'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“I still don't know what your opinion as to what the meaning of 'unity of the spirit' might be.â€

If it’s only an opinion, what does it matter?

Consider that the phrase is only used once in the NT. It can only defy anything more than an interpretation or opinion apart from some kind of experience of the meaning of the phrase.


“Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
1 We (the spiritual priesthood) eat of that altar (as opposed to the Jewish priesthood).
2 Unless that altar is Christ, it cannot be 'eaten of'.â€

There is nothing in this verse or its context that says that Christ is the Altar. It only says we have one that isn’t the altar in the physical tabernacle. There is another reference to an altar in 7:13. And several references to the heavenly altar in Revelation. None equates the altar with Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Table speaks of the body and blood. The sacrifice that’s on the altar. The Passover is an eating of the Passover Lamb. Which is Christ. It is the Passover that is connected with the Lord’s Table. We eat of that which is on the altar. The body and the blood. As John 6 and all of the verses that deal with the Lord’s Table say.

Why do you say that we can’t eat that which is on the altar unless the altar also is Christ?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

SteveBolts

Sorry. I was not aware you were a RC.

FC

 

[stovebolts]

SteveBolts

Sorry. I was not aware you were a RC.

FC

I am? Wow, how about that. :toofunny

Ohh, and just one more misunderstood you may have about me. user name is StoveBolts... with an o, not an e. And no, my name's not Steve either :biglol

And I thought you were a Former Christian lol! Labels suck don't they?

I think it's time to pull a snaglepuss... Exit, stage left. :waving

 

[jasoncran]

how in the word fc, did you get the idea that stovebolts was a roman catholic2

besure to read and pay attention to the post so that this confusion wont happen again. as you have by his reaction offended stove. i know him long enough when he does this and why. a pm would remedy this.

and i am of jewish descent and also prefer at times to look at the tanakh(ot) as they do., it helps to know where we are to look at things.

and many a pre-tribbers and preterists often study hebrew so that they can understand the symbols and meanings in the bible.

 

[Former Christian]

StoveBolts

My apologies. I had originally thought you were a Churches of Christ from some of the things you and Handy said. But then you came up with this Judaism stuff. I know some Churches of Christ people, and like most Protestants I know, they’re content to use Christian resources. But Catholics and Orthodox I know would use Jewish resources as a matter of course because half their religion is Jewish, as they themselves will tell you. The difference between the Old and New Covenants is a very fine line to them. The Crusades had its basis in that fact. So I concluded you were a RC. And I compounded my error by getting your moniker wrong. In spite of what some people may think I think, I’m far from perfect.

As far as Jewish Tradition is concerned, I favor it about as much as I favor Christian Tradition. If I favored a Christian Tradition, it would most certainly be Catholic Tradition, not one of the many Traditions from Protestant diversity that’s only been around for less than a few hundred years. And I would favor a Christian Tradition over a Tradition of Judaism because I believe in NT reality.

I don’t know Hebrew, so I must rely on resources to understand that language. And the resources I rely on are Christian resources, rather than Jewish resources. For the simple reason that Christian resources are less apt to be biased against a NT point of view. But I did learn koine Greek as a second language. I learned it from Protestants. If I were to learn koine Greek today, it would be from a Greek Orthodox source. Who better to teach koine Greek? But the Protestant teachers I learned from didn’t see anything wrong with Strong’s lexicons. And neither do I. Strong’s is an accurate resource as far as I’m concerned. And I’ve yet to see an adequate reason to doubt it’s veracity or reason to think it’s on a par with how some people view Wikipedia.

If the resources we’re going to use gives different definitions, may as well hang up our hats. We’ll just be beating the air. And certainly if we’re going to use different resources that give different definitions as to how to translate or understand the Bible, the Bible has no real meaning, only interpretative meaning. That’s worthless as a foundation for one’s life. And that’s why I rejected Christianity in the first place. It’s denominationalism shows its human nature. I was fooled for a time into thinking that Christianity is more than just a man-made religion.

Like the song says, “I’ll get on my knees and pray, that I don’t get fooled again”. So, in spite of my experiences that I consider to be related to the supernatural, I continue to be open minded to the fact that the Bible may be no less man-made then Christianity. And the supernatural events it portrays nothing different than similar types of events portrayed by writings in other religions. And you know how such events of other religions are viewed by most Christians, most conservative Evangelical type Christians. Particularly the interpretations of events in the Old and New Testaments by Judaism. It may be true I’m still too much under the influence of Evangelical Protestantism. And it may be true that what I think are experiences related to the supernatural are nothing more than my imagination. But it seems to me that if the Bible is true, writings of other religions that give a different account can’t be. And while I believe the OT is a true account, I don’t hold with the opinions concerning that account that differ from the NT account as held by Judaism.

The Bible is full of discrepancies. But that’s never been a deterrent to my believing in the Bible, as it has been for those who believe a perfect God must have given a perfect Bible. There’s only one reason I’ve ever had to doubt the veracity of the Bible. And that’s how Christians use it.

And if I make a mistake on your name again, just tell me. It's a hard one for me to get right because it is meaningless in itself to me, and SteveBolts seems in my mind to be more like a real name. I will on my part try to get it right in the future. The mistake wasn't intentional I assure you.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

No offense against your Jewish Heritage intended. I just don’t believe in modern Jewish Tradition any more than I believe in modern Christian Tradition. To me they both have their source in man rather than God. I may use certain Christian resources, such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Even certain commentaries on occasion just to clarify my own understanding of a Scripture portion. I don’t deny that there are good honest Christian commentaries out there that strive to be non-denominational. May even be some Jewish commentaries that strive not to be anti-Christian, though I don’t know of them. But the only Tradition I hold to is that found in the Bible itself. And not just in the Bible alone like Protestantism, but in the Bible as I believe it’s being used and taught by Jesus Christ. Not as fodder for interpretive opinions as it’s being used by most Christian commentators, and all Jewish commentators, that I’m aware of.

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

No offense against your Jewish Heritage intended. I just don’t believe in modern Jewish Tradition any more than I believe in modern Christian Tradition. To me they both have their source in man rather than God. I may use certain Christian resources, such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Even certain commentaries on occasion just to clarify my own understanding of a Scripture portion. I don’t deny that there are good honest Christian commentaries out there that strive to be non-denominational. May even be some Jewish commentaries that strive not to be anti-Christian, though I don’t know of them. But the only Tradition I hold to is that found in the Bible itself. And not just in the Bible alone like Protestantism, but in the Bible as I believe it’s being used and taught by Jesus Christ. Not as fodder for interpretive opinions as it’s being used by most Christian commentators, and all Jewish commentators, that I’m aware of.

FC

why then do you trust yourself to actually understand the bible? what makes you so special to think that you are right?

so if you had a "following" what would you say? do you think that others might agree with you and then you have become what you rebel against.

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

Where have I heard these questions before? Let me answer your questions with some questions of my own.


“why then do you trust yourself to actually understand the bible?â€

Think about it. If I didn’t trust myself, who should I trust? Who’s understanding should I trust? Should I trust two millennia of Jewish thinking that doesn’t accept the NT as being from God? Should I trust two millennia of Christian thinking? Which interpretation of that two millennia of Christian thinking should I trust? The Eastern Orthodox or the Catholics who shared the same interpretation until the second millennia? Which interpretation among thousands should I trust that has been influenced by the sixteenth century Protestant Revolt in the West?

Why should I trust in your understanding of the Bible more than my own? Do you have degrees behind your name that’s supposed to give you trustworthiness? Not that it would matter to me. Degrees don’t assure anyone of being right. Or do you think we’re all right in our own way? With the exception of me, of course, since I trust in my own understanding of the Bible too much to suit your fancy. I know me. I trust myself above anyone else. Why shouldn’t I trust in my own understanding of the Bible?

Indeed, why do you think I should believe in the Bible at all? A Bible that seems to have as its primary purpose to Jews and Christians alike to be fodder for the practice of interpretation? Isn’t that nothing more than a mind game? It is to me. Do you think being in Christ is a game? Is that why you think that my seriousness about what I believe, my own understanding of the Bible, is just thinking myself superior? Am I taking this all too seriously? And if I shouldn’t take it so seriously, why should I take it at all?

The basis of all the various Christian denominational interpretive Traditions is presumed to be what the Apostles taught, Apostles who were taught by Jesus. It just seems more reasonable to me to go to the horse’s mouth, so to speak. It seems more reasonable to me to trust in a written account of what the Apostles taught that I can see for myself, rather than an oral account that has been tenuous and invisible except through interpretation. I have to wonder why there’s a written account at all if the oral account is so trustworthy to be considered equal to the Bible. Protestantism would have never existed except for the existence of a written account. It seems more reasonable to me to trust in a written account that’s suppose to be the Apostle’s teaching, rather than interpretations that have been additive as in Orthodoxy/Catholicism or diverse as in Protestantism. And above all it seems most reasonable to me to be taught by Jesus Christ who the NT writers themselves say is the one we are to hear. Who claim that he was resurrected and still lives and is seated at the right hand of God. Why would you think that my trusting in Jesus Christ, and ultimately the God of Jesus Christ, is actually trusting in myself?


“what makes you so special to think that you are right?â€

Why do you think, I think, I’m special? Is it because I have the courage of my convictions to think that what I believe is right? How special is that? Everyone has something they believe is right. Some people die for what they believe is right. Do you think you’re special just because you believe you’re right about something?

Why do you think that what I believe is NOT what the Bible is saying? And why do you think you’re special enough to answer that question?

Why are there all these opinions about what the one Bible has to say? If we can’t believe in the rightness of our own understanding of the Bible, why should we believe in the rightness of any understanding of the Bible? Why should we believe in the Bible at all?

For every answer, there are a multitude of questions. For every question, there are a multitude of answers. That’s the life of a theorist. Why do you think my reliance on Jesus, whom I think is more right than any theorist, is wrong? Is his understanding of things not to be trusted? Or do you think I’m not “Christian†enough to understand what Jesus is saying?


“so if you had a "following" what would you say?â€

I would say it’s a good way to start another Christian denomination. The whole Protestant fiasco started that way. The division between the East and the West in the eleventh century started that way. The divisions of the fourth through eighth centuries started that way.

Nevertheless, maybe I SHOULD start another Christian denomination. Who knows but that maybe we can finally get it right this time. There have been some who think the reason Jesus hasn’t returned yet is because we haven’t got it right yet. But would it be keeping the unity of the Spirit? Depends on who are able to keep the unity of the Spirit. Those who call themselves Christian, but aren’t actually in Christ, are they able to keep the unity of the Spirit?


“do you think that others might agree with you and then you have become what you rebel against.â€

It’s true that if I had a community that followed me, it could become what I am against. But not necessarily. It could become a community that is an example of what true ekklesia are suppose to be. It could also become a focal point for persecution by those who call themselves Christian and are not in Christ. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

I don’t favor the kind of unity that’s the unity of Christian denominations. Their kind of unity is in interpretive doctrines with its corresponding idea of closed communion. As if disagreement with interpretive doctrines is a sin.

All who are in Christ are one in Christ. All who have the Spirit indwelling them are one in the Spirit. This is supernatural unity. We who are in Christ are not just followers of a religious philosopher who was just another man like we are. According to my understanding of the Bible, Jesus was and still is a sinless man. Within Jesus indwelled and still does the fullness of God. In Christ, we are much more than any interpretation can describe. At the very least, according to my understanding of the Bible, we have wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption in Christ. We’re a whole new creation in Christ. And according to my understanding of the Bible, Jesus Christ has been resurrected, ascended, and is now seated in the heavens at the right hand of God, and Jesus is alive today and teaches all who will come to him walking by the Spirit today. For the God who said,

Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pr 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths

Also said,

Mt 17:5 This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him

That’s all Paul’s talking about. Be one in Christ rather than men (1 Cor). Be one in Spirit and keep the unity of the Spirit (Eph). How hard would it be to say the same thing if we had unity of the Spirit, if we walked by the Spirit of God instead of by the interpretations of men? And how can Christianity keep the unity of the Spirit, since the only unity it’s had outwardly since the fourth century is unity in interpretations, unity in opinions? Do you think that just because someone follows his own understanding of things that he thinks is right, that it’s following a man....ourselves....no matter whether Jesus is involved or not? In order to say that about another, you have to say that about yourself.

Shouldn’t we think the one we’re really following is Jesus Christ, the one the NT makes clear is the one we’re supposed to be following? Even Christianity, the man-made religion, knows we’re supposed to be following Jesus Christ. Otherwise why would they bother to identify with that description of Jesus, Jesus the Christ? Why should we continue to prove we aren’t actually following Christ by following a practice of Biblical interpretation? Or do you think denominationalism is a form of unity condoned by Jesus Christ? Why should we think Jesus was wrong when he said that the way the world will know that God sent the Son is by our unity? Do you really think that Christianity is unity by any definition other than its own?

Supernatural unity by the Spirit isn’t the same as the natural unity that can be achieved by the minds of men. Can you tell me the difference between the laws of a nation or the by-laws of a social club – and - the Bible among those who are in Christ? Or do you think there is a difference?

Why do you think listening to the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit as he uses the Bible constitutes a private interpretation? Is it because you disagree with what he is teaching me? And if I’m wrong in what I think Jesus is teaching, why should I believe you are any more right than I am? And since we all think each other wrong, why should we believe the Bible is worth anything more than an interpretive opinion, one of many ways we humans find to amuse ourselves during our short stay on this planet?

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

Where have I heard these questions before? Let me answer your questions with some questions of my own.


