditions introduced by the Pharisees. So no we're not stealing anything, just reistating the ordinances received by our own ancestors at Mount Sinai in the form they were practiced in by the 1st century Nazarene community in Jerusalem. We have no interest in Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Babylon or India. The Torah of Messiah goes forth from Zion.

There is no way to effectively reconstruct the past, period.  You cannot recapture it.  And even if you could, I doubt it would be much more appealing to the Jews than any other form of Christianity.

The purpose of reconstructing the ancient rite of Jerusalem is not for making it more appealing to potential Jewish converts, but for serving the liturgical needs of Jews who have already embraced Messiah, and any who will do so in future. There is no gentile form of Christianity that can serve all their needs - sorry.

Creating a religion from the ground up is very exciting, however it's still not something from the "top down", but rather from the "ground up."  It's fashioned according to your own tastes and whims; it's certainly not delivered.

I don't know anything about creating a "new religion" or how you get this impression. Yeshua of Nazareth is "the way the truth and the life", the Son of God, God in the flesh, and the promised Messiah of Irael, we believe that and accept it as truth through faith. We preach nothing but "Messiah and Him crucified" to everyone we witnesses to, we worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - YHWH Elohim. We obey the 10 Commandments, observe the Sabbath, celebrate the Feasts of YHWH, practice circumcision, perform Mikveh (baptism) in the name of YHWH, recite the Shema x2 day, recite the Lord's Prayer x3 a day, keep Kosher, read the Torah and Prophets at every Shabbat service, partake of the Body and Blood on the 1st day of the week, every week. All of these practices were done in the early Church, the evidence fills the pages of NT. "New religion"? Hardley.

Why do you even want to be the one who gets to arbitrate what is and is not of Apostolic origin?  It's a failure from the outset!

I don't need to arbitrate what is of Apostolic origin and what isn't, many of the Fathers and early
Christian historians have clearly spelled it out for me, the quote from Tertullian is one example out of many. So I'm using their writings as a guide to "separate the wheat from the chaff". I've never come across any statement from any Father that says "we have kept all the traditions handed to us from the Apostles exactly the way we received them, without any change or revision, and without any addition or subtraction." Not only is there no such statement there is no evidence to validate such a claim, even if it had ever been made. We want the Tradition, but we don't want the changes that were made to it. If the Tradition as it was before the changes occured was good enough for chosen emmisionaries of Messiah, then it's good enough for us. If it ain't broke why fix it, as the saying goes.

With the sabbath over, we can all roll up our sleeves and get back to work.  Wink

I agree that the gospel went to the Jews first. Wouldn't you agree, however, that there's always a new generation of Jews to reach just as there's always a new generation of yet-to-be reached Gentiles? Indeed, there's always more work to do on the Great Commission. Right?

Exactly if you want to be a missionary you can't "cherry pick" who you witnesses to. Even Peter was rebuked for having this attitude (Acts 10).

The apostle Paul willingly adapted to the culture of whatever people he was witnessing to:

"... Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New King James Version).

Exactly but sadly the attitude amongst most Orthodox Christians seems to be that they have respect for their own traditions but no respect for anyone else's. It's such a shame, but they are the only ones that can rectify this problem, and step one is to acknowledge that it is a problem. Fortunately this is not the case with all Orthodox Christians.

Isn't the salvation of all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, sufficient reason to adapt an order of worship to appeal to them?

I don't see EOs giving OOs or RCs so much flack, despite the fact that there are differences between their liturgical rites (eg: the use of leavend verses unleavend bread in the Eucharist). Though as I told Alvenus Lacuna above, our purpose is not to create something that appeals to potential Jewish converts, but resurrect the ancient Nazarene practices in order to serve the needs of Jewish converts. And yes salvation is for all men, always was and always will be. Anything else is a "different gospel" which comes from the evil one and has resulted in horrible ideologies like the Third Riech and the Klu Klux Klan.

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

Yip as I said there are needs that are not being met. This is very discouraging for many Jewish seekers, because sadly few gentile Christians understand the needs of Jewish converts, and worse many simply refuse to.

Having lurked at this site and others promoting Eastern Orthodoxy, I've been troubled to see squabbles over questions such as which calendar to follow and whether to have pews. Would it be a big deal to let people follow a lunar liturgical calendar if they consider it proper?

