Nicolaitan

[prophet]

OT practice ceased when Jesus died?

So, what Israel disbanded, and all Jews instantly became Christians?

Why were the disciples beat, for disturbing the status quo then?

Act 4:18
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Who was in charge here, and of what?

Gamaliel. 
He didn't walk off the job, when the veil rent.

You can't be serious, can you?

Earnestly Contend.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

OT practice ceased when Jesus died?

So, what Israel disbanded, and all Jews instantly became Christians?

Why were the disciples beat, for disturbing the status quo then?

Act 4:18
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Who was in charge here, and of what?

Gamaliel. 
He didn't walk off the job, when the veil rent.

You can't be serious, can you?

Earnestly Contend.

Ok, so lets clarify again, even though you are just running in circles.

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

What then was the point of Hebrews 13? Come on prophet, it's a simple question and you know you are simply being evasive.

 

[prophet]

OT practice ceased when Jesus died?

So, what Israel disbanded, and all Jews instantly became Christians?

Why were the disciples beat, for disturbing the status quo then?

Act 4:18
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Who was in charge here, and of what?

Gamaliel. 
He didn't walk off the job, when the veil rent.

You can't be serious, can you?

Earnestly Contend.

Ok, so lets clarify again, even though you are just running in circles.

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

What then was the point of Hebrews 13? Come on prophet, it's a simple question and you know you are simply being evasive.

I am not being evasive.

I am trying to figure out where are missing each other.

Almost there.

Since OT practice had not yet ceased,
Hebrews instructed those still living in areas under the old system's control, to obey.
This is exactly what Jesus said.

Moses' seat, unlike the ficticious NT Pastor church-king's, was established by God.

For instance, Saul thought that he was serving God, by persecuting the church, because He was obeying the authority that God had established over him.
He did it in ignorance, and God had mercy.

So, included in the epistle to the Hebrews, was instructions to honor Moses' seat (until Rome did away with it).

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

All OT practice?

Paul:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

James:

But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Jesus to Pergamum:

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Jesus to Thyatira:

you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I am not being evasive.

I am trying to figure out where are missing each other.

Almost there.

Since OT practice had not yet ceased,
Hebrews instructed those still living in areas under the old system's control, to obey.
This is exactly what Jesus said.

Moses' seat, unlike the ficticious NT Pastor church-king's, was established by God.

For instance, Saul thought that he was serving God, by persecuting the church, because He was obeying the authority that God had established over him.
He did it in ignorance, and God had mercy.

So, included in the epistle to the Hebrews, was instructions to honor Moses' seat (until Rome did away with it).

Got it. K, if I accused you of being evasive and you weren't, my bad. I suspect I have went around and around with a few here, and it makes me prone to jump to conclusions, once again, my bad.

Here we disagree. While Moses seat was specific seat, it was also representative of the OT authourity to teach the law. That authourity was done away, as a matter of fact, it was Christianity's job to proclaim that as part of their message.

Your conclusion is contradictory. Saul was given authourity from Moses seat to do what he did, and it was wrong. To conclude that NT Hebrews Christians were to obey those same authourities is wrong.

prophet, I know if I use the word pastor, the discussion will go sideways, so let's use bishop. You can even have multiple bishops in ther same location, doesn't change it a bit. Prior to the NT, there was no bishop. The authourity now resided in a different place. Hebrews 13 is telling the Hebrew that very fact.

Hebews clarifies the perosn of the Saviour, establishes the new priesthood (only the Jew would have problems with a new priesthood), establishes a new covenant, establishes the law is only a shadow or picture or typology, establishes the new and final offering, establishes faith as the way to God, and establishes obedience as the natural product of faith. It makes no theological sense to conclude with "obey those OT teachers, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The point of the book was to help the Jew understand all that was new, and to submit themselves to the NT authourity now established.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

All OT practice?

Paul:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

James:

But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Jesus to Pergamum:

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Jesus to Thyatira:

you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

No, I was generalizing. All OT relating to that which Christ fulfilled had ceased, and as I wrote, had ceased to be valid. You sacrifice all the animals you wanted to, it meant nothing to God. (Another generalization)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

All OT practice?

