OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 08:54:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Help proving the Church to a Messianic  (Read 4261 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2011, 06:31:52 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 06:33:11 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2011, 06:57:14 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2011, 07:33:12 AM »

You are going to have to explain the history of the word to him; its uses in Greek and how it is that we come to use "Church" only in specific places in our English translations where the word ekklesia is used in the Greek.

You simply can't look into Koine Greek and see ekklesia used exclusively to refer to an assembly of people gathering for Christ, and for that purpose alone. One must look to the purpose of the particular ekklesia being translated.

Our English word Church comes to us by a torturous route and has its roots in the Greek Kuriakon (lord's house). In the NT it is used as a specific English translation of the Greek word ekklesia; an assembly of those gathered for Christ. Again, this can only be applied when that is the context of the word. Otherwise, it's simply an assembly; of idol makers, of shoe-makers, of whoever wants to meet for a particular purpose.

I believe that the first time it is used in the Koine to mean something specifically spiritual is Matthew 16:18 when Christ says to Peter;  

18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς·

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

However, in modern Greek Ekklesia is still the word used for "Church".

Hopes this helps in some small way.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 07:37:40 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2011, 08:04:49 AM »

^^Having rambled on with all the above, because it is late where I am,  Embarrassed from what I recall of Messianic believers, they don't actually believe in a visible historic Church. At least those I have known didn't. Sincere as they might be, to them it's much more nebulous. The church to can be anywhere, made up of disjointed "true believers"; but never an "organised religion". That's the place of the "traditions of man" and not the Holy Spirit.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 08:25:38 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2011, 10:24:36 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?
In the Apocolypse, Christ sends His Revelation to the Seven Churches, not the seven assemblies, of Asia.

It it same word that St. Paul uses (Ephesians 1:22-3)
καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκε κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ,
ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου
when he says "And He [God the Father] put all things in subjection under His [Christ's] feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the Church." Yes, a very Nice Church.

"what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God?"

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!"

So what he has done here is take Christ's Body and joined it the prostitute of Artemmis.  God takes a very dim view of that. I Corinthians 3:17.

Acts 19:27 reads
οὐ μόνον δὲ τοῦτο κινδυνεύει ἡμῖν τὸ μέρος εἰς ἀπελεγμὸν ἐλθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς Ἀρτέμιδος ἱερὸν εἰς οὐθὲν λογισθῆναι, μέλλειν τε καὶ καθαιρεῖσθαι τὴν μεγαλειότητα αὐτῆς, ἣν ὅλη ἡ Ἀσία καὶ ἡ οἰκουμένη σέβεται.
No  ἐκκλησίαν there. Evidently he is confusing it with ἱερὸν, temple, in this case Artemis, but it is also the same word used of the Temple in Jerusalem.
So no, not "the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27."  Point out that if he cannot see  ἐκκλησία where it is but sees it where it is not, and cannot distinguish between the Church of Christ and the assembly of pagans, nor between the Temple of Artimis and the Temple in which Christ worshipped, that he is going to be on milk for a very, very long time.
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2011, 09:04:23 PM »

In the Apocolypse, Christ sends His Revelation to the Seven Churches, not the seven assemblies, of Asia.

It it same word that St. Paul uses (Ephesians 1:22-3)
καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκε κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ,
ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου
when he says "And He [God the Father] put all things in subjection under His [Christ's] feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the Church." Yes, a very Nice Church.

"what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God?"

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!"

So what he has done here is take Christ's Body and joined it the prostitute of Artemmis.  God takes a very dim view of that. I Corinthians 3:17.

Acts 19:27 reads
οὐ μόνον δὲ τοῦτο κινδυνεύει ἡμῖν τὸ μέρος εἰς ἀπελεγμὸν ἐλθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς Ἀρτέμιδος ἱερὸν εἰς οὐθὲν λογισθῆναι, μέλλειν τε καὶ καθαιρεῖσθαι τὴν μεγαλειότητα αὐτῆς, ἣν ὅλη ἡ Ἀσία καὶ ἡ οἰκουμένη σέβεται.
No  ἐκκλησίαν there. Evidently he is confusing it with ἱερὸν, temple, in this case Artemis, but it is also the same word used of the Temple in Jerusalem.
So no, not "the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27."  Point out that if he cannot see  ἐκκλησία where it is but sees it where it is not, and cannot distinguish between the Church of Christ and the assembly of pagans, nor between the Temple of Artimis and the Temple in which Christ worshipped, that he is going to be on milk for a very, very long time.


Perhaps you could ask him how he sees the phrases in English that I have bolded above being manifested. What does he think NT Church - born at Pentecost - actually was? What did the members of Christ constitute? What did the temple of the living God look like? What was Christ the head of? Does he accept the historical reality of a specific human society of all those believing in and saved by the Incarnate Son of God? As an evolving entity that would eventually call councils to settle dogmatic disputes, set the canon of NT scripture, etc, etc?

Understanding his concept of what the infant Church is in the NT might give you a point of discussion, rather than a discourse of throw out comments. If you can get him to look at the history, so much the better. It's not just you having a go at him with an obvious agenda. Of course, that it will need a great deal of willingness on his part to do some digging.

His comment "The word Church does not appear anywhere in the NT, so what is your point?" is surprising from a bible reader of any kind. Of course, the word Church appears in the English NT. If he's looking for it in the Koine, he's not going to find an English word, is he? If he isn't going to accept that ekklesia where translated as Church in the English is in fact speaking of a body of believers, (the historical reality of a specific human society of all those believing in and saved by the Incarnate Son of God), I'm not sure what to do. Is he even able to look at concepts rather than simply the word on page?

Edited to add: This might be useful for you.
The Church the Body of Christ, by Christos Sp. Voulgaris - http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/voulgaris_churchbody.html

« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 09:19:39 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2011, 09:32:40 PM »

"Suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the rushing of a violent wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues like flames of fire, divided among them and resting on each one. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:2-4). So the history of the Christian Church begins, with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost, the first Whit Sunday. On that same day through the preaching of Saint Peter three thousand men and women were baptized, and the first Christian community at Jerusalem was formed.

Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia - The Orthodox Church - The Beginnings - complete excerpt found at http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/13/1.aspx

« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 09:33:23 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2011, 09:55:05 PM »

Quote
This is exactly what I mean. The word ekklesia does not mean the Church. The Godess Diana ekklesia was not Yeshua's ekklesia. To render a verdict that the word ekklesia means the EO Church is ludicrous.
The word ekklesia does mean the Church.  Meant so in Koine Greek, means so today in modern Greek, and in both it means the EO Church.

What is ludicrous is holding that when St. Paul
"from Meletius sent to Ephesus to summon the elders of the Church
Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου πέμψας εἰς Ἔφεσον μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας
he was sending to the Godess Diana ekklesia for Demetrius the silversmith.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 10:03:49 PM by ialmisry » 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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2011, 10:22:29 PM »

Quote
This is exactly what I mean. The word ekklesia does not mean the Church. The Godess Diana ekklesia was not Yeshua's ekklesia. To render a verdict that the word ekklesia means the EO Church is ludicrous.
The word ekklesia does mean the Church.  Meant so in Koine Greek, means so today in modern Greek, and in both it means the EO Church.

What is ludicrous is holding that when St. Paul
"from Meletius sent to Ephesus to summon the elders of the Church
Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου πέμψας εἰς Ἔφεσον μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας
he was sending to the Godess Diana ekklesia for Demetrius the silversmith.