“why then do you trust yourself to actually understand the bible?â€

Think about it. If I didn’t trust myself, who should I trust? Who’s understanding should I trust? Should I trust two millennia of Jewish thinking that doesn’t accept the NT as being from God? Should I trust two millennia of Christian thinking? Which interpretation of that two millennia of Christian thinking should I trust? The Eastern Orthodox or the Catholics who shared the same interpretation until the second millennia? Which interpretation among thousands should I trust that has been influenced by the sixteenth century Protestant Revolt in the West?

Why should I trust in your understanding of the Bible more than my own? Do you have degrees behind your name that’s supposed to give you trustworthiness? Not that it would matter to me. Degrees don’t assure anyone of being right. Or do you think we’re all right in our own way? With the exception of me, of course, since I trust in my own understanding of the Bible too much to suit your fancy. I know me. I trust myself above anyone else. Why shouldn’t I trust in my own understanding of the Bible?

Indeed, why do you think I should believe in the Bible at all? A Bible that seems to have as its primary purpose to Jews and Christians alike to be fodder for the practice of interpretation? Isn’t that nothing more than a mind game? It is to me. Do you think being in Christ is a game? Is that why you think that my seriousness about what I believe, my own understanding of the Bible, is just thinking myself superior? Am I taking this all too seriously? And if I shouldn’t take it so seriously, why should I take it at all?

The basis of all the various Christian denominational interpretive Traditions is presumed to be what the Apostles taught, Apostles who were taught by Jesus. It just seems more reasonable to me to go to the horse’s mouth, so to speak. It seems more reasonable to me to trust in a written account of what the Apostles taught that I can see for myself, rather than an oral account that has been tenuous and invisible except through interpretation. I have to wonder why there’s a written account at all if the oral account is so trustworthy to be considered equal to the Bible. Protestantism would have never existed except for the existence of a written account. It seems more reasonable to me to trust in a written account that’s suppose to be the Apostle’s teaching, rather than interpretations that have been additive as in Orthodoxy/Catholicism or diverse as in Protestantism. And above all it seems most reasonable to me to be taught by Jesus Christ who the NT writers themselves say is the one we are to hear. Who claim that he was resurrected and still lives and is seated at the right hand of God. Why would you think that my trusting in Jesus Christ, and ultimately the God of Jesus Christ, is actually trusting in myself?


“what makes you so special to think that you are right?â€

Why do you think, I think, I’m special? Is it because I have the courage of my convictions to think that what I believe is right? How special is that? Everyone has something they believe is right. Some people die for what they believe is right. Do you think you’re special just because you believe you’re right about something?

Why do you think that what I believe is NOT what the Bible is saying? And why do you think you’re special enough to answer that question?

Why are there all these opinions about what the one Bible has to say? If we can’t believe in the rightness of our own understanding of the Bible, why should we believe in the rightness of any understanding of the Bible? Why should we believe in the Bible at all?

For every answer, there are a multitude of questions. For every question, there are a multitude of answers. That’s the life of a theorist. Why do you think my reliance on Jesus, whom I think is more right than any theorist, is wrong? Is his understanding of things not to be trusted? Or do you think I’m not “Christian†enough to understand what Jesus is saying?


“so if you had a "following" what would you say?â€

I would say it’s a good way to start another Christian denomination. The whole Protestant fiasco started that way. The division between the East and the West in the eleventh century started that way. The divisions of the fourth through eighth centuries started that way.

Nevertheless, maybe I SHOULD start another Christian denomination. Who knows but that maybe we can finally get it right this time. There have been some who think the reason Jesus hasn’t returned yet is because we haven’t got it right yet. But would it be keeping the unity of the Spirit? Depends on who are able to keep the unity of the Spirit. Those who call themselves Christian, but aren’t actually in Christ, are they able to keep the unity of the Spirit?


“do you think that others might agree with you and then you have become what you rebel against.â€

It’s true that if I had a community that followed me, it could become what I am against. But not necessarily. It could become a community that is an example of what true ekklesia are suppose to be. It could also become a focal point for persecution by those who call themselves Christian and are not in Christ. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

I don’t favor the kind of unity that’s the unity of Christian denominations. Their kind of unity is in interpretive doctrines with its corresponding idea of closed communion. As if disagreement with interpretive doctrines is a sin.