I don't see why not, the Jewish calendar was the original calendar of the Church. That said, I also don't see why there was a need to change it, there was certainly no "divine commandment" to do so. Though the reason doesn't interest me that much, the Orthodox Church has made changes for whatever reason she saw fit, that's her business between her and God, I'm only interested in what was there before the changes started happening.

Have you considered Romans 14 lately? The Orthodox Study Bible includes this comment regarding the apostle Paul's instructions on respecting one another's scruples:

"In Orthodox Christianity, there are things that cannot be compromised, and there are areas of flexibility. God is gracious and allows diversity in doubtful things (v. 1), matters not related to essential doctrines and moral teachings. The weak in the faith are people who assign primary importance to secondary matters. The two examples of flexible areas given here involve food restrictions (v. 2) and the observance of liturgical calendars (v. 5), things which the weak might try to use to judge others or to divide the Church. In both cases, we are commanded to give flexibility to others just as God Himself does (v. 3)."

Talk about not practicing what you preach! Which is the very definition of hypocrisy. St. Paul specifically stated that "those who are uncircumsized should not seek to be circumcised" but he also said "those who are circumcised should not seek to be uncircumsized"! Seems for most here on this thread "there is neither Jew nor gentile" really means "there is no longer Jew just gentile". St. Paul commanded us to remain as we are, the Orthodox Church is to this day preventing us from obeying this command. Nazarenes and mainstream Messianc Jews are often accused of seeing the world as "Jew and gentile", well if the gentile churches catered to the liturgical needs of Jewish converts (none these are salvation issues anyway) perhaps we wouldn't have to.

You are conflating two conversations-
One possible conversation is what the Orthodox Church can or should do to improve its outreach to various groups. That's an important conversation, and one that should occur even more than it does (although it does occur). However, that's an internal conversation. Those who have not joined themselves to the Bride of Christ, who have not submitted themselves to the authority of the Apostolic tradition, are not in a position to debate what is proper to that Tradition and what is not, to determine what contributes to theosis and what detracts from it, what they actually need vs what they want.

What's there to debate? The blueprint is simple:

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)
2) active outreach - going out into the world, not sitting and waiting for the world to come to you. (Matthew 28:19-20)

There is no later revelation from God that either nullifies this blueprint or changes it in anyway, and furthermore Messiah won't return until the Great Commision is fulfilled (Matthew 24:14).

The other conversation is what groups who are not part of the Apostolic Church can do to make more converts, to make themselves more appealing to certain target groups. Like the first one, that's an internal conversation. Since you do not accept the authority of the Apostolic Tradition, you are free to do whatever you want, and Orthodox input is a simple, "You should accept the Tradition. As long as you are picking and choosing as you will, you will never understand it."

We accept the Tradition, we just don't accept the changes made to it in the post Apostolic period, and we are under no divine obligation to do so, just as you were under no divine obligation to make those changes in the first place.

insistence on Sunday worship

This is a perfect example. It was the Jewish Apostles, those who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry, who beheld His Resurrection, and who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who established 'the Lord's Day', the day of His Resurrection following His Sabbath in the tomb, Sunday as the pre-eminent day of worship for those who would follow the risen Christ. By rejecting it, you are not 're-establishing' the Jewish Church--you are rejecting the Jewish Church Christ actually established in favor of some artificial construct you think makes more sense. Sorry, I'll stick with St. Peter.

mathetes communal worship on "Sunday" (the Havdalah ceremony) predates Messiah. There is actually no "Sunday" on the Hebrew calendar because it's a different calendar. The early Church did partake of the Body and Blood every week, on the 1st day of the week, and yes Messiah did rise from the dead on the 1st day of the week (thereby fulfilling Yom HaBikkurim). The difference is on the Hebrew calendar which they observed, the 1st day of the week began after sunset on our Saturday evening not on our Sunday morning. The Orthodox Church actually does still observe the Apostolic Havdalah (though in a modified form) during it's Saturdy evening Vespers service, and the Orthodox liturgical "day" begins in the evening just like the Jews do.

There was no "Sunday morning" service in the early Church because Sunday (on our calendar) was a working day, back then the early Church had no other "day off" to worship except Sabbath. And as I said earlier the Havdalah ceremony which began after sunset on "Saturday" would often carry on into the early hours of "Sunday morning" (Acts 20:7). Yes the "Sunday morning" service was a later invention, while this invention wasn't a bad idea at all, hey aren't we blessed to have one more free day to devote to worship and rest? I'm not complaining! But that said it still does not replace the Sabbath, which always has been and always will be on the 7th day of the week and is one of the 10 commandments. Yes we are still to keep the Sabbath holy, but Messiah also made the 1st day of the week holy but for a different purpose.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 11:15:11 AM by Nazarene » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #95 on: November 29, 2009, 02:57:38 PM »

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

If it comes down to that, is he worshipping Christ or the liturgical style?

If anything, Jews should be more willing to acquiesce to the established Christian liturgy. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then should they not submit to the forms of worship that were handed down from Messiah's own Apostles and preserved for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit?

I was not raised Orthodox, but evangelical. I didn't like the liturgy when I first started going. I thought the music was bizarre and ugly. While it was theologically wrong, my former church had rich musical traditions of its own I had to leave behind.

It's not someone's place to clamor for changes in liturgy because it doesn't fit with their existing worship culture. People should be concerned about the doctrines and teachings. If you agree with what the church teaches, you must accept the liturgy that goes along with it, because it's part of the doctrine. Form communicates theology, and the liturgy has a specific form for specific theological reasons.

So that goes to my original point: in your example, doesn't it seem silly that Jesus' Messiahship should rest on whether someone likes the Church's music or not. To me it seems shallow that a Jew would reject his long-awaited Messiah because the Prophets are not read in the liturgy.  Huh
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 02:59:40 PM by bogdan » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2009, 03:21:47 PM »

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)


But The Church does contain Jews. You don't need to invent some sort of new polyglot group outside of the Church. You are just trying to make yourself comfortable but Christianity demands personal change. 

Your efforts are understandable up to the point you discover that the Ancient Church still exists. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2009, 04:26:32 PM »

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

If it comes down to that, is he worshipping Christ or the liturgical style?

I'm not disregarding the valid point you're making but this is not about "taste in worship style". It is about structuring the liturgy in order that it speaks to Jews in ways that gentiles generally don't understand. So that they can grow in their communion with God through His Son, and be able to draw strength so that they can withstand being shunned by their families and resist the pressure put on them to go back to their former religion. The man in the story wasn't "put off" by gentile Christian worship so much as that it didn't "speak to him" the way he needed it to.

If anything, Jews should be more willing to acquiesce to the established Christian liturgy. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then should they not submit to the forms of worship that were handed down from Messiah's own Apostles and preserved for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit?

Sure as should anyone else for that matter, but that is assuming the Orthdox Church has preserved what the Apostles gave to them, in the exact form it was given them. Such is not the case, changes were made and these changes are documented by early Christian historians. Not that the Jews themselves aren't guilty of making changes of their own, but Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, do not like the idea of changing something that was instated by God either directly or through a divinely appointed authority. For them it gives the impression that the person making the change "thinks that what was divinely appointed is not good enough and that he/she can do a better job than God Himself".

I was not raised Orthodox, but evangelical. I didn't like the liturgy when I first started going. I thought the music was bizarre and ugly. While it was theologically wrong, my former church had rich musical traditions of its own I had to leave behind.

I wasn't raised evangelical but I was evangelical for a few years before I became a Nazarene. I was raised an agonistic, and my mom was an agnostic from a Reform Jewish background, but I have a number of Orthodox Jewish relatives and I deal with Jews who are struggling to "take the leap" into the Faith almost everyday. You cannot compare a transfer to another Christian denomination to an actual conversion to Christianity from a different religion. There is a huge difference between someone who has always acknowledged who Messiah is but is not satisfied with the church he/she attends, and someone who hasn't and has never been to a church or read the NT.

It's not someone's place to clamor for changes in liturgy because it doesn't fit with their existing worship culture.

Well Constantinople didn't mind doing that for Slavs, to this day the Slavic traditions differ from the Greek ones.

People should be concerned about the doctrines and teachings. If you agree with what the church teaches, you must accept the liturgy that goes along with it, because it's part of the doctrine. Form communicates theology, and the liturgy has a specific form for specific theological reasons.

And what was wrong with the way things were done in the Nazarene Church of Jerusalem? That's where the liturgy originated in the first place. Then it went to Alexandria and was "altered" according to Coptic culture, to Rome where it was "Latinized", to Asia Minor where it was "Hellenized", and so on and so forth.

