Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[ebedmelech]

Don't you think nutmeg and caraway aren't also produce? And yet they were't tithed. The ONLY spices that were tithed were dill cumin and mint.

First of all you dodge the major fact involved, which would be "is it an increase?"

You see Open Heart you're really missing on the way profit was done...which was by money and barter...which in many ways are still done today!

Just because scripture doesn't specifically mention nutmeg or any other spice isn't the point...the principle involved was IS IT AN INCREASE IN PROFIT to the individual. If so they titled it at the temple, which the priest in turn received from that...at they in turn would tithe from what they received.

It's in the Law...read it.

 

[Meowzltov]

This is what everybody in the Christian only part of these forums adhere to, some more literally than others too.
Catholics are all across the range of belief on these non-negotiables too, probably even more so between ourselves than is the case of Protestants among themselves.
All that means, in terms of fellowship, is that Catholics will find more authentic unity of spirit and belief between other like-minded Protestants than they will find amongst themselves.

The Creed is only the beginning. I posted it in answer to the remark that there was not a single issue upon which Catholics agreed, which was utter nonsense. In addition to the Creed, we have a nice big thick book called the Catechism. It sets our official doctrine. Every Catholic agrees this is what our official doctrine is, even those who disagree that this is what it should be.

 

[Meowzltov]

And does not the actual fellowship, the actual, authentic meeting of minds and hearts, mean even more than 'book' unity?

It depends on what you mean by "book unity." There are things which we have the freedom to interpret for ourselves, such as whether the Anti-Christ was Nero or some future terrible person. But there are things we MUST have unity upon or we fall apart as a Church. Christians and Jews and Muslims can pray together, but we have no unity.

The Church that Christ established didn't teach a confused plethora of basic doctrines. The Apostles agreed, and when they didn't, they came together to sort out what the united teaching would be, as in Acts 15. In the Early Church, there would be many voices in one direction and one or a few dissenting voices, and it would solidify. In areas where true conflict developed, Church councils came together to decide orthodoxy, and these decisions were binding on all Christians.

The idea that individual Christians could simply decide for themselves in a "Just Jesus and me" kind of deal was unheard of. Dissenting groups were simply declared heretical.

 

[Meowzltov]

Just because scripture doesn't specifically mention nutmeg or any other spice isn't the point...the principle involved was IS IT AN INCREASE IN PROFIT to the individual. If so they titled it at the temple, which the priest in turn received from that...at they in turn would tithe from what they received.

And my point is that nutmeg and caraway were not tithed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Scripture cannot be objective, subjective, or an authority, it does not speak or think on its own.

 

[ebedmelech]

And my point is that nutmeg and caraway were not tithed.

Are you sure? Why would God ask the people for free will offerings of "spices".

 

[Meowzltov]

Are you sure? Why would God ask the people for free will offerings of "spices".

Yes, I'm positive. The spice tax was specifically mint, dill and cumin. That's it. That is how the Judges ruled. And Jesus supported this.

 

[ebedmelech]

Yes, I'm positive. The spice tax was specifically mint, dill and cumin. That's it. That is how the Judges ruled. And Jesus supported this.

No. I don't think you're all that sure...and what you're trying to assert has no basis. For instance...how do they obtain those spices except it be through the tithe...remember?...They sit in Moses seat, so just as Moses, as well as the priests and Levites were paid through the tithe, that's how the Pharisees were paid...through the peoples tithes and offerings. Haven't you read Leviticus?

Back up what you assert, because basically you're speculating based on Jesus statements made against them, not keeping in mind Jesus simply stated them as a few of many examples of their hypocrisy. All one has to do is read the gospels to see those were a few of many of their discrepancies.

 

[SolomonVII]

It depends on what you mean by "book unity."

I mean Christianity as an intellectual exercise where the form that Christianity takes is deemed more important than an actual unity of purpose or intent.
It is the experience of using the same book, or pope, or catechism at cross purposes with one another.

To profess the same faith without having the faith bring people together as a unified team all working toward the same goal is a faith with no real world consequences.

I am trying to express the experience of professing the same faith, without having an experience of being of the same Body. It is the experience of Catholics being on opposing sides of every war, literal or metaphoric, and not just that, but justifying it through Catholic teaching.

 

[Meowzltov]

They sit in Moses seat, so just as Moses, as well as the priests and Levites were paid through the tithe, that's how the Pharisees were paid..

Pharisees were not Levites. They were not paid through tithes. They were mostly middle class merchants. Ebed, there is no shame in not knowing Jewish law. We don't expect non-Jews to know Jewish law. But please don't pretend to know what you don't know.

Haven't you read Leviticus?

I've had years of study in Jewish law. I don't pretend to be a Torah scholar. (I don't think Christians have any clue what a Torah scholar even is.) But I certainly am familiar with Leviticus.

 

[Meowzltov]

No. I don't think you're all that sure...

