Was Judas present when Christ instituted Communion?

Page 8 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 6 7 8 9 10 Next >
This post has 185 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 4:35 PM

"Get a room!"

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 5:24 PM

Super Tramp:

I'm a little disappointed by the labelling of the non-sacramental view as 'Baptist' in both these resources: someone obviously hasn't read 'Baptist Sacramentalism', Recycling the Past', and 'More Than a Symbol' in the Studies in Baptist History and Though series. Simply the 'non-sacramental' view would have been preferable. 

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 5:50 PM

Dean053:
I'm a little disappointed by the labelling of the non-sacramental view as 'Baptist' in both these resources

If you are familiar with a lot of Baptists, you know you can not pigeon-hole them all int one viewpoint on hardly anything. They are so incongruent  we ought to have a book titled 14 views on "What makes for a Baptist."

 

Logos resource of related interest  Classic Baptist Books - Roger Williams Heritage Archive  

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 846
Eric Weiss | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 5:57 PM

WoundedEgo:

"Get a room!"

Don't you mean "Take it outside!"?

 

Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 10 2012 5:21 PM

So which is more important to you:

* what Origen thought?

Or

* What the scriptures say?

Or

What actually happened?

 

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 10 2012 5:58 PM

Meaning you don't care? "Judas be damned"?

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 13 2012 4:45 PM

>>>I'm interested in Western thought - the Latin Fathers.

Because the deader you are, the smarter you are?

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 9:47 AM

George Somsel:

David Paul:

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

As every schoolboy knows, she was of the tribe of Moab.

Impossible.

Deut. 23:3

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 10:21 AM

If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."

She never became a Jew.

She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 10:30 AM

David Paul:

George Somsel:

David Paul:

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

As every schoolboy knows, she was of the tribe of Moab.

 

Impossible.

Deut. 23:3

I think you intended Deut 23:4, but look at Ruth 1:4.  Not so impossible after all.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:22 AM

WoundedEgo:

If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."

She never became a Jew.

She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.

Apparently you don't understand why your summation, however much it may seem to be logical to you on the surface, is utterly impossible. Her descendant was David, and he entered into the assembly, just she herself did. No Moabite is allowed to do that according to the explicit tohraah of YHWH. When she forsook her past to make covenant with YHWH and His people, she became one of them. By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew. If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:30 AM

>>>By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew.

No, that is not how it works. The only way to be a Jew is to be a descendent of Abraham through Isaac.

>>>If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.

David was a Jew because his father was a Jew. "Patrilinar" not "matrilinear".

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:31 AM

By the way, if first gospel is to be believed, then Jesus was not a Jew.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:34 AM

George Somsel:

I think you intended Deut 23:4, but look at Ruth 1:4.  Not so impossible after all.

Impossible. What you note from Ruth 1:4 shows Israelites (Jews, specifically) who left the land and took wives among a forbidden people. They took themselves outside the land and behaved outside the covenant. They would not have been allowed to bring their Moabite wives back into the land with any intention of participation in covenant life. Ruth forsook her Moabite identity and became more Jewish than the vast majority of Jews...more Jewish, for instance, than the nameless nobody who refused to redeem her and thus was relegated to eternal anonymity. His requirement, according to Tohraah, of removing his shoe was explicit identification of his refusal to "walk" in covenant.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:38 AM

WoundedEgo:

>>>By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew.

No, that is not how it works. The only way to be a Jew is to be a descendent of Abraham through Isaac.

>>>If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.

David was a Jew because his father was a Jew. "Patrilinar" not "matrilinear".

  1. Did you ever consider proselytes? 
  2. For the purpose of determining "Jewishness" the mother must be a Jew, not the father.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:39 AM

WoundedEgo:

By the way, if first gospel is to be believed, then Jesus was not a Jew.

If what you say is true, then Yeishuu`a was not the Messiah, because the scepter/staff/rod was to be for/from Judah (Gen. 49:10). YHWH, in contradistinction to your assertion, clearly thinks otherwise.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:41 AM

David Paul:

WoundedEgo:

If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."

She never became a Jew.

She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.

 

Apparently you don't understand why your summation, however much it may seem to be logical to you on the surface, is utterly impossible. Her descendant was David, and he entered into the assembly, just she herself did. No Moabite is allowed to do that according to the explicit tohraah of YHWH. When she forsook her past to make covenant with YHWH and His people, she became one of them. By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew. If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.

That part of the toraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah reflects a later development due to historical circumstances.  It would seem, in fact that the book of Ruth was written in part to counter such a view just as Jonah was written to counter certain groups who held to Jewish exclusivity.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:47 AM

David, what are you proposing? That Ruth became a Jew? Is that your point? Well, the scriptures are decidedly Patrilineal. A Jew is a descendent of Abraham, through his fathers.

Or are you saying that Ruth in wrong, and she did not produce David's anscestor to a Jew?

Or are you saying that it had been 10 generations?

Or are you saying that David was "conceived in iniquity" (which he himself confesses)?

What is the bottom line to your contention?

Posts 69
Ruminator | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 11:48 AM

>>>Did you ever consider proselytes? 

That's a bit anachronistic.

>>>For the purpose of determining "Jewishness" the mother must be a Jew, not the father.

In modern Jewry, perhaps, but not in the scriptures.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 1 2012 12:04 PM

Ruth became a Jewess because she entered into covenant with a Jewish man, and gave birth (down the line) to the Jewish Messiah. Literal descendants of Abraham, and by extension, any of the twelve patriarchs, on the other hand were far more often than not (the vast majority) considered BY YHWH HIMSELF to be "false sons" (Isa. 1:4 & Deut. 32:5). These "false sons" who were "not His children" were physical descendants and yet they refused covenant obedience and were unilaterally rejected as "corrupt" and "perverted" and "twisted". These "seed of evildoers" could not be, from the spiritual perspective (the perspective YHWH cares about), the sons of Abraham because he is the father of the faithful. They could not be Israelites because the name Israel means "the upright (yaashaar) of God" (Deut. 32:4). Those who are twisted, by definition, are not upright.

Hebraic spelling of yaashar and Yisra'eil:  yohdh/shin/reish & yohdh/shin/reish/aleph/laamedh

Ruth, walked uprightly...she BECAME a TRUE daughter of YHWH and TRUE daughter of Abraham.

Page 8 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | RSS