So that goes to my original point: in your example, doesn't it seem silly that Jesus' Messiahship should rest on whether someone likes the Church's music or not. To me it seems shallow that a Jew would reject his long-awaited Messiah because the Prophets are not read in the liturgy.  Huh

Once again it's not simply a cultural thing.

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)


But The Church does contain Jews.

Yes I know that.

You don't need to invent some sort of new polyglot group outside of the Church.

It doesn't have to be outside the Church. It's just a liturgical rite, I don't see any EO here claiming that the OOs or RCs who do not adhere to the Byzantine rite are outside the Church. Or did I miss something?

You are just trying to make yourself comfortable but Christianity demands personal change.

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

Your efforts are understandable up to the point you discover that the Ancient Church still exists.

Well I feel we're finally making some progress. And of course the Ancient Church still exists, but she's not what she use to be. While the Apostles rebuked certain Nazarene communities for not being sympathetic to the needs of their gentile brethren, today the Church is not being sympathetic to the needs of it's Jewish brethren.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2009, 05:20:55 PM »

I beg your pardon, are you telling me that the Faithful need no longer share the Gospel with Jews?

You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2009, 06:03:01 PM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2009, 06:43:51 PM »

It doesn't have to be outside the Church. It's just a liturgical rite, I don't see any EO here claiming that the OOs or RCs who do not adhere to the Byzantine rite are outside the Church. Or did I miss something?

Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The RCs are in schism from the Church and have been for a thousand years (and that's the *liberal* position; the more traditional position is that they have been in schism and heresy). The relationship of OO and EO is far more complicated, but the simplest description is that the official position of each Church is that the other is in schism and needs to be restored to communion in order to be made whole (the issue of who is being restored and who has been the Church all along being the central question that is preventing union tomorrow).

It is not an issue of 'rite'--the RC's "Eastern-rite Catholics" use the standard EO rite, but they are still heterodox schismatics.

It's about membership in the actual historical institution founded by the Apostles.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2009, 06:46:04 PM »

Nazarene, I at least feel like I understand more where you are coming from now.  But it's not as though you are a part of the Orthodox Church and trying to create a rite to help Hebrew converts.  You have to understand this from the perspective of the Orthodox, where to them you are going through their traditions with a fine-toothed comb and arbitrating what matches your understanding of being of apostolic origin and what is not.  You have to try to understand why that is going to be offensive, considering that the Orthodox consider their faith to be the most complete form of the Christian faith; one which was delivered from Christ Himself.  Whether or not that understanding is historically accurate in all of the particulars, it's still their understanding.

Perhaps so that we are more clear about the problems with the Orthodox liturgy, you could let us know what aspects do not receive the stamp of apostolic authenticity.  Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, while I am thinking of it, why the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Yahoshua?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 06:50:37 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #102 on: November 29, 2009, 07:18:21 PM »

On the Church Calendar today we remember the Apostle Matthew. He was a Jew who worked for the Romans so he was well placed.

When Jesus Christ showed up and said "Follow me" he didn't say: " Only if you make it easy for me" or "As long as I can take along baggage"
He just went with him. That is what we are called to do, leave the old behind and become a new man. Matthew simply walked away from all he had and followed his Lord. No one said it would be easy.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #103 on: November 29, 2009, 07:43:59 PM »

Once again it's not simply a cultural thing.

It seems like it is, though.

The axiom we Orthodox are coming from is that the Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of faith. Sure, practices have changed some, but the faith has not. If you're arguing that the Orthodox Church has not preserved that fullness, I don't think you'll find many embracing your stance.

I would echo Alveus in requesting a little more detail about Nazerine beliefs on some of these matters, because based on what I know and the link you posted earlier in the thread, the theology sounds Protestant more than Apostolic Christianity of any variety.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #104 on: December 01, 2009, 02:12:06 AM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

Marc, please show me where the apostles said a Jew must renounce the lunar liturgical calendar and all its sabbaths and other holy days in order to become a follower of the Messiah. I make this request because you and the others who've rejected Nazarene's fine posts seem at odds with Acts 21:17-25:

 "(17) And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; (21) but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. (23) Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. (24) Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but thatyou yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality'" (New King James Version).


Do you see how the apostles, unlike today's EOs, accommodated the scruples of those Jewish believers in Yeshua? Do you also see how the apostle Paul himself continued keeping the law while he trusted in Yeshua?

