Institutionalization of MJ Started the Change....

[FredVB]

I think that the greatest change came to Christianity with institutionalization, mainly with it first being made what was recognized as fully legal in the empire, so that officials were attracted to the movement and influenced it with institutionalizing various things considered Christian, and the process going all the way with having this Christianity made the official religion of the empire soon afterward. As well as a hierarchy and official forms of sacraments being made, they were designating Sunday to be observed to the exclusion of the preference of those who would observe the Sabbath, such that some tell me now as if they know it all that Sunday immediately became the day to observe when Christ first arose from the tomb, and that the apostles knew it. And other things were designated over other practices that some had in common with those of Israel. There were people persecuted then, including those of the excluded preferences with others that may be seen as more heretical.

The institution resulting from this should not be trusted for any of its positions which it teaches or has taught. But being from times of antiquity, any documents from it that may be considered for historical evidence should have consistent weight for that compared to other ancient documents, having value for that. This is so even though the institution brought a departure from the original Christianity of the followers of Christ.

 

[visionary]

I think that the greatest change came to Christianity with institutionalization, mainly with it first being made what was recognized as fully legal in the empire, so that officials were attracted to the movement and influenced it with institutionalizing various things considered Christian, and the process going all the way with having this Christianity made the official religion of the empire soon afterward. As well as a hierarchy and official forms of sacraments being made, they were designating Sunday to be observed to the exclusion of the preference of those who would observe the Sabbath, such that some tell me now as if they know it all that Sunday immediately became the day to observe when Christ first arose from the tomb, and that the apostles knew it. And other things were designated over other practices that some had in common with those of Israel. There were people persecuted then, including those of the excluded preferences with others that may be seen as more heretical.

The institution resulting from this should not be trusted for any of its positions which it teaches or has taught. But being from times of antiquity, any documents from it that may be considered for historical evidence should have consistent weight for that compared to other ancient documents, having value for that. This is so even though the institution brought a departure from the original Christianity of the followers of Christ.

Do you consider Judaism an institution? If so, then God created the outline on Mount Sinai for the people to follow. Institutionalism isn't all bad. It is just a structure for process. It is the attitude, policies, enforcements, and adherences that are not within God's guidelines that make it a beast or harlot.

 

[FredVB]

Certainly there are good institutions. The issue I saw in discussing the history of Christianity is that officials with authoritative influence, with being attracted with the legalization coming to it, were seeing how their views that they saw as being Christian should be made to be with widely shared confession or practice having things officially accepted. It was the process over time with a hierarchy coming into being for it with this Christianity being made the official religion. It was not good in the sense that other Christian practice was excluded, and some essential things of Christianity were left behind.

 

[annier]

Certainly there are good institutions. The issue I saw in discussing the history of Christianity is that officials with authoritative influence, with being attracted with the legalization coming to it, were seeing how their views that they saw as being Christian should be made to be with widely shared confession or practice having things officially accepted. It was the process over time with a hierarchy coming into being for it with this Christianity being made the official religion. It was not good in the sense that other Christian practice was excluded, and some essential things of Christianity were left behind.

Wasn't that the way the Roman government always worked with all religions?
What was different about Christianity when it became a legalized religion, than any other legalized religion?

 

[annier]

Do you consider Judaism an institution? If so, then God created the outline on Mount Sinai for the people to follow. Institutionalism isn't all bad. It is just a structure for process. It is the attitude, policies, enforcements, and adherences that are not within God's guidelines that make it a beast or harlot.

I think Rome's handling of religion in the Empire, is also true of Judaism. A new Sanhedrin established by the authority of Rome gave the rabbinate the bully pulpit over who were Jew's and which views of Judaism were legally Judaism. Lot's changed in Judaism's authoritative structure then IMO.

 

[visionary]

I think Rome's handling of religion in the Empire, is also true of Judaism. A new Sanhedrin established by the authority of Rome gave the rabbinate the bully pulpit over who were Jew's and which views of Judaism were legally Judaism. Lot's changed in Judaism's authoritative structure then IMO.