All who are in Christ are one in Christ. All who have the Spirit indwelling them are one in the Spirit. This is supernatural unity. We who are in Christ are not just followers of a religious philosopher who was just another man like we are. According to my understanding of the Bible, Jesus was and still is a sinless man. Within Jesus indwelled and still does the fullness of God. In Christ, we are much more than any interpretation can describe. At the very least, according to my understanding of the Bible, we have wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption in Christ. We’re a whole new creation in Christ. And according to my understanding of the Bible, Jesus Christ has been resurrected, ascended, and is now seated in the heavens at the right hand of God, and Jesus is alive today and teaches all who will come to him walking by the Spirit today. For the God who said,

Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pr 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths

Also said,

Mt 17:5 This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him

That’s all Paul’s talking about. Be one in Christ rather than men (1 Cor). Be one in Spirit and keep the unity of the Spirit (Eph). How hard would it be to say the same thing if we had unity of the Spirit, if we walked by the Spirit of God instead of by the interpretations of men? And how can Christianity keep the unity of the Spirit, since the only unity it’s had outwardly since the fourth century is unity in interpretations, unity in opinions? Do you think that just because someone follows his own understanding of things that he thinks is right, that it’s following a man....ourselves....no matter whether Jesus is involved or not? In order to say that about another, you have to say that about yourself.

Shouldn’t we think the one we’re really following is Jesus Christ, the one the NT makes clear is the one we’re supposed to be following? Even Christianity, the man-made religion, knows we’re supposed to be following Jesus Christ. Otherwise why would they bother to identify with that description of Jesus, Jesus the Christ? Why should we continue to prove we aren’t actually following Christ by following a practice of Biblical interpretation? Or do you think denominationalism is a form of unity condoned by Jesus Christ? Why should we think Jesus was wrong when he said that the way the world will know that God sent the Son is by our unity? Do you really think that Christianity is unity by any definition other than its own?

Supernatural unity by the Spirit isn’t the same as the natural unity that can be achieved by the minds of men. Can you tell me the difference between the laws of a nation or the by-laws of a social club – and - the Bible among those who are in Christ? Or do you think there is a difference?

Why do you think listening to the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit as he uses the Bible constitutes a private interpretation? Is it because you disagree with what he is teaching me? And if I’m wrong in what I think Jesus is teaching, why should I believe you are any more right than I am? And since we all think each other wrong, why should we believe the Bible is worth anything more than an interpretive opinion, one of many ways we humans find to amuse ourselves during our short stay on this planet?

FC

heres the problem for you and joe said it best relavistic interpretation of the bible. i can just as easily pick which doctrine i like and make it work for me and defend it logically. why i was even a cult that did just that. ever heard of the jws

it seems to be that you have never known god yet. i didnt come to what i believe because of some commentary it was because i heard god tell me things are so and then heard pastors that god sent me to verify them. while its true that not all i thought i read or heard is correct as no man has perfect understand that is way go back and read and read what the bible says.

but i have learned how evil and sinful i am and how that if i dont stay in fellowship i will deviate. so i pray as i did yesterday what does the bible say on eschatology

and uh trust god and ask him per this verse lean not unto thine own understanding.

you dont attend church and you pick well this tradition of the protestants make sense and this from the catholics make sense.

which is it? i am not a catholic for a great of reasons. not all that they do is bad but i have a lot of issue with the borderline(and some do worship) worship of mary. some do pray but some of them prayers that i have copies of to be recited are over the top. hmm so why would i take that chance?

the trinity is a hard thing to grasp. i just accept it. if i tried it your way then i wouldnt be a trinitarian. i really dont think you are lead of god.its funny as much as disagree with the catholics i often find in general joes exegesis logical and what i have found to be true.

 

[jasoncran]

oh blah btw i am non demonational so that argument of demonation doesnt apply to me nor has it really ever.

i can go to any church and learn

i am in general charimsatic, and i also listen to the cav chapel guys(semi - charismatic) and have listen to the sbc types and a calvinist/amill type(the grandson of billy graham. and i have learned from the all.

 

[stovebolts]

StoveBolts

My apologies. I had originally thought you were a Churches of Christ from some of the things you and Handy said. But then you came up with this Judaism stuff. I know some Churches of Christ people, and like most Protestants I know, they’re content to use Christian resources. But Catholics and Orthodox I know would use Jewish resources as a matter of course because half their religion is Jewish, as they themselves will tell you. The difference between the Old and New Covenants is a very fine line to them. The Crusades had its basis in that fact. So I concluded you were a RC. And I compounded my error by getting your moniker wrong. In spite of what some people may think I think, I’m far from perfect.

As far as Jewish Tradition is concerned, I favor it about as much as I favor Christian Tradition. If I favored a Christian Tradition, it would most certainly be Catholic Tradition, not one of the many Traditions from Protestant diversity that’s only been around for less than a few hundred years. And I would favor a Christian Tradition over a Tradition of Judaism because I believe in NT reality.