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board.

I rejoice to hear of Jews who trust in Yeshua, regardless whether they affiliate with the Nazarenes, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (my group), Eastern Orthodoxy, or any other Bible-believing group. I'm saddened, though, to read of your lack of the flexibility recommended in the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 (quoted in an earlier post of mine). I can't help suspecting that you and other EO posters to this thread are overzealous and out of touch with your religious superiors.

The unwillingness to allow diversity in doubtful areas is a sin that plagues many groups, EOs included. In the apostles' day, Judaizers wanted to force Gentile believers to become Jews. Ever since becoming the majority, Gentile believers have tried to force Jewish believers to become Gentiles. Such inflexibility, I think, has caused much sectarianism. If your religious leaders are as inflexible as you are, Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much the ancient faith as it is an ancient sect.

As to the need for the MJAA and Nazarene's group, what can I say except that men were led by God to form them, likely because of other groups' inflexibility and intolerance? If you ever read The Messianic Times, you'll learn of Jews who have come to faith in the Messiah thanks to the MJAA and other groups.

Please reflect on Luke 15:10: "... There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (NKJV). Our heavenly Father delights in the salvation of sinners. How much are you willing to do to reach them?

 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 02:36:31 AM by mathetes » Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,728


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #105 on: December 01, 2009, 04:56:32 AM »

mathetes, was not one of the major sticking points of the early Church the question of the Judaisers - Peter's insistence on Gentiles needing to be circumcised befor being baptised into the Christian faith, versus Paul's argument (which was indeed vindicated) that baptism superseded the "type and shadow" of circumcision? Was Christ's mission, indeed his very person, not the fulfilment and completion of the Mosaic law?

Do Messianic Jews insist on circumcision of males? If so, why? If not, why not?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #106 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:19 AM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

Marc, please show me where the apostles said a Jew must renounce the lunar liturgical calendar and all its sabbaths and other holy days in order to become a follower of the Messiah. I make this request because you and the others who've rejected Nazarene's fine posts seem at odds with Acts 21:17-25:

 "(17) And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; (21) but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. (23) Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. (24) Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but thatyou yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality'" (New King James Version).


Do you see how the apostles, unlike today's EOs, accommodated the scruples of those Jewish believers in Yeshua? Do you also see how the apostle Paul himself continued keeping the law while he trusted in Yeshua?

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board.

I rejoice to hear of Jews who trust in Yeshua, regardless whether they affiliate with the Nazarenes, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (my group), Eastern Orthodoxy, or any other Bible-believing group. I'm saddened, though, to read of your lack of the flexibility recommended in the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 (quoted in an earlier post of mine). I can't help suspecting that you and other EO posters to this thread are overzealous and out of touch with your religious superiors.

The unwillingness to allow diversity in doubtful areas is a sin that plagues many groups, EOs included. In the apostles' day, Judaizers wanted to force Gentile believers to become Jews. Ever since becoming the majority, Gentile believers have tried to force Jewish believers to become Gentiles. Such inflexibility, I think, has caused much sectarianism. If your religious leaders are as inflexible as you are, Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much the ancient faith as it is an ancient sect.

As to the need for the MJAA and Nazarene's group, what can I say except that men were led by God to form them, likely because of other groups' inflexibility and intolerance? If you ever read The Messianic Times, you'll learn of Jews who have come to faith in the Messiah thanks to the MJAA and other groups.

Please reflect on Luke 15:10: "... There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (NKJV). Our heavenly Father delights in the salvation of sinners. How much are you willing to do to reach them?

 

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 10:05:47 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #107 on: December 02, 2009, 03:31:57 AM »

LBK,

Thanks for your questions and your kind way of asking them.

mathetes, was not one of the major sticking points of the early Church the question of the Judaisers - Peter's insistence on Gentiles needing to be circumcised befor being baptised into the Christian faith, versus Paul's argument (which was indeed vindicated) that baptism superseded the "type and shadow" of circumcision?

You're right about Judaizers' infiltration of the early church and about the apostles' handling of the situation. As for Peter, I know that Paul rebuked him by asking, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Galatians 2:14 NKJV). I'm unaware, though, where Peter is said to have insisted on Gentiles' circumcision. Rather, he and other Jews, intimidated by the arrival of circumcised believers from the apostle James, made circumcision a test of fellowship by refusing to eat any longer with the uncircumcised believers in Galatia (Galatians 2:11-13). I think the Orthodox Study Bible is right in noting that the men who came from James were not necessarily representing James when they tried to force the culture of Jerusalem on the church of the Gentiles.