Paul:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

James:

But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Jesus to Pergamum:

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Jesus to Thyatira:

you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

No, I was generalizing. All OT relating to that which Christ fulfilled had ceased, and as I wrote, had ceased to be valid. You sacrifice all the animals you wanted to, it meant nothing to God. (Another generalization)

So that's how it gets written off: a generalization. Jesus and James were simply "generalizing" their commands despite SPECIFIC orders not to eat meat offered to idols.

Oh my! What people will justify to promote the teachings of Paul over the teachings of Jesus!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

So, IP, do you believe the Christian is to obey the pastor just like Israel obeyed Moses?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

So, IP, do you believe the Christian is to obey the pastor just like Israel obeyed Moses?

No. The offices are different.

 

[prophet]

I am not being evasive.

I am trying to figure out where are missing each other.

Almost there.

Since OT practice had not yet ceased,
Hebrews instructed those still living in areas under the old system's control, to obey.
This is exactly what Jesus said.

Moses' seat, unlike the ficticious NT Pastor church-king's, was established by God.

For instance, Saul thought that he was serving God, by persecuting the church, because He was obeying the authority that God had established over him.
He did it in ignorance, and God had mercy.

So, included in the epistle to the Hebrews, was instructions to honor Moses' seat (until Rome did away with it).

Got it. K, if I accused you of being evasive and you weren't, my bad. I suspect I have went around and around with a few here, and it makes me prone to jump to conclusions, once again, my bad.

Here we disagree. While Moses seat was specific seat, it was also representative of the OT authourity to teach the law. That authourity was done away, as a matter of fact, it was Christianity's job to proclaim that as part of their message.

Your conclusion is contradictory. Saul was given authourity from Moses seat to do what he did, and it was wrong. To conclude that NT Hebrews Christians were to obey those same authourities is wrong.

prophet, I know if I use the word pastor, the discussion will go sideways, so let's use bishop. You can even have multiple bishops in ther same location, doesn't change it a bit. Prior to the NT, there was no bishop. The authourity now resided in a different place. Hebrews 13 is telling the Hebrew that very fact.

Hebews clarifies the perosn of the Saviour, establishes the new priesthood (only the Jew would have problems with a new priesthood), establishes a new covenant, establishes the law is only a shadow or picture or typology, establishes the new and final offering, establishes faith as the way to God, and establishes obedience as the natural product of faith. It makes no theological sense to conclude with "obey those OT teachers, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The point of the book was to help the Jew understand all that was new, and to submit themselves to the NT authourity now established.

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

I am not being evasive.

I am trying to figure out where are missing each other.

Almost there.

Since OT practice had not yet ceased,
Hebrews instructed those still living in areas under the old system's control, to obey.
This is exactly what Jesus said.

Moses' seat, unlike the ficticious NT Pastor church-king's, was established by God.

For instance, Saul thought that he was serving God, by persecuting the church, because He was obeying the authority that God had established over him.
He did it in ignorance, and God had mercy.

So, included in the epistle to the Hebrews, was instructions to honor Moses' seat (until Rome did away with it).

Got it. K, if I accused you of being evasive and you weren't, my bad. I suspect I have went around and around with a few here, and it makes me prone to jump to conclusions, once again, my bad.

Here we disagree. While Moses seat was specific seat, it was also representative of the OT authourity to teach the law. That authourity was done away, as a matter of fact, it was Christianity's job to proclaim that as part of their message.

Your conclusion is contradictory. Saul was given authourity from Moses seat to do what he did, and it was wrong. To conclude that NT Hebrews Christians were to obey those same authourities is wrong.

prophet, I know if I use the word pastor, the discussion will go sideways, so let's use bishop. You can even have multiple bishops in ther same location, doesn't change it a bit. Prior to the NT, there was no bishop. The authourity now resided in a different place. Hebrews 13 is telling the Hebrew that very fact.

