No more miracles because the apostles left?

Psalms34 · #51 12th May 2008, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Actually, "royal official" suggests Rome, not Jerusalem. In Jerusalem was Pilate. In Galilee, Herod. They were both Romans, not Jews. In fact, in the first century, there was no "royalty" among the Jews. The last king of Israel died in captivity in 706 BC, and of Judea in 587 BC.

So there was no Jewish nobility at the time? No Herod, no Agrippa I, no Agrippa II? And the ministry to the Gentiles started before the resurrection of Christ? Is that what you are trying to say?

Herod was a Jew, he was an Idumaean which were proselytes by Maccabeans. He was thus king of Judea though not all Jews recognized him as a Jew, though he was, and was accepted by others to be as reorganization by the right of proselyzation to his people. He was not noble line, but he was there functioning as nobility. Your question is whether or not the nobility was lawful, rather than if any such nobility existed at all. It existed, was just not lawful, but could be addressed as being in existence. Just because it was not lawful, didn't necessarily mean it didn't exist.

The ministry didn’t happen for the gentiles until after the resurrection. It was to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. That was Paul’s calling, Jesus had no ministry for the Gentiles, the ministry was a mystery until revealed to Paul. Jesus knew of the other sheep that would hear his voice, but that actual ministry didn’t happen until some time after the resurrection.

So applying both important points, it makes more sense in context to as I had put it being a reference to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

onthenarrow · #52 12th May 2008, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Yes I have.

Where? I suppose you are referring to the other thread you mentioned? I was referring to this thread. I'll have to take a look over there I suppose. However here we were talking about the fathers, and it is true that you have not made any comment on the evidence presented - certainly not an apology for calling me a liar. You have, however, revealed a very strong propensity to make sweeping generalizations that turn out to be false, and an equally great reluctance to admit it.

I have one other question I would appreciate an answer to, while we're on topic here. Why, when you who are overtly and obviously Pentecostal/Charismatic and who have a forum dedicated to that form of worship forum, do you want to turn the N/D forum into a carbon copy? The vast majority of N/D's are not Pentecostal/Charismatic.

I would appreciate many things too. Are you are saying is that if someone believes in the continuation of the gifts (i.e. they are not cessationist), then they are pentecostal/charismatic? If so, that is a very ridiculous assertion to make. Was John Knox a charismatic? Or the early Baptists? What about Wesley? Or Irenaeus? You can pretend that cessationists alone have the right to be called non-denominational if you like, however I reject many pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, such as tongues as non-languages, tongues as initial evidence, etc. These have nothing to do with whether the gifts are here today or not - the whole pentecostal/charismatic movement could be totally false (which I don't believe), but it would still not settle one way or the other whether the gifts have ceased or not. You think that only cessationists have a right to be called 'non-denominational', though obviously influenced by Calvinism and dispensationalism, two very denominational beliefs. Well you think alot of things. I suppose I should ask - just how do you define pentecostal/charismatic? all non-cessationists (including John Knox)?

IisJustMe · #53 12th May 2008, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Artificial Intelligence

So there was no Jewish nobility at the time? No Herod, no Agrippa I, no Agrippa II?

They were descendants of Herod the Great also, and Roman. That should be obvious from Paul's arrest and transport to Caesarea, to Felix's court, where Paul languished for two years until Agrippa II returned from Rome where he had officially been awarded the rule of the lands his father (Herod) Agrippa I had inherited from Herod Antipas.

Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great. After various changes in fortune, he gained the favor of Caligula and Claudius to such a degree that he gradually obtained the government of all of Palestine, with the title of king. He died at Caesarea in 44 AD, at the age of 54, in the seventh [or the 4th, reckoning from the extension of his dominions by Claudius] year of his reign, just after having ordered James the apostle, son of Zebedee, to be slain, and Peter to be cast into prison, in Acts 12.

(Herod) Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I, was great grandson of Herod the Great. When his father died he was a youth of seventeen. In A.D. 48 he received from Claudius Caesar the government of Chalcis, with the right of appointing the Jewish high priests, together with the care and oversight of the temple at Jerusalem. Four years later Claudius took from him Chalcis and gave him instead a larger domain, of Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, with the title of king. To those reigns Nero, in A.D. 53, added Tiberias and Taricheae and Peraean Julias, with fourteen neighboring villages. He is mentioned in Acts 25 and 26. In the Jewish war, although he heroically tried in vain to restrain the fury of the seditious and bellicose populace, he did not desert entirely to the Roman side that was his heritage. It could rightly be said that he was the only descent Herodian ruler Rome sent to Israel. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, he was vested with praetorian rank and kept the kingdom entire until his death, which took place in the third year of the emperor Trajan, the 73rd year of his life, and the 52nd of his reign. He was the last representative of the Herodian dynasty.

There are matters of Roman history. The entire Herodian line was Roman, not Jewish. They merely ruled the kingdom as it was part of the Roman empire from 27 BC onward.

