|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 10:17:53 GMT -5
But you didn't answer my question. First, there's a big difference between baptism, Eucharist, and religious symbols/regalia. Do you believe it's sinful or wrong to have a reminder (in the form of a symbol, or "regalia") that God delivers us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2007 10:32:43 GMT -5
quote - "Do you believe it's sinful or wrong to have a reminder (in the form of a symbol, or "regalia") that God delivers us?"
Yes, and some ideas of why this might be so. You are adding to the form of worship Jesus gave us. Since God gave you no instruction, you make it up as you go along. Non-believes look upon your works and think that all religion is man-made.
from our 2007 web site... "In the Old Testament, Moses was instructed by God, "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." 1 But this serpent became an object of worship for a time in the Kingdom of Judah, where incense was offered to it. It was destroyed by King Hezekiah as idolatrous. What had been a symbol of God's redemption now had become a snare to God's people.2 Jesus drew a parallel between the serpent on the pole and himself upon the cross. In a near perfect parallel of Judah's idolatry, the cross itself became an object of idol worship. The worship of crosses and other religious paraphernalia is plainly forbidden by the scriptures. The second commandment prohibits worshipping anyone or anything besides the Lord, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"3 God speaks to us from Isaiah, "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." 4
This has been understood by Protestants: the Scottish Confession of 1580 prohibits the "worshipping of images, relics and crosses." Some defend the use of the cross as being only a "symbol." A symbol is a visible representation of something; in saying that the cross is a symbol of deity, they were violating the second commandment because they are using a man-made device in worship. Only two symbols existed within the New Testament church, these being baptism and the Eucharist (bread and wine.)
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 10:38:57 GMT -5
But Bert, this wasn't adding to the form of worship Jesus gave, as he may have worn this religious regalia himself! Also, yes, God DID give instruction on this....it wasn't made up. Really. Look at the verses I mentioned before...Numbers 15:37-41, Deuteronomy 6:8. These words according to scripture came directly from God! So, the bottom line is...yes, religious regalia is scriptural and not made up. Why would you say God's words were wrong or sinful? You may feel religious regalia is unnecessary, but to say it's wrong or sinful? Not true. Also, I'd rather see quotes from scripture rather than quotes from your website.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2007 10:42:01 GMT -5
God also gave you instruction to slay a sacrificial lamb and stone the adulterer. Mainstream Christianity takes what it pleases from the Old Testament. But we hold that the Old Covenant was finished and fulfilled in Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 10:45:48 GMT -5
So, do you agree that this religious "regalia" was not made up, but was scriptural? Also, how can God's instructions now become sinful?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2007 10:48:32 GMT -5
If you slay a lamb and daub its blood on the lintel then you are committing a sin because Jesus is the lamb. This is the nature of the Old and New Testament. We are called to be a part of Christ, and partake of the New Covenant. This is what the bread and the wine symbolize.
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 10:56:13 GMT -5
Well, I haven't been slaying any lambs recently, so I guess I'm ok on that account! However, I'm not talking about slaying lambs. Now, I'm just asking if religious regalia was scriptural?
|
|
|
Post by it must be on Sept 28, 2007 17:01:13 GMT -5
That would explain the buns and dresses.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Sept 28, 2007 17:18:02 GMT -5
That would explain the buns and dresses. Yes buns and a woman wearing her hair up is adding to the issue of long hair. Long hair, is just that, long hair. They were not instructed to wear it up, but to wear it long, as her long hair is her glory. That is not putting it up but wearing it long. You say that wearing priestly garments was done away with, but so was Jesus instructions in Mathew 10 done away with, in Luke 22. here Jesus gave specific instructions to discontinue this as he was going to the Cross and gave the reason for discontinuing these things in which it is clear that these things were only while he was with them but you ignore these verses and claim it must be continued. You seem to pick and choose what scripture you choose to be for today while ignoring Jesus very own words which is the very thing you accuse other churches of doing.
|
|
|
Post by my2cents on Sept 28, 2007 17:50:19 GMT -5
I think in any religion where there is exclusiveness there is extra pressure to walk the talk. If they didn’t they would not be special or feel special.
|
|
|
Post by ii on Sept 29, 2007 4:33:44 GMT -5
For all the dumping on the 2x2 way, it's workers & it's followers, that I read here, and elsewhere, I always listen to worker letters, from around the world...my professing mother reads them to me, or e-mails them...and everything always sounds so inspiring. Then there are the photos of workers & friends too...all fresh-scrubbed and plain & modest in appearance. There are are stories about changed lives, and inspirational yet simple lives of the those in the truth. I'm so bewildered. Could they really be God's Way? What's so wrong about them? you asked the question and then answered it you don't have seek other than what is right under your nose
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2007 2:29:09 GMT -5
quote - "Now, I'm just asking if religious regalia was scriptural?"
