|
Post by sharon on Jun 17, 2009 16:13:18 GMT -5
Sharon, One thing those closest to me know, that perhaps the casual observer doesn't, is that I am a cliche master. So I feel duty bound to point out that it's "jot and tittle" and "brass tacks". I'm also assuming that you'll understand that I'm just kidding Seriously, I think your post is spot on. Well done. Sorry, Zorro, I was typing too fast....I just get fired up when something like this that isn't really worded explicitly in the Bible as to how it is to be and someone makes it that way anyway! Thanks for the vote of confidence!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 17, 2009 16:18:19 GMT -5
Interesting thought Sharon, that the garden is where death and life meet. Thanks....something to think about. Clearday! Doesn't it say Jesus was wont to often resort there? Seems quite an appropriate place to touch the very depth of God to me! Everytime in the last few years when I read about Jesus last moments in the garden I again come to the realization that Jesus planted His human will in that garden and out of it came the fruit of the Will of God.....God's plan of salvation....Love led Jesus on to Calvary simply because He planted His human tendencies and desires in that garden! Some might argue as God the Son He wouldn't need such, but I always think about when Satan left Him after the first temptation...it says that Satan left Him for a while, doesn't it? Also when one plants something, it takes the death of that seed to bring about the growth that brings about the fruit, doesn't it? From death comes life! And please, don't anyone take that to mean I'm all for murdering someone to prove my point....I'm talking about gardening actually!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 17, 2009 16:30:43 GMT -5
For those who want to "follow Jesus' example" literally:
The last place Jesus worshipped before he died was on the cross.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 6:59:45 GMT -5
And even a deeper mystery, why did Jesus condemn the Temple, and allow it to be destroyed, and thousands of worshiping Jews within its burning walls? The Temple was important for deeply symbolic reasons. It's last act of symbolism was to be destroyed and all Jews removed from Jerusalem.
The moneychangers symbolised all that was corrupt with the Temple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 7:05:59 GMT -5
Sharon, do you think those people meeting in homes on Sundays were doing the Passover thing? They were doing what Jesus showed them to do. Again, Jesus had the Passover meal, but this was no longer the Passover.
The wine wasn't the Passover wine. The bread wasn't the Passover bread. The liturgy wasn't the Passover liturgy. The Passover story was now the story of Jesus No Passover was celebrated by Gentile Christians in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 18, 2009 7:13:58 GMT -5
And even a deeper mystery, why did Jesus condemn the Temple, and allow it to be destroyed, and thousands of worshiping Jews within its burning walls? The Temple was important for deeply symbolic reasons. It's last act of symbolism was to be destroyed and all Jews removed from Jerusalem. The moneychangers symbolised all that was corrupt with the Temple. I think Jesus was simply pointing out to His apostles that this temple was just another building made by the hands of man! That it served it purpose and that purpose would some day be over! Part of His telling was a prophecy of that to come, as well! To think of the Temple as "off putting" as far as the NT church is concerned....I reread those first 3 chs. in Acts again.....Even though it says that the apostles all went back to the house that they'd obtained before Jesus' crucifiction....if you read on in the story....you will see that the Apostles and all the disciples and all the new converts continued "daily in the Temple" praying and met home to home to break bread......now since all the new converts had sold all they had, they simply would have had to go somewhere to have their meals, now wouldn't they. The Biblical scholars have stated very specifically that they are UNABLE to determine if this "going home to home to break bread" meant they were eating their meals OR if it meant they were partaking of the bread and wine "in remembrance of the Lord"....for His last command before His resurrection was for the apostles to do it in remembrance of Him "as often as you do it." The scholars have said it doesn't indicate in the history or the scrolls whether the sacraments were a daily thing, a weekly thing, or how often they became in the NT church AFTER Jesus' ascension. So if the Apostles' and their new converts "continued daily in the Temple" doesn't sound like it was a "wrong" place to be for that period of time, now does it? Bert, we need to take the scriptures literally and not make out of them something that leaves something else wanting......we can't be taking away or adding to and for myself, I pray often that I don't do that. I was raised with a firm thought that NO place could be a house of worship but a sanctified home! Now for many years my thought about a sanctified home was one that had God dwelling in the people who lived there....but perhaps I was wrong....the sanctified meant sanctioned by the workers! The reason I mention this is because when Paul spoke about a non-believing spouse, he went on to say that the believing spouse in effect sanctified the home, the unbelieving spouse and any children of that union....just some thoughts how sanctification really works and not totally by sanctioning by some outside human!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 7:32:33 GMT -5
It is possible there was a dual custom here. It is not elaborated upon, and we thus must presume it wasn't important. What WAS (and therefore IS) important are the things our Lord and Master showed us. He spoke He prayed He gave the old emblems NEW meanings in Himself He and his disciples sang a hymn
and further more, He appeared in two Sunday gatherings. He did not appear to the Jews, or in the Temple or synagogues ever more.