I don’t know Hebrew, so I must rely on resources to understand that language. And the resources I rely on are Christian resources, rather than Jewish resources. For the simple reason that Christian resources are less apt to be biased against a NT point of view. But I did learn koine Greek as a second language. I learned it from Protestants. If I were to learn koine Greek today, it would be from a Greek Orthodox source. Who better to teach koine Greek? But the Protestant teachers I learned from didn’t see anything wrong with Strong’s lexicons. And neither do I. Strong’s is an accurate resource as far as I’m concerned. And I’ve yet to see an adequate reason to doubt it’s veracity or reason to think it’s on a par with how some people view Wikipedia.

If the resources we’re going to use gives different definitions, may as well hang up our hats. We’ll just be beating the air. And certainly if we’re going to use different resources that give different definitions as to how to translate or understand the Bible, the Bible has no real meaning, only interpretative meaning. That’s worthless as a foundation for one’s life. And that’s why I rejected Christianity in the first place. It’s denominationalism shows its human nature. I was fooled for a time into thinking that Christianity is more than just a man-made religion.

Like the song says, “I’ll get on my knees and pray, that I don’t get fooled again”. So, in spite of my experiences that I consider to be related to the supernatural, I continue to be open minded to the fact that the Bible may be no less man-made then Christianity. And the supernatural events it portrays nothing different than similar types of events portrayed by writings in other religions. And you know how such events of other religions are viewed by most Christians, most conservative Evangelical type Christians. Particularly the interpretations of events in the Old and New Testaments by Judaism. It may be true I’m still too much under the influence of Evangelical Protestantism. And it may be true that what I think are experiences related to the supernatural are nothing more than my imagination. But it seems to me that if the Bible is true, writings of other religions that give a different account can’t be. And while I believe the OT is a true account, I don’t hold with the opinions concerning that account that differ from the NT account as held by Judaism.

The Bible is full of discrepancies. But that’s never been a deterrent to my believing in the Bible, as it has been for those who believe a perfect God must have given a perfect Bible. There’s only one reason I’ve ever had to doubt the veracity of the Bible. And that’s how Christians use it.

And if I make a mistake on your name again, just tell me. It's a hard one for me to get right because it is meaningless in itself to me, and SteveBolts seems in my mind to be more like a real name. I will on my part try to get it right in the future. The mistake wasn't intentional I assure you.

FC

Apology accepted, and thank you. You've renewed my hope in what it's like to be a decent, honest human being.

I do attend a church of Christ because that is where God has lead me. But I've never left my intellect at the door, nor my passion and gratitude for what God has, and continues to do in my life.

I do not look for tradition to support an interpretation of the scriptures. But we all create traditions to express scriptural truths. When we acknowledge these truths as our bias, then I believe it sets us free from the bonds of religion and true worship occurs.

For the same reason you would go to the Greek Orthodox for Kione Greek, is the same that I would go to the original speakers and writers of Hebrew to better understand their language.

As far as strongs, it is not a dictionary nor a lexicon. Simply, it is a reference and it's bias is clear in that their view is on how Christianity should be interpreted. Does it hold value? Absolutly and in many ways for many reasons. But in the case of this word sacrafice, it did nothing other than to recite the other ways that this word has been translated, and it does this on all words. Thus, it is a reference on how a word has been translated, not a dictionary. So we should not use it as a dictionary, but instead we should use it properly as a reference as this gives us a fuller idea of the word.

And just to be clear, I do use Strongs a lot. It is a great reference and I would not deter anyone from using it. But I would warn against using it as a dictionary simply because it's not a dictionary. This is something that many mistake.

 

[Former Christian]

Stovebolts

The way I figure it, Judaism and Christianity both have their biases. I prefer to use Christian resources so that I only have to deal with one set of biases, the biases of Christianity. Which take up too much of my time as is. Don’t need any added biases to contend with. And as an added bonus, there’s a certain consistency when I talk to Christians about how I see things. Not that consistency in resources really matters when viewpoints are more foolishness than common sense, more interpretive than rational, more imaginary than Spiritual.

“And just to be clear, I do use Strongs a lot. It is a great reference and I would not deter anyone from using it. But I would warn against using it as a dictionary simply because it's not a dictionary. This is something that many mistake.â€

My Strong’s includes a Concordance, a Hebrew Dictionary, and a Greek Dictionary. I find them all very useful and simple to use. I have no problem using the Dictionaries included in Strong’s as authoritative resources. But I admit, as with any resource we consider authoritative, likely as not, they're only personally authoritative. Since all resources are subject to how we feel about them.

FC

 

[stovebolts]

Thank you for sharing your bias. Most won't admit their bias.