I didn't know that the new Sanhedrin got its authority from Rome. Are you talking about today's Sanhedrin?

 

[annier]

I didn't know that the new Sanhedrin got its authority from Rome. Are you talking about today's Sanhedrin?

Yes I am talking about Judaism and events after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad.
How else do you think the Rabbinate was able to have rulership in the Roman Empire Vis? Under Roman law, the Sanhedrin and it's Rabbinate as (it's religious rulers) were given legal status to officiate over "Judaism", within the Empire. They did this with all religions Vis.

 

[visionary]

Yes I am talking about Judaism and events after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad.
How else do you think the Rabbinate was able to have rulership in the Roman Empire Vis? Under Roman law, the Sanhedrin and it's Rabbinate as (it's religious rulers) were given legal status to officiate over "Judaism", within the Empire. They did this with all religions Vis.

Ok, so today's Sanhedrin are not under the RCC authority.

 

[annier]

Ok, so today's Sanhedrin are not under the RCC authority.

HUH? RCC authority? Um are you being snide Vis? And there is no Sanhedrin today. The rabbinate remains to uphold the teachings and authority of that Sanhedrin.

 

[visionary]

HUH? RCC authority? Um are you being snide Vis? And there is no Sanhedrin today. The rabbinate remains to uphold the teachings and authority of that Sanhedrin.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/70349
In October 2004 (Tishrei 5765), a group of rabbis representing varied Orthodox communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded, in which it claimed to re-establish the body according to the proposal of Maimonides and the Jewish legal rulings of Rabbi Yosef Karo.

http://thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=The_Nascent_Sanhedrin
The Sanhedrin is a form of Rabbinic Parliament, part of a bicameral system that reflects traditional Jewish government. This model has influenced the organizational structure of many Western European legislatures. They describe the roles of an upper and lower house:

The Sanhedrin is described as a "House of Scholars". This body represents the "rights and obligations" of the people to the "Torah Constitution" which they define as including "the Torah, Talmud and body of Rabbinic Jurisprudence that has been built up over our history as a people".

A parallel "Congressional Assembly" represents the "democratic needs of the population". It is conceived as being derived from the royal court of a constitutional monarchy, in a democratic society it would consist of an assembly of regionally elected representatives, represented by voting power.

The head of the lower house was traditionally the Monarch, or in a modern times a Prime Minister. He would have the power to collect taxes and would be the head of the executive branch of government. He would be subordinate only to the Sanhedrin

 

[annier]

Sanhedrin Launched In Tiberias - Jewish World - News - Arutz Sheva
In October 2004 (Tishrei 5765), a group of rabbis representing varied Orthodox communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded, in which it claimed to re-establish the body according to the proposal of Maimonides and the Jewish legal rulings of Rabbi Yosef Karo.

The Nascent Sanhedrin - The Sanhedrin - en
The Sanhedrin is a form of Rabbinic Parliament, part of a bicameral system that reflects traditional Jewish government. This model has influenced the organizational structure of many Western European legislatures. They describe the roles of an upper and lower house:

The Sanhedrin is described as a "House of Scholars". This body represents the "rights and obligations" of the people to the "Torah Constitution" which they define as including "the Torah, Talmud and body of Rabbinic Jurisprudence that has been built up over our history as a people".

A parallel "Congressional Assembly" represents the "democratic needs of the population". It is conceived as being derived from the royal court of a constitutional monarchy, in a democratic society it would consist of an assembly of regionally elected representatives, represented by voting power.

The head of the lower house was traditionally the Monarch, or in a modern times a Prime Minister. He would have the power to collect taxes and would be the head of the executive branch of government. He would be subordinate only to the Sanhedrin

Oh, so it is still the rabbinate that controls the policies made concerning the temple mount. Interesting, indeed.