Ask him what ekklesia is Christ referring to here...(Matthew 16:18)

18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς·

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

He says The Godess Diana ekklesia was not Yeshua's ekklesia. Of course it wasn't.

So what was Yeshua's ekklesia, then? Was there a united, one-minded Ekklesia for Yeshua in the NT? What is St Paul talking about when he calls believers to be of One Mind? Isn't this a call to be a society of believers? The Church? Where is it to be found in history? If he accepts that there was a body of believers, what happened to them? Do they have historical descendants? Should they be scattered amongst the population of the earth, clearly not of One Mind?


Philippians 2:2 - fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.


« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 10:48:45 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2011, 10:53:07 PM »

Quote
This is exactly what I mean. The word ekklesia does not mean the Church. The Godess Diana ekklesia was not Yeshua's ekklesia. To render a verdict that the word ekklesia means the EO Church is ludicrous.
The word ekklesia does mean the Church.  Meant so in Koine Greek, means so today in modern Greek, and in both it means the EO Church.

What is ludicrous is holding that when St. Paul (Acts 20:17)
"from Meletius sent to Ephesus to summon the elders of the Church
Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου πέμψας εἰς Ἔφεσον μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας
he was sending to the Godess Diana ekklesia for Demetrius the silversmith. Rather, he was handing off the Church of Christ to the bishops, which brings up the "messianic's" other nonsense:
Quote
Except that by the time your OT NT Church came around, the disciples were dead. the did not have authority on earth anymore. Next?
(corrected)
the disciples, now Apostles, were (besides St. James the Greater) very much alive, when they passed on their authority on earth by the mouth of St. Paul, who said to those elders (20:28):
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, to feed the Church of God [NOT Diana], which He has purchased with His Own Blood

That was the same Church to which Christ sends His Revelation through St. John (Rev. 2), the same Church to which St. Igantius of Antioch (who personally knew St. John, St. Peter (who consecrated him) and St. Paul) wrote a few years later:
Quote
I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop...He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God....Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:25 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
refering to Onesimus, whom St. Paul had begotten in his bonds (Phil. 1:10), and through whom the authority of the Apostles/disciples lived on, as it lived on through St. Mark of Ephesus on to Met. Chrysostomos II, who presided over Ephesus in our days.

Quote
Well, as I said, they are not here anymore. I and you have the same power now. No cigar
Christ we know, and St. Paul we know, and St. John we know, and St. Ignatius we know and St. Onesimos we know (and they all knew each other) but who are you? From St. Paul, through St. Onesimus to Met. Chrysostomos II, there is an unbroken testimony of the meaning of scripture as the Eastern Orthodox Church-which wrote, collected and canonized the Bible-understood and understands it, from the apostles to today as witnessed by unbroken testimony.  Whose word should we take, theirs, or yours?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 10:56:24 PM by ialmisry » 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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2011, 11:26:46 PM »

Quote
Well, as I said, they are not here anymore. I and you have the same power now. No cigar
Christ we know, and St. Paul we know, and St. John we know, and St. Ignatius we know and St. Onesimos we know (and they all knew each other) but who are you? From St. Paul, through St. Onesimus to Met. Chrysostomos II, there is an unbroken testimony of the meaning of scripture as the Eastern Orthodox Church-which wrote, collected and canonized the Bible-understood and understands it, from the apostles to today as witnessed by unbroken testimony.  Whose word should we take, theirs, or yours?

Ialmisry - Where would he find that in Scripture? That we all have the same power, now?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #56 on: November 20, 2011, 03:56:00 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.

George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."

Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.

Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 04:07:55 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).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #57 on: November 20, 2011, 10:37:58 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.

George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.

Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.

Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.[/color]
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.
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
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #58 on: November 20, 2011, 06:14:36 PM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.

LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.



George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.

The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.

Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.

You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices, as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah. Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.

To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles, who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths. To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.

The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.


Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.[/color]
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.

As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs? Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity. Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?

Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship. When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practice, and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.


« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 06:18:01 PM 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).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2011, 03:47:11 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.

LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.
I didn't say there was (especially since it is true).  It just has nothing to do with the point on hand:ecclesia means "Church."


George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.

The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.
You are trying to read congregationalism into where it is not (the parrallel at I Corinthians underlying that).


Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.

You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices,

Considering it greatly important of who ordained whom over the centuries is a continuation of the Apostles' beliefs and practices, and if we do not see such a continuation, we know any congregation, church, whatever, has no connection to the Church that Christ founded.

as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah.
and offer animal sacrifices on Mount Moriah?

This son of Abraham believes and behaves faithfully like Abraham by confessing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.
And those whom both ordained are in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, not the pastorate/rabbinate of the MJAA

To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles,
and only the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and those in communion with them, maintain the belifes, conduct and practices advocated by the Messiah and His Apostles.
who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.
The Apostle St. Paul withstood the Apostle St. Peter on such a matter.

To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.
The Church Christ founded has power from Him to bind and loose, and it not bound by any "diversity" other than that which it finds within the Faith.

The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.[/color]
Since it confesses Protestantism, and not the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, there are plenty of indications would be bothered by what the MJAA does.  Inf fact, since it is not in communion with the successors of the Apostles, we know that for a fact.

Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.[/color]
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.

As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs?
Because they are Protestant, and hence have no connection to St. Paul and the Hebrew Christians he was in communion with.

Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity.
Yes, a uniform adherence to Apostolic authority, the source of unity.  Not a problem, just the solution.

Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?
Romand 14:5
Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship.
All EO (and AFAIK, all OO) honor the Sabbath.  As for Sunday, the Apostles were the ones who made it the day of rest and worship.
When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practice
Au contraire, they exercised Apostolic authority, although I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by "clerical dress."
and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.
You mean, died out?
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
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2011, 02:44:00 AM »

Help me respond to this ialmsry "Is this the same word that is mentioned in Acts 19"27?....Opps!!...Nice church...."

I believe that you will find that he's actually quoted the wrong verse. It's 19:32. He seems to have failed to realise that ekklesia simply means assembly in Greek and is used in this case to refer to a civil assembly which included idol makers.

32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together. It's not referring to Christ's ekklesia.

The word "ekklesia" in itself does not explain who is meeting, but only that a group of people is to assemble. You have to rely on context to know who is meeting. Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32,39,41 to refer to a civil assembly of local townspeople in Ephesus.

In Acts 19:24-25 we see that Demetrios, a silversmith who made idols, called all who worked in that occupation for a meeting, for the purpose of discussing the problem they were having with people who were converting to Christ and abandoning their idols. Not good for business.

Verse 32 tells us "the assembly was confused." The word "assembly" is the Greek word "ekklesia", the same word that is elsewhere referring to Christ's Church.

so how can i refute him?

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.

LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.
I didn't say there was (especially since it is true).  It just has nothing to do with the point on hand:ecclesia means "Church."

It seemed that you likened the link between "church" and kuriakos to a myth. The point, I thought, was Azul's request for help with finding the EOC in the Bible. Because ekklesia can refer to a secular assembly as well as a religious one, the mere appearance of ekklesia doesn't suffice to prove what Azul wants.


George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.

The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.
You are trying to read congregationalism into where it is not (the parrallel at I Corinthians underlying that).

I try hard to avoid eisogesis. Unless ecumenical councils were regularly convened to rule on these private disputes, a decision to treat an offender as a Gentile or a tax-collector (Matthew 18:17) must've been handled at the congregational level.