To "continue daily in the temple" is fine with me. Those disciples showed they still respected this ancient institution. But the symbols, the priestly robes, the lovely stones etc had been stripped of all meaning and worth by Jesus himself.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 18, 2009 15:00:54 GMT -5
It's important to understand that the gospels were written after the Temple was destroyed. With the possible exception of Mark, who, even if written beforehand, could see the writing on the wall. One or more Gospels also were written after Christians were driven from the Synagogues. To put things in perspective, then, it was clear to Gospel writers that there must have been something wrong with the Temple and synagogues, since God led his people away from them. Anti-Judaism tendencies that perhaps did not exist in Jesus himself would still surely become reflected in the later writings about him. Excellent Post! I think people forget that the Gospels were not written in real-time, nor were they written in English, nor were they written by God. That's why I try not to take everything in the Bible so literally.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 18, 2009 15:41:20 GMT -5
~~~The apostles had a wondeful result from teaching, preachng in the temple court yard so they went there daily Acts 2:46,47 They continuing DAILY together in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meal with gladness and singleness of heart. Praising God, and having favor with all the people. and the Lord Added to the church daily such as should be SAVED. Yes Nate, the apostles had a wonderful result because they let the Holy Spirit lead. If the Spirit led them into the Temple, or to stay away from the Temple, that's what they did. The form and legalism of Judaism had failed to bring people into fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. Jesus' opinion of the priests and Levites is evident in the parable of the good Samaritan. The workers were successful in those early years because they ditched the form and tradition of their fathers and sought the Spirit's leading. It wasn't long though, until God was put back in a box and now he is only allowed to work within our man-made system.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 18, 2009 15:49:07 GMT -5
From what GW said, it seems the foundation didn't happen all at once, but took place over the course of several years. Perhaps that's what you're having trouble understanding. The founding of this church didn't happen overnight. I have no trouble understanding that. In fact, it is what I have suspected all along. In that case, why are you pretending that you don't understand? I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie. What's the harm in asking then? I don't think you will because I think you're afraid of the answer. I can't say I don't blame you. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you don't really want answered. Christmas was so much better before I asked my parents if Santa was real.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 18, 2009 17:59:58 GMT -5
And even a deeper mystery, why did Jesus condemn the Temple, and allow it to be destroyed, and thousands of worshiping Jews within its burning walls? This is not a good question to ask, since the most OBVIOUS answer to why Jesus didn't come back as he promised and save them all is not very flattering to the Christian belief. This, then, becomes a pacifier for Christians who kept looking to the sky for a redeemer for 2000 more years. You may remember that in Mark, Jesus promised he would "destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days." 25 or so years later when John was written and it became obvious the three days were up, nobody was going to rebuild anything, the theology changed...Jesus dares the Jews to destroy the temple instead, and John explains that Jesus is speaking about his own resurrection after three days.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 18, 2009 18:04:49 GMT -5
if we're to get down to brass tacts, we should be all meeting in the garden.....for there is where death and life meet. I am fascinated by this insight as well. Maybe others have noted the garden of Eden themes in John's telling of the resurrection (John places the tomb in a garden). For example, Jesus, the new Adam, is thought by Mary to be the gardener. Another of John's ironies, that Mary is right, Jesus is tending his new creation, the new Eden?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 3:23:35 GMT -5
Dietcoke. Jesus spoke of the temple of His body. They destroyed His body and in three day God raised Him again.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 19, 2009 4:44:37 GMT -5
I have no trouble understanding that. In fact, it is what I have suspected all along. In that case, why are you pretending that you don't understand? I have never not believed that this was established over several years. I'm not sure where you get this idea. I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie. What's the harm in asking then? I don't think you will because I think you're afraid of the answer. I can't say I don't blame you. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you don't really want answered. Christmas was so much better before I asked my parents if Santa was real. There is absolutely no harm is asking. Not sure where you got the idea that I would be reluctant to ask. The truth is that it is likely that I know far more than he does seeing I have access to history records and various other accounts via the internet, and I suspect that I could tell him plenty that he doesn't know. I guess I should tell him, even though it is not really that relavant to anything. Seeing he is probably in a position to be asked about this, he might be interested.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 19, 2009 4:58:01 GMT -5
