Were Christians supposed to separate themselves?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Same sort of guys who wrote scripture in the first place, and collected it and canonized it and interpreted it. Yes, it does make it official. And yes, it does mean taking their word for it. That is why the apostles call themselves "witnesses". They claimed to be chosen by God as witnesses to the resurrection and they invited other people to take their word for it.

Same as Moses went to the Israelite slaves in Egypt with a story about hearing God speaking from a burning bush and promising them liberation from slavery and inviting them to take his word for it. And Mohammad claimed to receive the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel and gathered disciples who took his word for it.

In essence that is what faith is: trusting in the word of witnesses on the basis of what you hear and on the basis of their character and good name. Trusting in the God they proclaim because you decide to take the word of those who claim to be God's witnesses.

I'm afraid you're living 3,500 years in the past here ...

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ~ Jeremiah 31:32-34

No, it is not necessary to take anyone's word for it.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I'd rather wait than to be caught off-guard. If God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes why isn't that written in the scripture? Why are there instead teachings against idolatry? As spoken to Ezekiel, for example:

Isn't this in fact what I was alluding to about Elijah above? That no one expected John the Baptist to be Elijah?

"Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces." (14:3)

Hey, even a little bird can tell you the truth. That doesn't mean you have to set up a graven image in honor of it does it?

Idols are false gods, and the heart is where our words come from. My conclusion then is that idols of the heart are false words-- interpretations-- of who God is. Interpreting God as coming in all forms, therefore, makes me a uncomfortable. I also don't believe that prophecies are fulfilled symbolically; I believe that prophecies contain symbolism, but their fulfillment in the past has always been literal. For example, when Jeremiah saw a vision of a pot of boiling water being tipped toward Jerusalem: I accept that the pot of water was a symbol, but the vision itself was fulfilled literally in that a physical catastrophe hit Jerusalem.

If in fact you bow down and worship anything which is material, then you've committed idolatry. Why? Because you're not worshipping God in the spirit.

The sheep know the sound of their shepherd's voice, and they run away from everyone else-- especially religious cults.

Does this apply to Christian cults as well? ... "Many will come in my name to lead many astray."

[Marsh]

One also commits idolatry when one worships a concept of God that is not true. If I pray to God and thank him for being so wrathful and bent on revenge, and for desiring as I do to punish all of my enemies with eternal damnation, am I really praying to God? God, Lord, Saviour, Creator-- these are all just names. It is the being who they are meant to signify that is important. Yes, one can make an idol by taking a piece of metal and forming an image of a false God. One can also make an idol without wood or metal. Idols are simply false representations of God. If, in my heart and mind, I "create" God in the image that suits me I am just as idolatrous as one who makes a statue.

This is why I don't agree that God comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. In the end, God is a singular being with a singular personality, and though he can be many things to many people (friend, saviour, father, etc) he, and not I, is the one who chooses what he will be.

This is why I think it's so wrong to look to this Swedbourg guy as being the fulfillment of the second coming of my Lord Jesus Christ. I know my Lord's voice, and this guy's wasn't it. Religious cults are groups of people who take the truth and bend it. That's exactly what's happened here.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

One also commits idolatry when one worships a concept of God that is not true. If I pray to God and thank him for being so wrathful and bent on revenge, and for desiring as I do to punish all of my enemies with eternal damnation, am I really praying to God? God, Lord, Saviour, Creator-- these are all just names. It is the being who they are meant to signify that is important. Yes, one can make an idol by taking a piece of metal and forming an image of a false God. One can also make an idol without wood or metal. Idols are simply false representations of God. If, in my heart and mind, I "create" God in the image that suits me I am just as idolatrous as one who makes a statue.

What about those who become fixated on the Bible and worship the Bible as if it were God? Do you do this? If so, then I would suggest you've developed a fixation for words here. Indeed, isn't it possible when you take something in the literal sense, that you disavow the spirit which is behind the words? Don't the scriptures in fact warn us of such things when it says, "The letter killeth?"