If you're appealing to the parallel situation in 1 Corinthians 5, let me note that the apostle Paul was rebuking the Corinthian believers for not removing a man who had taken his father's wife. Thus, the Corinthians were guilty of disobeying our Lord's instructions in Matthew 18 by their failure to handle this excommunication at the congregational level.


Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.

You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices,

Considering it greatly important of who ordained whom over the centuries is a continuation of the Apostles' beliefs and practices, and if we do not see such a continuation, we know any congregation, church, whatever, has no connection to the Church that Christ founded.

Let's be careful not to make too much of ordinations, eventhough they're not to be disparaged. Remember Arius? Despite being an ordained presbyter, he went bad. The apostle Paul said even he himself was not to be trusted, despite his ordination, if he were to preach a false gospel (Galatians 1 : 8 ). A continuation of beliefs and practices, or a discontinuation of them, can trump an ordination.

as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah.
and offer animal sacrifices on Mount Moriah?

This son of Abraham believes and behaves faithfully like Abraham by confessing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I'll ignore your silliness about the sacrifices on Mount Moriah. I'm glad you're one of Abraham's faithful sons.

Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.
And those whom both ordained are in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, not the pastorate/rabbinate of the MJAA.

Paul's and the other apostles' ordinations took place before the split that led to the EOC and RCC. The MJAA honors the apostles by following their guidance on not forcing believing Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:17-26). That, my friend, is ancient faith and practice.

To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles,
and only the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and those in communion with them, maintain the belifes, conduct and practices advocated by the Messiah and His Apostles.
who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.
The Apostle St. Paul withstood the Apostle St. Peter on such a matter.[/quote]

The apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for separating from the Galatian believers and forcing them to live like Jews (Galatians 2:11-14), but he never complained about the Jerusalem apostles' acceptance of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:17-26).

To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.
The Church Christ founded has power from Him to bind and loose, and it not bound by any "diversity" other than that which it finds within the Faith.

The hiearchy is bound to do all in the name or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can be bound or loosed that hasn't been bound or loosed in heaven.

The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.[/color]
Since it confesses Protestantism, and not the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, there are plenty of indications would be bothered by what the MJAA does.  Inf fact, since it is not in communion with the successors of the Apostles, we know that for a fact.

The MJAA does not profess Protestantism, but follows the right teaching of the apostles, who accepted Jewish believers without telling them to abandon the Torah. Your denomination may not want anything to do with us, but we enjoy fellowship where it counts!

The successors of the apostles are overseers who have faithfully held to apostolic beliefs and practices without introducing new restrictions.


Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.[/color]
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.

That gap is taken care of by the Holy Spirit, whose work is manifest in our faith and practices. Again, I must note that ordinations aren't always decisive. I have an Episcopalian relative who brags that her clergy have a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles. But what good is that in a denomination that ordains homosexuals and lesbians?

As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs?
Because they are Protestant, and hence have no connection to St. Paul and the Hebrew Christians he was in communion with.

It's tiring to hear this repeated lie that the MJAA's members are Protestant. Granted, some members used to be Protestant, but that's merely because they came to trust in the Jewish Messiah thanks to Protestant evangelism. Maybe you've forgotten that the Antiochian Orthodox Church includes at least 2,000 members who came from the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which was started by Protestants involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant parachurch organization. But you don't call those members Protestants, do you? You should show MJAA members the same courtesy.

Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity.
Yes, a uniform adherence to Apostolic authority, the source of unity.  Not a problem, just the solution.

There you go again, this time with the word "uniform." Whenever uniformity replaces unity, division results.

Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?
Romand 14:5

Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (NKJV). It says nothing about a dispute among apostles.

Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship.
All EO (and AFAIK, all OO) honor the Sabbath.  As for Sunday, the Apostles were the ones who made it the day of rest and worship.

Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?


When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practice
Au contraire, they exercised Apostolic authority, although I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by "clerical dress."

Where in Scripture are we told, for instance, that the apostles told all their clergy to wear black?

and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.
You mean, died out?
[/quote]

No, they were killed in brotherly love.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 03:04:18 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).
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2011, 02:53:40 AM »

So, are you Jewish? Then why don't you just say you're Jewish? Why this 'Messianic' business, with a title that is clearly Christian, yet not admitting you're Christian?

All Jews believe there is a Messiah. Most 'Talmudic' or 'mainstream' Jews would say He is not here yet. Christians are those who say the Messiah has been here, and is coming back- Jesus, Who will come again with glory...

So, in a sense, the term Messianic Jew is redundant. There is already a mainstream Jewish prayer, "Ani Ma'amin," which if I remember correctly, begins, "I believe with a complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even if he tarries, I will wait for Him." What makes you different, is that you say the Messiah in your faith is the same as the Christian.

Why, then, do you verbally distance yourself from the rest of Christianity, even in a small way? Why not just call yourself a Christian?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2011, 03:27:33 AM »

So, are you Jewish? Then why don't you just say you're Jewish? Why this 'Messianic' business, with a title that is clearly Christian, yet not admitting you're Christian?

All Jews believe there is a Messiah. Most 'Talmudic' or 'mainstream' Jews would say He is not here yet. Christians are those who say the Messiah has been here, and is coming back- Jesus, Who will come again with glory...

So, in a sense, the term Messianic Jew is redundant. There is already a mainstream Jewish prayer, "Ani Ma'amin," which if I remember correctly, begins, "I believe with a complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even if he tarries, I will wait for Him." What makes you different, is that you say the Messiah in your faith is the same as the Christian.

Why, then, do you verbally distance yourself from the rest of Christianity, even in a small way? Why not just call yourself a Christian?

I have no problem with the designation "Christian." You cause a problem when you say it's impossible to be both a Christian and a Jew. That's tantamount to saying Jesus isn't the Messiah. You see, the word "Christian" denotes a follower of the Messiah. When you say people cease being Jews when they start following Jesus, a Jew familiar with the TaNaKH will recall that the TaNaKH nowhere predicted that the Messiah would start a new religion, do away with the Torah, and require His followers to quit being Jews. Such a Jew likely will decide to keep waiting for the Jewish Messiah's arrival.

Why don't you follow the apostles who told Paul, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed ..." (Acts 21:20 NKJV)? The apostles didn't teach that Jews who become Christians (followers of the Messiah) cease being Jews.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 03:42:17 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).
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2011, 03:43:53 AM »

So, you don't call yourself a Christian, even though the disciples were called that.  Roll Eyes

I do follow the Apostles. You don't.

I can show you lots of Talmudic Jews who are inclined to believe the Messiah is the Lubavitcher Rebbe. There are others who think it was Rabbi Nachman. Those are just two groups off the top of my head; I'm sure there are others.

If you believe Jesus is the Messiah, although you may be entitled to a cultural heritage, you are not a Jew, you are a Christian. Judaism is over for you. It doesn't need to be done anymore; it has been obviated.

All the rest of Christianity, about two billion people, doesn't want anything to do with this stuff. Yet you do. No other church, and there are thousands of denominations, has picked up this tendency. Nobody else in the entire long history of churches splintering off from each other decided to 'go Jewish.' Yet you have.

Why?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2011, 04:04:46 AM »

So, you don't call yourself a Christian, even though the disciples were called that.  Roll Eyes

I do follow the Apostles. You don't.

I can show you lots of Talmudic Jews who are inclined to believe the Messiah is the Lubavitcher Rebbe. There are others who think it was Rabbi Nachman. Those are just two groups off the top of my head; I'm sure there are others.