No, and for the some of the reasons given above.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Sept 30, 2007 7:53:23 GMT -5
I'm so bewildered. Could they really be God's Way? What's so wrong about them? Freespirit has done a great job answering this question, but here is chapter and verse to back it up: Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. And to answer your second question with a question, what is right with them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2007 8:27:47 GMT -5
Brick. Re your question "....what is right with them?" What do you think is wrong with this assessment of the Foundation Church in the New Testament.
What name did they have?
In the 100-year history of the New Testament no name was given to the church by its followers. In fact, there was no name given to what is called "Judaism" in its previous 2,000 year history. This was simply because Christianity, like Judaism, was meant to be a way of living. A received name would be appropriated by every religion. Some of the Old Testament prophets even rejected being labeled "prophets" because everybody who wanted religious authority now called themselves "prophets."
Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostles did not offer any church name to those who asked. This leads to the danger of being labeled by your foes - Jesus’ followers for instance were called the “Sect of the Nazarenes.” The word "sect" implies radical, fringe and dangerous, and "Nazarene" symbolized much of what was considered vulgar, apostate and pagan in Israel.
Amongst themselves Jesus’ followers used terms such as “the way;” “brothers;” “saints;” “the Truth” and “disciples.”
From time to time names were imposed upon these congregations by governments or communities. For instance at Antioch, twenty years after Jesus, the followers of Jesus were first called “Christian.” The term was derogatory (ie King Agrippa in Acts 26:28, and the historians Tacitus and Suetonius.) Later the term was used by the Romans for administration purposes. The followers of Jesus did not call themselves Christian, but accepted what the term meant – one who worships Jesus.
Their Ministry Jesus established an itinerant ministry. He sent His disciples into every village he himself would enter. This ministry was essentially directed towards the Jews, but in his dealings with Samaritans, Romans, Greeks etc he was anticipating the greater gentile mission that would go out into all the world.
James was the leader of the Palestine mission. Paul was the most prominent preacher of the Gentiles. Peter was credited with the first gentile conversion, that of the Roman officer Cornelius.
In Mark 10:28 Peter declared that he had left all for the ministry. Jesus stated "... there is no one who left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my sake, and for the good news, who may not receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields.." (YLT) Peter experienced this when he became a part of many families.
Generally, two preachers was the standard, such as Paul and Timothy – the younger and elder helping each other. There were apparently women preachers such as Junia; Phoebe; Priscilla and Aquilla. This would have been considered unusual at the time.
Occasionally some of these preachers were married - for instance Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. However, the rigors of the Work would have made marriage and children difficult.
This ministry had the care for the church. The apostles and workers had authority over the church, as was shown when the author of Hebrews exhorted his people to "remember them which have the rule over you." The ministry was also to serve, as Peter was admonished to do when Jesus said, "feed my sheep."
These men and women were human: those who abandoned or denied Jesus in his last hour were the same people who had preached the Gospel. Some fell from grace - the worker Demas left the Work because he "loved this present world." But, as was seen with Jonah and the whale, and the prophet and the lion, the failing of the preacher did not change the message preached.
There were times when unity was tested, such as when Paul confronted James and the Palestinian church. But the ability of men and women to go into the work together, owning and earning nothing, and being cared for by the fellowship for the rest of their lives, set this church apart.
No other ministry was authorized.
Their Education
The gospel, with its simplicity, does not lend itself easily to traditional ideas about study. The notion of an in-dwelling spirit which guides and teaches is simply too much for most people.
It is not thought that Jesus had a formal religious education - he did not require it of his followers, nor did he engage in religious studies. This isn't to say that all who followed him were simple carpenters or fishermen. Mathew was a government official; Luke was the "physician" who wrote the powerful Greek in his gospel of Luke and The Acts; and the Ethiopian eunuch was the Treasurer to Queen Candace.
A good example of the irrelevancy of higher education was shown in Paul. Paul was a chief Pharisee who learned from the great rabbi Gamaliel, and most likely he was a member of Israel's supreme judicial and administrative council, the Sanhedrin. But Paul's formidable religious education proved a hindrance to him. It is likely that his education went no further than helping him to reach out to Jews who only knew the Law.
