64 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

I dont think God cares what holidays we participate in. As long as we enjoy family and hopefully have a few days off work

[Beckys_Mom]

Seeker79, on 09 April 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I dont think God cares what holidays we participate in. As long as we enjoy family and hopefully have a few days off work

WELL SAID Seeker...    Now that is the right attitude...I agree with you  100% .

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 09 April 2012 - 12:49 AM.

[Mr Walker]

[quote]name='Jor-el' timestamp='1333906548' post='4258835']
Passover was celebrated by christians, it was their real time of celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ.[/quote]
I thought I agreed with this There was alost no differntiation between very early christians and jews.
[quote]
It was celebrated by all the Apostles, all the christians, whether of Jewish descent or gentile descent. It was celebrated by Paul. Nowhere is Easter mentioned.[/quote] I agreed withthis too it is natural tha this would be so.

[quote] Easter is an invention the later church to destroy any and all connections to its jewish origins. It was so successful that people do not even realize that it was once quite different.[/quote] These are emotive words it didnt happen quite like that or necesarily for those reasons you atribute to it. See my comments in aminute on pauls role.

What actually happened was that the jews were in the middle of an ongoing war with rome Rome was persecuting all things jewish. MAny early christians decided themselved to separate themselves frm jews so that they would not be persecuted. But by then pauls role had already created a big differnce between judaism and christianity.

At the same time christianity was adopting many other cultural aspects of a diversity of beliefs in order to make itself more accesible to them. it wans t necessarily "the church" which did this. It was largelyy the natural consequence of an asimilation of huge numbers of people from other religions.  It was imposible for christianity to retain the very specific formality of judaeism and do this. If they had tried to, christianity would probably be about as big a religion as judaism is today.


[quote]There was no coincidence in Jesus  dying on the eve of Passover, it was also no coincidence that he was ressurrected on the Sunday, the day of First Fruits. It was no coincidence that he was born on the Day of Trumpets. Do you realize what I am getting at?

The entire Jewish litany of Feasts is in itself a prophetic declaration of the life and work of Jesus Christ. We have effectively divorced ouselves from all of it, we can't even make a connection with it because most christians are so steeped in the myth, rather than the history of it all.[/quote]

I dont disagree with this, but i dont necessarily agree either. To me it is irrelevant. For me the personal relationship with god is more important than the history of any religion. And i do not believ that god is to be found exclusively in christianity judaism or indeed within any religion.
No human needs a 4000 year old belief, or indeed a 2000 year old one, to connect to god. He is in us and all around us right now. Just as he was with the jews of 2-4 millenia ago and the christians of 2 millenia.
God exists within us and we within god. We are free to follow god in any form we like, as long as we have a personal relationship with god. But thats just my experience with god and religion showing through.


[quote]Paul did no such thing, he exempted gentiles from having to follow the rules in place at the time that were unique to Jews, what he did not do is effectively exempt the church from knowing where they came from and why or from following the celebrations that Glorified their Christ, their Messiah.[/quote]

Paul deliberately and knowingly adapted christs message to make it accesible to non jews. He had seen every apostle slaughtered by the jews they tried to convert and (perhaps with divine guidance ) took the message out to non jewish people He "translated" the covenant form one with the jews to one with all people and extended the gift of salvation to every human as well. Apart form the words of christ in the gospels we cannot really be sure what christ's intent was. He was largely intertwined with his own religious/ cultural heritage and his own limited travels, yet I suspect that he understood that his message was for all, even thought he preached it to his own people.


But there is no doubt that paul, probably completely sincerely, given his own miraculous date with god, felt empowered to change the direction of early christianity, and did so very consciously. He did this by preaching to the gentiles, and to do this with any hope of success, he had to alter the total 'jewishness" of the biblical teachings to that time, and to reinterpret christs message for a new audience. I think he sincerely believed he had god's mandate to do this.