If you believe Jesus is the Messiah, although you may be entitled to a cultural heritage, you are not a Jew, you are a Christian. Judaism is over for you. It doesn't need to be done anymore; it has been obviated.

All the rest of Christianity, about two billion people, doesn't want anything to do with this stuff. Yet you do. No other church, and there are thousands of denominations, has picked up this tendency. Nobody else in the entire long history of churches splintering off from each other decided to 'go Jewish.' Yet you have.

Why?

I've never denied being a Christian (follower of the Messiah). To be sure, the apostles weren't ashamed of the name "Christian" (Acts 26:28-29; 1 Peter 4:16), but they also didn't quit calling themselves Jews (Galatians 4:13-16).

You ask why the MJAA does as it does. Have you ever noticed how the apostle Paul continued to "walk orderly and keep the law" (Acts 21:24) and how the other apostles didn't object to that?   
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).
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2011, 05:05:20 AM »

The other Apostles didn't try to convert people to Judaism.

They did object to that.

You also ignored the rest of the points. All Jews believe there will be a Messiah. The Lubavitch and Nachmanite Jews, at least some of them, say there already is one.

St. Paul was callled the Apostle to the Gentiles. Almost all so-called messianic Jews are Gentiles. That is, they come from some other heritage.

Something else they have in common: ties to fundamentalist Christian churches. Many of their churches are owned by Baptist and other evangelical subgroups.

Face it, this is just an attempt to graft themselves onto something they're not.

If the Judaizing heresy is the way to go, why didn't all the churches do it? Why does the letter to the Romans not say it? Why not the letters to the Corinthians? Paul did show compassion to those who came from a Hebrew background. Don't take his kindness for something other than what it was.

This is what happens when evangelicals try to recreate the history of the Church as if all those pesky liturgical churches that say Orthodox or Roman Catholic on the front never happened.

If you are a Christian, the work of Judaism is complete. Jesus fulfilled it.

Besides, a man is not justified by the works of the law.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2011, 10:24:20 AM »

The other Apostles didn't try to convert people to Judaism.

They did object to that.

The apostles were right not to force Gentiles to become Jews or vice versa. Likewise, the MJAA doesn't try to force Gentiles to become Jews.

You also ignored the rest of the points. All Jews believe there will be a Messiah. The Lubavitch and Nachmanite Jews, at least some of them, say there already is one.

Not all Jews believe that there will be a personal Messiah. Among the Reformed and other liberal Jews, only a Messianic or golden age is expected.

St. Paul was callled the Apostle to the Gentiles. Almost all so-called messianic Jews are Gentiles. That is, they come from some other heritage.

You're right that the apostle Paul's ministry was primarily to Gentiles. You're wrong, though, in your understanding of Jew versus Gentile.

It's easy for someone to become a Jew, especially in a liberal synagogue where a proselyte may need only to renounce Jesus and pay for a year's pew rental. Jews who reject Jesus Christ will accept converted Gentiles as Jews in good standing, but they will insist that any Jew who trusts in Jesus is no longer a Jew.

Something else they have in common: ties to fundamentalist Christian churches. Many of their churches are owned by Baptist and other evangelical subgroups.

Many Messianic Jewish congregations aren't wealthy enough to own their own building outright. My congregation, for instance, shared a church building for several years before we could afford to rent our own building. Ownership of the premises isn't nearly so important as faith in the promises. Besides, one of my town's two EO churches (the pewless one) has set up shop in a rented store building.

Face it, this is just an attempt to graft themselves onto something they're not.

Wrong! According to Romans 11, all Gentile and Jewish believers alike are grafted in to the Olive Tree. That's the graft that's important.

If the Judaizing heresy is the way to go, why didn't all the churches do it? Why does the letter to the Romans not say it? Why not the letters to the Corinthians? Paul did show compassion to those who came from a Hebrew background. Don't take his kindness for something other than what it was.

This is what happens when evangelicals try to recreate the history of the Church as if all those pesky liturgical churches that say Orthodox or Roman Catholic on the front never happened.

If you are a Christian, the work of Judaism is complete. Jesus fulfilled it.

Besides, a man is not justified by the works of the law.

Biro, you're still stuck in the all-or-nothing mindset symptomatic of uniformity instead of unity, and you're falsely accusing MJs of Judaizing. Like the apostles, we don't pressure Gentiles to become Jews. If my congregation tried to do such a thing, we wouldn't enjoy good relations with Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal churches in the area. If the MJAA tried to Judaize nationally, well-known national Christian leaders would never speak at its regional or worldwide conferences.

Of course, you're right about the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and about justification by grace through faith rather than justification by works of the law.
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).
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2011, 11:17:04 AM »

Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

For one thing, the Divine Liturgy is prescribed to be served every Sabbath.  And then there is Great and Holy Saturday before the Lord's Pascha! 

The Church has never changed the Sabbath to Sunday which is the Eighth Day, the Lord's Day, the Day of the new Creation.  Many Protestants (and even non-believers) erroneously believe that the Church changed the Sabbath, but it is simply not true.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #68 on: November 22, 2011, 12:58:17 PM »

Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

For one thing, the Divine Liturgy is prescribed to be served every Sabbath.  And then there is Great and Holy Saturday before the Lord's Pascha! 

The Church has never changed the Sabbath to Sunday which is the Eighth Day, the Lord's Day, the Day of the new Creation.  Many Protestants (and even non-believers) erroneously believe that the Church changed the Sabbath, but it is simply not true.

Thank you. Those things are good to hear.
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).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #69 on: November 23, 2011, 12:34:22 PM »

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.
LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.
I didn't say there was (especially since it is true).  It just has nothing to do with the point on hand:ecclesia means "Church."
It seemed that you likened the link between "church" and kuriakos to a myth. The point, I thought, was Azul's request for help with finding the EOC in the Bible. Because ekklesia can refer to a secular assembly as well as a religious one, the mere appearance of ekklesia doesn't suffice to prove what Azul wants.
As we pointed out, those "ecclesia" identified as such by the NT are mostly still around, still called "ecclesia" and nearly all (Rome and Malta being singular exceptions) still in the EOC, continuously so from their founding by the Apostles.

George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.
The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.
You are trying to read congregationalism into where it is not (the parrallel at I Corinthians underlying that).
I try hard to avoid eisogesis. Unless ecumenical councils were regularly convened to rule on these private disputes, a decision to treat an offender as a Gentile or a tax-collector (Matthew 18:17) must've been handled at the congregational level.
And if they belonged to two different congregations (often occuring.  I know that from experience)?  A bet din rendered judgement local judgement, but its judgement was respected by the entire rabbinate.  So too the inferior courts of the Sanhedrin had the authority of the Sanhedrin.  

So too the local parish priest of today, who is not ignorant of the source of his authority (and those who are are often quickly corrected). We are talking about a global institution acting locally, not a local institution acting on its own.

If you're appealing to the parallel situation in 1 Corinthians 5, let me note that the apostle Paul was rebuking the Corinthian believers for not removing a man who had taken his father's wife. Thus, the Corinthians were guilty of disobeying our Lord's instructions in Matthew 18 by their failure to handle this excommunication at the congregational level.
No, I was refering to 6:1-5: this "ecclesia" has a cosmic jurisdiction to judge angels.  Not a parochial local congregation.

Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.
You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices,
Considering it greatly important of who ordained whom over the centuries is a continuation of the Apostles' beliefs and practices, and if we do not see such a continuation, we know any congregation, church, whatever, has no connection to the Church that Christ founded.
Let's be careful not to make too much of ordinations, eventhough they're not to be disparaged. Remember Arius? Despite being an ordained presbyter, he went bad. The apostle Paul said even he himself was not to be trusted, despite his ordination, if he were to preach a false gospel (Galatians 1 : 8 ). A continuation of beliefs and practices, or a discontinuation of them, can trump an ordination.
A discontinuation can trump an ordination: Judas was the first case, and, as the Church said in accord with prophecy "Let his bishoprick another take." Acts 1:20.

Arius was a priest, not a bishop, and was disposed of by the episcopate.

It is not possible to make too much of consecrations to the episcopate:without it, there is no Church.  And the Church has proved herself more than capable to remove the unworthy recipients, and raise up worthy successors.

No bishop, no Church.  There can be no continuation of Apostolic belief nor practice without him.  Hence "a continuation of beliefs and practices" "trumping an ordination" is an oxymoron.

as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah.
and offer animal sacrifices on Mount Moriah?
This son of Abraham believes and behaves faithfully like Abraham by confessing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I'll ignore your silliness about the sacrifices on Mount Moriah. I'm glad you're one of Abraham's faithful sons.
No silliness at all.  The sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah sacrificed on Mt. Moriah, as Father Abraham did, until the coming of the Christ, when believing and behaving like Abraham and Sarah meant to abandon the shadow the sacrifices on Mt. Moriah for the reality of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was the continuation of the beliefs and practices of Father Abraham and Mother Sarah, not the continuation of the offering the blood of bulls and lambs.

What beliefs and practices do you have in mind that must be continued?

Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.
And those whom both ordained are in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, not the pastorate/rabbinate of the MJAA.
Paul's and the other apostles' ordinations took place before the split that led to the EOC and RCC. The MJAA honors the apostles by following their guidance on not forcing believing Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:17-26). That, my friend, is ancient faith and practice.
So is sacrificing children to Moloch.  Some "ol' time religions" should die out.

No split "led to the EOC": Christ sent the Holy Spirit down upon the disciples, and He made them the Apostles of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one you are refering to as the "EOC."  Hence the first order of business in honoring the Apostles is following the guidance of those whom they consecrated as their successors, who appear in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

As said bishops do not forsake the Penteteuch, they do not require Jews to forsake the Torah.  Just to stop reading the New Testament with the veil of the Old Testament, but read the Old Testament with the light of the New Testament. II Cor. 3.

To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles,
and only the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and those in communion with them, maintain the belifes, conduct and practices advocated by the Messiah and His Apostles.
who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.
The Apostle St. Paul withstood the Apostle St. Peter on such a matter.
The apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for separating from the Galatian believers and forcing them to live like Jews (Galatians 2:11-14), but he never complained about the Jerusalem apostles' acceptance of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:17-26).
Only if they removed the veil of Moses.  The Protestant reformation, like the Jewish reparing the veil in the Temple torn in two, has put up the veil of Moses once again.

To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.
The Church Christ founded has power from Him to bind and loose, and it not bound by any "diversity" other than that which it finds within the Faith.
The hiearchy is bound to do all in the name or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can be bound or loosed that hasn't been bound or loosed in heaven.
"When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law...When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men"

The hierarchy of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church still teaches with His authority.

The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.
Since it confesses Protestantism, and not the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, there are plenty of indications would be bothered by what the MJAA does.  Inf fact, since it is not in communion with the successors of the Apostles, we know that for a fact.
The MJAA does not profess Protestantism, but follows the right teaching of the apostles, who accepted Jewish believers without telling them to abandon the Torah. Your denomination may not want anything to do with us, but we enjoy fellowship where it counts!
"Not everyone who calls out to Me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven."

I don't have a denomination.  I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Those who do not enjoy her fellowship do not count, as they do not do the will of the Father to join themselves to His Son's Body, the Church.

The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary.

The successors of the apostles are overseers who have faithfully held to apostolic beliefs and practices without introducing new restrictions.
The successors of the apostles are those upon whom they transmitted the gift of God through the laying on of their hands (semicha) (I Tim. 4:14, II Tim. 1:6) , the faithful men to whom they committed the teachings to teach others (II Tim. 2:2), who have full authority to bind and loosen (Math. 18:18), to encourage and rebuke with authority letting none dispise their authority (Tit 2:15) which the Lord gave them for edification (II Cor. 10:8 ).

They are not succeeded by those who take this honor upon themselves (Heb. 5:4).

Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.
That gap is taken care of by the Holy Spirit, whose work is manifest in our faith and practices. Again, I must note that ordinations aren't always decisive. I have an Episcopalian relative who brags that her clergy have a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles. But what good is that in a denomination that ordains homosexuals and lesbians?
Since we have not found that that denomination can ordain heterosexual or celibate men, let alone anyone or anything else, you will have to take your question up with them.

Lack of consecrations and ordinations is always determinative.

Montanus, Mani, Muhammad, the Mormons...many claim that the Spirit fills that obvious gap.  But God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), so those who make such claims while denying the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded, the Apostles spread, and their successors, the bishops of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church have preserved whole, it is obvious such claims are hot air rather than the Holy Spirit.

As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs?
Because they are Protestant, and hence have no connection to St. Paul and the Hebrew Christians he was in communion with.
It's tiring to hear this repeated lie that the MJAA's members are Protestant. Granted, some members used to be Protestant, but that's merely because they came to trust in the Jewish Messiah thanks to Protestant evangelism. Maybe you've forgotten that the Antiochian Orthodox Church includes at least 2,000 members who came from the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which was started by Protestants involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant parachurch organization. But you don't call those members Protestants, do you? You should show MJAA members the same courtesy.
Why would I call them Protestant now?  They renounced their Protestantism, so their is no reason to remember it (or that of thousands of others who have been received by Orthodoxy).  They submitted to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and were anointed with the Apostolic chrism.  If MJAA members showed the same repentance, and were similiarly received, they would be entitled to the same "courtesy."

As long as they persist in their Protestanism, I will call them what they are: Protestants.

Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity.
Yes, a uniform adherence to Apostolic authority, the source of unity.  Not a problem, just the solution.
There you go again, this time with the word "uniform." Whenever uniformity replaces unity, division results.
The Zealots, Bar Kochba, and the 12th "Blessing" of the Amida did that.  And the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had nothing to do with that except in reaction.

Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?
Romand 14:5
Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (NKJV). It says nothing about a dispute among apostles.
Their is no distinction between the Apostles and the Apostolic  community. That is why schism from the latter cuts one off from the former.  St. Paul is talking within that community.

Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship.
All EO (and AFAIK, all OO) honor the Sabbath.  As for Sunday, the Apostles were the ones who made it the day of rest and worship.
Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
This has already been answered, but Acts 20:7  

When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practice
Au contraire, they exercised Apostolic authority, although I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by "clerical dress."
Where in Scripture are we told, for instance, that the apostles told all their clergy to wear black?
Where in Scripture are we told that the Apostles told all their clergy to follow sola scriptura?

I don't know where it says in the Sacred canons that all clergy wear black.  Or delineates all the vestments for that matter.