Paul warned his people about academic pretensions and the distractions of study. Genealogies; legalisms or history have no relevance to the relationship which God seeks to engender with His people. People engaging in theological/philosophical debates demonstrate little appreciation or love of the simplicity of the Gospel, and usually are making statements about themselves.
What was their standard of dress?
The biblical period spanned Sumerian, Hebrew, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures. The dress code for people “professing Godliness” was neither archaic nor fashionable, but dignified, modest and moderate - irrespective of how this was expressed.
Thus people could dress in varying ways, yet maintain the same standard. For instance, the veil was a symbol of modesty in the days of Rebekah, but there was no mention of it being worn by devout and modest women in later biblical periods. A shaved head was a sign of respect in the days of Elisha, at other times it symbolized shame.
Both Christians and their detractors often misunderstand this.
Dress was to be without sexual competition; ostentatious display or “costly array.” For instance, a Jewish woman’s symbol of moderation was a plain single-piece dress called a kuttónet; sometimes with a simlâ (mantle) covering her shoulders. In Ephesus, a Greco Roman city, moderate dress was most likely a plain tunic or toga. Married women usually wore a long dress called a stola.
Appearance is considered important because it provides social meaning. Two examples suffice:
Women: In biblical times bright colors symbolized wealth or status. Dyes were expensive and limited in range. In the 20th century synthetic dyes gave rise to an abundance of bright and colorful clothing. Thus colors now carry considerably less social meaning.
Men: Beards were worn in the 19th century as a mark of respect, just as it had been in many biblical times. After the American Civil War many young rebels removed their beards. By the early 20th century a clean-shaven face became the new respectability. During the 1960’s beards again became fashionable as a counter-culture symbol. Today beards have little social significance.
What was their moral code?
The moral code was implicit in the example of Jesus. The New Testament writers both lived and specified examples of what the moral standard of God's people must become. These include:
being obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7 Obeying those who have the rule over you. Hebrews 13:7 moderation in all things. Phillipians 4:5 dressing moderately. Timothy 2:8-10 being sober. 1 Thessalonians 5:6 abstaining from earthly pleasures. Hebrews 11:25 not being conformed to this world. Romans 12:2 love nothing of this world. 1 John 2:15 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves. Hebrews 10:25 keeps a tight rein on the tongue. James 1:26 denying worldly lusts. Titus 2:12 showing humility. Phillipians 2:3
Those who followed Jesus, in due course, became partakers of his divine nature through growth of character. They were no longer living under the Law, but they understood that a specific moral standard was required of them.
These things did not come through making vows or external disciplines, for that would be works of Law. Rather these were things which had to be learned through experience. God's will was their joy.
This change was seen in Moses: He began his journey as the impetuous youth who killed an Egyptian, but after 40 years in the wilderness he had become the "meekest man in all the world," feeling he was not worthy of the task God set before him. Paul's experience was quite similar. To have acted meek in their youths, these men would have engaged in false modesty. This is one of the important themes of the bible - the process of growing in God's way.
Home Worship
Jesus preached in the Jewish Synagogues and the Temple in Jerusalem, just as he did on hills, plains and streets.
At the end of His ministry Jesus held a home service where he met with His disciples. The liturgy was a talk followed by prayer and hymns.
The disciples continued to meet on the Sunday, as opposed to the Sabbath (Saturday.) The venue was their homes. There was no longer any "worldly sanctuary." The reference to buildings "not made with hands" did not exclude homes, it referred to buildings dedicated for worship. According to the Roman historian Pliny, some Christians met before dawn, and had a fellowship meal afterwards.
The prevailing wisdom is that Christians met in private dwellings because of Roman persecution. But Christianity was not usually an underground movement - Rome was multi-cultural, largely tolerant of other religions and accepted all sorts of religious buildings across its far flung empire. Roman harassment was sporadic, and strife against Christians in some provinces largely related to Jewish sectarianism or idol manufacturers. Systematic Roman attacks upon Christians did not occur until about 250 AD, and apparently was directed towards the political and cultural ambitions of the early Catholic church.
Conventions
Convening together for worship was common in both the Old and New Testaments.
Early Jewish worshippers, such as Hannah, went yearly to the cultic centre in Shiloh in central Israel. Shiloh was replaced by the pilgrimage to Jerusalem during King David’s reign.
In the Old Testament Nehemiah provides a picture of that convocation. The priests and the people were to purify and separate themselves from all strangers. They met for eight days - one quarter to one half of each day was spent in hearing the scriptures, and quarter in confessions and testimony.
