- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Raziel @ Oct. 18 2011,07:02) Better yet let's take a look at the verses in the chapter before that to.
1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Basically the scribes and Pharisees go up to Jesus and say your disciples break the rules because they don't wash their hands before eating . Jesus responds calling them hypocrites because they don't honor their parents which is a offensive that is grounds for the death penalty. Then at verse 9 worshiping means nothing if you don't mean it or put into action. That verse is part of his rant of calling them hypocrites and isn't really saying he isn't God.
Lets look at translations besides king james.
The message translation is more direct.
1-2 After that, Pharisees and religion scholars came to Jesus all the way from Jerusalem, criticizing, “Why do your disciples play fast and loose with the rules?”
3-9But Jesus put it right back on them. “Why do you use your rules to play fast and loose with God's commands? God clearly says, 'Respect your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone denouncing father or mother should be killed.' But you weasel around that by saying, 'Whoever wants to, can say to father and mother, What I owed to you I've given to God.' That can hardly be called respecting a parent. You cancel God's command by your rules. Frauds! Isaiah's prophecy of you hit the bull's-eye:These people make a big show of saying the right thing,
but their heart isn't in it.
They act like they're worshiping me,
but they don't mean it.
They just use me as a cover
for teaching whatever suits their fancy.”The NIV
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rulesIn the end it seems Jesus is saying you say you worship me but you don't. Just the the shear fact he is saying you are trying to worship me through your hypocritical man made rituals to me he is indirectly calling himself God. The thing that gets me the most when you say verse 9 says Jesus isn't God is just the shear fact the Pharisees and scribes are going against him. Most Jews to this day don't believe Jesus to be God so for Jesus to say he isn't God wouldn't mean they are hypocrites which Jesus directly called them but would say they are right.
However the trinity is a man made doctrine….. It was Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian who first came up with it….and Constantine made it into Law….Also Constantine changed Gods Calendar into the Roman Calendar, worship was changed from the Sabbath into Sunday worship, the Suns God… If you ever notice the Altars of Churches, they always are towards whee the Sun goes up….I did look at several Churches, and it is true….
A Baptist Minister gave us a a Book of Tertuallian and in it it tells you that He did come up with the trinity…. Even so the Internet does not say so…. they are bias to the trinity and think that the United Church, which means Catholic Church, was established by the Apostles…. Which is not so…The Catholic Church is saying this also….
Peace IreneI do agree it's stupid for man to make doctrine.Even with that being said I find that some verses in the bible point in the direction of Jesus being God. By the way what was the calendar used before the change to roman calendar? I always wanted to look it up.
Matthew chapter 13
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’
Skip to
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Basically from what I see of this in a nutshell anyone who isn't on Christ's side goes to hell. Probably the only exception would be the people who lived and died before Christ.
I found this also on the Internet… Interesting reading…
(Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus), (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)
Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus of Carthage
(c. 160 – 225)
“Tertullian is the church father who more than any other has been taken to epitomise the anti-intellectualism of the early Church.”Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus was born in Carthage to pagan parents, but became a Christian at some point before AD 197. According to Jerome and Eusebius he trained as a lawyer in Rome. Following his conversion he became a presbyter in the church at Carthage, but dissociated himself from the Church after the bishop of Rome rejected the ‘New Prophecy’ of the Montanist movement. However, “…neither Eusebius nor Jerome is in this matter a reliable witness, and what can be known about Tertullian’s life must be gathered from his own writings; unfortunately, their highly rhetorical character makes inference insecure.” Very different conclusions may be reached from the fragmentary evidence available to us.
