you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[jckstraw72]

Not man-centered worship, but he did focus on man. The man who needed to hear the gospel He was willing to forsake a whole lot of tradition for that goal. So it seems quite ironic that so many churches today, most notably the catholics and orthodox, are claiming to do exactly what the apostles did, when they are in fact doing the opposite. Paul was one who would NOTlet tradition determine how and why he did things. Most of his conflicts were with traditionalists in one form or another.

what Christian tradition are you suggesting he forsook?

 

[jckstraw72]

Yep, and that's how Congress gets the power to go to war on pretty thin grounds and against most people's opinion... personally I don't put any more trust in a church leader than in a politician.

well if you read St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus you'll see that he sure trusted Church officials.

 

[Montalban]

That's not a bad idea, though. Look what Paul did in Athens - he quoted pagan philosphers for truth! He'd go FAR if he thought he might win a few for the gospel. I don't know any christians who would do that today. They won't even change their meeting place, their songs or their way of talking...

If he was around today...


I'm sure he'd sell a number of self-help books and cassettes

 

[Montalban]

A small step toward believing the bible when it says that we are ALL priests...

That sounds like a good t-shirt slogan

 

[jckstraw72]

we do believe we are all priests, that is why we all turn in worship to God, and we all offer and receive the Eucharist. however, in the Protestant churches I have been in, all attention is turned towards the pastor, making him in effect the lone priest, although they'll never call him priest.

 

[holo]

what Christian tradition are you suggesting he forsook?

Christian tradition as we know it didn't really exist then. They had a habit of meeting on the temple square and stuff like that (hey, if the church is so true to the apostle's way of doing things, why aren't they doing that?) though. But he did forsake a whole lot of jewish traditions and traditional ways of thinking. And he wasn't out to establish new ones either, because he knew that life with Christ is... well, a life, not something that can be reduced to, or defined by, tradition and lithurgy. I'm not saying that you or other orthodox people are doing that, but the more people emphasise the packaging and the frames, the less they focus on the content.

Again, this is something that happens everywhere, I've seen it just as much in small cell groups as in the lutheran churches or the pentecostal congregations.

 

[Montalban]

Not man-centered worship, but he did focus on man. The man who needed to hear the gospel He was willing to forsake a whole lot of tradition for that goal. So it seems quite ironic that so many churches today, most notably the catholics and orthodox, are claiming to do exactly what the apostles did, when they are in fact doing the opposite. Paul was one who would NOTlet tradition determine how and why he did things. Most of his conflicts were with traditionalists in one form or another.

He forsaked a whole lot of Jewish tradition.

But also the role of the Apostle is not the same as a Bishop/priest

If you want to go out and say "Come on to church" that's great if you get people into church, but once you're in church you worship God.

I think Protestants forget where this line is.

 

[Montalban]

Christian tradition as we know it didn't really exist then.

Then you don't have an objection to Orthodox tradition.

 

[christianmomof3]

here is a link to the text of our usual Liturgy, http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html

and you can here a good sample of our music at www.ancientfaithradio.com
our music contains our theology. many contemporary Christian music is just love songs to Jesus -- not much substance. worship music should have substance, and be reverential.

Well, your liturgy does look a lot like the Jewish services in that it is a script. I had enough of that in the Jewish religion. I never did see any reality of the Lord in it.
I saw the same thing at the Lutheran church. They even had a fill in the blanks sermon .
I listened to one of the songs.
It was not in English so I have no idea what theology it contained. It sounded very pretty though.

A small step toward believing the bible when it says that we are ALL priests...

I hope that trend will continue, and that churches will begin reflecting the gospel rather than judaism. For example, this whole thing with having a "holy of holies" in church, where only the priests are allowed to go. That symbolises something quite different than the gospel...

In the symbolism of the tabernacle, we are the temple and the outer court represents our body, the holy place our soul, and the holiest of all our spirit where Christ dwells.

in our Church everyone, including the clergy faces to the east and prays to God, rather than the pastor just speaking to the congregation. our service is focused on giving worship to God, not entertaining ourselves.

I do know that Daniel prayed facing Jerusalem, but now we have the Lord within us. I don't think the Lord cares what direction we face when we pray to Him and worship Him.

Love songs to Jesus..
NOT much substance?
yikes.

If someone sang me a love song,
<---- me listening
I'd DEFINITELY show up to listen.
So how can you determine what has 'substance'
and what (to God) is reverent?

I agree that we should sing songs of love to the Lord. I think that He appreciates that. As far as what has substance and what does not - that is difficult to determine and is one reason there are so many different Christian groups.

Not man-centered worship, but he did focus on man. The man who needed to hear the gospel He was willing to forsake a whole lot of tradition for that goal. So it seems quite ironic that so many churches today, most notably the catholics and orthodox, are claiming to do exactly what the apostles did, when they are in fact doing the opposite. Paul was one who would NOTlet tradition determine how and why he did things. Most of his conflicts were with traditionalists in one form or another.

 

[holo]

If he was around today...


I'm sure he'd sell a number of self-help books and cassettes

Hehe!

Well, if he wouldn't do that, I'm not so sure he'd go about facing east with a bunch of people once a week and reciting prayers from some book, following some calendar they made, either. But hey, I don't think he'd be too concerned with exactly how any of us chooses to do things. Like he said, one esteems one day over another, some people abstain from meat or wine, it's all good - because it's not the form and shape that counts, but the heart.

 

[Montalban]

Hehe!

Well, if he wouldn't do that, I'm not so sure he'd go about facing east with a bunch of people once a week and reciting prayers from some book, following some calendar they made, either. But hey, I don't think he'd be too concerned with exactly how any of us chooses to do things. Like he said, one esteems one day over another, some people abstain from meat or wine, it's all good - because it's not the form and shape that counts, but the heart.

As I noted earlier you mistake two things;
a) missionary work
and
b) the Divine Liturgy

You seem to think that flexibility by Paul in a) means he was in b)

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, your liturgy does look a lot like the Jewish services in that it is a script. I had enough of that in the Jewish religion. I never did see any reality of the Lord in it.

they worshiped, and we worship, that way bc God told them to. the reality is there in Liturgy, but it can be missed, just as it can be in any kind of service.

I do know that Daniel prayed facing Jerusalem, but now we have the Lord within us. I don't think the Lord cares what direction we face when we pray to Him and worship Him.

well we face east bc He will come again from Jerusalem, but its not that big a deal. i was just saying the priest faces towards God as do the people -- its not a dialogue btwn the priest and ppl, but everyone facing in pray to God.

 

[christianmomof3]

we do believe we are all priests, that is why we all turn in worship to God, and we all offer and receive the Eucharist. however, in the Protestant churches I have been in, all attention is turned towards the pastor, making him in effect the lone priest, although they'll never call him priest.

The group that I meet with has no pastor.
We do have elders.
We all share in praising the Lord and sharing our experiences of Him. We all read the Bible and all prophesy (prophesying meaning to speak for Christ and to speak forth Christ - not to predict the future)one by one in our meetings. We have no choir. We all sing praises to the Lord. We have no band, but we do have a piano and sometimes guitars. There is more than one way to worship the Lord.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, if he wouldn't do that, I'm not so sure he'd go about facing east with a bunch of people once a week and reciting prayers from some book, following some calendar they made, either. But hey, I don't think he'd be too concerned with exactly how any of us chooses to do things. Like he said, one esteems one day over another, some people abstain from meat or wine, it's all good - because it's not the form and shape that counts, but the heart.

i really dont see any leniency in Paul's epistles at all. He constantly exhorts his congregations to keep the doctrines pure, keep order in worship, keep the traditions, etc ... he really leaves no wiggle room at all

 

[holo]

we do believe we are all priests, that is why we all turn in worship to God, and we all offer and receive the Eucharist. however, in the Protestant churches I have been in, all attention is turned towards the pastor, making him in effect the lone priest, although they'll never call him priest.

We have a lutheran state church here in Norway, and they are called priests there. In pretty much every other church they're called pastors. Don't know exactly why that is.

But I don't think it's right anyway. For example, the eucharist is neither a meal nor something people share. It's a tiny cracker-like thingy that the priest distributes along with a microscopic sip of wine. Personally I think I'm closer to the idea of eucharist when I buy my friends a beer and a burger.

 

[jckstraw72]

There is more than one way to worship the Lord.

but do we know that many ways are pleasing to God? we KNOW He desires liturgy.

 

[jckstraw72]

Personally I think I'm closer to the idea of eucharist when I buy my friends a beer and a burger.

beer and a burger = Body and Blood of Christ?!

 

[holo]

He forsaked a whole lot of Jewish tradition.

But also the role of the Apostle is not the same as a Bishop/priest

If you want to go out and say "Come on to church" that's great if you get people into church, but once you're in church you worship God.

I think Protestants forget where this line is.

Well, I'm not so sure about the whole concept of "church", as in a particular building, anyway. That's a good example of how tradition has gotten in the way of real life and common sense, I think. Because church simply isn't an organization or a building. It can make use of organization and buildings, but what church is, is you and me.

 

[christianmomof3]

but do we know that many ways are pleasing to God? we KNOW He desires liturgy.

really? please show me where in the Bible the Lord tells people that he wants them to worship Him through responsive reading and reading through a script. where is the word liturgy in the Bible? Where does the Lord say He desires liturgy?

He does want us to contact Him and be one in Him. He does not want people to make up forms of worship on their own - look what happened to nadab and abihu.

 

[holo]

Then you don't have an objection to Orthodox tradition.

I don't object to tradition in and of itself. But I often see tradition getting in the way of real life. And I have no reason to think that when I witness some orthodox mass, that it's supposedly exactly like the first christians did. It has obviously, like catholisism and judaism and any other tradition, changed and grown and developed throught the years. Nothing wrong with that. But it wouldn't make sense to assume that Peter and the lot dressed in black and wore funny hats and swung inscense around.