|
|
Post by jimmie on May 23, 2022 5:41:43 GMT -8
[quote author=" alon" source="/post/27308/thread" timestamp="1652983214So To my knowledge Clement the 1st never mentions one singular Bishop of Rome/Pope. Neither of course does the Bible say Peter held that office, nor even mention the existence of that office. In fact, other than church tradition and questionable 'history' there is no record Peter ever went to Rome! [/quote] Timotheus, was the first ordained bishop of the church of the Ephesians. Only seems reasonable that Rome had a bishop also. Not in the since of a Pope though. There were to be bishops/elders in every church not just one. Any church that only has one bishop/elder should ordain another ASAP. Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 23, 2022 7:51:04 GMT -8
I like the Hebrew4 Christians website, because it's pretty helpful for memorizing verses in Hebrew, as well as for learning Hebrew. The kind of associations that it makes between Hebrew words and phrases is helpful for the mind to make associations and memorize. But the site has an unrealistic Paleo Language theory. It's true that Hebrew letters are based on pictures, but the website has this detailed theory about how the Hebrew vocabulary itself is based on the meaning of pictures. But this theory can only be true on rare occasion, rather than as a rule, since the Hebrew alphabet is phonetic. Being phonetic does not preclude the alphabet being based on ancient pictographs. I don’t know about the Hebrew 4 Christians site (I’m familiar with it, but seldom go there). However I have scholarly reference books tracing the development of the Hebrew language, and it would appear it did originally consist of pictographs. Furthermore understanding these (more like being able to look them up) very often helps my understanding of terms and phrases. Those books also contain pictures of engravings i showing the letters as originally used.
Right. Originally the Hebrew/Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet was pictographic like Egyptian and Sumerian originally were. As a result, there are words like Hah (meaning Behold) that match the pictographs in meaning (at an early stage, the letter Hah looked like a person with arms upraised, saying to behold). However, the Hebrew alphabet became phonetic, so that Hebrew words are typically made of strings of letters, not one. And these strings can be long, like 8 letters long. And relating the combination of letters in these words does not look feasible. I tried to work with different examples, and some didn't work. To give an analogy, the writing of the word "at" in English comes from Aleph (ox, strength) and tau (mark, sign). But "At" in English doesn't mean strong mark. The same kind of problem comes up in Hebrew. When you just deal with two or three Hebrew letters in a Hebrew word, you can make it work sometimes, but the more letters in a word, the harder and more unrealistic it becomes, as I found out. MJ believes in salvation by grace through faith alone. Obedience is just a natural outward sign once one is saved. We obey because we love God and want to please Him, not so we can be saved. This too is a difference i Judaism- they believe the Messianic Kingdom will be ushered in by their obeying the mitzvoth. Shoot-fire, I think it is possible that just as in the days of Noah Yeshua will return because He is tired of everyone NOT being obedient! I wonder if this is true of MJs as a rule, because being  Observant doesn't entail following the Lutheran "5 Solas" dogma, one of which is "salvation by grace alone through faith alone", which I think you are referring to. Judaism, the EOs, and RCs don't teach 5 Solas type theology. I'm not sure about Anglicanism/Methodists. Paul and James had a discussion on this topic coming at it from opposite POVs. James wrote in his epistle, (James 2:24) “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Paul on the other hand, emphasized faith compared to works. However, Paul didn't put it in exactly Luther's formula. Luther's "Sola Fide" is rather Luther's own modern "take" on Paul that almost all Protestants adopted and then reinterpreted as being original because they believed that it was true. I would imagine that a modern MJ Nazarene revival observant movement should pick James' and the EOs' stance on this issue, that is, the stance of James. However, MJs probably Protestant influence, so they might in practice follow Luther's stance on this issue. "From an MJ POV, if the Temple was still intact, would Yeshua's sacrifice annul or overcome the role of ritual Yom Kippur atonement sacrifices that prefigured Yeshua's sacrifice? It sounds like a hypothetical question, but in the 1st century, Yeshua's post-Resurrection apostles and the Temple were around together for about 35 years. Plus, the answer can throw light on the relationship of Yeshua's teaching to observance, as the Yom Kippur ritual was one of the important rituals." In Ezekiel’s famous vision of the Millineal Temple: Ezekiel 44:27-29 And on the day that he goes into the Holy Place, into the inner court, to minister in the Holy Place, he shall offer his sin offering, declares the Lord God. “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession. They shall eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs. One explanation I've heard is that the Temple in Ezekiel refers to Christ or the Church/Assembly. In that case, the sin offering in the passage could be related to the Eucharist and Christi's sacrifice. Certainly Christianity sees the sin offering in as prefiguring Christ and the Eucharist. Paul made offerings in the Temple after the death of Yeshua: Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. When he did this it was in connection with the Nazarene vow. The church teaches it was a monetary “offering.” If he’d have done that they would have killed him on the spot! One did not mess around in the Temple, which was still under Jewish control; and they followed what the law prescribed- and the Nazarene vow required animal sacrifices: Numbers 6:13-14 “And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and he shall bring his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering, I take it that, as you asserted, this story related to the Nazirite vow animal sacrifice, not the Yom Kippur one. Yes, I grew up hearing those stories. Religion tends to draw the dogmatic and abusive ti itself. The RC’s aren’t the only ones, but their Nuns were infamous, for sure! I often wondered though just how much those stories were embellished to impress us Prods. I think that the stories are true, but can misconstrue the situation. One issue is how many schools were like that, how many kids had that experience. When I ask older Catholic men, some of them say that the nuns in their case were bad, and give stories. Others said that the nuns were fine in their school, or even very nice and caring. One Catholic from the northern Appalachian range coal region said that he broke his arm in an especially bad way, the doctors said that he would be handicapped permamently, but an Italian lady had a special home remedy with wrapping and hot water, and the nuns at his school helped his arm heal too. He said that he never experienced physical discipline and can't associate his own experience with what other people say about Catholic or Public schools at that time (1940-50's). But another man told me that in his school in NJ in the 50's a nun slammed his head onto his desk in first grade. So there have been tons of public schools nationwide that were abusive to actually good children, and there were Catholic schools that were nice, safe, and mild. So one issue is how common schools were like that. The Catholic Church is