Phariseeism

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Paul didn't say that. We must be careful not to add something that is not there.

I quote Paul and you say "Paul did not say that"....ok

[TRFrance]

TheOldPaths... are you going to answer the questions I asked you earlier?

(I notice you've answered a several other posts since I asked you my questions, but you havent responded to mine yet.)

I'd hate to think you were dodging the questions...
But just in case you simply didnt see my previous post with the questins, I'll present those questions here again, for your convenience:

John has been going to First Apostolic Church for 2 years, and has been praying for the Lord to give him a godly wife. He likes Denise, a fellow member of his church. Denise is a dedicated sister who loves the Lord. John and Denise both sing on the church's choir. After going out/dating for several few months, John and Denise are in love. After being prayerful about the situation, they feel it it the Lord's will for them to be together.

Before officially proposing marriage, John decides to seek his pastor's blessing. (John happens to be white. Denise is black.) The pastor disapproves of John marrying Denise, and lets him know that tradtionally at First Apostolic, interracial marriage is frowned upon, and always has been. The pastor insists he's not racist, but he just believes that people should "stick to their own kind". So he forbids John to marry Denise simply because of her race.

So...

1...Is this tradition ok with you?

2...Does a pastor have authority to order one saved, Godly member of his church not to marry another godly saint?

3...Is this pastor in line with the Bible by prohibitiing interracial marriage?

4....If John and Denise decide to get married anyway, have they commited a sin ?
-------------

I look forward to your responses.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I look forward to your responses.
[/INDENT]

Me, too.

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

TheOldPaths... are you going to answer the questions I asked you earlier?

(I notice you've answered a several other posts since I asked you my questions, but you havent responded to mine yet.)

I'd hate to think you were dodging the questions...
But just in case you simply didnt see my previous post with the questins, I'll present those questions here again, for your convenience:

John has been going to First Apostolic Church for 2 years, and has been praying for the Lord to give him a godly wife. He likes Denise, a fellow member of his church. Denise is a dedicated sister who loves the Lord. John and Denise both sing on the church's choir. After going out/dating for several few months, John and Denise are in love. After being prayerful about the situation, they feel it it the Lord's will for them to be together.



Before officially proposing marriage, John decides to seek his pastor's blessing. (John happens to be white. Denise is black.) The pastor disapproves of John marrying Denise, and lets him know that tradtionally at First Apostolic, interracial marriage is frowned upon, and always has been. The pastor insists he's not racist, but he just believes that people should "stick to their own kind". So he forbids John to marry Denise simply because of her race.

So...

1...Is this tradition ok with you?

2...Does a pastor have authority to order one saved, Godly member of his church not to marry another godly saint?

3...Is this pastor in line with the Bible by prohibitiing interracial marriage?

4....If John and Denise decide to get married anyway, have they commited a sin ?
-------------

I look forward to your responses.

I know a bunch of churches like the one you described....

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by tv1a

To put it in today's terms, the pharisees preached the evils of television while ignoring the evils of the internet.

How about the evils of cigarette smoking while ignoring the health dangers of cell phones and EMF radiation.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Ummmmmm.... You know how much some people hate hypotheticals.

But I am curious as to how some of the old stalwarts would honestly this answer these questions as well.

I've asked him the question twice... and waited patiently for a response.

I guess at this point it's fair to conclude that TheOldPaths has chosen to avoid my questions.

...Which brings up this next question in my mind: "why"?

(maybe the answer is obvious.)

[theoldpaths]

That is Irrelevant. Protestants came OUT of them. Using your logic they should have stayed.

If some people come out of one cult to join another cult, then they should NOT go back to the original cult. LOL

The rest of your post is not worth responding to. This is soley about YOUR claims. This is your thread and your claims. If you are right, then when you're pastor is wrong you should just shut up and follow him anyways. But you don't apply this logic all the way through.

No, this is not about my claims, this is about what the word of God teaches.

When a pastor is wrong then a pastor is wrong - end of story.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Hey...notice the title of this thread you started? It's about the Pharisees and all that I posted was about them. They had a spiritual issue that lead them to put the traditions of men on par of above the commandments of God

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

There is a difference b/n verbal traditions that were NOT written that were taught by the apostles, those in the truth and faith, that required obedience and the commandments of men that turn from the truth.

[theoldpaths]

You are missing the point. What he passed down was not traditions of man.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do you not agree that in Matt 18, Jesus gave MEN the ability to make binding decisions that Jesus said HE would back up? If not, then what is your interpretation of Matt 18:18?

Can you not see that at the Jerusalem Apostolic Conference (LOL) what James suggested in the following...

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

...became the written ordinances of the apostles and elders spoke of here...

Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Notice it was James' sentence that became the written decrees (From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.) communicated to the gentile church to obey. And notice they were ordained of the apostles and elders. What were ordained? Laws/decrees/ordinances.

Now did God by the Holy Ghost - His Spirit in man somehow indicated that he was behind the sentence that James made and became the decrees? Yes He did.

Now what would you call these decrees/laws/ordinances that were bound by man and God? To put it another way, what would you call what man bound first and God bound afterwards backing them up?

Did God in Matt 18:18 put some sort of time restriction on leadership making binding decisions that God said He would back up? No. Are there time restriction on anything else that Jesus taught in the gospels that we still teach in the NT church today? No. We claim the words of Jesus as truth for today as well.

You have to ask yourself, WHY is it that Jesus gave the future leaders of his church the ability to make binding decisions that would affect others that Jesus said HE would bind and/or backup?

It should not even be an issue about whether Jesus did that or not - HE did. But when you ask why, the only answer I can come up with is that Jesus knew that things were going to come up that He himself did not address.

lol....so then I suppose at will we can decide God is really a trinity and Jesus is gonna back that up too?

No, whatever man creates that contradicts God's word, God will NOT backup. How do we know that? Because even though Jesus told the multitudes AND his disciples to observe and do whatsoever the Pharisee's bid them because they sat in Moses' seat, we know that Jesus was critical of them creating a tradition that directly contradicted His word of not honoring a father and a mother.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I quote Paul and you say "Paul did not say that"....ok

Ok, sorry, let me apologize and explain.

What I meant is that Paul did not say that the only traditions that he meant was the gospel.

Let's consider the whole context containing the scriptures you posted...

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Th 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
2Th 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.

Notice he starts the chapter with a concern that they be not soon shaken and to not let any man deceive them. Then he talks about the falling away and God sending a delusion to those who believed not the truth, received not the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But Paul said to the Thessalonica brethren that in spite of these things, God had chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Notice the ":" at the end of 2 Th 2:13. "Whereunto" he called (PAST TENSE) you by our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase, he was telling them to not be soon shaken by anything, to not let any man deceive them, that God was going to cause some to believe a lie; but not them because they were saved by their gospel.

That was past tense. Now going forward from the PRESENT TENSE ONWARD he told them to stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

There was a clear distinction from the past tense to the PRESENT TENSE GOING FOWARD. Verse 14 is connected to verse 13. Verse 15 is like a summary of everything that was said before it. "Therefore..." because of everything that I said in this chapter up until now; or because of all of these things, going forward, remember to do these things.

Did the verbal and written traditions include the gospel? Of course! But it also included the ordinances/decrees/laws/traditions of the apostles and elders - such as those in Acts 15.

Its interesting that Paul expected them to obey verbal traditions that if anyone asked for something written to support, he would not be able to.