Thank you David,
I do not think that you misunderstood me. In fact your
comments of the past few days indicate that you have caught the message I have
been trying to convey.
David in reply to this:
Jeff Powers wrote:
> I see that I cannot achieve any understanding with those that
> need it because they hold the Nicean Creed above scripture.
Hi Jeff.
Maybe I haven't been following this discussion closely enough, but what part
of the Nicean Creed do you believe is being held above Scripture?
I should clarify this by saying that I do not accept any creed, except maybe the "Baptist Creed", No creeds except the scriptures. I know the sentiment is there even if I got the actual statement wrong. My late wife was a very hard lined Southern Baptist. Yup, imagine that!
> I see that I cannot achieve any understanding with those that
> need it because they hold the Nicean Creed above scripture.
Hi Jeff.
Maybe I haven't been following this discussion closely enough, but what part
of the Nicean Creed do you believe is being held above Scripture?
I should clarify this by saying that I do not accept any creed, except maybe the "Baptist Creed", No creeds except the scriptures. I know the sentiment is there even if I got the actual statement wrong. My late wife was a very hard lined Southern Baptist. Yup, imagine that!
But, both she and our daughter (and several members of
the congregation) greatly enjoyed my midrashic comments on the
preachers sermons after church( in the interest of Shalom Bayis, I went to
church with them almost weekly!). It is because of their responses and
encouragement that I am in seminary now.
My problem with creeds is that they lock one into
a stagnant pattern that prevents exploration and growth. In other words, the
creed says this... ,therefore there is no need to study for oneself because if
one does study they will find discrepancies between scripture and the creed.
Then what happens? In most cases the individual chooses to follow the "party
line" and call it "Orthodox Christianity." Jonathan may say that this is aimed
at him, that I am taking a potshot at him. Maybe I am, but I am not "shooting"
at only him, but a very great many people, most of whom are not even on this
forum!
My statement in red above
should have read, "Nicean Council" instead of creed. That may clarify
things to some extant. I am not going to confine myself to just the
Nicean Council as you will shortly see, but I will begin there as it is germane
to this discussion. BTW, before I forget, I love your discourse on the Early
Jewish Christian Church!
So with out any further
adieu,
It was at the Council of Nicea (325 CE) that the God
ordained holy feast of Passover was completely rejected. It was also
decreed that ALL Jews who accepted Yeshua as Lord and Messiah were to give up
all ties to Judaism, Jewish friends and anything Jewish or they would face
excommunication. This is the icing on the cake so to speak. The
misunderstandings of the Gentiles goes back to the Jerusalem Council of Acts
15. Gentile believers who misunderstood what happened at the Jerusalem
Council, as well as other rulings and teachings of the Renewed Covenant began an
anti-Jewish/anti-Judaism campaign soon after the deaths of the
Apostles.
Ignatious of Antioch (circa 115 CE)
clearly taught that he believed all things Jewish to be useless.
Justin Martyr (155 CE) spoke of
Jewish people and their customs in very condescending terms and was dismayed
that Jewish followers of Messiah still maintained their cultural identity and
practices.
Passover (and
Messiah's ressurection) had been observed very much in the
Jewish manner up to this time. It was the beginning of the end
of Christian observance of Passover. Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus,
wrote that the Apostles Philip and John taugh the churches in Asia to keep and
observe Passover. The Nazareens and assemblies of the East clearly kept this
teaching. Yet, during the reign of Emporer Hadrian (117-138 CE) Messianic
Jewish leadership was replaced with Gentile leaders who would soon aquire a
new title, Popes. As a result there arose a preference in
western assemblies to celebrate Passover and Yeshua's ressurection on
Sunday. Polycarp went to Rome (158 CE) to debate with Bishop Anicetus the
matter, but was unable to change the opinion of the Gentile bishop.
Around 196 CE the
Roman Pope Victor called for a conference in Caesarea to settle the issue of
Passover and "Ressurection day" (soon to be called easter). Anti-semitism was a
serious factor in this council as Victor only invited Gentile bishops to attend.
The results of this conference were published by Pope Victor in a
work titled,"On the Passover Controversy" ,in which the
only acceptable system would be a perpetual three days of;
1. Fasting on "Good Friday" for Yeshua's death.
2. Fasting on Saturday for His time in the tomb.
3. Fasting on Sunday as the day of Passover (or as called by this
council,"Eucharist") and ressurection.
Interrestingly, this appears to have
been the beginning of the First day of the week being observed as the
Sabbath instead of God's commandment to keep the Sabbath on the seventh
day. So, just where did the authority to change Scripture come from?
This is puzzling because we are told in Revelation 22:19 that man cannot add or
subtract from Scripture. Commentaries by various writers show us that it is
a terrible sin to rewrite scripture to suit mans feeble whims. There is no
authority on earth that can change God's decrees, commandments, and judgements.
What happened?
The Gentile leadership,ie, the Pope, claimed
authority over scripture! The earliest reference I can find is from
Julius, Bishop of Rome (337-352 CE). Ten to twenty years after the Nicean
Council. It is going to take more time to study this than I have right now, but
it appears that Julius claimed authority OVER scripture by right of his papal
office. As most of us know, the papal authority issue is one of the Roman
Catholic church's "Holy Writs" one of many of the reasons for the
Reformation. Adifferent subject for a different
time.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Torah
>> He quotes John 1.1 and capitalizes WORD each time.
>
> Notice that he capitalizes WORD not Torah.
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>> He then states that this capitalized WORD he just
>> quoted in John 1.1 is BOTH Jesus and Torah.
>
> Right, meaning that he perceives a relationship between THE WORD (the Logos)
> to both Jesus and Torah. Perhaps you might say that he was equating the
> WORD to both Jesus and Torah, but I think it is a stretch to say that he was
> trying to make an exact equality and correspondence between Torah and Jesus.
>
> Let me give you an illustration. If I say that the automobile is both car
> and Toyota, that would be a true statement without equating car and Toyota.
> Consider the sentence, "the automobile has been around since 1892." We
> could not substitute the word "Toyota" for "automobile" in this sentence. I
> see this kind of set similar to what was being said about the WORD, Yeshua,
> and Torah. In my illustration, the word automobile corresponds to "the
> WORD," car corresponds to "Yeshua," and Toyota corresponds to "Torah."
>
> Maybe I had better make a Venn diagram for you after all. Let me know if
> you think that is necessary.
>
> The point is that I think you are reading too much into what Jeff was trying
> to say. Maybe I misunderstood Jeff, or maybe Jeff did not articulate well
> the light shining in his heart, but whatever the situation, I think it is
> much more helpful to try and reconcile what he is saying with what the rest
> of us perceive to be true.
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>> Jeff needs to eat the humble pie and admit he equated Jesus with Torah.
>
> If that is what Jeff was trying to do, then I would agree with you that
> there is not an exact equivalency. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that you and
> some others on this forum are understanding the light that Jeff has on this
> passage. It also might be that Jeff only sees what he is trying to express
> dimly and is not communicating it very well. Whatever the case, try to
> think the best of others.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