Psalms34 · #54 12th May 2008, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Editing ... be patient ... sorry ...

It does concern me a bit when this and that passage it contributed to being directly spoken to the Church when it was not. The gentile Church didn't exist for some time. So you get a lot of strange things directed at the church from scripture based on the interpretation that it was originally directed at the gentiles and not the Jews. I can take those things as an example of what to do or what not to do, but is it directed specifically at me in context, no. Did I mention that I was a Dispy? haha yeah like that isn't obvious

Anyway, as for such topics being discussed in ND, it's bound to happen. Of course I am more concerned with the hypersensationalist rather then the ones that reject the gifts all together. There is a balance, a practice that works for today, that does not require one extreme or the other, and is more so based on scripture. All I can say is, if it's too much of a hot topic for you to deal with, than just ignore such topics. I mean after all you seem to be driving the debate pretty well all on your own

I'm not offended that you don't take the gifts of the Spirit to be in motion for today, but I think you would be better off if you did come to that rationalization, in balance of course. A lot of overemphasizing of those gifts today of course.

IisJustMe · #55 12th May 2008, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Artificial Intelligence

Well ok, but it does concern me a bit when this and that passage it contributed to being directly spoken to the Church when it was not. The gentile Church didn't exist for some time. So you get a lot of strange things directed at the church from scripture based on the interpretation that it was originally directed at the gentiles and not the Jews. I can take those things as an example of what to do or what not to do, but is it directed specifically at me in context, no. Did I mention that I was a Dispy? haha yeah like that isn't obvious

Anyway, as for such topics being discussed in ND, it's bound to happen. Of course I am more concerned with the hypersensationalist rather then the ones that reject the gifts all together. There is a balance, a practice that works for today, that does not require one extreme or the other, and is more so based on scripture. All I can say is, if it's too much of a hot topic for you to deal with, than just ignore such topics. I mean after all you seem to be driving the debate pretty well all on your own I'm not offended that you don't take the gifts of the Spirit to be in motion for today, but I think you would be better off if you did come to that rationalization, in balance of course. A lot of overemphasizing of those gifts today of course.

Check the edit ... the Agrippas were part of the Herodian (and therefore, Roman) leadership. When I said I was "editing" I meant the post that said "editing" ... I was cut-and-pasting out of a term paper I did clear back in Bible college.

Psalms34 · #56 12th May 2008, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Check the edit ... the Agrippas were part of the Herodian (and therefore, Roman) leadership. When I said I was "editing" I meant the post that said "editing" ... I was cut-and-pasting out of a term paper I did clear back in Bible college.

Anyway, you missed the point, his family was conquered by the Mccabeans, it was a convert or leave the land situation, and Herods family became Jews and stayed. The question is were they legal Jewish nobility, which they were not, but they were Jews of some obtained nobility and apparently had such titles of the time, whether legal or not.

Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Book 2, Chapter 13, "There was also another disturbance at Caesarea, - those Jews who were mixed with the Syrians that lived there rising a tumult against them. The Jews pretended that the city was theirs, and said that he who built it was a Jew, meaning King Herod. The Syrians confessed also that its builder was a Jew; but they still said, however, that the city was a Grecian city; for that he who set up statues and temples in it could not design it for Jews."

I suppose John could have put a note in questioning the lawfulness of the Jewish nobility of the day, but that would have given Rome more power to outlaw and persecute the Christians I would suggest. I mean by the time the temple was destroyed, most Christians were strongly trying to part with any such Jewish identity, and protesting such positions of nobility would have been really pointless by that time. But even by the time the gospel was actually written, disputing the legality of it was not profitable, but did manage to be noted as being in existence.

IisJustMe · #57 12th May 2008, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Artificial Intelligence

Anyway, you missed the point, his family was conquered by the Mccabeans, it was a convert or leave the land situation, and Herods family became Jews and stayed.

In all of my research, that was never stated. Not once. It's nonsense. When the Herods had to have their rule conferred upon them by Rome and they willingly sought it out, they were not Jews. They were proudly, fiercely and unequivocally Roman. Nothing remotely ties them to Judaism, even "fake" Judaism. The Macabees defeated the Seluecids in 142 BC, to win their independence. The Seleucids were Greek, not Roman, and the Herod were not Greek. Though the Maccabees won their independence, their interior fractionalization kept them ever being anything other than a poor excuse for an organized and civilized people. Rome easily conquered them and put them to shame. You really need to read in their entirety the two posts I made earlier relating to the Herodian family. You see where it refers to Herod utterly destroying the Hasmoneans? That was the remnant of the Maccabean "empire." The Herods never, ever, not one, bowed a knee to that lineage of Jewish leadership. Not only did they conquer them, they wiped them out, the remnant of the Macabees disappearing, to a man, woman and child. The last thing they were was victorious over Rome.

