Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[roberto]

I disagree. We don't necessarily need leaders. And the idea of "Clear leadership" is disputable, most churches have organized authority structures. I don't have a leader. Do you have a leader? We are all judged by what we were capable of doing and learning with our free time and resources. Unless they lived in a cave with no internet access or guides to history and Theology, it is in fact their own faults if they are too complacent to challenge what they are spoonfed.

I have a leader, and his name is Yeshua who sent the Ruah ha Codesh to guide me and my fam. away[Teshuvah] from the apointed priests of Hosea.

 

[roberto]

Ah, you mean to say that you gave up on this western "Jesus" and what these historic pretenders are claiming and accept the Israelite Messiah as Yashua.

WHOALLA !! [With his Jewish traditions]/Torah ! :yes::yes::yes:

 

[roberto]

Then why concern yourself with the New Testament?

Depends what you mean by "new testament" please see/check-out this link >>>

The Complete Jewish Bible > http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html

 

[Nakosis]

Depends what you mean by "new testament" please see/check-out this link >>>

The Complete Jewish Bible > http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html

I'm mean what you mean.
The B'rit Hadashah.

 

[Nakosis]

I have a leader, and his name is Yeshua who sent the Ruah ha Codesh to guide me and my fam. away[Teshuvah] from the apointed priests of Hosea.

Never mind, I see where you are going with this.

 

[Nakosis]

I disagree. We don't necessarily need leaders. And the idea of "Clear leadership" is disputable, most churches have organized authority structures. I don't have a leader. Do you have a leader? We are all judged by what we were capable of doing and learning with our free time and resources. Unless they lived in a cave with no internet access or guides to history and Theology, it is in fact their own faults if they are too complacent to challenge what they are spoonfed.

Yes, but no guarantees on your own you can determine the truth of things. I'm sure these leaders, with whom you dispute their theology, felt the truth of their understanding with the same conviction as you.

If you feel certain in your certainty great. You have to pursue what seems right to you as they did. It's easy to see, I suppose, the problems with Catholic/Protestant Christianity. I don't know that the Hebrew/Jews held any better answers. In fact I find little confidence in any earthly authority. Not to say I have any great confidence in my own ability to reason out the truth of things.

 

[sojourner]

What do you mean "just as valid"?

That seems to imply no one really knows. No authoritative position.

The Apostles seem to disappear into history. No real lineage except what Paul provides.

Are we left to make our best guess? Whatever happens to seem reasonable? Especially if you don't happen to like Paul.

Xy haws always been a multivalent movement, Constantine notwithstanding. Even when the church was "united" there were still vast differences -- and there has always been a contention between Rome and the East. One is as valid as the other, in the broad scheme, even though the two continue to (childishly) deny each other. The apostles don't disappear into history. Their legacy lives on in the diversity they spawned, since they, themselves, were never united as to doctrine or expression.

 

[sojourner]

Not their fault, there seems no clear leadership with Christianity.

With that point, I might as well rely on myself to determine the right and wrong of it. Unless it is luck/Grace to happen upon the right teacher.

I contend that there was no real "top down" structure early on, that was later imposed by Rome. Leadership was left to the apostles and their emissaries. And, by extension, to the bishops who succeeded them.

The Anglican Communion is a good example of collegiality and mutuality between both the members of the House of Bishops and the members of both houses -- Bishops and Deputies. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is "first among equals." Christ is considered to be "leader."

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, says who? Was every single interpretation of Christianity just as valid as those who were around for the original? The epistles are quite clear to not trust people with different versions than what they were speaking at the time. The question is...what they were speaking at the time. Were the Nicolation's interpretations just as valid?

Says the church. The warning in the epistles was against those who preached a "different gospel." Do we know, first of all, what was meant by "gospel?" And just what would have constituted a dangerous "difference" in the mind of the writer? There must have been some "basics" of the faith that were generally mutually agreed upon. For example, in our own time, most denominational differences are differences of polity or minor theological issues. The same must have been true anciently.

If they didn't know about John, how is their take equally valid with those who did know John?

