Christian teachers now, are emphasizing that : "knowing about the "early" era of church is not a source for "obligatory laws and customs" as some wrongly teach. just because those had certain customs in their era or city does not obligate your time nor city, the test is "did jesus say". almost everything in new testament simply preserves the ancient customs not "source for laws" as some wrongly teach: "you should act the same" yet not holy just local custom. for example lady head covering or other ideas was a local custom so wen taut "keep same" was simply teaching not to reject some of the local custom but not for all cities nor eras, in contrast to eating the bred in same chapter based on same test: that jesus did say as above. so the only question is how frequently to "eat the bred" well some messianic jews and Christians are legalistic eat bred often and sadly they brag "come to us we eat often" gasp but jesus never said often and paul specified not by "deeds so one will not boast" that is the bad boasting and boasters who we must not join.
in general all such excuses for laws how to do things are not laws just stories of the past. paul was teaching reasons to stay the same to that "custom" in that era as keeping the existing local custom not for other eras. those stories should not be used as a source to act the same as if "obligate" rules and customs to perform.
to know "about it" the roots really suffices "the stories in book acts" describes the earliest church and not so you should act the same as the first christians because only the holy teachings are important insted just know the story of the early church as told in book acts but what happened later suffices summary irenaeus of lyons etc. briefly. the "fathers" added catholic ideas which are unacceptable. but were useful in rejecting "speculations" in philosophy as ir. taut. also briefly justin taut around year 150. he left the philosophy study wen he heard about prophecy that the "one" would come and was fulfilled as described in the prophets. he moved from ephesus to rome and wrote ideas in year 151 for emperor antoninus. that is enuf a brief summary of i+j.
any "bakground" that is important was already included in book wether "which emperor" or the "ideas debated" as mentioned in acts and gospels so no need to be lengthy about background. and a bad use of time. note: book eph. taut not to separate gentile. origen and others debated which books to include as holy but jesus never said which book was holy neither genesis nor others so we must not trust rabbis nor "church fathers" who simply did not reject the rabbis list and we should not trust those rabbis list. some say jesus quoted so that proves what? that the quoted idea is good. he never said by name this book is all good. nor holy. even the quotes not named the book. only later debated which book and they were humans and the contents indicate that they choose wrong. so we must remove the books "with errors" certainly not from god to separate from dirtying the few good ones such as isaia and jeremia. centuries after events in book acts many debated which description of jesus "ology" yet it seems they included both opposing views: mark taut jesus saying that he is separate from god: i am not good only god is good excluding himself if he were the "same one" this would be a lie while also including john the opposing sect divine and both valid you can believe either way. and this is noticeable in book romans wen paul wrote "jesus is lord" the greek word is NOT theo because the important issue is not if jesus divine or not either waay is fine. that is not the issue the other stuff like raised from dead is the factor if joined that sect or not.
in general all such excuses for laws how to do things are not laws just stories of the past. paul was teaching reasons to stay the same to that "custom" in that era as keeping the existing local custom not for other eras. those stories should not be used as a source to act the same as if "obligate" rules and customs to perform.
to know "about it" the roots really suffices "the stories in book acts" describes the earliest church and not so you should act the same as the first christians because only the holy teachings are important insted just know the story of the early church as told in book acts but what happened later suffices summary irenaeus of lyons etc. briefly. the "fathers" added catholic ideas which are unacceptable. but were useful in rejecting "speculations" in philosophy as ir. taut. also briefly justin taut around year 150. he left the philosophy study wen he heard about prophecy that the "one" would come and was fulfilled as described in the prophets. he moved from ephesus to rome and wrote ideas in year 151 for emperor antoninus. that is enuf a brief summary of i+j.
any "bakground" that is important was already included in book wether "which emperor" or the "ideas debated" as mentioned in acts and gospels so no need to be lengthy about background. and a bad use of time. note: book eph. taut not to separate gentile. origen and others debated which books to include as holy but jesus never said which book was holy neither genesis nor others so we must not trust rabbis nor "church fathers" who simply did not reject the rabbis list and we should not trust those rabbis list. some say jesus quoted so that proves what? that the quoted idea is good. he never said by name this book is all good. nor holy. even the quotes not named the book. only later debated which book and they were humans and the contents indicate that they choose wrong. so we must remove the books "with errors" certainly not from god to separate from dirtying the few good ones such as isaia and jeremia. centuries after events in book acts many debated which description of jesus "ology" yet it seems they included both opposing views: mark taut jesus saying that he is separate from god: i am not good only god is good excluding himself if he were the "same one" this would be a lie while also including john the opposing sect divine and both valid you can believe either way. and this is noticeable in book romans wen paul wrote "jesus is lord" the greek word is NOT theo because the important issue is not if jesus divine or not either waay is fine. that is not the issue the other stuff like raised from dead is the factor if joined that sect or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment