you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[jckstraw72]

Well, this is the same Paul who considered all his former ways in judaism to be DUNG compared to knowing Christ... so he wasn't actually a zealous jew anymore. He was so radical as to say that in Christ there IS neither jew nor greek! Not even man or woman! So why should there be liturgy?

bc God told the Jews to worship that way. in Heaven we will worship that way. what makes you think the in between is time for us to make up our own worship?

i have never heard the term liturgical worship in the Jewish community nor have i ever heard that psalms are the liturgical worship book of the Jewish community - and I was a part of the Jewish community for the first 27 years of my life and still interact with it some.

Jewish worship is entirely liturgical, whether youve heard the term or not.

 

[holo]

So Paul's not relevant now?

Paul is relevant, but not all his personal opinions are relevant. At least not in the sense that we should turn them into law. He had opinions on the emperor and on slaves and on women and on marriage, a lot of peripheral stuff that meant a lot to him and to others then. But a lot has changed. Culture is different. So we need to get a firm hold of the things that are important, and not get caught up in technicalities and details. Paul was as human as you and I.

 

[Montalban]

Actually, they did leave room for the Spirit to operate as He chose, 'through' them, didnt they?

Where's it say do what ever you want?

 

[holo]

Jesus didn't use magic.

He said that the bread and blood are his real body and blood.

John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

He's questioned on this and he confirms it, showing he's not just talking metaphorically

He didn't mean i literally! Of course He didn't! What would be the point of that? He also said that whoever came to Him to drink should never thirst again. Not literally, of course.

 

[Montalban]

Paul is relevant, but not all his personal opinions are relevant.

Then you need to state whether you want to cite him as a source; you can't have it both ways; unless of course only you are able to determine which bits of Paul are no longer relevant.

 

[christianmomof3]

It has its basis in the Bible

Acts 20: 11 Then going up and breaking bread and tasting and having talked a long time to them, until daylight, so he departed.

Luke 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also, drawing near, went with them

where on earth do you see anything about responsive reading or scripts in those verses?

 

[holo]

a priest doesnt change anything, and teh Holy Spirit is CERTAINLY not magic.

Well, if it's the Spirit who does it, and if we are indeed all priests, I see no reason I should get another priest to do it, or that I must use a particular type of bread etc.

 

[Montalban]

He didn't mean i literally! Of course He didn't! What would be the point of that? He also said that whoever came to Him to drink should never thirst again. Not literally, of course.

Of course he did. He says so. He's questioned "Do you mean this?" and he confirms it.

Read around John where I quoted.

 

[holo]

It has its basis in the Bible

Acts 20: 11 Then going up and breaking bread and tasting and having talked a long time to them, until daylight, so he departed.

Luke 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also, drawing near, went with them

But the fact that something is recorded in the bible, doesn't mean we should take it as "law" today! We don't walk in sandals, for instance. And we don't meet on the temple square (or whatever the modern-day equivalent would be - downtown somewhere, perhaps?).

 

[holo]

bc God told the Jews to worship that way. in Heaven we will worship that way. what makes you think the in between is time for us to make up our own worship?

What way?

And I'm not a jew

 

[Montalban]

where on earth do you see anything about responsive reading or scripts in those verses?

a) I said it's basis is in the Bible - they are responding to what's read
b) you want to argue against 'strict legalism' but demand a strict reading in the Bible. Protestants can't make up their mind on this.
c) it's not contra bible. It makes sense that they carried on reading from Scriptures -even Protestants do this, don't they?

 

[Montalban]

More on reading from the Bible

In the "First Apology" of Justin Martyr (c. lxvii) we read: "On the day called Sunday, all assembled in the same place, where the memorials [apomnemoneumata] of the Apostles and Prophets were read . . . and when the reader has finished, the bishop delivers a sermon", etc. In this connexion, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (ninth edition) says: "The custom of delivering expositions or comments more or less extemporaneous on the lessons of the day at all events passed over soon and readily into the Christian Church" [i.e., from the Jewish synagogue]. From this the Catholic view differs, and maintains that the kind of homily referred to by Justin was not a continuation of the Jewish commentary on Scripture, but was an essential part of Christian worship, a continuation of the Apostolic sermon, in fulfilment of Christ's commission to His disciples. Both indeed had an external similarity (see Luke 4:16-20), but in essence one differed from the other as much as the Christian religion differed from the Jewish.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07448a.htm

 

[sunlover1]

Cant you just about see this?
The King exalted high upon
the worship of the people of the earth?

Lyrics:
I see the Lord, I see the Lord
Exalted high upon the worship
Of the people of the earth
I see the Lord, I see the Lord
My eyes have seen the King
The Lamb upon the throne
Who reigns forever more

The train of his robe
Fills the temple
A cloud of heavenly worshipers
Surrounding HIs throne
We join with them now crying
"Holy, holy is the Lamb
The Lamb alone"

My eyes have seen the king
The Lamb upon the Throne
Who reigns forever more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URQrgeyeUD4&feature=related

 

[Montalban]

Well, if it's the Spirit who does it, and if we are indeed all priests, I see no reason I should get another priest to do it, or that I must use a particular type of bread etc.

Because the priest is consecrated. You don't get godly things from non-godly things.

 

[holo]

Then you need to state whether you want to cite him as a source; you can't have it both ways; unless of course only you are able to determine which bits of Paul are no longer relevant.

Well, that's really not very difficult. It's just that christians generally have refused to even try to distinguish them...

Take slavery, for example. An extremely clear example of something Paul talks about that simply doesn't apply to us, today. Sure, we may draw some sort of wisdom or teaching from it if we want. But we can't, and shouldn't, try to actually follow what he said about everything.

Or take hair lengths. We simply don't live in a culture where people are shocked by long hair on men or assuming that short-haired women are prostitutes.

It's not hard at all. It's just that christians have made it hard by proposing the idea that everything Paul wrote to his friends and accomplices were dictated word for word by God, and that it's supposed to be a rule book for a lot of things in the congregation.

 

[ticker]

Wow....the party's always on in this thread!

Almost 600 posts in just a few days! Gotta be close to a record.

 

[Montalban]

But the fact that something is recorded in the bible, doesn't mean we should take it as "law" today! We don't walk in sandals, for instance. And we don't meet on the temple square (or whatever the modern-day equivalent would be - downtown somewhere, perhaps?).

Of course we don't live by the OT laws. We live in the NT - I cited the NT. There's no "NT. 2.0" that I'm aware of, but then you discard what you're inspired to. Anything you discard is 'justifable' because you claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you. Thus you've got the same infalible powers the pope has

 

[christianmomof3]

Because the priest is consecrated. You don't get godly things from non-godly things.

In Christ we all are priests. In Christ there is no Jew and no Greek. The Lord is not a respector of persons. The job of the priest is to serve Christ to others. As a kingdom of priests we all can and should do that. Someone whose job is that of a priest is not necessarily any godlier than someone whose job is that of a carpenter.

 

[holo]

Of course he did. He says so. He's questioned "Do you mean this?" and he confirms it.

Read around John where I quoted.

He also said that He had living water and that whoever would drink would never thirst again. Of course He meant it, but He didn't mean it literally. Whatever would be the point? He didn't mean i literally when He said people must be born again either. But He was dead serious about it.

 

[Montalban]

Well, that's really not very difficult. It's just that christians generally have refused to even try to distinguish them...

Well I'll bow to your greater judgment on this as you're able to discern what to discard and what not to.

Take slavery, for example. An extremely clear example of something Paul talks about that simply doesn't apply to us, today. Sure, we may draw some sort of wisdom or teaching from it if we want. But we can't, and shouldn't, try to actually follow what he said about everything.

Protestantism makes everyone a Pope!

Or take hair lengths. We simply don't live in a culture where people are shocked by long hair on men or assuming that short-haired women are prostitutes.

It's not hard at all. It's just that christians have made it hard by proposing the idea that everything Paul wrote to his friends and accomplices were dictated word for word by God, and that it's supposed to be a rule book for a lot of things in the congregation.

Paul is not saying he supports slavery.

As to 'hair lengths' it's only irrelevant because you discard it as being irrelevant.