With that, I would suggest that most Christian bias in the USA come from the gentile side of the fence and as you have pointed out, suggests that there is a division between Jewish thought and Gentile thought.

And it makes me think about what Peter wrote about Paul's writings, and how some of them are hard to understand, while many others abuse Holy Scripture to their own detriment. Considering Paul was a Jew, and a very well educated one at that, it would seem to me that Peter is warning us not to stray too far.... lest we just start making stuff up that tickles our own ears.

But that's just my thoughts.

.02

 

[jasoncran]

well then its hard to seperate the origins of to faith that was handed to the gentiles form the jews for if we do that we cant really understand what the bible tries to say.

and some demonations have done that.

i should do a thread on anti-semiticism and whats it done to the chruch.

 

[Former Christian]

StoveBolts

“With that, I would suggest that most Christian bias in the USA come from the gentile side of the fence and as you have pointed out, suggests that there is a division between Jewish thought and Gentile thought.”

It’s pretty obvious that today and back into history a long ways, Christianity has been primarily Gentile. It can only be said that it has Jewish elements in it, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the denomination, and depending how closely the denomination follows the Old Testament as a standard. A Gentile bias already existed in the first century as seen in the special dispensation to the Gentiles to not have to keep the Jewish Law. I have never been able to agree with the Christian interpretation of that incident as showing that the OT Law is no longer for those who are in Christ. Since the whole OT is a description of how one lives under the Law, to believe that and simultaneously believe that the Christian Bible is composed of more than just the NT is a contradiction. Not to mention those bothersome NT verses that tell us that the OT is for our benefit.

One could reasonably say that the idea of Jesus being the only way was only meant for the Jews. Being as it was Jesus and Peter as the Apostle to the Jews who made the point blank statements to the Jews. The idea of being in Christ comes from Paul. Only Peter uses the terminology once and it could mean that Peter’s reference to knowing Christ was intended in a very natural way, knowing him through what he taught. There are a lot of Christians who believe that one can be saved without necessarily believing specifically in Christ. The art of speculation can take us in any number of directions. As Christianity and the above example abundantly shows.

It may be that the idea that there’s no longer Jew nor Gentile in Christ is lost on modern Christianity, since the number of Jews who have become Christian is not very great. And I as a former Christian could easily agree with the idea that since Christianity is primarily Gentile it has left it’s true roots in Judaism. I just happen to agree with Paul that true Judaism as a religion, as it was created by God, has been superseded by the fulfillment of that religion by Jesus Christ. And that the true Jew is the one who is a Jew in the heart, the one who is in Christ. To the one who is in Christ, one would think that modern Judaism would be considered just another human religion like Islam and Buddhism. But then maybe that’s a little hard to see for those who are in Christ and also a part of Christianity, because Christianity itself is also just another human religion.


“it would seem to me that Peter is warning us not to stray too far.... lest we just start making stuff up that tickles our own ears.”

A warning long too late to be heeded by Christianity. It’s up to individuals to see that Biblical interpretation is the cause for straying, not a way to keep from straying too far.

I don’t like that cliché about tickling the ears. It suggests something nefarious. I don’t think that’s the problem in Christianity. There’s nothing nefarious about what has happened in Christianity, the denominationalism and all. It’s just human nature running the show. While that may seem to be nefarious enough to Calvinists, their Calvinistic idea of humanity and its effect has nothing to do with reality. And the Bible has a much more realistic understanding as to the real situation with humanity, and why Christianity is the way it is. Something that none can see if they’re going to insist on the practice of Biblical interpretation. Neither the interpretations of Judaism nor of Christianity will be of any help. If anything, they’ll just muddy the waters.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

The term anti-Semitism is bantered about like the term homophobia. Other than the skinheads, there are few who are anti-Semites, especially in Christianity. For a Christian, especially a Christian who is in Christ, to prefer Christian resources to Jewish resources, or to believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved, can in no way be construed to be anti-Semitism. Unless one wishes to interpret it that way. In which case the interpretation is as silly as saying that just because a Christian understands the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle constitutes homophobia. It may be more apt to say that those who use the term homophobia too freely may be guilty of Christian-phobia. So also those who use the term anti-Semitism too freely.

But then to you I have no experience of God, which I’m sure to you nullifies whatever I might say about any subject. In spite of the fact that the basis for what I have been saying all along is the necessity of knowing God in reality rather than in a superficial way through an exercise of our own mind, through the practice of Biblical interpretation. I refer Christian resources to Jewish resources as being more apt to agree with NT thinking, and I believe that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle according to the Bible. If that makes me an anti-Semite and a homophobe in anyone’s eyes, it still is what it is.