From practitioners of infant baptism, I've heard the assertion that baptism supercedes circumcision, which was a type and shadow of circumcision. My congregation, however, practices the immersion of believers in water and does not regard circumcision as a type and shadow of baptism. In the United States, where we're located, circumcision is largely a moot issue for us because virtually all males are circumcised at birth regardless whether their parents are Jewish or Gentile.

Was Christ's mission, indeed his very person, not the fulfillment and completion of the Mosaic law?

Yes.

Do Messianic Jews insist on circumcision of males? If so, why? If not, why not?

I can't speak for all people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews. Our congregation belongs to the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synogogues (http://iamcs.org/), and the rabbi and nearly all the congregation's members belong to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer).

Our congregation's practice on circumcision is identical to the apostolic practice summarized in Acts 21:17-25, which I quoted in my previous post. Like Paul and the other apostles, we don't tell Jews that they ought to forsake Moses and not circumcise their children or walk according to Jewish customs. We also don't tell Gentiles that they have to be circumcised and adopt Jewish customs. Uncircumcised Gentiles may belong to our congregation, and our rationale for these practices is that they are biblical and apostolic.
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #108 on: December 02, 2009, 04:41:51 AM »

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

Shouldn't it bother you that your denomination admittedly went on to a "new" understanding of salvation? Besides, how carefully have you analyzed your use of the word "church"? By "church," you evidently mean something different from "all called-out believers." For not all called-out believers wanted to dump the lunar calendar and Jewish feasts.

In the second century, one called-out believer, Polycrates of Ephesus, strongly objected to Pope Victor's call for all believers to celebrate our Lord's resurrection on the same day and not according to the lunar calendar. The letter he wrote to the pope was documented by Eusebius and may be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates_of_Ephesus

Polycrates was not alone in following the lunar calendar; moreover, he and other believers who agreed with him were part of the church. Pope Victor's insistence on uniformity, which was later realized under Constantine, departed from the apostolic practice of tolerance documented in Acts 15; 21:17-25; Romans 14. This emphasis on uniformity, along with the excommunication and persecution of dissenters, is characteristic of sectarianism.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

Apparently you use the word "church" to denote an elite inner core of people who, contrary to the apostles, have claimed the authority to insist that Jews abandon Mosaic customs and that Jews and Gentiles all follow the same calendar and customs. Where in Scripture are we told that after the apostles, God would raise up a group of people with the authority to change the times and the seasons?

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.

How is it that your denomination, which you say came up with a "new" understanding of salvation, accuses Messianics of inventing a new religious group and putting ourselves in charge? How are our policies and practices different from instructions handed down by our Lord and the apostles?

Again, I question your use of the word "church." The apostle Paul described the Gentile Ephesian believers as "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22 NKJV). As long as we stay on this foundation, why should we fear getting off course?

You've been unable to show where the apostles ordered Jews to abandon Mosaic customs. Where in Scripture are we told that any church is our authority?
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #109 on: December 02, 2009, 09:31:45 AM »

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

Shouldn't it bother you that your denomination admittedly went on to a "new" understanding of salvation? Besides, how carefully have you analyzed your use of the word "church"? By "church," you evidently mean something different from "all called-out believers." For not all called-out believers wanted to dump the lunar calendar and Jewish feasts.

In the second century, one called-out believer, Polycrates of Ephesus, strongly objected to Pope Victor's call for all believers to celebrate our Lord's resurrection on the same day and not according to the lunar calendar. The letter he wrote to the pope was documented by Eusebius and may be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates_of_Ephesus

Polycrates was not alone in following the lunar calendar; moreover, he and other believers who agreed with him were part of the church. Pope Victor's insistence on uniformity, which was later realized under Constantine, departed from the apostolic practice of tolerance documented in Acts 15; 21:17-25; Romans 14. This emphasis on uniformity, along with the excommunication and persecution of dissenters, is characteristic of sectarianism.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

Apparently you use the word "church" to denote an elite inner core of people who, contrary to the apostles, have claimed the authority to insist that Jews abandon Mosaic customs and that Jews and Gentiles all follow the same calendar and customs. Where in Scripture are we told that after the apostles, God would raise up a group of people with the authority to change the times and the seasons?