In the New Testament at least ten thousand people came from all Israel to spend three days with Jesus in the "feeding of the five thousand" (men only were counted.) And in the resurrection Jesus appeared to an assembly of five hundred people.
Festivities
Christians, particularly Gentile Christians, did not observe religious festivities. This is because such festivals are symbols, "types" and "shadows" of what Christ made a reality.
Easter has strong significant because of the Jewish Passover. The Passover was also the time of the resurrection of Jesus, as Jesus represented the sacrificial lamb. However, there is no record of any specific Christian observance of the event. In fact, Paul's warning about people who “observed days and months” was most likely a reference to apostates who argued over the date for Jewish events like Easter.
The churches of Rome were more inclined towards Paul’s gentile mission, and did not have much exposure to the Passover as Palestinian Christians did. Easter became an observance to Catholics two hundred years later.
Christmas did not exist for the early church. Christmas was a later invention of the Catholic Church. Jesus was born between 4 and 12 BC, probably during the Palestinian winter.
Their doctrine
The early Apostles and Workers brought the good news (Middle English "Godspel") about Jesus. Their message could not be any more, and would never be anything less.
The Apostles wouldn't have understood doctrines of modalism; binitarianism; tritheism; henotheism or trinitarianism. They did not nail 95 thesis to the temple or synagogue wall. There was no Catholic style Catechism or Protestant Solas. There were no Nicene, Apostles or Athanasian creeds, nor any "Thirty-Nine articles of Religion."
They did not concern themselves with the burning issue of Jewish Independence. They liberated no slaves, nor did they save the environment or fight poverty and injustice.
These preachers did not speak about the world, and as the Apostle John observed, the world did not want to hear them.
The first Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah who's coming was prophesised in the Old Testament. They accepted that the Messiah did not come as a reigning king, but as the "Lamb of God" who would shed his blood to atone for their sins.
Genesis states that man is alienated from God because of sin. When the Hebrews were in bondage they were commanded to take in a male lamb "without blemish" and after three days kill and consume it. The lamb's blood was to be daubed upon the lintel of their home. When God sent the angel of death over the land he spared these households.
But Exodus made it clear that the people must stay in their place, and the lamb must be consumed whole, including those portions people felt were unpalatable. This signifies not only those aspects of Jesus acceptable to the general public are for consumption, but also his shame and rejection, his commandments and his example. Thus all who love and obey Jesus are sheltered under His blood and have the atonement from sin and death.
Why weren't they more open?
Jesus began his ministry as a famous man, but by the time of his last ascent to Jerusalem he was largely unknown. Jerusalem was moved to ask “Who is this?” Jesus wept for the city, saying, ""If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes." (NIV Luke 19:42)
Jesus did many things in public. His miracles, such as healings and the "feeding of the five thousand," helped spread his fame throughout Israel and the Middle East.
But often Jesus removed himself from the people, refused to give any sign and asked those he healed to tell no-one. In his resurrection Jesus appeared only to his own people.
Jesus' own brothers and sisters urged him to reveal himself, saying, "No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." Even Jesus' own disciples struggled with this: Judas (not Iscariot) asked "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" (John 7:4 and 14:22 NIV)
Bible commentators have long puzzled over what they see as the inconsistency of these stories - Jesus is seen as simultaneously bringing the Gospel, and hiding it.
But God's kingdom is manifest at either public or private levels. Elijah, for instance, showed king Ahab and his people how the True God consumed the bullock on the altar. His successor, Elisha, conducted himself before the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom. But this cycle of stories also includes the private dealings of God with His people, such as when Elisha restored the Shunammite's son, and asked a widow to close her windows so that the world would not see the miracle of the oil which God gave her.
Jesus used words like “hid” and “hidden” to describe how the new covenant was removed from the eyes of those who were not moved by the Gospel, nor prepared for commitment. Jesus was underpinning the concept of Revelation, which is to say the Truth is revealed only to those who respond.
In like manner the early church conducted itself with discretion: It sought no publicity outside of preaching the gospel; engaged in no official civic duties; had no name and kept no records outside the books of the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Sept 30, 2007 8:43:56 GMT -5
Brick. Re your question "....what is right with them?" What do you think is wrong with this assessment of the Foundation Church in the New Testament. Bert, I think it is too formal. I think it places too much emphasis on tradition rather than Jesus' words. In short, we place way too much emphasis on linking our ministry to that of the practices of the apostles in Acts. We have this urge to call our ministry and method "the Way" and focus on that rather than what Jesus called "the way." You already know what he said.
|
|