How do you know what the Christian faith is?

[MoreCoffee]

The passages mentioned earlier that speak of traditions that are destructive all refer to Jewish traditions at the time that the Lord spoke. The passages that speak of traditions that Christians ought to remember and keep are apostolic traditions. This is simply fact. It has nothing to do with anti-Jewish sentiment.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #79 on Page 8, MoreCoffee said, with respect to traditions:

The bad ones were Jewish and the good ones were apostolic.

And in Post #81 on Page 9:

The passages mentioned earlier that speak of traditions that are destructive all refer to Jewish traditions at the time that the Lord spoke. The passages that speak of traditions that Christians ought to remember and keep are apostolic traditions. This is simply fact. It has nothing to do with anti-Jewish sentiment.

To set the record straight, let it be noted that not all Jewish traditions were “destructive” or “bad”. Many were highly positive, and often dealt with situations where the relief of suffering (physical and psychological) was potentially in conflict with God’s Covenant Law with Israel. For instance, as recorded in Holy Scripture (Luke 14:5):

"And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"

There were also other traditions, that were undoubtedly sensible. One that has become an important consideration in our modern Western culture (and others) is revealed in Matthew 15:2 and Mark 7:2-5:

"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread."

"2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?"

So even in the New Testament, not all of the Jewish traditions recorded were “destructive” or “bad”.

I suspect that psalms 91 was indirectly referring to the presentation of only the negative aspects of the Jewish traditions of Jesus’ day, when he stated in Post #80 on Page 8:

Wow just wow and we wonder why the Catholic church persecuted the Ajewish? Apparently some of those feelings still exist

Especially in light of MoreCoffee’s:

The passages that speak of traditions that Christians ought to remember and keep are apostolic traditions.

I think I will choose to follow and honour the Jewish tradition above, by continuing to wash my hands before I eat.

(I have no ass or ox to rescue.)

 

[popsthebuilder]

In Post #71 on Page 8, popsthebuilder said [emphasis added]:

I would request of popsthebuilder, counsel him even, not to act precipitously should the same feeling overtake him again.

I’m sure he knows already that it is a normal human trait to resist having one’s mind changed, irrespective of the amount and quality of relevant evidence that is presented – evidence that should convince people to do so.

That is why Baptists remain Baptists, Anglicans remain Anglicans, Roman Catholics remain Roman Catholics, and Lutherans remain Lutherans, for instance.

It is a characteristic of Fallen Man to adopt a stance for whatever reason, then defend that stance to the death as it were, using whatever weapons come to hand, whether logical or illogical, honest or dishonest, as the situation requires. Courtroom lawyers are an extreme, but by no means isolated, example of this general rule.

That being the case, what should be the aim of people like popsthebuilder, seeing that convincing others is not a practical proposition?

I suggest that the only sensible objective for them is to bear witness to the truth as they see it, and leave the staunch denominationalists without excuse if they happen to reject a truth of God, or maybe two, or three, or more, when those truths are presented.

I further suggest that popsthebuilder et al be open to adjusting their views in the light of Scripture when viewed in its proper context. I submit that it is only by doing so that we can understand God’s real message to us, especially as directly expressed by Jesus, by the Gospel writers, and by the writers of the “epistles”. (It is understood that there is some overlap in those categories.)

I don’t think it inappropriate to encourage popsthebuilder to continue to bear witness to the truth as he sees it, and also to be sensitive to the true context of each section of God’s Holy Revelation as he reads it, be it in his own personal study, or as presented by others in this forum.

Thank you friend.

Your single post proved your own point.

It's strange how correction in the right manner can be taken as a compliment.

I also enjoy learning new words, and you learned me two of em.

No really, point taken, and I'm grateful for the fresh perspective.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

When the Lord upbraided the Jews for their hypocrisy it was with the example of their willingness to save domestic stock from injury and harm on the Sabbath while they sought to condemn the Lord for healing a man on the sabbath. The reasoning in the Lord's rebuke is evident. If it is right to save an animal from harm how much more praiseworthy is it to save a man?

And it happened that, when Jesus entered the house of a certain leader of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, they were observing him. And behold, a certain man before him was afflicted with edema. And responding, Jesus spoke to the experts in the law and to the Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" But they kept silent. Yet truly, taking hold of him, he healed him and sent him away. And responding to them, he said, "Which of you will have a donkey or an ox fall into a pit, and will not promptly pull him out, on the day of the Sabbath?" And they were unable to respond to him about these things. [Luke 14:1-6]

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #84 on Page 9, MoreCoffee offered:

When the Lord upbraided the Jews for their hypocrisy it was with the example of their willingness to save domestic stock from injury and harm on the Sabbath while they sought to condemn the Lord for healing a man on the sabbath. The reasoning in the Lord's rebuke is evident. If it is right to save an animal from harm how much more praiseworthy is it to save a man?

And it happened that, when Jesus entered the house of a certain leader of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, they were observing him. And behold, a certain man before him was afflicted with edema. And responding, Jesus spoke to the experts in the law and to the Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" But they kept silent. Yet truly, taking hold of him, he healed him and sent him away. And responding to them, he said, "Which of you will have a donkey or an ox fall into a pit, and will not promptly pull him out, on the day of the Sabbath?" And they were unable to respond to him about these things. [Luke 14:1-6]

Whether he realised it or not, MoreCoffee has actually proved my point.