huge and has lots of "orders" the Franciscans have a reputation for being nice, peaceful, pacifistic. There are pictures of St Francis holding animals he cared for. On the other end, the Knights Templar were a military monastic order, which was unusual for Christianity in that it was both monastic and military. A second issue is that with Catholic schools, there could be an aspect of the situation that makes it feel more repressive or exceptional compared to public school, such as religion classes, school uniforms, having monastics teach classes, going to church services as part of school, as well as Catholicism being a minority religion. In contrast, you might know that all your "regular" "friends" go to public schools and don't have to wear uniforms. However, all of these "atmospheric" or "situational" factors can be illusionary in making it feel much worse than it might be. I knew an older man who went to Public school in the same coal region area as the man I mentioned above with the broken arm, and he told me that in public elementary school, a public school teacher slammed his head on the desk. Then there are regional, economic, and racial factors, and they are real factors, but I would be careful generalizing about those things. NJ was much better off economically than the coal region I told you about, but the Catholic school there sounded much worse. There are teachers in public schools who enjoy beating children, and other teachers who quit their jobs to leave schools that do that. So much can depend on the individual teacher. One of the special RC problems has been the celibate clergy rule, which I believe feeds over unintentionally to predation, but most Catholics didn't get preyed on as kids. I went to Evangelical school for 3 months when I was 12. I agreed with their theology at the time, but they were hostile enough to Catholics that it was a turn off. The teachers were not mean to me, but there was too much negativity. They talked about RCs like they were drug dealers. I went to the Catholic school the next year and liked it more because the teachers were nice. They weren't hostile to me even though I was Protestant. Besides me, a few other Prots (a couple Episcopalians) went to the Catholic parochial school. I think that the Reformation opened up more free thinking for Western Europe in general, but it doesn't mean that internally Protestant societies were "free thinking". There was a 16th century French Catholic writer who was excited and enamored by ex-Jesuit Calvin's creation of a Protestant society in Switzerland led by "elders" instead of bishops. The writer immigrated to Geneva, but was horrified by how repressive Calvin's society was. Calvin ran it like a dictator and repressed those who objected to the theocracy. The French writer was disillusioned and returned to France, reconverting to Catholicism (if he had temporarily converted to Calvinism). |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 23, 2022 9:39:51 GMT -8
[quote author=" alon " source="/post/27308/thread" timestamp="1652983214 So To my knowledge Clement the 1st never mentions one singular Bishop of Rome/Pope. Neither of course does the Bible say Peter held that office, nor even mention the existence of that office. In fact, other than church tradition and questionable 'history' there is no record Peter ever went to Rome!
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 23, 2022 10:14:15 GMT -8
I like the Hebrew4 Christians website, because it's pretty helpful for memorizing verses in Hebrew, as well as for learning Hebrew. The kind of associations that it makes between Hebrew words and phrases is helpful for the mind to make associations and memorize. But the site has an unrealistic Paleo Language theory. It's true that Hebrew letters are based on pictures, but the website has this detailed theory about how the Hebrew vocabulary itself is based on the meaning of pictures. But this theory can only be true on rare occasion, rather than as a rule, since the Hebrew alphabet is phonetic. Being phonetic does not preclude the alphabet being based on ancient pictographs. I don’t know about the Hebrew 4 Christians site (I’m familiar with it, but seldom go there). However I have scholarly reference books tracing the development of the Hebrew language, and it would appear it did originally consist of pictographs. Furthermore understanding these (more like being able to look them up) very often helps my understanding of terms and phrases. Those books also contain pictures of engravings i showing the letters as originally used.
Right. Originally the Hebrew/Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet was pictographic like Egyptian and Sumerian originally were. As a result, there are words like Hah (meaning Behold) that match the pictographs in meaning (at an early stage, the letter Hah looked like a person with arms upraised, saying to behold). However, the Hebrew alphabet became phonetic, so that Hebrew words are typically made of strings of letters, not one. And these strings can be long, like 8 letters long. And relating the combination of letters in these words does not look feasible. I tried to work with different examples, and some didn't work. To give an analogy, the writing of the word "at" in English comes from Aleph (ox, strength) and tau (mark, sign). But "At" in English doesn't mean strong mark. The same kind of problem comes up in Hebrew. When you just deal with two or three Hebrew letters in a Hebrew word, you can make it work sometimes, but the more letters in a word, the harder and more unrealistic it becomes, as I found out. There are a couple of problems in your reasoning there. First off, you seem to be confusing the Hebrew “at (pronounced more like ‘ut’)” with the English “at.” Of course the Hebrew pictographs are problematic when trying to trace back English origins. It’ll work here (as I’ll show in a minute), but nat as well.
Second, there are two different Hebrew words for “at”:
אט aleph tet- the strong one surrounded, or yoked. Think of an ox (the original pictograph for א aleph) at work as he gently, placidly strains at the harness. This is what the term אט implies is this constrained power- gentleness. Kindness.
את aleph tav- the strong one towards the mark. Picture an ox pulling a plow. Which is what happens when you plow- you pick a mark on the opposite side of the field and go straight towards it. This term is not translatable into English. It ties things/people/ideas back to the subject. But think of the term pointing those things it preceded back to the one main idea. So Genesis 1:1 would read: “In the beginning, God created את at the heavens and את at the earth.” The את at relates the heavens and earth back to the One who created them; God.
Longer words can be more difficult, but I have always been able to do a word study like that when I needed. But that is biblical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew borrows too much from other languages.
The English word “at” well could have developed from the Hebrew. I have heard arguments (which I am ambivalent towards, but don’t entirely discount them) that all languages developed from Hebrew (Gen 11). Think of it like this: “at” pulls your attention towards some place- the subject (a thing, event, past occurrence, etc.) being “at” a particular place, time, other event, etc. Stretching it? A bit. But you did bring it up! And this does illustrate a problem. If we try hard enough we can “make it fit” (as we used to say in maintenance/repair). Even in the Hebrew we must ask if we are just making something fit, or does it really fit that way. Regardless, it is undeniable that most ancient alphabets had their origins in pictographs. Hebrew is no exception.