[quote]There is no perhaps, christians celebrated passover, for a very real reason that it was the time that Jesus died and was resurrected. He was the Paschal lamb, he was the lamb that took away the sins of the world in the words of John the Baptist. He was the First Fruits of of those who have fallen asleep in Pauls own words.[/quote]

That is my understanding also, but i said perhaps because so many people dont even accept christs hisoricity let alone my belief tha t it is as you said. But christinity does not deny christ was the passover lamb. At least not the christianity I am aware of it. Is very conscious that the old testamnet conventions and covenant and acrifices and even the significance of the holy temple , etc were reworked and remodelled in christ. That is WHY christ is able to be a link between judaism and christianity He reflects the old and heralds in the new.
But in becoming the lamb, christ removed the need for many of the old sacrifices. He removed the need for any further sacrifices of the lamb for example. In effect he removed the need for his followers to celebrate  the jewish form of passover.  Rather they celebrate his passing over and rebirth, and his sacrifice, his blood, and  their redemption  via christ, as the sacrificial lamb

But christ could have died at any time and the symbolic connections would have remained and been as real and significant. It was jus t more powerful that he died at passover. I am sure he was aware of this himself.

[quote]To me it was a sin of an extraordinary magnitude, to divorce ourselves from all of this.

[/quote] No it is just a differnce in forms of worship As long as one accepts that christ IS the sacrificial lamb by which our sins are washed away, then forms of worship are not significant.

The christian church has fallen into far more serious erors of judgement and interpetation of its own book, over the millenia, only some of which have been corrected. For example the idea that one could buy certain periods of time free from purgatory through indulgences and even the very concept of purgatory itself are anathema to the words of the bible and of christ.

So is the concept tha t a priest is required to act as a go between or intercessor for man and god, or that priests can forgive sins or need to hear confessions.. Biblically, priests are not required for those acts. One simply talks to god.

Original sin is forgiven and individual sin can only be forgiven by god, when the books of life are opened and read. No human man can grant gods forgiveness now or later.

The mysogyny and even hatred of the church towards women is another example which still remains, in places, today. That is ANTI bilbical (both old and new testament)
Ps I am very aware of the miror imaging of things outlined in your diagram. My wifes church sees this clearly as bilical and very significant for christians today. I understand it but, again to me, it is not important One needs to be right with god. Arguing over worship seems a bit tawdry and demeaning to god, to me.

however, i appreciate people have strong views, and good reasons to hold them. I am not knocking your own strong views, just  saying why, i dont think they are as critical as you do.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 April 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[Jor-el]

Mr Walker, on 09 April 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

At the same time christianity was adopting many other cultural aspects of a diversity of beliefs in order to make itself more accesible to them. it wans t necessarily "the church" which did this. It was largelyy the natural consequence of an asimilation of huge numbers of people from other religions.  It was imposible for christianity to retain the very specific formality of judaeism and do this. If they had tried to, christianity would probably be about as big a religion as judaism is today.

Due to the length of the resultant post I would have to make I will shorten it to the two principle items I would comment on.

By its very nature, the church of that time chose to follow a path that was not biblical, it christianized, instead of evangelized. People did not so much convert, as simply add one more aspect to their already existing beliefs. We find this on many levels, where missionaries allowed people to hold onto pagan beliefs, by simply rechristining them. That is how we got marian worship, it is how we got, idol worship in the form of the veneration of the saints, it is how the church adopted the very vestments of the pagan priesthood of those times.

I'm sorry, it saddens me to say this. The church sold out.

Quote

however, i appreciate people have strong views, and good reasons to hold them. I am not knocking your own strong views, just  saying why, i dont think they are as critical as you do.

My beliefs are simply a reflection of seeing that even after so many centuries, the church has not yet learned its lesson. It is simply frustration speaking.

[Mr Walker]

Jor-el, on 09 April 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Due to the length of the resultant post I would have to make I will shorten it to the two principle items I would comment on.

By its very nature, the church of that time chose to follow a path that was not biblical, it christianized, instead of evangelized. People did not so much convert, as simply add one more aspect to their already existing beliefs. We find this on many levels, where missionaries allowed people to hold onto pagan beliefs, by simply rechristining them. That is how we got marian worship, it is how we got, idol worship in the form of the veneration of the saints, it is how the church adopted the very vestments of the pagan priesthood of those times.

I'm sorry, it saddens me to say this. The church sold out.

My beliefs are simply a reflection of seeing that even after so many centuries, the church has not yet learned its lesson. It is simply frustration speaking.

I can appreciate and empathise with both these points. The later doesnt worry me personally so much, perhaps because "the church" as such, is irrelevant to me. For me it has always been about my relationship with god.  I dont need a church or doctrine to tell me how to live this relationship. I do not believe anyone does, but i also know churches, and belonging, offer comfort to many.

Edited by Mr Walker, 10 April 2012 - 12:29 AM.