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

The term anti-Semitism is bantered about like the term homophobia. Other than the skinheads, there are few who are anti-Semites, especially in Christianity. For a Christian, especially a Christian who is in Christ, to prefer Christian resources to Jewish resources, or to believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved, can in no way be construed to be anti-Semitism. Unless one wishes to interpret it that way. In which case the interpretation is as silly as saying that just because a Christian understands the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle constitutes homophobia. It may be more apt to say that those who use the term homophobia too freely may be guilty of Christian-phobia. So also those who use the term anti-Semitism too freely.

But then to you I have no experience of God, which I’m sure to you nullifies whatever I might say about any subject. In spite of the fact that the basis for what I have been saying all along is the necessity of knowing God in reality rather than in a superficial way through an exercise of our own mind, through the practice of Biblical interpretation. I refer Christian resources to Jewish resources as being more apt to agree with NT thinking, and I believe that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle according to the Bible. If that makes me an anti-Semite and a homophobe in anyone’s eyes, it still is what it is.

FC

uh, first off its a known fact to me and those in the church of christ that the ot wasnt to be read nor studied and that jews were to be hated and that wasnt directed to you.


and i agree with that but you claimed athiest in another thread. didnt think i sense that when your first came here and posted.if you want to know god then let him show you and lead you to a church,

its funny given my major issues with the rcc and i have a ton that a member of that system and i agree alot lately.


luther killed jews and so did the rcc. so what the jews did know wasnt shared nor appreciated as all things jews were in a sense lost from the time from the ecfs and in a sense in now.


the tankah and the new testament arent saying god is two different things and many protestants teach that at times. some do teach it as i see it and agree when i say the ot is jesus hid and the nt is jesus shown. but many a christians simply dont know the ot testament and dont really want to know.

might i suggest instead debating what god says., go to a church and actually listen to the pastor whom god leads you too in person.

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

“and i agree with that but you claimed athiest in another thread. didnt think i sense that when your first came here and posted.if you want to know god then let him show you and lead you to a church….. might i suggest instead debating what god says., go to a church and actually listen to the pastor whom god leads you too in person.â€

Don’t believe in Churches. Been to a lot of them. The idea of a Church is an organizational idea started centuries ago and is continued by all Christian denominations today. I believe Christian Churches are a part of the man-made religion that’s commonly known as Christianity. I believe in ekklesia, the original communal idea found in the NT. And they're not the same, in spite of how it appears on the surface.

Don’t believe in listening to Pastors. Listened to too many already. Rather listen to what Jesus Christ says about the Bible. If you know of a Church wherein they just read the Bible and share with one another what Jesus teaches them, instead of having one or two over educated “Pastors†speculate on it, let me know. In America, Los Angeles area, in case you live else where.

If that’s just personal relativism to you, can’t help it. I came in listening to Christ through the Spirit. I’ll go out when I find out the one I’ve been listening to is just in my own imagination. Prove it’s in my imagination if you can. You brought up relativism. I’d rather be an Atheist than believe in something that doesn’t exist.

And I’d sure like to know who deleted my post on the Dinosaur thread, and why. I think I’m at least owed that much by someone who calls himself a Christian. You're a monitor. Ask among your colleagues. A PM works for me.

FC

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Brother,

Don’t believe in Churches. Been to a lot of them. The idea of a Church is an organizational idea started centuries ago and is continued by all Christian denominations today. I believe Christian Churches are a part of the man-made religion that’s commonly known as Christianity. I believe in ekklesia, the original communal idea found in the NT. And they're not the same, in spite of how it appears on the surface.

I'll not capitalize churches for to do so is to reference the Ekklesia. So please know that when I write churches, it is in reference to man's ideas of what the Ekklesia should look like.

While it is true that there is much man made religion within the churches, I don't think it's fair to proverbially throw out the baby with the bath water as there are a lot of members within the churches that belong to the Church.

As true followers of Christ, I'm finding out that we ought not throw our dirty laundry around to openly and I'm reminded of Noah's nakedness. Some things are just best unsaid to other people.

Paul writes to the Corinthians that we ought to stay where we have been saved, and when I question the why, I conclude that perhaps we are the ones who are able to make a difference where we're at. If we leave the environment where we are saved, then we are no better off than the prodigal son who took his inheritance and spent it far off, when it could have been used to better the current situation.

While the church as a whole isn't perfect, I'm certainly not running from it. No, I am trying to make a difference within it. Because it's not my say who's part of the Church, even within my own church.

 

[jasoncran]

the reason for the delete should be viewable and whom did it.