MJ believes in salvation by grace through faith alone. Obedience is just a natural outward sign once one is saved. We obey because we love God and want to please Him, not so we can be saved. This too is a difference i Judaism- they believe the Messianic Kingdom will be ushered in by their obeying the mitzvoth. Shoot-fire, I think it is possible that just as in the days of Noah Yeshua will return because He is tired of everyone NOT being obedient! I wonder if this is true of MJs as a rule, because being Observant doesn't entail following the Lutheran "5 Solas" dogma, one of which is "salvation by grace alone through faith alone", which I think you are referring to. Judaism, the EOs, and RCs don't teach 5 Solas type theology. I'm not sure about Anglicanism/Methodists. If they do not preach salvation by faith through faith alone, then they may try to fly the MJ flag, but they are not truly MJ. The scriptures speak of this throughout the NT, and in the OT as well. Consider Rachav (Rahab) who joined herself to the Hebrews and was saved, her and her house. All she knew was the Hebrew God was stronger than her gods, and she trusted in Him. She later learned more about Him and how He was to be worshiped. Paul and James had a discussion on this topic coming at it from opposite POVs. James wrote in his epistle, (James 2:24) “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Paul on the other hand, emphasized faith compared to works. However, Paul didn't put it in exactly Luther's formula. Luther's "Sola Fide" is rather Luther's own modern "take" on Paul that almost all Protestants adopted and then reinterpreted as being original because they believed that it was true. I would imagine that a modern MJ Nazarene revival observant movement should pick James' and the EOs' stance on this issue, that is, the stance of James. However, MJs probably Protestant influence, so they might in practice follow Luther's stance on this issue. James in his famous darash in ch. 14 on faith and works does not say we are saved by works, but that we are justified by our works. Works are faith put into action. The true repentance necessary for salvation will produce a work in the new believer. He will allow the Holy Spirit to work in him. He will act differently and try to help others where he sees a need he can fill. "Faith without works is dead" does not mean you have to have works to be saved; it means once saved your works will show it. You will have works if truly saved. And if you are (like me) of the persuasion you can exercise free will and walk away, thus losing salvation unless you repent, then people will see a work of the enemy in you. Your actions will show who you serve. Thus faith without works of the Spirit is truly dead."From an MJ POV, if the Temple was still intact, would Yeshua's sacrifice annul or overcome the role of ritual Yom Kippur atonement sacrifices that prefigured Yeshua's sacrifice? It sounds like a hypothetical question, but in the 1st century, Yeshua's post-Resurrection apostles and the Temple were around together for about 35 years. Plus, the answer can throw light on the relationship of Yeshua's teaching to observance, as the Yom Kippur ritual was one of the important rituals." In Ezekiel’s famous vision of the Millineal Temple: Ezekiel 44:27-29 And on the day that he goes into the Holy Place, into the inner court, to minister in the Holy Place, he shall offer his sin offering, declares the Lord God. “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession. They shall eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs.One explanation I've heard is that the Temple in Ezekiel refers to Christ or the Church/Assembly. In that case, the sin offering in the passage could be related to the Eucharist and Christi's sacrifice. Certainly Christianity sees the sin offering in as prefiguring Christ and the Eucharist. That is the tradition of some churches. But like applying Hebrew pictographs to English words, I think they are trying too hard, stretching credulity a bit too much. Paul made offerings in the Temple after the death of Yeshua: Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. When he did this it was in connection with the Nazarene vow. The church teaches it was a monetary “offering.” If he’d have done that they would have killed him on the spot! One did not mess around in the Temple, which was still under Jewish control; and they followed what the law prescribed- and the Nazarene vow required animal sacrifices: Numbers 6:13-14 “And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and he shall bring his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering, I take it that, as you asserted, this story related to the Nazirite vow animal sacrifice, not the Yom Kippur one. Scripture clearly says it was for the Nazarene vow. But even if it was for any other sacrifice, if Paul did sacrifice then clearly he made sacrifices after the death and resurrection of Yeshua, and after his own conversion.
The sacrifices point us to what Yeshua accomplished on the cross. Before they looked forward in faith, after we look back in faith and with a clearer understanding. Yes, I grew up hearing those stories. Religion tends to draw the dogmatic and abusive ti itself. The RC’s aren’t the only ones, but their Nuns were infamous, for sure! I often wondered though just how much those stories were embellished to impress us Prods. I think that the stories are true, but can misconstrue the situation. One issue is how many schools were like that, how many kids had that experience. When I ask older Catholic men, some of them say that the nuns in their case were bad, and give stories. Others said that the nuns were fine in their school, or even very nice and caring. One Catholic from the northern Appalachian range coal region said that he broke his arm in an especially bad way, the doctors said that he would be handicapped permamently, but an Italian lady had a special home remedy with wrapping and hot water, and the nuns at his school helped his arm heal too. He said that he never experienced physical discipline and can't associate his own experience with what other people say about Catholic or Public schools at that time (1940-50's). But another man told me that in his school in NJ in the 50's a nun slammed his head onto his desk in first grade. So there have been tons of public schools nationwide that were abusive to actually good children, and there were Catholic schools that were nice, safe, and mild. So one issue is how common schools were like that. The Catholic Church is huge and has lots of "orders" the Franciscans have a reputation for being nice, peaceful, pacifistic. There are pictures of St Francis holding animals he cared for. On the other end, the Knights Templar were a military monastic order, which was unusual for Christianity in that it was both monastic and military. A second issue is that with Catholic schools, there could be an aspect of the situation that makes it feel more repressive or exceptional compared to public school, such as religion classes, school uniforms, having monastics teach classes, going to church services as part of school, as well as Catholicism being a minority religion. In contrast, you might know that all your "regular" "friends" go to public schools and don't have to wear uniforms. However, all of these "atmospheric" or "situational" factors can be illusionary in making it feel much worse than it might be. I knew an older man who went to Public school in the same coal region area as the man I mentioned above with the broken arm, and he told me that in public elementary school, a public school teacher slammed his head on the desk. Then there are regional, economic, and racial factors, and they are real factors, but I would be careful generalizing about those things. NJ was much better off economically than the coal region I told you about, but the Catholic school there sounded much worse. There are teachers in public schools who enjoy beating children, and other teachers who quit their jobs to leave schools that do that. So much can depend on the individual teacher. One of the special RC problems has been the celibate clergy rule, which I believe feeds over unintentionally to predation, but most Catholics didn't get preyed on as kids. I went to Evangelical school for 3 months when I was 12. I agreed with their theology at the time, but they were hostile enough to Catholics that it was a turn off. The teachers were not mean to me, but there was too much negativity. They talked about RCs like they were drug dealers. I went to the Catholic school the next year and liked it more because the teachers were nice. They weren't hostile to me even though I was Protestant. Besides me, a few other Prots (a couple Episcopalians) went to the Catholic parochial school. I think that the Reformation opened up more free thinking for Western Europe in general, but it doesn't mean that internally Protestant societies were "free thinking". There was a 16th century French Catholic writer who was excited and enamored by ex-Jesuit Calvin's creation of a Protestant society in Switzerland led by "elders" instead of bishops. The writer immigrated to Geneva, but was horrified by how repressive Calvin's society was. Calvin ran it like a dictator and repressed those who objected to the theocracy. The French writer was disillusioned and returned to France, reconverting to Catholicism (if he had temporarily converted to Calvinism). Calvin had people hung just for disagreeing with him on a theological point! I'd leave too. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 23, 2022 13:49:15 GMT -8
That's a neat coincidence about English and Hebrew words sounding like At. English At is considered to come from something like Latin Ad (as in "Ad Infinitim") and from an earlier Indo-European root. It makes sense then that it seems relatable to the Hebrew At. Hebrew words with two to three letters are relatively simple enough that using loose association, one can find a relationship between the letters' meaning and the words' meaning. But when one starts to get to six or more letters, the combination of letters becomes unique enough that it becomes harder to find a relationship. You would have to look for a meaning in the word that matches each of those six or more letters' meanings. Sometimes this can be accomplished, but when one has to do this over and over and over, the inherent problem becomes more apparent. The problem that comes up becomes understandable in terms of how Biblical Hebrew's script works basically phonetically, with pictographicality being an earlier, more primitive stage in the script's development. It's one thing to say that "At" = A + T, but harder to say that as a general rule, 100's of 6 or more letter words equal their individual letters' meanings. You write, "The scriptures speak of this throughout the NT, and in the OT as well. Consider Rachav (Rahab) who joined herself to the Hebrews and was saved, her and her house. All she knew was the Hebrew God was stronger than her gods, and she trusted in Him." The "faith alone" concept can be interpreted as in the Bible, as in "Rahab believed, and thus Rahab got saved, end of story, period", but salvation isn't everywhere portrayed like that in the Bible, and in fact, combinations can be found that can and have been interpreted the opposite way, where a person had a belief but didn't do the work. Further, if you get into Luther's theology of Sola Fide, it really does not work as simple as the portrayal as you made it. Luther did believe that works were necessary of a person being saved, but he did logical gymnastics and contortions to make the "Sola Fide" concept sound feasible. Among other evidence of Luther's gymnastics, he taught that Baptism was necessary, agreed with the "Faith without works is dead" doctrine in the Bible, etc. Luther's SOla Fide idea in substance rather comes down to his monergism it seems, whereby salvation is seen as a 100% passive process on the side of the saved man, thus resulting in faith alone not works being the only input from the side of the saved man in this equation. However, even this mental gymnastic is a misportayal, because if the person has to perform actions/works like baptism, then it's not in practice actually a passive process on the side of the saved man. Since Sola Fide is mental gymnastics and it's what Luther would call a compulsory "Article of Faith" in Protestantism, I think that it would be challenging to convince someone who holds to it otherwise. Luther complained that the RC Church was making non-Biblical teachings "Articles of Faith", but when he compiled his Smalcald articles on a German prince's request for "Articles of Faith", Luther included Sola Scriptura and complaints about how the Catholic Church required certain doctrines. This does not leave much mental room for dissent even within Protestantism on these issues, despite Protestantism being more free thinking (it seems to me anyway) than Catholicism. One criticism that I can point out about Sola Fide is that it uses a kind of Sola Scriptura approach for its justification. Perhaps this criticism will have some value, because you and I both disagree with Sola Scriptura. Luther's idea was that the Bible was everywhere easy to understand, but this assertion in fact is not realistic. For that matter, Luther himself at times for some verses probably admitted that they were not easily understood. When these kinds of issues come up, one should consider religious traditions. This approach of looking to tradition is even true to some extent for Luther, who advised using Fathers for getting into the Bible. Further, I don't see Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as being part of the -Observant or MJ branch of early Christianity/Nazarenes that you are trying to achieve. Sola Fide is something that a person gets by hearing the idea from Protestants, but perhaps they might reach it from reading the Bible Alone. I see the more classic "Judaic" side of Paul's debate with James as being more on James' side, with more emphasis on works. I take it that there is a balancing act in reality between faith and works in both Paula nd James. Luther in practice, as with Protestants in general do in practice perform a balancing act of faith and works, but the "Faith Alone" slogan and Luther's polemics make it sound like they only believe in faith, not at all in works as part of salvation. And even if they only believe in Faith Alone, this is still not the practical situation for Protestant teachings. Yes, Protestants might add that works are only outward obedience, a consequence, etc., but this qualification does not actually negate the inherency of works in the salvation process. Just calling it outward when it's also called necessary does not eliminate its centrality. Calling it just outward and consequential becomes misleading when one also considers it necessary. Something that is necessary for something else cannot actually just be "consequential" because a "necessary" condition is a priori, not a pure post factum result. IOW, one can't consistently say "This is necessary for a living faith that is saving", and then say, "This same thing only an outward, secondary result of being saved and having faith, and not essential for salvation." So on one hand you wrote, However, to be clear, Luther did consider that what he put in the category of "works", like baptism, was "necessary" for faith, and also salvation. However, he justified this gymnastic by asserting with more gymnastics that the salvation act itself is done only by God. The work (eg. baptism), he asserted, does not perform the salvation, but is rather a necessary condition. His idea might have been like Calvin's, whereby man is capable of willing "decisions" freely, but not to freely will the act of salvation, and that the act of salvation must be 100% one-sidedly from God. In contrast, the EO idea is that God and man both participate, with man also having to make a decision to accept salvation, etc. Much of this debate seems like gymnastics to me, with the Lutheran/Protestant side trying as much as possible to theoretically deny the essentiality of works without violating the Bible's clear teaching of the importance of man directly performing good works. Luther and Calvin were both trained as lawyers. One was Augustinian and the latter was Jesuit. I don't know if this helps explain how their writings were actually quite educated, yet at the time have these kinds of mental argument gymnastics, where they make strong assertions (eg. Faith Alone) and then when the assertions come under scrutiny, they make good-sounding backpedaling, as in Luther's rebuttal to the "Reduction to Absurdity" argument against Faith Alone. One Reduction to Absurdity argument against Faith Alone formulates the Faith Alone implications this way: Luther replied: Luther's rebuttal makes sense logically because because Luther in practice taught Faith "with" works. Luther did not teach "faith WITHOUT WORKS" justifies. He meant that Faith is what performs justification, and that works do not. But nonetheless, the Catholic argument picks up on a connotation of Luther's Sola Fide idea. By asserting that Faith is the only thing that performs salvation PERIOD, the connotation is that one need not perform works, since if