Because they came from the tutelage of other apostles with different interpretations, who were just as valid as the apostle that founded the Johanine community.

What does validity matter in this case anyway?

You seem to place quite a bit of emphasis on validity in your arguments. What does validity matter?

What does it mean if one interpretation is valid and another is not?

It means a departure from orthodoxy. But I don't recognize that departure as cause to excise the group promulgating it from the Body.

 

[sojourner]

There is nothing[not a thing] in Christianity that is the same[similar] as what was believed up to 325AD ....>> zulch, zappo, ziet, ga-nichts.

Jes_s and his two-day religion is NOT similar[the same] as the three day Yeshua and his sect.

It is two distinct[distanced] beliefs with two different[non-similar] messiahs, the one[jes_s ] being super-imposed over the other[Yeshua] to make them look as if one.

I contend that you are wrong on this point. Of course the church has developed, just as all things develop and change. But the common roots remain intact.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, you mean to say that you gave up on this western "Jesus" and what these historic pretenders are claiming and accept the Israelite Messiah as Yashua.

To what western Jesus do you refer? Do you mean to say that the Orthodox Jesus (of the East) is essentially different from the Roman Jesus? And if so, that the Orthodox version of Xy (which, BTW, accepts the Trinity) is the "correct" version?

To what historic pretenders do you refer? To Constantine, who was not even a Christian?

 

[sojourner]

I have a leader, and his name is Yeshua who sent the Ruah ha Codesh to guide me and my fam. away[Teshuvah] from the apointed priests of Hosea.

Hmmm... I have a leader, too. The one I refer to as Jesus -- the same person about which one reads in the gospels. The difference between you and I is that, now knowing to whom you pledge allegiance, I don't dismiss you as a "not-Christian." (It would be real helpful if you'd be a little more forthcoming about that in your description.) And it still doesn't answer the question why you feel you have any authority or entitlement to tell Jews that they're wrong about their religion.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but no guarantees on your own you can determine the truth of things. I'm sure these leaders, with whom you dispute their theology, felt the truth of their understanding with the same conviction as you.

If you feel certain in your certainty great. You have to pursue what seems right to you as they did. It's easy to see, I suppose, the problems with Catholic/Protestant Christianity. I don't know that the Hebrew/Jews held any better answers. In fact I find little confidence in any earthly authority. Not to say I have any great confidence in my own ability to reason out the truth of things.

Bloody well said!

 

[Nakosis]

I contend that there was no real "top down" structure early on, that was later imposed by Rome. Leadership was left to the apostles and their emissaries. And, by extension, to the bishops who succeeded them.

The Anglican Communion is a good example of collegiality and mutuality between both the members of the House of Bishops and the members of both houses -- Bishops and Deputies. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is "first among equals." Christ is considered to be "leader."

Just having a title gives some semblance of authority. No guarantee that any one individual won't abuse it. We all start out ignorant seeking guidance and because of that ignorance, easily misled.

Maturity and experience is neither necessarily a cure for ignorance.

I know what I think is right and right or wrong it's how I have to go forward.

These things I have come to find important.

Compassion for ones fellowman.
Honesty.
Forgiveness.
Patience, for the truth to be revealed.

I've really no idea where these things will take me, but that is what I have.

Whether there is a "right" religion, I've no idea. However it is up to me to decide how to treat, deal, interact with my fellowman. That's what I believe I have to be accountable for. Not my religion.

 

[roberto]

Yes, but no guarantees on your own you can determine the truth of things. I'm sure these leaders, with whom you dispute their theology, felt the truth of their understanding with the same conviction as you.

If you feel certain in your certainty great. You have to pursue what seems right to you as they did. It's easy to see, I suppose, the problems with Catholic/Protestant Christianity. I don't know that the Hebrew/Jews held any better answers. In fact I find little confidence in any earthly authority. Not to say I have any great confidence in my own ability to reason out the truth of things.