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.

How is it that your denomination, which you say came up with a "new" understanding of salvation, accuses Messianics of inventing a new religious group and putting ourselves in charge? How are our policies and practices different from instructions handed down by our Lord and the apostles?

Again, I question your use of the word "church." The apostle Paul described the Gentile Ephesian believers as "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22 NKJV). As long as we stay on this foundation, why should we fear getting off course?

You've been unable to show where the apostles ordered Jews to abandon Mosaic customs. Where in Scripture are we told that any church is our authority?

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 09:32:32 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #110 on: December 03, 2009, 06:52:22 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 06:59:04 AM by mathetes » Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 04, 2009, 12:01:35 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #112 on: December 04, 2009, 12:56:48 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 04, 2009, 12:59:18 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley

Yes. Isn't this synonymous with the Falashas?

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #114 on: December 06, 2009, 06:50:36 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #115 on: December 07, 2009, 05:21:11 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley



Yes. Isn't this synonymous with the Falashas?

Selam

Shalom,

They are Falashas who have come to believe in our Messiah. Israel won't accept them as immigrants, because of their faith; and they're not allowed to grow food on their land. The MJAA's Operation Tikvah has been helping them with food, clothing, and money for wells.

http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Spg_Tikvah_Home
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2009, 06:44:26 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2009, 09:34:07 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2009, 11:50:04 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2009, 01:22:22 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #120 on: December 08, 2009, 02:03:46 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 08, 2009, 02:41:45 AM »

Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

Oh dear....
Duck and cover everyone.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #122 on: December 08, 2009, 03:51:31 AM »

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ.

Mathetes -- are you even aware of where you are? Or did you just follow some link for Messianic Judaism without a clue where you were going?

Marc is using 'Church' in the sense that Orthodox Christians understand it and have understood it for the last 2000 years. If you are going to participate on a forum called "Orthodox Christianity.net" you should take the time to at least learn basic terminology.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #123 on: December 08, 2009, 09:33:37 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

I am sorry this has been so confusing for you. I will try to be clearer.

Orthodox Christianity does not consider itself a "denomination". It is derived from nothing before it . It is the Original Church.

People who are part of various denominations have a very hard time accepting this. When they hear "Original Church" or "THE Church" they hear it within their expience of being part of a denomination. Therefore, they interpret the meaning as if we are saying :"Our teachings are Superior to yours" Wether that is true or not is another discussion. We must first start with what is factual only and then see what the implications are.

We are the exact same Organization ( Church ) founded on the day of Petecost and have existed continuously since then. This is just like a Worldly group. Take IBM for example. Lets say they were founded in 1930. We can literally trace back  it's founding to a certain date and then follow IBM through time with it's various leaders and CEO's and boards of directors and learn about it's struggles. We can then go to IBM today and know that it is the same company founded in 1930 with the experience of it's own history.

Once people realize that the Church referred to in the Bible, the one recounted in the book of Acts, the one who held councils, complied the Bible and set aright the Christian Doctrine from various heresies ( Arianism, etc.) they have a bit of a dilemma. The ground switch's from denominational question to an imperative to look into The Church since Scripture holds it out as the vehicle for our salvation. You must know discover if The Church has been corrupted in some way . Was Scripture wrong    and Hades has prevailed? Or have they made an error and taken a wrong view of The Church and set up some sort of far flung and unnecessary derivative, such as what you are calling "Messianic Judaism" 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #124 on: December 08, 2009, 11:26:52 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

I am sorry this has been so confusing for you. I will try to be clearer.

Orthodox Christianity does not consider itself a "denomination". It is derived from nothing before it .

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?

Quote
It is the Original Church.

People who are part of various denominations have a very hard time accepting this. When they hear "Original Church" or "THE Church" they hear it within their expience of being part of a denomination. Therefore, they interpret the meaning as if we are saying :"Our teachings are Superior to yours" Wether that is true or not is another discussion. We must first start with what is factual only and then see what the implications are.

We are the exact same Organization ( Church ) founded on the day of Petecost and have existed continuously since then. This is just like a Worldly group. Take IBM for example. Lets say they were founded in 1930. We can literally trace back  it's founding to a certain date and then follow IBM through time with it's various leaders and CEO's and boards of directors and learn about it's struggles. We can then go to IBM today and know that it is the same company founded in 1930 with the experience of it's own history.