works were necessary for an effective faith, then it could be said that IN EFFECT both faith and works play a role in causing and performing salvation. The upshot is that even though Luther can make rational logical arguments in favor of the "Faith Alone" slogan, it's still a misleading slogan for the actual mechanics of Lutheran soteriology, since the slogan requires "Works" qualifications. It sounds good in a debate style with medieval Catholic teaching about indulgences, but if one totally removes it from the RC vs. Protestant Dialectic, then it sounds like an absolute denial of the role of performance of works in salvation. If observant Jews and the early extraBiblical Nazarene writings, or Church fathers' comments about the Nazarenes were teaching Sola Fide, then the MJ position could be more easily decided as belonging to Sola Fide. However, observant Jews and the early extraBiblical writings, as well as what we see about the pro- faction in the NT, make them look like they are more on the "works and law" side of the debate. Picking Luther's side and teaching faith alone doctrines while also teaching Mitzvot and ritual observance does not really look very consistent to me in the long run. But I can't make MJs agree with me on that point, like I said. Anyway, there are very far more confused doctrines in the world than Sola Fide. Rather, I hope that I gave you a POV on the topic that will be helpful or insightful for you. I also think that Sola Scriptura was not enough alone to create a break between Luther and the RC Church. Erasmus was one of Luther's colleagues who held to Sola Scriptura and who stayed RC. I found it interesting to collect all of Luther's and the early Lutheran statements on Sola Scriptura that I could find. If you want, I could share them with you, but we kind of covered the main ideas already (Scripture is the only establisher or all dogmas and the only judge of all teachings and teachers. See eg. Smalcald Articles). You write, "Scripture clearly says it was for the Nazarene vow. But even if it was for any other sacrifice, if Paul did sacrifice then clearly he made sacrifices after the death and resurrection of Yeshua, and after his own conversion." I think that the Western Tradition is more against all sacrifices. With some Middle East Christians there is kind of a custom about animal sacrifice/"slaughter" that may descend from the ancient Jews. The Armenians have a Madagh sacrifice/slaughter. These slaughter customs are not about guilt sin sacrifice like in the Yom Kippur sacrifice. Rather, they are like how Western Christians "offer" money in Church or "sacrifice" their time and efforts to help their churches. So the Nazirite vow sacrifice of Paul doesn't seem to clear up the issue of Yom Kippur sacrifices as squarely as if he was performing a sin guilt sacrifice. Actually, the Yom Kippur sacrifice was and is not the only sin guilt sacrifice in the Tanakh's traditions: there is one with birds too I think. In any case, the issue is that Yeshua's sacrifice took away sins, so how could one look instead to sacrificing animals to take away sins any more? There is a tradition in Josephus or Talmud about the Yom Kippur thread not turning color any more or something like that in the middle of the 1st century AD. But I don't recall any clear open ban in the NT against participating in Yom Kippur. Rather, it seems that Yeshua's sacrifice being prefigured by Yom Kippur would seem to serve against still performing the latter once the prefigurement was fulfilled. Thanks for a good discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 23, 2022 14:15:31 GMT -8
[quote author=" alon " source="/post/27308/thread" timestamp="1652983214 So To my knowledge Clement the 1st never mentions one singular Bishop of Rome/Pope. Neither of course does the Bible say Peter held that office, nor even mention the existence of that office. In fact, other than church tradition and questionable 'history' there is no record Peter ever went to Rome!
You are actually touching on one of the weak points in Sola Scriptura. Luther admitted that some topics, especially ceremonies are not issues discussed in Scripture. I recall that "Church order" was another one that he did not consider to be explained in enough detail there, or at least its something that some Lutherans admit that the Bible doesn't explain about at length. Sure, the Bible describes the apostles, elders, assemblies, presbyters, and overseers, but it does not write itself as a detailed manual allocating full functions between each. The NT, especially compared with Tanakh, is much more about narrative (Gospels) theology and morality, than a long all-encompassing manual. Luther when talking about Sola Scriptura talked as if everything necessary is in the Bible, but in practice, this is not realistic, and at times Luther practically admitted as much. One answer from Luther was that nonBiblical topics should be "adelphia" or indifferent, so that it doesn't matter which stance you pick if the Bible doesn't cover an issue. On the other hand, Luther said that you can only use church fathers in order to understand the Bible. In that case, the implication is that you can't use 2000 years of Church traditions to make decisions about "nonBiblical" topics like church ceremonies. The NT certainly wasn't meant as a full manual on Church order or else it would have included these topics in better, clearer detail. Further, it was still a new movement in the mid-1st century, so they were probably still finding their way and working things out on these topics. Luther did give some roles to church authorities when talking about Sola Scriptura, BTW: In other words, Luther interpreted these bishop powers as being "Biblical", but claimed that some other powers (civil government) were not by divine right and nothing to do with administering the gospel. This is alittle interesting, because in the UK, Protestant bishops did (and maybe still do) have civil government powers. I'm not sure about Lutheran Scandinavia, where Lutherans did have a state church too. This is a little Lutheran overload here, but Luther's thinking really plays such a foundational indirect role in "Sola Scriptura" sentiments, like when you said that if he had authority over an assembly, then the Bible would definitely have mentioned it. Plus, we are in the Reformation thread. I'm guessing that Luther's idea would rather be that if he had a leading role in an assembly and it mattered for Christianity, then the Bible would have mentioned it. But for Luther, calling something "Biblical" seems to practically involve teasing out an implicit meaning in the text. So for example the Bible never openly specifies for or against infant baptism, so Sola Scriptura advocates are forced to tease out an implicit "stance" on the topic out of the Bible. In the case of Peter's role in an assembly, Protestants who agreed with the idea of Peter's leadership could find it in John 21, where Jesus tells Peter about instructions to care for His "sheep," and in Paul's description of Peter as being one of three "pillars" of the church. IMO though, the challenges in the requirement of teasing out the implicit meaning of the Bible shows one of the weaknesses of Sola Scriptura. Peace- Shalom. All the Best. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 24, 2022 6:40:58 GMT -8
That's a neat coincidence about English and Hebrew words sounding like At. English At is considered to come from something like Latin Ad (as in "Ad Infinitim") and from an earlier Indo-European root. It makes sense then that it seems relatable to the Hebrew At. Hebrew words with two to three letters are relatively simple enough that using loose association, one can find a relationship between the letters' meaning and the words' meaning. But when one starts to get to six or more letters, the combination of letters becomes unique enough that it becomes harder to find a relationship. You would have to look for a meaning in the word that matches each of those six or more letters' meanings. Sometimes this can be accomplished, but when one has to do this over and over and over, the inherent problem becomes more apparent. The problem that comes up becomes understandable in terms of how Biblical Hebrew's script works basically phonetically, with pictographicality being an earlier, more primitive stage in the script's development. It's one thing to say that "At" = A + T, but harder to say that as a general rule, 100's of 6 or more letter words equal their individual letters' meanings. Try thinking about it more globally. The words carry the all connotations of the letters, but the specific word picture may elude you.