 

[pat34lee]

The Nascent Sanhedrin - The Sanhedrin - en

Going further, it seems the Sanhedrin think they should be part of (actually, most of) the legal government of Israel.

The Sanhedrin would function as an equal legislative body to a democratically elected body, but it would also function as a supreme judicial body with regard to interpreting basic law, or what they call a "Torah Constitution". It would be analogous to combining the Supreme Court of the United States and United States Senate into one legislative house, and has some similarity to the role of upper houses such as the Canadian Senate, designed to act as an unintended "sober second thought", and the British House of Lords, which cumulates legislative and judicial functions. It appears that this structure in the Sanhedrin context implies a democracy functioning within a Torah Constitution. From an Israeli point of view this implies adding a second house to Knesset and declaring a Basic Laws of Israel requiring Israeli civil law to function within halakha.

I hope Israel has better sense than to let it happen.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Going further, it seems the Sanhedrin think they should be part of (actually, most of) the legal government of Israel.
I hope Israel has better sense than to let it happen.

Most nations have "better sense" than to keep Torah, so it probably won't happen. Just doesn't fit with Satan's plan for a no-Torah world. Indeed, it is the "time of the gentiles" still, and the Exile is not over for Judah.

 

[pat34lee]

Most nations have "better sense" than to keep Torah, so it probably won't happen. Just doesn't fit with Satan's plan for a no-Torah world. Indeed, it is the "time of the gentiles" still, and the Exile is not over for Judah.

Torah has nothing to do with it. Rabbinic theology is not about Torah. It is about power. What happened the last time Rabbis had that power? The temple was destroyed and the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Torah has nothing to do with it. Rabbinic theology is not about Torah. It is about power. What happened the last time Rabbis had that power? The temple was destroyed and the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem.

uh....what?

Are you under the impression the Sicarii were rabbis, or even believing Jews ?

(Think I trust the eyewitness Josephus more so than you on this issue.)

 

[pat34lee]

uh....what?

Are you under the impression the Sicarii were rabbis, or even believing Jews ?

(Think I trust the eyewitness Josephus more so than you on this issue.)

What did the Sicarii have to do with the temple destruction and dispersion of the Jews?

 

[annier]

Wow lol. OK since you are apparently serious:

DEVARIM 17:
14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,”
15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.
16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.”
17 He must not multiply wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests.
19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

This is the law which gave them king Saul.......... of which Moses torah also says this

De 28:36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

I answered your first question. Samuel goes on to answer you, in the sense that it relates the narrative of God choosing David and his descendants which include my king and ruler, Yeshua.

Davids reign is by the later covenant made with David!

 

[Hoshiyya]

This is the law which gave them king Saul.......... of which Moses torah also says this

De 28:36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

Davids reign is by the later covenant made with David!

The Torah is immutable. His law is law, yesterday, today and forever. Yeshua is my king, and he will reign as such over all the world, whether the world like it or not.

(By the way, Deut 28:36 is likely referring to Zedekiah, who was forcefully imprisoned by the Babylonians.)

 

[Tishri1]

Mod hat

These post were split off with permission by the op and thread Op (http://www.christianforums.com/t4145248-18/#post65878965 ) to start a new discussion here

Enjoy

 

[FredVB]

This is the law which gave them king Saul.......... of which Moses torah also says this
De 28:36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
Davids reign is by the later covenant made with David!

Deut 28:36 is likely referring to Zedekiah, who was forcefully imprisoned by the Babylonians.

In Deuteronomy this passage is speaking of the king people of Israel had, from choosing a king, and it fits Zedekiah, as well as a couple of other kings of the Kingdom of Judah, in that general period of time, as well as a king over the Kingdom of Israel earlier, to the north. David, who was the start of that line of kings in Judah, was put in the place of king after the people had made the demand, with Yahweh's own choice for the man after God's own heart, and it was within the covenant, which David as king promoted to the people, while Yahweh then made a distinct covenant with David for an heir of his line to always be king that is enthroned.