Try not to mind read. You aren't claiming to be psychic are you? Here is another Messianic Jew like me (Rabbi Mark Kinzer) who asserts that the existence of an authoritative Oral Torah is necessary:

"Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice. When the Torah teaches about unclean birds, it does not provide any criteria for distinguishing the clean from unclean (as it does for mammals and for fish), but only lists examples. Is this a complete list? What about birds of prey that are not listed?"

https://books.google.com/books?id=AEFMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq="Is+the+Written+Torah+sufficient+for+instructing+the+Jewish+people+in+how+we+should+live+as+individuals,+families,+and+local+communities?+While+it+is+certainly+foundational+and+indispensable,+it+is+not+sufficient.&source=bl&ots=yegZrzuiWG&sig=ccQC-nib7QmaupKicbQQyaxq3Q8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi--JKA7fPOAhVD6mMKHWXZAGgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q="Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient.&f=false

 

[ebedmelech]

Pharisees were not Levites. They were not paid through tithes. They were mostly middle class merchants. Ebed, there is no shame in not knowing Jewish law. We don't expect non-Jews to know Jewish law. But please don't pretend to know what you don't know.

Again you're making my point. Remember me saying Jesus wanted them to see how far they had gotten away from God?

I've had years of study in Jewish law. I don't pretend to be a Torah scholar. (I don't think Christians have any clue what a Torah scholar even is.) But I certainly am familiar with Leviticus.

Christians don't need to be except for understanding who the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes were. Doesn't matter what a Torah scholar is...what matters is correctly understanding what scripture says!

 

[ebedmelech]

Try not to mind read. You aren't claiming to be psychic are you? Here is another Messianic Jew like me (Rabbi Mark Kinzer) who asserts that the existence of an authoritative Oral Torah is necessary:

"Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice. When the Torah teaches about unclean birds, it does not provide any criteria for distinguishing the clean from unclean (as it does for mammals and for fish), but only lists examples. Is this a complete list? What about birds of prey that are not listed?"

https://books.google.com/books?id=AEFMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq="Is+the+Written+Torah+sufficient+for+instructing+the+Jewish+people+in+how+we+should+live+as+individuals,+families,+and+local+communities?+While+it+is+certainly+foundational+and+indispensable,+it+is+not+sufficient.&source=bl&ots=yegZrzuiWG&sig=ccQC-nib7QmaupKicbQQyaxq3Q8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi--JKA7fPOAhVD6mMKHWXZAGgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q="Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient.&f=false

Is this supposed to mean something to me? I have no concern what Rabbi Mark Kinzer has to say though it may be informative. Tell me...does he believe Jesus is THE CHRIST?

I have the written word Open Heart...and Jesus instituted a NEW COVENANT...not an Old Covenant that Israel broke! The New Covenant sheds light on the Old Covenant.

 

[Righttruth]

Scripture cannot be objective, subjective, or an authority, it does not speak or think on its own.

Writings understood with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RDKirk]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

The first Christians had the Apostles available.

 

[Meowzltov]

Christians don't need to be except for understanding who the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes were. Doesn't matter what a Torah scholar is...what matters is correctly understanding what scripture says!

I think it would be greatly helpful if more Christians knew about the two schools of Pharisees and how they debated, because it gives context to Jesus' arguments.

I also think Christians should spend more time studying the books of Law, and I mean getting out the commentaries so that you understand what the verses mean. After all, this is what the Church did during the time of the Apostles.

 

[Meowzltov]

Is this supposed to mean something to me? I have no concern what Rabbi Mark Kinzer has to say though it may be informative. Tell me...does he believe Jesus is THE CHRIST?

Like I said, he is a Messianic Jew like myself. Are you unfamiliar with the term Messianic Jew?

 

[ebedmelech]

I think it would be greatly helpful if more Christians knew about the two schools of Pharisees and how they debated, because it gives context to Jesus' arguments.

I also think Christians should spend more time studying the books of Law, and I mean getting out the commentaries so that you understand what the verses mean. After all, this is what the Church did during the time of the Apostles.

The gospels are quite informative about who the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribe were. Jesus provides the context quite well also as He corrects them numerous times about their erroneous views of the Law and the burden they put on the people Open Heart.

Many Christians I know study all of the bible...Old and New Testament. I personally study the bible chronologically because it make it really comes alive even more and gives the true picture!

When it comes to the apostles they properly interpreted the Law to the people. They were chosen by Christ to do so...and they did. Just as Christ was persecuted and crucified by those who *thought* they knew the Law, the apostles were persecuted and some killed by them also.

 

[ebedmelech]

Like I said, he is a Messianic Jew like myself. Are you unfamiliar with the term Messianic Jew?

I'm quite familiar with the term. As Messianic Jews, I would question why you would lend weight to the "Oral Torah".

 

[Meowzltov]

The gospels are quite informative about who the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribe were. Jesus provides the context quite well also as He corrects them numerous times about their erroneous views of the Law and the burden they put on the people Open Heart.

When the gospels were written, people were IN the time of the various Pharisaical schools. The gospel authors assumed that their audience was familiar with the background and they were right. Today that is not true. Today's Christians need a little extra help.