You write, "The scriptures speak of this throughout the NT, and in the OT as well. Consider Rachav (Rahab) who joined herself to the Hebrews and was saved, her and her house. All she knew was the Hebrew God was stronger than her gods, and she trusted in Him." The "faith alone" concept can be interpreted as in the Bible, as in "Rahab believed, and thus Rahab got saved, end of story, period", but salvation isn't everywhere portrayed like that in the Bible, and in fact, combinations can be found that can and have been interpreted the opposite way, where a person had a belief but didn't do the work. Further, if you get into Luther's theology of Sola Fide, it really does not work as simple as the portrayal as you made it. Luther did believe that works were necessary of a person being saved, but he did logical gymnastics and contortions to make the "Sola Fide" concept sound feasible. Among other evidence of Luther's gymnastics, he taught that Baptism was necessary, agreed with the "Faith without works is dead" doctrine in the Bible, etc. I did not mean to give the impression that salvation is a “one and done” thing; or that this was the end of Rachav’s story. We all choose who we will serve daily. No one can take us from God’s hand, but I do believe we can choose to walk away. And Rachav’s journey, her walk with God, and her “works” were just starting. She had to learn about this new God, the way this new people lived and how they worshiped their God. Furthermore she was dealing with a new adopted people and God who had just destroyed her old home and city, had killed everyone she knew. I would think that would be a lot to deal with.Luther's SOla Fide idea in substance rather comes down to his monergism it seems, whereby salvation is seen as a 100% passive process on the side of the saved man, thus resulting in faith alone not works being the only input from the side of the saved man in this equation. However, even this mental gymnastic is a misportayal, because if the person has to perform actions/works like baptism, then it's not in practice actually a passive process on the side of the saved man. I’d say salvation is far from passive. God calls, but we must answer. We also must repent, which involves being sorry for our sins and actively deciding to turn away from them. It also means a decision to walk with God as Adam did in the Garden, only he saw and heard God (probably a pre-incarnate Yeshua), where we walk in faith and trust. Salvation is a gift, and totally an act of the Spirit, however it comes in response to our decision.
Since Sola Fide is mental gymnastics and it's what Luther would call a compulsory "Article of Faith" in Protestantism, I think that it would be challenging to convince someone who holds to it otherwise. Luther complained that the RC Church was making non-Biblical teachings "Articles of Faith", but when he compiled his Smalcald articles on a German prince's request for "Articles of Faith", Luther included Sola Scriptura and complaints about how the Catholic Church required certain doctrines. This does not leave much mental room for dissent even within Protestantism on these issues, despite Protestantism being more free thinking (it seems to me anyway) than Catholicism. One criticism that I can point out about Sola Fide is that it uses a kind of Sola Scriptura approach for its justification. Perhaps this criticism will have some value, because you and I both disagree with Sola Scriptura. Luther's idea was that the Bible was everywhere easy to understand, but this assertion in fact is not realistic. For that matter, Luther himself at times for some verses probably admitted that they were not easily understood. When these kinds of issues come up, one should consider religious traditions. This approach of looking to tradition is even true to some extent for Luther, who advised using Fathers for getting into the Bible. I would advise not to rely on tradition for biblical understanding. That is a lazy approach, especially today when we have so many resources at our fingertips. Do the work, study and dig out the deeper meanings in scripture. This above all else marks MJ- we try to find the truth in God’s word. It may not be easy at times, but it is always worth the effort. Further, I don't see Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as being part of the -Observant or MJ branch of early Christianity/Nazarenes that you are trying to achieve. Sola Fide is something that a person gets by hearing the idea from Protestants, but perhaps they might reach it from reading the Bible Alone. I see the more classic "Judaic" side of Paul's debate with James as being more on James' side, with more emphasis on works. I take it that there is a balancing act in reality between faith and works in both Paula nd James. Well, I would not advise either Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. One advises just reading scripture for your answers, and there is a lot of that in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. The problem is we tend to read scripture with the mindset of the times in which we live. To understand it accurately we must think like the people who actually wrote it, and that means researching other religious documents, historical sources, and yes taking into account the thoughts of others on the topic (but with a LOT of discernment). As to Sola Fide, yes we are justified by our faith alone, however it seems to me taking this approach encourages a lazy approach to our salvation. Just say you believe and get dunked and you are good to go. Sola Fide is the driving impetus behind the “once saved always saved” theology which itself encourages an attitude of “doesn’t matter what I do now, I got my pass out of Hell.” And trust me, that attitude is present in many people occupying church pews (when the weather is bad). I advise more a “scripture first, but with understanding always; and Gen-Rev scripture cannot contradict itself. If it seems to then you have more work to do, because your understanding is skewed somewhere.
Luther in practice, as with Protestants in general do in practice perform a balancing act of faith and works, but the "Faith Alone" slogan and Luther's polemics make it sound like they only believe in faith, not at all in works as part of salvation. And even if they only believe in Faith Alone, this is still not the practical situation for Protestant teachings. Yes, Protestants might add that works are only outward obedience, a consequence, etc., but this qualification does not actually negate the inherency of works in the salvation process. Just calling it outward when it's also called necessary does not eliminate its centrality. Calling it just outward and consequential becomes misleading when one also considers it necessary. Something that is necessary for something else cannot actually just be "consequential" because a "necessary" condition is a priori, not a pure post factum result. IOW, one can't consistently say "This is necessary for a living faith that is saving", and then say, "This same thing only an outward, secondary result of being saved and having faith, and not essential for salvation." The simplified answer is faith produces works. They are a sign of your spiritual health. If you do not exercise your faith (works), then you grow further away and are in great danger of walking away. You leave the door open for the enemy of your soul, and he is relentless.