Reasons for His Condemnation
Throughout church history Tertullian has received condemnation for two main reasons: his association with the Montanist movement and because of his supposed anti-intellectualism. However, the vast majority of scholars now agree that the Montanists were doctrinally orthodox,and so there are no grounds for rejecting Tertullian’s contribution to theology on the grounds of his association with them. Roger Forster & Paul Marston, for example, refer to Minucius Felix (late 2nd/3rd century), as Tertullian’s “more orthodox” contemporary.However, it should be noted that in Minucius Felix’s work Octavius Christianity is treated from the standpoint of philosophy, Scripture is not cited, nor are major biblical teachings much discussed.It is therefore difficult to accept Forster & Marston’s view on the basis of arguments from silence. There has been a long history of debate whether Tertullian used Octavius as a source for his Apology or vice versa. Current opinion favours the priority of the Apology.This is not the first time that Tertullian’s orthodoxy has been attacked in order to undermine his credibility as a witness to the beliefs and practises of the church of his day. William Wall used the same ploy in the 1840’s to support his case for infant baptism. Wall wrote that Tertullian “…fell into the heresy of the Montanists, who blasphemously held that one Montanus was that Paraclete or Comforter which our Saviour promised to send: and that better and fuller discoveries of God’s will were made to him than to the Apostles, who prophesied only in part.” To which Paul K. Jewett responds: “But the noble African’s reputation as a Christian and theologian scarcely needs defence against such beggarly invective.”Tertullian is the church father who more than any other has been taken to epitomise the anti-intellectualism of the early Church. Tertullian wrote:
For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.
Tertullian’s Rhetoric
Three facts that lie behind Tertullian’s rhetoric that are seldom considered:Greek philosophy was “an amalgam of rival world-views, based on premises that are very different from the biblical revelation.”Their failure to establish any means of accountability to allow the resolution of disputes was already appreciated by Diodorus (c.90-21 BC), Galen (c.130-200 AD) and Claudius Ptolemy (2nd cent. AD) (and other leading thinkers of the 2nd century.
Tertullian believed that “heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy,”Plato and Aristotle being responsible for Valentinian Gnosticism.David Lindberg argues that “what he therefore opposed was not philosophy generally, but heresy or the philosophy that gave rise to it.”
Tertullian himself made use of philosophical (particularly Stoic) ideas in his writings. He agreed with Plato on the matter of the immortality of the soul.He even claimed (as Philo and Justin Martyr had before him) that the philosophers borrowed from the Jewish Scriptures. Like all writers, he assumed that he was able to write theology without incorporating his own presuppositions.
The statement cited above must be viewed in the context of his other works:Elsewhere Tertullian does not always speak in such robust terms of an unbridgeable chasm separating Athens and Jerusalem. He was as well educated as anyone of his time: a competent lawyer, able to publish his writings in both Latin and Greek with equal facility, acquainted with the current arguments of the Platonic, Stoic and Aristotelian schools and also possessing some knowledge of medicine.
I believe it because it is absurd
Finally, Tertullian’s argument “I believe it because it is absurd” has been shown to be a misquotation, but more importantly it is an example of a standard Aristotelian argumentative form. Put simply what Tertullian is actually saying is that…the more improbable an event, the less likely is anyone to believe, without compelling evidence, that it has occurred; therefore, the very improbability of an alleged event, such as Christ’s resurrection, is evidence in its favour. Thus far from seeking the abolition of reason, Tertullian must be seen as appropriating Aristotelian rational techniques and putting them to apologetic use.
Indeed, in his Apology he demonstrated his familiarity with at least thirty literary authorities, which he probably had read first hand, rather than by referring to a handbook of quotations.
Tertullian’s method of exegesis varied depending on the purpose of each of his works. When writing against the Gnostic Marcion (who rejected the Old Testament and all use of allegory) Tertullian defended its use, noting how even Paul had used allegory in his letters.While he admitted that the use of allegory was sometimes legitimate he made it clear that he himself preferred the literal sense.His principle for identifying the presence of allegory was that it was present if the literal sense resulted in nonsense; it is not present when the literal meaning makes sense.
In this he did not differ significantly from Origen’s principle. In his other works Tertullian’s use of allegory is restrained.Following other writers (such as Justin and Irenaeus) Tertullian used typology extensively to demonstrate the unity of the Testaments,but the figures that he found in the Old Testament were based upon historical persons, places and events, and were used consistently. As O’Malley points out: “He clearly does not feel able to allegorise generally, simply because Paul uses the words in Gal. 4:24.”
Posted by Rudolph Boshoff at 10:44 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Reactions:Quote
Basically from what I see of this in a nutshell anyone who isn't on Christ's side goes to hell. Probably the only exception would be the people who lived and died before Christ.Sure we all should be on Christs side… By Faith in Christ Jesus, it is a gift from God….
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Peace Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
