Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

Jakkass wrote: »

Without dogma there is no coherent Christian view of the scriptures. People are free to make it mean what they want.

thats precisely the attitude i hate tbh. Its not necessary IMO. The moment you legislate, thats when you get men in silly hats and the like. The hierarchy forms, and before you know it you've got organised religion. yes its organised, but completely off the mark.
Religion: 'Psst, i can sell you salvation'
Jimitime: 'No thanks, yeshua gave it to me for free'.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is meant to be a structure, tradition and organisation.

No, there is meant to be Love. Everything else is secondary. Looking at what 'structure, organisation and trdition' has done, i think its quite clear that love was considered secondary.

As long as it's under check, and people have a Bible to read from, I don't think things can go so sour really. We know the stance you described is not Biblical.

Of course you don't see it as biblical, you're an anglican. You're all about tradition and ritual. if you want to get biblical, then why do your 'religious leaders' wear uniforms? Why is it not local elders? Why does the 'eucharist' get presented in an image of the sun? Why do you indulge in pagan ritual at this time of year? Paul condemned folk for going back to the old customs of their cultures. He never suggested rebranding. Religious folk like to get biblical when it suits IMO.

Jakkass wrote: »

Wear vestments you mean? That's inherited from Judaism. The priestly class of the Levites had to wear special garments when they were performing animal or grain sacrifices. To think they had to do that for mere animal sacrifices. Thus if we are performing a celebration of the most important and all complete sacrifices as not to defile it, one should wear the priestly garments. (Although I would admit they are quite different to the Jewish ones described in Exodus).

Image of the sun?

Actually Jesus' birth is predicted to be either near Sukkot (the Jewish festival), I read this on a site of Jewish Christians, or in the Advent period. Not so far off.

This is far from paganism, and you know it. Wearing the vestments is merely respecting the commemoration of the Eucharist. Which is a sacrament necessary for salvation. (one of the 2 sacraments in the Anglican faith).

This isn't rebranding, it's merely continuation.

Also love is definitely not considered secondary to Anglicans.

Could you show me biblically where Jesus instructs us on vestments? or Paul even?

Could you show me where Jesus asks us to celebrate his birth? or even gives us the date of his birth? or early christians celebrating his birth? could you also show me where the early christians are bringing fir rees into their homes to decorate etc? Could you show me where Jesus or early christians say rebranding pagan customs dedicated to false gods is a method to be used? I know Paul condemned those for going back to such customs.

As I said, you like to get biblical when it suits.

Jakkass wrote: »

It originates from earlier than this. I think you should be asking yourself is why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn this practice which was widespread, if it wasn't appropriate to do so?

TBH, its not of great importance, its just you said I was being 'non-biblical', when your own religion has 'non-biblcal' customs. Including your hierarchy. Jesus actually did condemn pharisees who wore their fancy garments to stand out. Something about the size of the frills?

This is Biblically based, if you wouldn't mind looking to Exodus that is.

So all your priests are levites? and they wear a breastplate with 12 precious stones on it? Come on. We are Christians not Jews. Do you eat pork? Our high priest is now Yeshua our Messiah. Why do you base your point on exodus, when Paul told us of our christian structure?

I have to say that this really assumes that I don't think Christmas is corrupted in any shape or form.

It was never anything else! It was pagan in the beginning.

It's not commanded that we do so,

So its not biblical. My point exactly. You point the finger at me wrongly for 'not being biblical'. When really, being biblical is not of such great importance to you anyway. Your tradition is whats important.

At least this pagan festival is now dedicated to the true God if that is any constellation

Is it? Also, why is 'rebranding' not an option with Paul? He condems those who go back to pagan customs. He doesn't say, 'i tell you what, keep doing everything you do on saturnalia, but just call it christmas'. Its something that baffles me about most christians. they really don't see any issue with using pagan customs dedicated to pagan gods to worship God No matter what you say, it just never can sit right. In Jerimiah it talks about those decorating fir trees. it doesn't say lets rebrand it and stick an image of abraham on top. Anyway.