The Herodian sect of the Jewish culture (political party, really, as were the Sadducees and Pharisees) were Jews who supported the Roman government. The term "Herodian" did not identify the Herods' lineage of rulers, but the party of Jews that supported them.

Attempting to argue these indisputable historical facts is the kind of thing that I see from people holding to this set of beliefs apparent on this thread. Justifying these unsupportable teachings is the very example of "false teachers" Jesus warned about. Sorry, AI, but that's the way I see it. There is no question of whether the Herodians were "Jewish nobility" or not because they were not ever, in the remotest sense, Jewish, but 100% Roman. I'm growing weary of the discussion. So I'm bowing out, and seriously considering returning to the Baptist forum. If this kind of discussion is going to be the dominant, and if this kind of worship is what is going to be required as "acceptable" I want no part of it.

Psalms34 · #58 12th May 2008, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

In all of my research, that was never stated. Not once. It's nonsense.

Then you overlook Josephus which I quoted. He calls him a Jew. This is accurate since the Herodian Dynasty was Edomite after having been conquered in southern Judea and integrated into the Jewish nation. Herod's father was very friendly with Rome, and his son was awarded the position as governor, Herod. The Herodian Dynasty wasn't a political party, but an actual Jewish lineage from proselytized Idumaean.

So you just can't accept it, eh? That there was a form of royalty in Israel that was Jewish, as I have gone over here, and that the passage in question was referring to the Jews and not the gentiles. That is a real big stretch, buddy; especially since the ministry to the gentiles at that point was completely nonexistent. The miracles were not for the gentiles at that time, He was not trying to make converts of the gentiles, but delivering the good news to the Jews first which had to reject before it would be then offered to the gentiles. It is specifically the Jews that were rebuked for their unbelief, not the gentiles. This had nothing to do with the book/time of Acts, or the gifts that were given to the Church.

RefrusRevlis · #59 13th May 2008, 07:36 AM

Hmm? But still there are no clear passages that say the gifts are or will be removed other than when we see Jesus face to face as Paul said. I mean now we speak, teach and understand as a child but one day we shall be face to face with the Lord no longer looking dimly into the mirror but shall then put off childish things. At THAT point, gifts will cease. Are you face to face yet?

You assume that because the words "face to face" are used that this talks about actually being present with the Lord Jesus. This is a mistake. Where does it mention Jesus in the passage? The passage compares the quality of knowledge, partial and complete:

1 Corinth 13:9-13

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

The same idea is expressed in verses 9-10, 11 and 12 using different imagery. The partial, imperfect nature of knowledge at the time of the writing of the 1 Corinthians is contrasted with the perfect (complete) knowledge to come. In verse 12 the imagery is of looking in a mirror dimly - mirrors in those days were polished metal and even the best one would be dim compared with actually looking at a person face to face. So the partial "understanding" gained by looking at dim bit of metal would be replaced by the complete understanding as it were looking straight at a person.

Verse 13 shows us the things that were "abiding things" when Paul wrote the epistle:

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

These three things in combination cannot be things that will all continue after the return of Christ. Surely love will continue, perhaps faith (though Hebrews 11:1 tends to militate against that position), but hope will not :

Romans 8:24

For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If hope will cease at the coming of Christ, then the cessation of gifts must occur sometime before that. The reason why is because there would be a time when faith, hope and love would abide without the gifts of the spirit, which would have already been "done away with".

That the word of God is perfect is shown by James 1. Compare this passage with 1 Corinthians 13 (above):

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Refrus

IamRedeemed · #60 13th May 2008, 10:56 AM

First of all, I personally do not know of ANY Non Denominational Churches much less the "vast majority of"
that believe in the cessation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. So, just because you say so, does not mean that
we are in the wrong location. You did not come to your cessationalist beliefs in the ND Church you
currently attend. It is a predominant Baptist teaching. And most of us know that you are historically a
Baptist who happens to be attending an ND Church currently.
* Edit to Add: It is also a predominant teaching of JWs.

Where you get the idea that Non-Denominationalism includes the belief in the cessation of the
Gifts of the Holy Spirit, I will never know, but it is erroneous and I wish you would stop trying to
drive us out of OUR forum! IF there are any ND Churches that hold the belief of cessation, they are
absolutely in the minority.

I enjoy fellowshipping with you Mike, but I do not enjoy these constant arrogant assaults.
I personally believe, that if you cannot keep yourself from debating this topic in the fellowship
area of this forum, that you might be much happier if you found a home amongst like minded
individuals, which you will probably have much more luck with, if you join the Baptist forum.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

I have one other question I would appreciate an answer to, while we're on topic here. Why, when you who are overtly and obviously Pentecostal/Charismatic and who have a forum dedicated to that form of worship forum, do you want to turn the N/D forum into a carbon copy? The vast majority of N/D's are not Pentecostal/Charismatic.