The hierarchy has authority to do such things.

and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.
You mean, died out?
No, they were killed in brotherly love.
No, the Romans were not yet brothers, and it was the Romans which destroyed Rome and crushed Bar Kokhba, scattering the Hebrew Church in the process.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 12:37:37 PM by ialmisry » 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
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2011, 06:40:06 AM »

Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.
LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.
LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.
I didn't say there was (especially since it is true).  It just has nothing to do with the point on hand:ecclesia means "Church."
It seemed that you likened the link between "church" and kuriakos to a myth. The point, I thought, was Azul's request for help with finding the EOC in the Bible. Because ekklesia can refer to a secular assembly as well as a religious one, the mere appearance of ekklesia doesn't suffice to prove what Azul wants.
As we pointed out, those "ecclesia" identified as such by the NT are mostly still around, still called "ecclesia" and nearly all (Rome and Malta being singular exceptions) still in the EOC, continuously so from their founding by the Apostles.

George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:

"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word  'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis.  When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.
The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.
You are trying to read congregationalism into where it is not (the parrallel at I Corinthians underlying that).
I try hard to avoid eisogesis. Unless ecumenical councils were regularly convened to rule on these private disputes, a decision to treat an offender as a Gentile or a tax-collector (Matthew 18:17) must've been handled at the congregational level.
And if they belonged to two different congregations (often occuring.  I know that from experience)?  A bet din rendered judgement local judgement, but its judgement was respected by the entire rabbinate.  So too the inferior courts of the Sanhedrin had the authority of the Sanhedrin.  

So too the local parish priest of today, who is not ignorant of the source of his authority (and those who are are often quickly corrected). We are talking about a global institution acting locally, not a local institution acting on its own.

If you're appealing to the parallel situation in 1 Corinthians 5, let me note that the apostle Paul was rebuking the Corinthian believers for not removing a man who had taken his father's wife. Thus, the Corinthians were guilty of disobeying our Lord's instructions in Matthew 18 by their failure to handle this excommunication at the congregational level.
No, I was refering to 6:1-5: this "ecclesia" has a cosmic jurisdiction to judge angels.  Not a parochial local congregation.

Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running.  For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.

In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names).  We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven).  Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew).  Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles.  The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps.  The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.

Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther?  That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel.  And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.

Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.
You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices,
Considering it greatly important of who ordained whom over the centuries is a continuation of the Apostles' beliefs and practices, and if we do not see such a continuation, we know any congregation, church, whatever, has no connection to the Church that Christ founded.
Let's be careful not to make too much of ordinations, eventhough they're not to be disparaged. Remember Arius? Despite being an ordained presbyter, he went bad. The apostle Paul said even he himself was not to be trusted, despite his ordination, if he were to preach a false gospel (Galatians 1 : 8 ). A continuation of beliefs and practices, or a discontinuation of them, can trump an ordination.
A discontinuation can trump an ordination: Judas was the first case, and, as the Church said in accord with prophecy "Let his bishoprick another take." Acts 1:20.

Arius was a priest, not a bishop, and was disposed of by the episcopate.

It is not possible to make too much of consecrations to the episcopate:without it, there is no Church.  And the Church has proved herself more than capable to remove the unworthy recipients, and raise up worthy successors.

No bishop, no Church.  There can be no continuation of Apostolic belief nor practice without him.  Hence "a continuation of beliefs and practices" "trumping an ordination" is an oxymoron.

as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah.
and offer animal sacrifices on Mount Moriah?
This son of Abraham believes and behaves faithfully like Abraham by confessing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I'll ignore your silliness about the sacrifices on Mount Moriah. I'm glad you're one of Abraham's faithful sons.
No silliness at all.  The sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah sacrificed on Mt. Moriah, as Father Abraham did, until the coming of the Christ, when believing and behaving like Abraham and Sarah meant to abandon the shadow the sacrifices on Mt. Moriah for the reality of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was the continuation of the beliefs and practices of Father Abraham and Mother Sarah, not the continuation of the offering the blood of bulls and lambs.

What beliefs and practices do you have in mind that must be continued?

Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.
And those whom both ordained are in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, not the pastorate/rabbinate of the MJAA.
Paul's and the other apostles' ordinations took place before the split that led to the EOC and RCC. The MJAA honors the apostles by following their guidance on not forcing believing Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:17-26). That, my friend, is ancient faith and practice.
So is sacrificing children to Moloch.  Some "ol' time religions" should die out.

No split "led to the EOC": Christ sent the Holy Spirit down upon the disciples, and He made them the Apostles of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one you are refering to as the "EOC."  Hence the first order of business in honoring the Apostles is following the guidance of those whom they consecrated as their successors, who appear in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

As said bishops do not forsake the Penteteuch, they do not require Jews to forsake the Torah.  Just to stop reading the New Testament with the veil of the Old Testament, but read the Old Testament with the light of the New Testament. II Cor. 3.

To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles,
and only the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and those in communion with them, maintain the belifes, conduct and practices advocated by the Messiah and His Apostles.
who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.
The Apostle St. Paul withstood the Apostle St. Peter on such a matter.
The apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for separating from the Galatian believers and forcing them to live like Jews (Galatians 2:11-14), but he never complained about the Jerusalem apostles' acceptance of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:17-26).
Only if they removed the veil of Moses.  The Protestant reformation, like the Jewish reparing the veil in the Temple torn in two, has put up the veil of Moses once again.

To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.
The Church Christ founded has power from Him to bind and loose, and it not bound by any "diversity" other than that which it finds within the Faith.
The hiearchy is bound to do all in the name or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can be bound or loosed that hasn't been bound or loosed in heaven.
"When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law...When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men"

The hierarchy of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church still teaches with His authority.

The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.
Since it confesses Protestantism, and not the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, there are plenty of indications would be bothered by what the MJAA does.  Inf fact, since it is not in communion with the successors of the Apostles, we know that for a fact.
The MJAA does not profess Protestantism, but follows the right teaching of the apostles, who accepted Jewish believers without telling them to abandon the Torah. Your denomination may not want anything to do with us, but we enjoy fellowship where it counts!
"Not everyone who calls out to Me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven."

I don't have a denomination.  I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Those who do not enjoy her fellowship do not count, as they do not do the will of the Father to join themselves to His Son's Body, the Church.

The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary.

The successors of the apostles are overseers who have faithfully held to apostolic beliefs and practices without introducing new restrictions.
The successors of the apostles are those upon whom they transmitted the gift of God through the laying on of their hands (semicha) (I Tim. 4:14, II Tim. 1:6) , the faithful men to whom they committed the teachings to teach others (II Tim. 2:2), who have full authority to bind and loosen (Math. 18:18), to encourage and rebuke with authority letting none dispise their authority (Tit 2:15) which the Lord gave them for edification (II Cor. 10:8 ).

They are not succeeded by those who take this honor upon themselves (Heb. 5:4).

Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.
One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches.  And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.

The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.
That gap is taken care of by the Holy Spirit, whose work is manifest in our faith and practices. Again, I must note that ordinations aren't always decisive. I have an Episcopalian relative who brags that her clergy have a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles. But what good is that in a denomination that ordains homosexuals and lesbians?
Since we have not found that that denomination can ordain heterosexual or celibate men, let alone anyone or anything else, you will have to take your question up with them.

Lack of consecrations and ordinations is always determinative.

Montanus, Mani, Muhammad, the Mormons...many claim that the Spirit fills that obvious gap.  But God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), so those who make such claims while denying the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded, the Apostles spread, and their successors, the bishops of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church have preserved whole, it is obvious such claims are hot air rather than the Holy Spirit.

As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs?
Because they are Protestant, and hence have no connection to St. Paul and the Hebrew Christians he was in communion with.
It's tiring to hear this repeated lie that the MJAA's members are Protestant. Granted, some members used to be Protestant, but that's merely because they came to trust in the Jewish Messiah thanks to Protestant evangelism. Maybe you've forgotten that the Antiochian Orthodox Church includes at least 2,000 members who came from the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which was started by Protestants involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant parachurch organization. But you don't call those members Protestants, do you? You should show MJAA members the same courtesy.
Why would I call them Protestant now?  They renounced their Protestantism, so their is no reason to remember it (or that of thousands of others who have been received by Orthodoxy).  They submitted to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and were anointed with the Apostolic chrism.  If MJAA members showed the same repentance, and were similiarly received, they would be entitled to the same "courtesy."

As long as they persist in their Protestanism, I will call them what they are: Protestants.

Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity.
Yes, a uniform adherence to Apostolic authority, the source of unity.  Not a problem, just the solution.
There you go again, this time with the word "uniform." Whenever uniformity replaces unity, division results.
The Zealots, Bar Kochba, and the 12th "Blessing" of the Amida did that.  And the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had nothing to do with that except in reaction.

Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?
Romand 14:5
Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (NKJV). It says nothing about a dispute among apostles.
Their is no distinction between the Apostles and the Apostolic  community. That is why schism from the latter cuts one off from the former.  St. Paul is talking within that community.

Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship.
All EO (and AFAIK, all OO) honor the Sabbath.  As for Sunday, the Apostles were the ones who made it the day of rest and worship.
Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
This has already been answered, but Acts 20:7  

When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practice
Au contraire, they exercised Apostolic authority, although I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by "clerical dress."
Where in Scripture are we told, for instance, that the apostles told all their clergy to wear black?
Where in Scripture are we told that the Apostles told all their clergy to follow sola scriptura?

I don't know where it says in the Sacred canons that all clergy wear black.  Or delineates all the vestments for that matter.

The hierarchy has authority to do such things.

and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.
You mean, died out?
No, they were killed in brotherly love.
No, the Romans were not yet brothers, and it was the Romans which destroyed Rome and crushed Bar Kokhba, scattering the Hebrew Church in the process.

Ialmisry, I see no reason to continue this conversation while you keep falsely accusing the MJAA and its members of being Protestants and Judaizers and while you absurdly charge Protestantism with having Judaizing tendencies.

Quote
The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary (Ialmisry).
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).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2011, 11:47:09 AM »

The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary.
Ialmisry, I see no reason to continue this conversation while you keep falsely accusing the MJAA and its members of being Protestants and Judaizers and while you absurdly charge Protestantism with having Judaizing tendencies.
That is easy enough to fix: which, if any, of the five solas do you (the MJAA) reject?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas
What bishop with Apostolic succession ordains your rabbis?

Otherwise, guilty as charged.

Protestantism's Judaizing tendencies are a matter of fact, leading in the extreme case to the "Gentiles for Judaism" B'nei Noach and Noachides/Noahidism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachides#Modern_movement
But they all share it by accepting their OT Testament from the Jews (i.e. the Masoretic text) walking in the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, over the text transmitted by the Apostles and their successors (LXX); their acceptance of Talmud in their eisogesis; and their reading the NT wearing the veil of the OT (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists).
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
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2011, 02:18:21 PM »

Mathetes you know what's funny. Mr. Ialmisry makes claims that the MJAA an Protestants are Judaizers but he forgets is every sunday he walks into his Church he's a Judaizer. Mathetes see Ialmisry is what you call a self-hating Jew.

Ialmisry can go to the top of a Mt scream to his blue in the face horse voiced an tell the whole world he's not one but in the end he's still ..... you know  Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2011, 02:53:15 PM »

Mathetes you know what's funny. Mr. Ialmisry makes claims that the MJAA an
btw, it's and
Protestants are Judaizers but he forgets is every sunday he walks into his Church he's a Judaizer.

I know I'm going to regret asking, knowing that the answer no doubt will be more obsure than the original statement, but what are you talking about here? Never heard of Sunday Church being "Judaizing."

Mathetes see Ialmisry is what you call a self-hating Jew.

You can call me anything you like, no matter how out of touch with reality.

Ialmisry can go to the top of a Mt

actually no, as I don't climb mountains. Though, Lord willing, I'll make an exception for Mt. Sinai.

scream to his blue in the face horse voiced and tell the whole world he's not one but in the end he's still ..... you know  Wink
well, I don't put any stock in what your rabbis have to say about the OT, God, or "who is a jew" (except when it comes to those who accept their authority).
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
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2011, 03:26:43 PM »

Mathetes you know what's funny. Mr. Ialmisry makes claims that the MJAA an
btw, it's and
Protestants are Judaizers but he forgets is every sunday he walks into his Church he's a Judaizer.

I know I'm going to regret asking, knowing that the answer no doubt will be more obsure than the original statement, but what are you talking about here? Never heard of Sunday Church being "Judaizing."

Mathetes see Ialmisry is what you call a self-hating Jew.

You can call me anything you like, no matter how out of touch with reality.

Ialmisry can go to the top of a Mt

actually no, as I don't climb mountains. Though, Lord willing, I'll make an exception for Mt. Sinai.

scream to his blue in the face horse voiced and tell the whole world he's not one but in the end he's still ..... you know  Wink
well, I don't put any stock in what your rabbis have to say about the OT, God, or "who is a jew" (except when it comes to those who accept their authority).
What I got from other posters in here is you told some here or let it out of the bag that your mother was of Jewish decent. If that is true then what you are saying an talking is self-hated an you should seek help for that IMHO. Not only are you talking smack on yourself but that is in your dna, blood, geno of you that makes you well you. So no matter where you go touch or use you are making it Jewish. Now only someone who is not of a sound mind would hate them self don't you think   

So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #75 on: November 24, 2011, 04:31:27 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #76 on: November 24, 2011, 04:31:59 PM »

Mathetes you know what's funny. Mr. Ialmisry makes claims that the MJAA an
btw, it's and
Protestants are Judaizers but he forgets is every sunday he walks into his Church he's a Judaizer.

I know I'm going to regret asking, knowing that the answer no doubt will be more obsure than the original statement, but what are you talking about here? Never heard of Sunday Church being "Judaizing."

Mathetes see Ialmisry is what you call a self-hating Jew.

You can call me anything you like, no matter how out of touch with reality.

Ialmisry can go to the top of a Mt

actually no, as I don't climb mountains. Though, Lord willing, I'll make an exception for Mt. Sinai.

scream to his blue in the face horse voiced and tell the whole world he's not one but in the end he's still ..... you know  Wink
well, I don't put any stock in what your rabbis have to say about the OT, God, or "who is a jew" (except when it comes to those who accept their authority).
What I got from other posters in here is you told some here or let it out of the bag that your mother was of Jewish decent.
Out of the bag? Nothing out of the bag.  It's no secret.  Around Christians I have no problem not talking about it.  I tend not to around Jews, to avoid silly conversations like
If that is true then what you are saying an talking is self-hated an you should seek help for that IMHO. Not only are you talking smack on yourself but that is in your dna, blood, geno of you that makes you well you. So no matter where you go touch or use you are making it Jewish.
LOL. Hebrew, you mean?  Didn't make my ex wife a Jewess, or even Hebrew.