Jesus did not cast any negative light on the amelioration of an animal’s direct suffering. He cast positive light on that kind of action. It was the Pharisees’ inconsistency that was His target.

Therefore, as pointed out before, not all the Jewish traditions documented in God’s Holy Scriptures were “destructive” or “bad”.

So once again, MoreCoffee’s previous statement that the only “traditions” that Christians ought to remember and keep are “apostolic” ones - does that statement not seem somewhat misguided (to say the least)?

And was that statement not made in order to open a psychological door promoting the acceptance of post-apostolic and extra-Biblical “apostolic traditions” – “apostolic traditions” that for some reason were unknown when the apostles died, but surfaced progressively over some hundreds of years thereafter?

Readers take note.

 

[psalms 91]

In Post #84 on Page 9, MoreCoffee offered:


Whether he realised it or not, MoreCoffee has actually proved my point.

Jesus did not cast any negative light on the amelioration of an animal’s direct suffering. He cast positive light on that kind of action. It was the Pharisees’ inconsistency that was His target.

Therefore, as pointed out before, not all the Jewish traditions documented in God’s Holy Scriptures were “destructive” or “bad”.

So once again, MoreCoffee’s previous statement that the only “traditions” that Christians ought to remember and keep are “apostolic” ones - does that statement not seem somewhat misguided (to say the least)?

And was that statement not made in order to open a psychological door promoting the acceptance of post-apostolic and extra-Biblical “apostolic traditions” – “apostolic traditions” that for some reason were unknown when the apostles died, but surfaced progressively over some hundreds of years thereafter?

Readers take note.

Yup

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #84 on Page 9, MoreCoffee offered:


Whether he realised it or not, MoreCoffee has actually proved my point....

The point that the Lord Jesus Christ made was that the tradition that condemned healing a man on the Sabbath was sheer hypocrisy from the Scribes & Pharisees.

 

[psalms 91]

But not all or are you missing that point?

 

[MoreCoffee]

One takes the central point as the chief lesson. Other things are implied but hardly core teaching in the Christian faith. And one learns what is chief first by hearing the gospel and then by living the faith. The church teaches the faithful to hear the gospel.

 

[psalms 91]

Funny, I thought that was Gods conviction and the Holy Spirit leading combined with the Word as taught by the Holy Spirit

 

[MoreCoffee]

Funny, I thought that was Gods conviction and the Holy Spirit leading combined with the Word as taught by the Holy Spirit

What makes you think that what the church teaches is not God convicting the faithful through the Holy Spirit speaking in the church?

 

[psalms 91]

It can be but it still comes down to do you know Jesus personally, if not then you are in trouble

 

[MoreCoffee]

What makes you think that what the church teaches is not God convicting the faithful through the Holy Spirit speaking in the church?

It can be but it still comes down to do you know Jesus personally, if not then you are in trouble

Okay. I can see that you are firm in the traditions of your denomination.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What makes you think that what the church teaches is not God convicting the faithful through the Holy Spirit speaking in the church?

Indeed they are, and have the potential to, but that is not the limit to which GOD's Will be done.

All I'm trying to say is not to limit the capacities of what we know by scripture and logic to be outside of limit and human cognitive grasp.

Is it written that the body of Christ is the way to GOD? Is not the church the faithful in GOD and His promises made known by way of the Christ?

My point is too that the Gospel, the knowledge of Christ has indeed been spread throughout the world, and those who believe are simply not limited to ANY denomination.

Do you or anyone else here deny these things?

Please, correct my ignorance.

Humbly, sincerely,

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed they are, and have the potential to, but that is not the limit to which GOD's Will be done.

All I'm trying to say is not to limit the capacities of what we know by scripture and logic to be outside of limit and human cognitive grasp.

Is it written that the body of Christ is the way to GOD? Is not the church the faithful in GOD and His promises made known by way of the Christ?

My point is too that the Gospel, the knowledge of Christ has indeed been spread throughout the world, and those who believe are simply not limited to ANY denomination.

Do you or anyone else here deny these things?

Please, correct my ignorance.

Humbly, sincerely,

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

God speaks to his people in various ways. In the teaching of the church is the most common way that God speaks to the faithful. Sometimes God speaks by visions. Sometimes by bringing to prominence some aspect of holy scripture. Other ways are also open to God to use. No one who loves and serves the Lord will think that they can restrict God's freedom.

 

[visionary]

What makes you think that what the church teaches is not God convicting the faithful through the Holy Spirit speaking in the church?

It can happen, but not necessarily with what is spoken in the pulpit but definitely what is spoken to the heart of the believer.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It can happen, but not necessarily with what is spoken in the pulpit but definitely what is spoken to the heart of the believer.

There is no pulpit in a Catholic church building.

 

[psalms 91]

There is no pulpit in a Catholic church building.

Nope but a homily which is the same as a sermon and the same idea applies

 

[MoreCoffee]

Homilies are about applying the holy scriptures to the lives of the faithful. The idea behind a homily is pastoral. It is not the same as a sermon. It is usually shorter than a typical Presbyterian sermon.

 

[psalms 91]

ok but what about what was said about what is spoken to the heart?