This is why I don't agree that God comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. In the end, God is a singular being with a singular personality, and though he can be many things to many people (friend, saviour, father, etc) he, and not I, is the one who chooses what he will be.

Are you saying he has to speak directly to you in person or what?

This is why I think it's so wrong to look to this Swedbourg guy as being the fulfillment of the second coming of my Lord Jesus Christ. I know my Lord's voice, and this guy's wasn't it. Religious cults are groups of people who take the truth and bend it. That's exactly what's happened here.

Like you say, the sheep know the voice of the shepherd.

[Iacchus]

I have a couple of things to add here, since I was cut-off in the middle of editing the last post ...

Originally Posted by Marsh

This is why I don't agree that God comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. In the end, God is a singular being with a singular personality, and though he can be many things to many people (friend, saviour, father, etc) he, and not I, is the one who chooses what he will be.

Are you saying he has to speak directly to you in person or what? Is there something wrong with acknowleging God's work in everything? Doesn't the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 testify to God as much as anything else? And what is truth anyway?

This is why I think it's so wrong to look to this Swedbourg guy as being the fulfillment of the second coming of my Lord Jesus Christ. I know my Lord's voice, and this guy's wasn't it. Religious cults are groups of people who take the truth and bend it. That's exactly what's happened here.

Like you say, the sheep know the voice of the shepherd.

By the way, if Jesus was who He was purported to be, then why didn't the Jews get it -- if, in fact He was supposed to be the very fulfillment of their prophecies? It sounds to me like the precedent had already been set.

[I, Brian]

But, really, what did Swedenborg do that warranted his being claimed to be a Messiah? Did he title himself, or do his works title him so?

I actually know very little about Swedenborg - through references elsewhere I had him down as one of the secondary philosophers, rather than a primary spiritualist.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

But, really, what did Swedenborg do that warranted his being claimed to be a Messiah? Did he title himself, or do his works title him so?

He doesn't really claim himself to be the Messiah so much as he claims his works represent the second coming. In fact if you give any credence to what he says, then he was a witness to the Book of Revelation being fulfilled in the spiritual world which, occurred in the year 1757. In fact he gives a verse for verse account to the Book of Revelation in his work, The Apocalypse Revealed, which is better than any rendition I've heard given.

We must also understand that the Book of Revelation was written by a mystic, therefore, who better to give an actual accounting of it than another mystic? Doesn't it make sense that it should be revealed in that way? ... If in fact what we're speaking of here is legitimate?

I actually know very little about Swedenborg - through references elsewhere I had him down as one of the secondary philosophers, rather than a primary spiritualist.

If you click on the "About Swedenborg" link at Swedenborg.com, there are several links there that describe his biography, his theology and his works which, should just about answer any of your questions here ...

[Marsh]

Do I worship the Bible? No. I trust in the LORD in all my ways, instead of leaning on my own understanding. In all of the things I do I acknowledge him, and he directs my paths.

Do I disavow the spirit by believing in the written word? If this is inevitable, then why is it that Jesus himself read and/or alluded to scriptures from Isaiah, Jonah, Moses, David, Solomon, and Zechariah to name a few?

What is truth? I believe Pontius Pilate asked that same question to Jesus himself. Jesus didn't answer. Jesus didn't need to answer. Jesus is truth; the answer was in front of Pilate the whole time, and he didn't see it because he had the thoughts of man, and not of God, in his mind.

Who is the Holy Spirit, if not God? And yes, he speaks to me. In fact, he speaks to me every single time I pick up the Bible, read it, and understand something that I didn't understand before. Does that mean I worship the Bible? No. It means I worship God by reading what he wants me to read, instead of wasting my time reading comic books and porno magazines like people who cling to the secular world do.

But now I understand who you are by your own words:

"By the way, if Jesus was who He was purported to be..."

Your trust in an obscure 18th century philosopher is thus no longer surprising.

[whacky43]

this might clear it up for you. Luke 12:51-53Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather DIVISION: {52} For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. {53} The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Since Jesus didn't literally mean He would divide families, He was referencing "spiritual division".....most notably "religious division" ...He knew He was going to be a "divider".....and He states it several times.