This puzzeled me for a long time studying at home with no assembly meeting etc.
Then I realized that if one has to determine what truth is there has to be a way of getting to it alone :

The answer I got was that just as you determine the exact center of a circle [with only a ruler and a pencill at your disposal] , you can also determine the truth with only the ruach ha codesh

 

[roberto]

Hmmm... I have a leader, too. The one I refer to as Jesus -- the same person about which one reads in the gospels. The difference between you and I is that, now knowing to whom you pledge allegiance, I don't dismiss you as a "not-Christian." (It would be real helpful if you'd be a little more forthcoming about that in your description.) And it still doesn't answer the question why you feel you have any authority or entitlement to tell Jews that they're wrong about their religion.

Tradition my "friend", Tradition.
What I refer to as Talmud they[Judaism] refer to as Torah.
What I refer to as Jewish you refer to as Greek.
What I refer to as tubilar you refer to as linear.
When I say three you say two.
When I say seven you say one.
When I say in efect you say done away with
When I say one you say three.
etc. etc. etc.
Superimposed to look the same or as the word refers to it; wolf in sheeps clothing.
shalom

 

[Nakosis]

This puzzeled me for a long time studying at home with no assembly meeting etc.
Then I realized that if one has to determine what truth is there has to be a way of getting to it alone :

The answer I got was that just as you determine the exact center of a circle [with only a ruler and a pencill at your disposal] , you can also determine the truth with only the ruach ha codesh

Is it so easy for you to separate the Ruach Ha-Kodesh from your own reasoning?

I know enough Christians who feel just as "guided".

 

[sojourner]

Tradition my "friend", Tradition.
What I refer to as Talmud they[Judaism] refer to as Torah.
What I refer to as Jewish you refer to as Greek.
What I refer to as tubilar you refer to as linear.
When I say three you say two.
When I say seven you say one.
When I say in efect you say done away with
When I say one you say three.
etc. etc. etc.
Superimposed to look the same or as the word refers to it; wolf in sheeps clothing.
shalom

Tradition is a powerful tool. The difference between Talmud and Torah, as I understand it, is that Talmud is commentary on Torah.
I don't have Jewish and Greek mixed up. Jewish is Jewish and Greek is Greek. Fairly straightforward and simple.
3-2, 7-1, I have no idea what you're talking about.
In effect/done away with? The Law? What I say is that the Law has been fulfilled, for that's what the gospels say Jesus came to do.

Word is not the only transmitter of truth. Tradition, both written and unwritten, is just as valid, seeing as the canonical texts are part of tradition.

 

[Shermana]

To what western Jesus do you refer? Do you mean to say that the Orthodox Jesus (of the East) is essentially different from the Roman Jesus? And if so, that the Orthodox version of Xy (which, BTW, accepts the Trinity) is the "correct" version?

No, I was speaking to Roberto specifically using subjective terminology. By "Western", that could include his "Western" Egyptian Coptic origins that maybe were part of the Syncrenized "Whole" the "Eastern" Orthodox church also adopted. Byzantium is West to Anatolia. The point was, the language I was using to communicate specifically to Roberto was more about the historical orthodox Roman version than the actual historical specifics. "Western Jesus" can mean what you call "Eastern Jesus" in this case, but the idea is about any non-Nazarene/Ebionite/"Messianic Jewish" interpretation.

To what historic pretenders do you refer? To Constantine, who was not even a Christian?

Constantine converted shortly before he died and was an Arian. By pretenders I mean all non-Torah obedient sects. I.e. all non-Nazarenes/Ebionites.

 

[Shermana]

What I say is that the Law has been fulfilled, for that's what the gospels say Jesus came to do.

But the word "fulfilled" and even "Law" may be different than what you think they say. Paul uses the term to say "Fulfill the Law of Christ". Does this mean Paul was saying to no longer abide by the Law of Christ if one was to fulfill it? Obviously the term means something other than to put an end to, it means to put into practice and execution, especially when Jesus clarified it with "I did not come to abolish the Law" almost reads as if he knew what people later would try to twist what he said into. If a prophecy is "fulfilled" that means that its effect is in place even if its an event of the past.