So on one hand you wrote, However, to be clear, Luther did consider that what he put in the category of "works", like baptism, was "necessary" for faith, and also salvation. Not necessary for salvation, but a necessary result of salvation. However, he justified this gymnastic by asserting with more gymnastics that the salvation act itself is done only by God. The work (eg. baptism), he asserted, does not perform the salvation, but is rather a necessary condition. Not even a necessary condition for salvation, but a necessary condition of salvation. Not to be baptized (indeed not to undergo tevilah whenever possible) is disobedience and therefore a willful sin, a transgression. Acts of transgression are what Paul spoke of as “sins unto death.” His idea might have been like Calvin's, whereby man is capable of willing "decisions" freely, but not to freely will the act of salvation, and that the act of salvation must be 100% one-sidedly from God. In contrast, the EO idea is that God and man both participate, with man also having to make a decision to accept salvation, Exactly! etc. Much of this debate seems like gymnastics to me, with the Lutheran/Protestant side trying as much as possible to theoretically deny the essentiality of works without violating the Bible's clear teaching of the importance of man directly performing good works. I’d say I wish them luck, but really I don’t.Luther and Calvin were both trained as lawyers. One was Augustinian and the latter was Jesuit. I don't know if this helps explain how their writings were actually quite educated, yet at the time have these kinds of mental argument gymnastics, where they make strong assertions (eg. Faith Alone) and then when the assertions come under scrutiny, they make good-sounding backpedaling, as in Luther's rebuttal to the "Reduction to Absurdity" argument against Faith Alone. Ya gotta love lawyers and politicians (NOT).One Reduction to Absurdity argument against Faith Alone formulates the Faith Alone implications this way: Luther replied: Luther's rebuttal makes sense logically because because Luther in practice taught Faith "with" works. Luther did not teach "faith WITHOUT WORKS" justifies. He meant that Faith is what performs justification, and that works do not. But nonetheless, the Catholic argument picks up on a connotation of Luther's Sola Fide idea. By asserting that Faith is the only thing that performs salvation PERIOD, the connotation is that one need not perform works, since if works were necessary for an effective faith, then it could be said that IN EFFECT both faith and works play a role in causing and performing salvation. The upshot is that even though Luther can make rational logical arguments in favor of the "Faith Alone" slogan, it's still a misleading slogan for the actual mechanics of Lutheran soteriology, since the slogan requires "Works" qualifications. It sounds good in a debate style with medieval Catholic teaching about indulgences, but if one totally removes it from the RC vs. Protestant Dialectic, then it sounds like an absolute denial of the role of performance of works in salvation. I’d say that in focusing on the polemics they both miss the simple truth as I have explained it above.
If observant Jews and the early extraBiblical Nazarene writings, or Church fathers' comments about the Nazarenes were teaching Sola Fide, then the MJ position could be more easily decided as belonging to Sola Fide. However, observant Jews and the early extraBiblical writings, as well as what we see about the pro- faction in the NT, make them look like they are more on the "works and law" side of the debate. Picking Luther's side and teaching faith alone doctrines while also teaching Mitzvot and ritual observance does not really look very consistent to me in the long run. No, neither ancient Jews nor the Notsarim, nor contemporary Meshiachim believe that keeping the mitzvoth or rituals will save you. They will help you maintain that salvation and glean rewards in the next life. But salvation is a walk with your Creator. It is a decision we not only make, but maintain. And yes, that walk includes obedience to His instructions. Let me give an analogy as an example.
One who disobeys God is like a rebellious child. We tend to spoil our kids because we have it easy ourselves. But not that long ago this was not the case. Your families reputation was their lifeline. Business conducted with a handshake meant more than a contract, and your ability to get credit or to trade goods or services depended on that reputation. Families tried to rein in rebellious children, but as a last resort would disinherit them, which generally (since all they really had was their good name) meant to disown them. You could not afford to tolerate that behavior in your family. It would eventually drag the entire family down as without the good will of the community at large you’d all have to resort to less than honorable dealings just to survive. The entire family’s reputation could be ruined.
This is how it is with God’s family. He can ill afford a rebellious child, as the stakes are just too high. Our “credit” when we witness to someone is our reputation; how the world sees us act. Our reputation is our bond, our surety that our faith is genuine. These things are the first fruits of our “works.” Rebellion is the fruit of ha’satan and his works.
But I can't make MJs agree with me on that point, like I said. Anyway, there are very far more confused doctrines in the world than Sola Fide. Rather, I hope that I gave you a POV on the topic that will be helpful or insightful for you. I also think that Sola Scriptura was not enough alone to create a break between Luther and the RC Church. Erasmus was one of Luther's colleagues who held to Sola Scriptura and who stayed RC. I found it interesting to collect all of Luther's and the early Lutheran statements on Sola Scriptura that I could find. If you want, I could share them with you, but we kind of covered the main ideas already (Scripture is the only establisher or all dogmas and the only judge of all teachings and teachers. See eg. Smalcald Articles). It’s good to share perspectives on these things, but I don’t get too bogged down in church polemics. My focus is more on learning how the 1st cen Notasrim and various OT authors thought and wrote.
You write, "Scripture clearly says it was for the Nazarene vow. But even if it was for any other sacrifice, if Paul did sacrifice then clearly he made sacrifices after the death and resurrection of Yeshua, and after his own conversion." I think that the Western Tradition is more against all sacrifices. Then you have just said our western tradition is against God. It was He who commanded sacrifices. With some Middle East Christians there is kind of a custom about animal sacrifice/"slaughter" that may descend from the ancient Jews. The Armenians have a Madagh sacrifice/slaughter. These slaughter customs are not about guilt sin sacrifice like in the Yom Kippur sacrifice. Rather, they are like how Western Christians "offer" money in Church or "sacrifice" their time and efforts to help their churches. So the Nazirite vow sacrifice of Paul doesn't seem to clear up the issue of Yom Kippur sacrifices as squarely as if he was performing a sin guilt sacrifice. Actually, the Yom Kippur sacrifice was and is not the only sin guilt sacrifice in the Tanakh's traditions: there is one with birds too I think. In any case, the issue is that Yeshua's sacrifice took away sins, so how could one look instead to sacrificing animals to take away sins any more? There is a tradition in Josephus or Talmud about the Yom Kippur thread not turning color any more or something like that in the middle of the 1st century AD. But I don't recall any clear open ban in the NT against participating in Yom Kippur. Rather, it seems that Yeshua's sacrifice being prefigured by Yom Kippur would seem to serve against still performing the latter once the prefigurement was fulfilled. The salient term there is “seem.” To which I would say “Lean not unto thine own understanding.” You go between sacrifices in general and those on a specific occasion. Also you miss one important point- sin or guilt sacrifices could be made at any time. The Yom Kippur sacrifices were for the nation. The issue is sacrifices after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. If Paul made even one that is recorded in scripture after his conversion, then that issue is settled. Moreover if he ever said anything like he never did anything against his people or their practices the issue is settled. So let me think …
Thanks for a good discussion. Always a pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 24, 2022 6:44:26 GMT -8
This logical deduction would take care of the probability of a bishop in the Roman assembly. However as you allude to there is no sense of his authority over any other (let alone all other) assemblies. Using this form of inductive reasoning we might say that if he did have such authority surely it would have been mentioned in scripture somewhere. And even if true, all other objections still stand. But a very good possibility/probability. Thanks.