I don't have a problem with the festival itself however. The majority of Christians would regard it as the same.

i know, thats what I find crazy.but back to your original accusation, its not biblical.

Jakkass wrote: »

The purpose of the vestments is not so the priests stand out. The priests wear the vestments so that they honour the sacred role of the Eucharist in the church and respect the sacredness of the altar by which they carry out the process.

Ok, so there is a reason, I'm not disputing that. but its not biblical.

As I said this is the same reason why the Jewish priestly class wore vestments in carrying out the sacrifices in the Tent of the Lord's Presence and ultimately the temple. Nothing about the size of the frills or standing out. For the third time (I think it's the third), I must say it is biblical.

You keep talking about the Jewish priests though. Yes its biblical that the levite priest wore vestements in carrying out his role, this does not move on to christianity though. The role of the high priest has been fulfilled in Christ, so drawing from the old Jewish way is irelevant. So once again, no its not biblical. Could you show me where Yeshua or Paul says that a ministers clothing should be a certain way etc? As I said though, I'm not saying its a huge deal, just that you are wrong to say that the anglican way is biblical.

No they aren't Levites of course not. They are most likely Gentile to the core.

Then the vestements of Exodus are irrelevant.

That is true the high priest is Jesus, but that does not mean that we should still not wear vestments on the altar. He or anyone else did not speak against it, if he found the practise to be worthy to be spared reform in the New Covenant.

Well the fact that he is the high priest means that the need for the old high priest role is no longer needed, so it goes without saying. Also, saying we were not told not to do something, does not mean to do it is 'biblical'. you may well argue that there is nothing in the bible that says not to do it, but it doesn't mean its biblical. Your arguement means you should have priests wearing trditional jewish vestments, and that they should be levite. Once you say that they shouldn't, then you are getting into non biblical ground. You agree that Jesus is our high priest, so you have already acknowledged that the high priest role has been fulfilled in him. To use the old way to justify the new is absurd, and non biblical.

So I guess you didn't celebrate it like the rest of us?

No I didn't. Why would I?

It is actually accurate to say that Christ was born either near the Jewish festival of Sukkot, or the Advent period according to something I came across earlier:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Christmas/christmas.html

So what. he never asked us to celebrate his birth. He never saw it important enough to give us a date. He saw his death as important enough to put a date on. He also felt it important enough to tell us to 'keep doing this in rememberance of me' regarding the last supper. Never once do we see either him or any early christians celebrate his birth. so even if you do discover the exact date, its still contentious. All of this is even before we get into the pagan origins of all the ritual surrounding the festival.

My tradition comes from the Bible.

One Word, christmas.

Hm JimiTime, Paul discussed people who largely fell back to their own pagan ways, involving physically worshipping a false god, or eating meat that was sacrificed to an idol / false god.

Really? If I recall correctly he says in Romans about people falling back into their old customs. Now he never suggested rebranding as a solution.

By reforming Christmas to what it is today, it actually gives us an appropriate time to worship God

Worshipping God happens every day, or at least 'should'. Using lots of pagan ritual to do it is highly inappropriate IMO. When Moses saw the Hebrews with the golden calf, why did he not just rebrand? Why in jerimiah was the act of bringing the fir tree into ones home condemned, without a 'rebranding' solution?

Actually what do you think of other holy days for Easter, Pentecost, Ash Wednesday etc? Are they just rebranding too?

Well Nisan 14 is the date of rememberance of Christs sacrifice for us. Even calling it easter is highly inappropriate. Ishtar, fertility god, eggs etc. Go to Czech Republic and you see the 'christians' carry out their ancient pagan tradition of men hitting women with sticks, and the the women give the men eggs. Seriously, the whole rebranding thing is awful IMO.

I don't find it crazy at all. It's an appropriate time to worship Jesus, and the Advent period allows for deep thought in the ways of Christ and it allows for self-examination to see if we are following the ways of Christ adequately. I think it's in fact necessary. It and Lent have been traditionally times of fasting.

This is part of the craziness! 'Every' day is the appropriate time. 'Every' day we should be thinking of Christ and examining ourselves. Anything less, and there is a problem.