Once people realize that the Church referred to in the Bible, the one recounted in the book of Acts, the one who held councils, complied the Bible and set aright the Christian Doctrine from various heresies ( Arianism, etc.) they have a bit of a dilemma. The ground switch's from denominational question to an imperative to look into The Church since Scripture holds it out as the vehicle for our salvation. You must know discover if The Church has been corrupted in some way . Was Scripture wrong    and Hades has prevailed? Or have they made an error and taken a wrong view of The Church and set up some sort of far flung and unnecessary derivative, such as what you are calling "Messianic Judaism" 

I do feel as if you've got a stock response here that doesn't quite fit to what other  people are saying.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,659



« Reply #125 on: December 08, 2009, 12:05:04 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2009, 12:46:18 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,659



« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2009, 01:08:48 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
au contraire, Christianity (at least the Orthodoxy) is Ultra Ultra Orthodox.  Original, that is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #128 on: December 08, 2009, 02:08:50 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
au contraire, Christianity (at least the Orthodoxy) is Ultra Ultra Orthodox.  Original, that is.

Right you are..

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2009, 02:09:50 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,659



« Reply #130 on: December 08, 2009, 03:23:23 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
I don't resist that idea at all.  It fact, it must be both.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2009, 07:19:46 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
I don't resist that idea at all.  It fact, it must be both.

Yes, that's what I think. I just think I wasn't managing to get across to Marc what I meant.
Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 08, 2009, 09:41:25 PM »

The equation is quite simple... Orthodox = Original. Orthodoxy is not a made up, Post-schismatic, denominational sect of what used to be the original church. Orthodoxy is the Christian church. It is the continuation of the Apostolic Church.

For those who want to find some type to fit their brand, welcome to Evangelicalism (the Land where grace wanes but thankfully no-one is challenged because of all the flavors) Choices are the key to a happily ignorant life. 

For those who are truly seeking the faith of ancient Christianity, welcome to Orthodoxy. Be baptized in the name of the Triune God, be united to the Holy Spirit, and take part in the life of Christ through the Mystery of the Eucharist, confess your sins and be cleansed of your disease. P.S. Orthodoxy will confound your thoughts and ask you to leave the "old man" behind.

Why would one choose to allow themselves and others to be mislead. Your church has no grace, no authentic Eucharist, no saints, no practical application other than as a humanitarian effort or to distract people from Orthodoxy. With what power do you profess to save souls by? What medicine do you prescribe to heal the sick? 

If you say, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, you can not claim it. Christ Jesus lives in the Orthodox Eucharist. The Holy Spirit governs as the Cornerstone of our faith.

Are you God? For you can not create something from nothing.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 09:48:39 PM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2009, 12:11:23 AM »

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ.

Mathetes -- are you even aware of where you are? Or did you just follow some link for Messianic Judaism without a clue where you were going?

Marc is using 'Church' in the sense that Orthodox Christians understand it and have understood it for the last 2000 years. If you are going to participate on a forum called "Orthodox Christianity.net" you should take the time to at least learn basic terminology.Witega, I've been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy since January 2005, when I joined this forum. If you check my profile and posting history, you'll see that I've quoted the Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox New Testament, and Dr. D.H. Stamatis' Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church, among other EO works. I haven't simply followed a link about Messianic Judaism, nor have I wasted your time by posting my opinions without reading your sources.

Witega, the Orthodox Christians I've met use the term church several ways, much like the examples given in the online Free Dictionary:

Quote
1.  A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
c. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
tr.v. churched, church·ing, church·es
To conduct a church service for, especially to perform a religious service for (a woman after childbirth).
adj.
Of or relating to the church; ecclesiastical.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/church

What I pointed out in my syllogism with the word nothing is that confusion can result when key words are repeated with different meanings. As to Eastern Orthodoxy, I've noticed that it, like Roman Catholics, sometimes uses the word church inconsistently.

Of course, we all agree that this word can denote all believers whom God has called to trust and obey our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

As to our church's physical address, I can't help wondering if Marc recognizes how important it is that Christ, our Savior, sits at God the Father's right hand.

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #134 on: December 09, 2009, 01:12:30 AM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 01:13:47 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Tags: Nazarenes Messianic Judaism Hebrew Roots Jewish Christianity Aramaic 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.3 seconds with 71 queries.