You are actually touching on one of the weak points in Sola Scriptura. Luther admitted that some topics, especially ceremonies are not issues discussed in Scripture. I recall that "Church order" was another one that he did not consider to be explained in enough detail there, or at least its something that some Lutherans admit that the Bible doesn't explain about at length. Sure, the Bible describes the apostles, elders, assemblies, presbyters, and overseers, but it does not write itself as a detailed manual allocating full functions between each. I’d say it gives all they need. Adding to it is man trying to shape his own religion.
The NT, especially compared with Tanakh, is much more about narrative (Gospels) theology and morality, than a long all-encompassing manual. Luther when talking about Sola Scriptura talked as if everything necessary is in the Bible, but in practice, this is not realistic, and at times Luther practically admitted as much. One answer from Luther was that nonBiblical topics should be "adelphia" or indifferent, so that it doesn't matter which stance you pick if the Bible doesn't cover an issue. On the other hand, Luther said that you can only use church fathers in order to understand the Bible. In that case, the implication is that you can't use 2000 years of Church traditions to make decisions about "nonBiblical" topics like church ceremonies. Those traditions, and most of the lies started with the church fathers. And Torah was not written as a law book, nor the Bible as a manual. Both give not only instructions, but stories as examples. Here is the real problem- we are not taught to live by principles any more, but rather to do as we are told. I used to train ambulance crews, and we’d make drills of practical scenarios. ALways students would ask “What do I do … .” They wanted a list for every contingency. I’d tell them “I cannot teach you what to do in every situation you will face out there. I can teach you the principles of the job, and understanding those you can make your own list as you work. Every case will be different, the principles remain the same.” So it is with life. So it is with religion.The NT certainly wasn't meant as a full manual on Church order or else it would have included these topics in better, clearer detail. Further, it was still a new movement in the mid-1st century, so they were probably still finding their way and working things out on these topics. Luther did give some roles to church authorities when talking about Sola Scriptura, BTW: In other words, Luther interpreted these bishop powers as being "Biblical", but claimed that some other powers (civil government) were not by divine right and nothing to do with administering the gospel. This is alittle interesting, because in the UK, Protestant bishops did (and maybe still do) have civil government powers. I'm not sure about Lutheran Scandinavia, where Lutherans did have a state church too. This is a little Lutheran overload here, but Luther's thinking really plays such a foundational indirect role in "Sola Scriptura" sentiments, like when you said that if he had authority over an assembly, then the Bible would definitely have mentioned it. Plus, we are in the Reformation thread. I'm guessing that Luther's idea would rather be that if he had a leading role in an assembly and it mattered for Christianity, then the Bible would have mentioned it. But for Luther, calling something "Biblical" seems to practically involve teasing out an implicit meaning in the text. So for example the Bible never openly specifies for or against infant baptism, so Sola Scriptura advocates are forced to tease out an implicit "stance" on the topic out of the Bible. In the case of Peter's role in an assembly, Protestants who agreed with the idea of Peter's leadership could find it in John 21, where Jesus tells Peter about instructions to care for His "sheep," and in Paul's description of Peter as being one of three "pillars" of the church. LOL, all I meant is that this would seem to be such an important point that if one bishop in Rome had this kind of authority, someone would have wrote something like “Moses seat has been moved to Rome and this guy sits there now, so all he says do.” But I never saw that in scripture. But since most of us come from some church background it is important (I think) to have a better understanding of where we come from.
IMO though, the challenges in the requirement of teasing out the implicit meaning of the Bible shows one of the weaknesses of Sola Scriptura. I’d have to agree there.
Peace- Shalom. All the Best. Shalom aleichem!
Peace be with you. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 24, 2022 11:53:39 GMT -8
We wrote to each other:
Online I researched where slaughter/sacrifices were retained as a custom by Christians from Judaism. What I found was that Western Christian traditions/writings (Prot and RC) criticize the idea of religiously-tinged slaughter/sacrifice continuing, with the explanation that Christ fulfilled the OT sacrifices. In contrast, the Madagh slaughter of the Armenians is a religious custom that either originates from Pagan or Jewish sacrifice and was carried into Christian times, using the justification that the slaughter is analogous to Christians making offerings on behalf of their church. Levantine (Levant = Syria, etc.) EOs who have somewhat rare, occasional slaughter customs are more likely to have inherited it from Jewish customs.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 24, 2022 12:08:46 GMT -8
My impression is that a lot of MJs come from Protestant backgrounds, and if they come from a Jewish background, they are still likely to be much more exposed to Protestant ideology. I don't know how much Methodists/Episcopalians/Wesleyans differ from the rest of Protestants on topics like Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Monergism (being saved comes only from God's energy, not any energy on the part of man), Predestination and the inherited guilt of original sin. Augustine and Catholics hold to the latter (inherited sin guilt), like most Protestants. Luther seemed to hold a bit softer version of Calvin's Predestinationism, and didn't focus on the topic as much. Since Lutherans accept monergism, it seems to be a factor in making their idea of Predestination somewhat similar to Calvin's in its mechanics.
EOs and the rabbis disagree with Luther on all of those topics.
Since MJs seem to often have a mix of rabbinical and Protestant influence for the reasons I mentioned, I guess that they might have a mix of positions on these topics. For instance, you disagreed with Sola Scriptura, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MJs agreed with it. I met an MJ on Discord a few days ago who is ethnically part Jewish, but who grew up Charismatic Prot., and who thinks that Charismatic "tongues" are typically false, but thinks that sometimes they are real. He bases this on a few ancedotal stories, about which I'm skeptical.
Part of me wants to talk more about the "tongues" issue with you, because I share your skepticism about it being a real thing. It seems to me as a thinking person that they are mental gobbledegook, a chaotic mental stream of almost meaningless sounds, a wild subconscious voice pattern like talking in your sleep, that the practitioners believe in being a real miracle like an "angelic" language or something that God is guiding them to roll out of their mouths. With so much of it being a subconscious stream that the practitioner can typically turn on or stop at will, and that one can give psychological explanations about, it feels risky to call it divine or demonic.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 24, 2022 16:08:20 GMT -8
|
|
Observant doesn't entail following the Lutheran "5 Solas" dogma, one of which is "salvation by grace alone through faith alone", which I think you are referring to. Judaism, the EOs, and RCs don't teach 5 Solas type theology. I'm not sure about Anglicanism/Methodists.
- there are 70 faces to 