Does it work on bacon?  If I touch bacon, will it become Kosher?  If I touch gentile man, will part of him fall off?   Shocked. Would I have to touch the area in question, or would a handshake do it?

The waters of baptism always trumps what blood flows in the veins. Always has, always will.  We have someone here born a Jew (in every sense of the word, and IIRC 100% Jewish ancestry):we are therefore distant relatives, but more importantly baptism makes us immediate brothers.

Now only someone who is not of a sound mind would hate them self don't you think
 
yes, but you are barking up the wrong tree.  I don't hate being a claimed Jew; I hate not being a better Christian.

Zoroastrian Parsis, Muslims and phyletists of all stripes make the same, unsubstantiated, argument.  Biology is not destiny.  Existentialism has demonstrated that.

So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir
So if I go into Church on Sunday, it makes it a synagogue, and Saturday. I had more power than I realized.
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
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #77 on: November 24, 2011, 07:38:11 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people 
Logged
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2011, 07:41:37 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people 

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2011, 08:09:06 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people  

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
lol okay whatever you say. so I guess you adding feast adding the new testament adding sunday as the day of rest adding 25th of dec. adding the trinity thats not in the O.T or N.T wouldn't be you all trying to paganize the Jewish religion would it   NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE HERE JUST SHOWING HOW A SIMPLE WORD CAN OFFEND
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 08:11:50 PM by jewish voice » Logged
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2011, 08:17:03 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people 

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
lol okay whatever you say. so I guess you adding feast adding the new testament adding sunday as the day of rest adding 25th of dec. adding the trinity thats not in the O.T or N.T wouldn't be you all trying to paganize the Jewish religion would it 

Man of our Feasts are the fulfillment of the OT Feasts (e.g. Pascha for Passover, Transfiguration for Booth etc.) and of course the NT is the fullfillment of the OT which can only be properly interpreted in the light of Christ.  And Sunday is a day not of rest but rather the day of Resurrection.  Saturday as a day of rest was fullfilled when Christ rested and trampled down death by death on Holy Saturday.

All that being said, even if your claim was true, it does not fit the definition of paganization of Judaizim.
Logged
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2011, 08:27:03 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people 

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
lol okay whatever you say. so I guess you adding feast adding the new testament adding sunday as the day of rest adding 25th of dec. adding the trinity thats not in the O.T or N.T wouldn't be you all trying to paganize the Jewish religion would it 

Man of our Feasts are the fulfillment of the OT Feasts (e.g. Pascha for Passover, Transfiguration for Booth etc.) and of course the NT is the fullfillment of the OT which can only be properly interpreted in the light of Christ.  And Sunday is a day not of rest but rather the day of Resurrection.  Saturday as a day of rest was fullfilled when Christ rested and trampled down death by death on Holy Saturday.

All that being said, even if your claim was true, it does not fit the definition of paganization of Judaizim.
That would all depend on what side of the line your standing on  so to speak
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2011, 10:15:15 PM »

The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary.
Ialmisry, I see no reason to continue this conversation while you keep falsely accusing the MJAA and its members of being Protestants and Judaizers and while you absurdly charge Protestantism with having Judaizing tendencies.
That is easy enough to fix: which, if any, of the five solas do you (the MJAA) reject?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas
What bishop with Apostolic succession ordains your rabbis?

Otherwise, guilty as charged.

Protestantism's Judaizing tendencies are a matter of fact, leading in the extreme case to the "Gentiles for Judaism" B'nei Noach and Noachides/Noahidism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachides#Modern_movement
But they all share it by accepting their OT Testament from the Jews (i.e. the Masoretic text) walking in the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, over the text transmitted by the Apostles and their successors (LXX); their acceptance of Talmud in their eisogesis; and their reading the NT wearing the veil of the OT (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists).

Ialmisry, I'm replying against my better judgment.

I've not thought of these solas for years, nor have I used them to analyze my faith and life. I don't rule out the possibility of extra-biblical revelation, but I won't accept a new teaching that contradicts the Bible.

Salvation seems to be by grace through faith; however, there is an unequal synergy, as where the Messiah does the work while we submit to his light yoke. We are justified, not by faith alone, but by faith and by works of faith (James 2). Justification takes place more than once in a person's life. Abraham, for instance, was justified for believing God's promises (Genesis 15) and later for being willing to offer up Isaac (Genesis 22). Neither justification was based on faith alone, because Abraham had already done a great work of faith by moving to the Promised Land. There's a future justification before glorification (Matthew 12:36-37; Romans 8:30).

While I believe that salvation is through Christ and that glory belongs totally to God, I hesitate to use those two solas lest people wrongly think I'm Calvinistic.

I've heard of the Noahide Laws, and we've schmoozed about them at my synagogue. When it comes to the salvation of Jews and Gentiles, however, I stick to what's written in the B'rit Chadashah or New Covenant Scriptures. The Messianic Judaism of which I'm a part is a Biblical Judaism.

Let me emphasize that I don't Judaize. Search my posts, and you won't find me ever telling other participants to change their style of worship.
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).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2011, 10:24:57 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people  

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
lol okay whatever you say.
No, what the Church says.

so I guess you adding feast adding the new testament adding sunday as the day of rest adding 25th of dec. adding the trinity thats not in the O.T or N.T wouldn't be you all trying to paganize the Jewish religion would it   NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE HERE JUST SHOWING HOW A SIMPLE WORD CAN OFFEND
We read the OT in the Light of the NT, not the reverse.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,604



« Reply #84 on: November 24, 2011, 10:26:37 PM »

Quote
So back to my point on every time you walk into a church an you being of Jewish decent your a Judaizer. So you should watch how you throw this word around sir

You obviously don't know what the word Judaizer means. It means to introduce pre-Christian Jewish customs and practices into Christian worship and devotion, such as circumcision, keeping kosher, etc, and insisting these OT practices are necessary for Christians. It has nothing to do with a person's ancestry. The matter of Judaizing was sorted out by the Apostles themselves 2000 years ago. It's all there in Acts.
I know what the word means I'm a Jew not my first day on earth but I'm guessing you would get offended if I kept telling you all you an your kind do is paganize my religion. Out of respect I don't go around throwing out the word pagan to you. I hope you can see how such a simple word can be used in a derogatory way to offend someone or a group of people 

With respect, your use of the word in this thread illustrates that you do not know what it means.
lol okay whatever you say. so I guess you adding feast adding the new testament adding sunday as the day of rest adding 25th of dec. adding the trinity thats not in the O.T or N.T wouldn't be you all trying to paganize the Jewish religion would it 

Man of our Feasts are the fulfillment of the OT Feasts (e.g. Pascha for Passover, Transfiguration for Booth etc.) and of course the NT is the fullfillment of the OT which can only be properly interpreted in the light of Christ.  And Sunday is a day not of rest but rather the day of Resurrection.  Saturday as a day of rest was fullfilled when Christ rested and trampled down death by death on Holy Saturday.

All that being said, even if your claim was true, it does not fit the definition of paganization of Judaizim.
That would all depend on what side of the line your standing on  so to speak
And we stand on the right side, hence Ortho-dox.
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
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,144



« Reply #85 on: November 07, 2013, 04:28:23 AM »

I wonder if the friend converted.
Logged

Therefore prepare yourself and arise, and speak to them all that I command you. Do not be dismayed before their faces, Lest I dismay you before them.  For behold, I have made you this day a fortified city and an iron pillar, and bronze walls against the whole land...
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.384 seconds with 69 queries.