Todd, if, just if you had this conversation with your elder could you give us a short brief of what you would be saying to him concerning the beginnings. I have read so much about what you don't believe it would be refreshing to read what you do believe.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 19, 2009 7:24:23 GMT -5
Todd, if, just if you had this conversation with your elder could you give us a short brief of what you would be saying to him concerning the beginnings. I have read so much about what you don't believe it would be refreshing to read what you do believe. Oh, the amount of reading that I have done, I have lots to tell him... much more than I could fit into a short brief, but some of the things would be about different missions that were conducted and all the various ones that were involved in some way or another,and the different places that they came from and who it was that taught them about God, and the ones who asked God for direction concerning the going in faith that he would provide, and their other convictions regarding what God wanted of his ministry. This history is somewhat irrelevant today, though faith inspiring all the same, that this ministry and fellowship, through the working of many different lives, was built up without it being the purpose of a man, and continues today, because God is still sending preachers out to teach and guide his people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 7:25:07 GMT -5
Dietcoke. Jesus spoke of the temple of His body. They destroyed His body and in three day God raised Him again. Jesus didn't speak of the temple of His body. That was John's commentary written many years later after it became apparent that the physical temple wasn't going to be rebuilt in 3 days . Or did a monk insert that like the Johananine comma? Jhn2:21
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 7:36:52 GMT -5
Dietcoke. Jesus spoke of the temple of His body. They destroyed His body and in three day God raised Him again. Jesus didn't speak of the temple of His body. That was John's commentary written many years later after it became apparent that the physical temple wasn't going to be rebuilt in 3 days . Or did a monk insert that like the Johananine comma? Jhn2:21 Now this John is one amazing guy! Was it really he who Isaiah spoke of, and Moses, Abraham and David? Was it really John who warned the Christians to flee when Rome was about to crush Jerusalem? Did John speak of the Jews being scattered into all the world and crushed under the feet of the Gentiles? Did John somehow foresee the Jews coming back to Israel again in the last times? ... perhaps there was no Jesus, and why not no John either? Maybe the bible is One Big Irvine Plot?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 19, 2009 7:38:19 GMT -5
Good work, Todd, though a little bit 'Raymond Reid-ish'.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 19, 2009 8:03:58 GMT -5
Good work, Todd, though a little bit 'Raymond Reid-ish'. Thanks for the compliments. I'll have to let you know how it goes. BTW, who is 'Raymond Reid'?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 19, 2009 9:18:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 19, 2009 11:16:08 GMT -5
I tend to get Raymond Reid and Raymond Reese mixed up in my mind...guess it's because I've never met Raymond Reid but have been around Raymond Reese quit a bit!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 19, 2009 11:17:49 GMT -5
And even a deeper mystery, why did Jesus condemn the Temple, and allow it to be destroyed, and thousands of worshiping Jews within its burning walls? The Temple was important for deeply symbolic reasons. It's last act of symbolism was to be destroyed and all Jews removed from Jerusalem. The moneychangers symbolised all that was corrupt with the Temple. Bert, I 've interpreted all of that as punishment for the disobedient children of Israel for some reason!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 19, 2009 11:23:49 GMT -5
It is possible there was a dual custom here. It is not elaborated upon, and we thus must presume it wasn't important. What WAS (and therefore IS) important are the things our Lord and Master showed us. He spoke He prayed He gave the old emblems NEW meanings in Himself He and his disciples sang a hymn and further more, He appeared in two Sunday gatherings. He did not appear to the Jews, or in the Temple or synagogues ever more. To "continue daily in the temple" is fine with me. Those disciples showed they still respected this ancient institution. But the symbols, the priestly robes, the lovely stones etc had been stripped of all meaning and worth by Jesus himself. ~~~ In the gospels we see Jesus often went to the Temple court yard and the synagogues to teach, and preach there. In the book of Acts we read the apostles Peter, John, paul and disciples follow Jesus' examples they went to the temple cour yard and synagogues to teach and preach to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.
(Acts 4:1-4) And as they (Peter and John) unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Saducees, came upon them. Being grief that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead..... Many of them who heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about 5000.
The apostles had a wondeful result from teaching, preachng in the temple court yard so they went there daily Acts 2:46,47 They continuing DAILY together in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meal with gladness and singleness of heart. Praising God, and having favor with all the people. and the Lord Added to the church daily such as should be SAVED.Nathan, you reminded me of hearing the stories from some of the beginning workers and/or their companions in later life....they'd go to a denominational church whereever they'd set up their batch and many times, they'd be offered a chance to preach....fact is, seems like in some of the British Isles, I'd heard that in the small villages where only one church might be...when the regular minister was to be gone perhaps on vacation or retreat or something....the workers would be asked to fill in....and I think that has happened in the "sticks" of AR and OK during my lifetime even! So this continued "growth" of variance against other churches has gotten so much more selective and Ill advised in the more recent years...perhaps 20 yrs.? Maybe the workers see the "seminary-educated" preachers as a serious threat to their jobs? I'm not really sure, but it's a possibility for some, I'm sure!
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 19, 2009 13:22:07 GMT -5
In that case, why are you pretending that you don't understand? I have never not believed that this was established over several years. I'm not sure where you get this idea. I got the idea from reading your posts. Since you now claim you do understand how a group could form yet not be a cohesive movement until 1901, I'll just assume your post was an effort to keep people focused on the trees. God forbid you ever talk about the forest Todd. What's the harm in asking then? I don't think you will because I think you're afraid of the answer. I can't say I don't blame you. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you don't really want answered. Christmas was so much better before I asked my parents if Santa was real. There is absolutely no harm is asking. Not sure where you got the idea that I would be reluctant to ask. The truth is that it is likely that I know far more than he does seeing I have access to history records and various other accounts via the internet, and I suspect that I could tell him plenty that he doesn't know. I guess I should tell him, even though it is not really that relavant to anything. Seeing he is probably in a position to be asked about this, he might be interested. Once again, I got the idea from your posts. Anyway, I would think history would be very relevant to a group which claims they are following the Bible the way it was meant to be followed. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. How many more people will you allow to be mislead because you don't think it's relevant to discuss the history?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 19, 2009 13:41:51 GMT -5
I suspect that I could tell him plenty that he doesn't know. I guess I should tell him, even though it is not really that relavant to anything.
The history was very relevant when that "history" was the story of the fellowship going all the way back to the "shores of Galilee". Now that it's clear that the "history" only goes back to the shores of Ireland circa 1897, it's no longer relevant. Very convenient. Why don't you let your elder tell you for himself how relevant it is? There are many people that rather than swallow the revisionist version of the fellowship's history, find the history very relevant, indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 14:26:35 GMT -5
This history controversy is all down to a simple typo. One of Jack Carroll's secretaries typed in a letter that this way goes all the way back to the shores of Gallilee instead of the"Shores of Galway (Ireland)." Now you know what they say about an untruth. It goes half way round the world before the truth gets going.
That's the truth of the matter. That's how the untruth started.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 19, 2009 14:39:43 GMT -5
lol...that's hilarious ram.
|
|