Matthew:34.Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35. For I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And the persons of a man's household shall be his enemies.

Gospel of Thomas 16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts (divisions) upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

And christians call Him the "Prince of Peace".....ironic isn't it?

Hope this helps.......

[Faithfulservant]

His teaching is peace... that doesnt mean he's the cause of it.

I havent read this thread and it makes me sad. I just see him being crucified all over again.

[tishrei5736]

Originally Posted by Marsh

In the book of Acts, Christians are not known as Christians, but as "the Way." From then until now, it seems to me that Christianity-- and hence Christians themselves-- have drifted farther and farther away from their roots in Judaism. From this separation our culture as Christians has evolved into what we know it as today: something that is not Jewish, nor ever was (to the best of most Christians' knowledge).

I'm asking this not because I think I know the answer, but because I'm looking for one: Are modern churches horribly off-track? Did Jesus really want us to separate ourselves into a new entity called Christians, or to identify more with our Jewish roots as a new "Way" of being a Jew?

I do realize that Jesus didn't want us to be religious, just as God didn't want a house built for him in Moses' time. But I'm sure that you will understand what I'm trying to get at with this question: is Christianity as we know it a false religion in the sense that the Pharisee sect of Judaism was a false religion?

Hi Marsh,

I couldn't help but be fascinated by all the activity in your thread....

With respect to your initial question regarding 'how far' off the track Christians have gone beyond what Jesus may have intended for us, I would recommend that you read the following book:

"SIBLINGS, Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity at Their Beginnings" by Hayim Goren Perelmuter, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1989. The author was Rabbi Emeritus of KAM Isaiah Israel Congregation in Chicago and professor of Jewish Studies at the Catholic Theological Union.

In this book, Dr. Perelmuter mentions that Rabbinic or Pharisaic Judaism represented a 'significant mutation in the development of the Jewish experience'. The reason for this change was for the sake of continuity and survival.

He highlights the fact that the form of Judaism which survived the Temple was shaped at approximately the same time as Christianity. Both were reactions to the same cataclysmic event - the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

"Both Rabbinic Judaism, the form in which Judaism survived the destruction of State and Temple by the Romans, and Christianity were shaped at approximately the same time. The shaping of the emerging pattern for the survival of Judaism came out of Yavneh, at just about the same time the first gospels were written to crystallize the new Christianity."

He continues:

"In their confrontation with Rome, the Jewish people had five options..."

1. They could assimilate and become Roman as had many of their predecessors during the Hellenistic period. An example of this is the nephew of Philo, Tiberius Alexander, who became thoroughly Romanized, joined the army, rose in the ranks and was second in command to Titus when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.

2. They could decide to fight to the death which was the path of the Zealots.

3. They could decide to withdraw from the world and resign from struggle. They could retire to the desert and await the redemptive day. This was the way of Qumran.

Finally, there were two other alternatives, both of which thought in terms of survival through the 'messianic impulse' already implicit in the approach of Rabbinic/Pharisaic Judaism.

"Both were animated by a 'messianic' thrust and both thought in terms of survival and not suicide. The one believed the messianic time was at hand and should be grasped boldy. The other, having seen the messianic impulse take the form of military resistance that failed disastrously, took a long range view."

"The short range messianic movement out of Judaism became Christianity. The long range messianic movement became Rabbinic Judaism. The former plunged headlong into the world of the Roman Empire, and 'conquered' it in less than two centuries. The latter signed a temporary 'cease fire' with Rome, and within those same two centuries moved out of the sphere of the Roman Empire, into the Parthian Empire. There perhaps a million Jews lived, where they developed Rabbinic Judaism by expanding Mishnah into Talmud, and returning to Europe as fully developed Judaism by the eighth century.
It is in this sense that Judaism and Christianity are clearly siblings, both responding to the same cataclysmic event, as Jews, but each taking a different approach to the messianic destiny".

Regards,
Tishrei