Hebews clarifies the perosn of the Saviour, establishes the new priesthood (only the Jew would have problems with a new priesthood), establishes a new covenant, establishes the law is only a shadow or picture or typology, establishes the new and final offering, establishes faith as the way to God, and establishes obedience as the natural product of faith. It makes no theological sense to conclude with "obey those OT teachers, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The point of the book was to help the Jew understand all that was new, and to submit themselves to the NT authourity now established.

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

Clipped for size
See Hebrews 3:1. This was written to saved Jews, not lost Jews, they were being told to remember what they had been taught already about the NT, but had let slip in favour of the "old ways".

Also shown in Hebrews 3:12, 4:1 (they were not entering into his rest, they began in grace, but slipped back to the law)

 

[prophet]

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

Clipped for size
See Hebrews 3:1. This was written to saved Jews, not lost Jews, they were being told to remember what they had been taught already about the NT, but had let slip in favour of the "old ways".

Also shown in Hebrews 3:12, 4:1 (they were not entering into his rest, they began in grace, but slipped back to the law)

That has nothing to do with Salvation.

Unless you are one of the numbskulls who thinks that Israelites were saved by keeping the Law, in which case I can't reason with you.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

Clipped for size
See Hebrews 3:1. This was written to saved Jews, not lost Jews, they were being told to remember what they had been taught already about the NT, but had let slip in favour of the "old ways".

Also shown in Hebrews 3:12, 4:1 (they were not entering into his rest, they began in grace, but slipped back to the law)

That has nothing to do with Salvation.

Unless you are one of the numbskulls who thinks that Israelites were saved by keeping the Law, in which case I can't reason with you.

No, I believe all are, were and will be saved by grace.

The rest referred to is the rest that comes after salvation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

Clipped for size
See Hebrews 3:1. This was written to saved Jews, not lost Jews, they were being told to remember what they had been taught already about the NT, but had let slip in favour of the "old ways".

Also shown in Hebrews 3:12, 4:1 (they were not entering into his rest, they began in grace, but slipped back to the law)

That has nothing to do with Salvation.

Unless you are one of the numbskulls who thinks that Israelites were saved by keeping the Law, in which case I can't reason with you.

No, I believe all are, were and will be saved by grace.

So you're just a regular run-of-the-mill numbskull. 

 

[prophet]

The NT was explained to the Hebrews, and they were reminded to obey the leaders already in place.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Why the word remember?

1Pe 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

When "lords" (pl. ) means "rulers", wouldn't this contradict that?
Unlike others here, I see no contradiction between Jesus, Paul, James etc.

Jesus said a lot, that was supposed to be stumbled over.

Clipped for size
See Hebrews 3:1. This was written to saved Jews, not lost Jews, they were being told to remember what they had been taught already about the NT, but had let slip in favour of the "old ways".

Also shown in Hebrews 3:12, 4:1 (they were not entering into his rest, they began in grace, but slipped back to the law)

That has nothing to do with Salvation.

Unless you are one of the numbskulls who thinks that Israelites were saved by keeping the Law, in which case I can't reason with you.

No, I believe all are, were and will be saved by grace.

The rest referred to is the rest that comes after salvation.

What rest can one get, with some other sinner lording over them?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OT practice had not ceased, but had ceased to be valid.

All OT practice?

Paul:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

James:

But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Jesus to Pergamum:

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Jesus to Thyatira:

you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

No, I was generalizing. All OT relating to that which Christ fulfilled had ceased, and as I wrote, had ceased to be valid. You sacrifice all the animals you wanted to, it meant nothing to God. (Another generalization)

If you believe that eating food sacrificed to idols is OK because it is a generalization, do you also believe that practicing immorality is OK because it also is a generalization? Has the law against immorality "ceased to be valid" also? Since I gave 3 references where eating sacrificial food was wrong for GENTILES and that is a generalization, with immorality also being mentioned in the exact same texts, wouldn't that mean that it should be a generalization as well since they are linked?

 

[subllibrm]

What I have learned from this thread.

Any man who holds the title pastor is by default seeking to lord it over other believers. As bad as that is it gets worse. Most of them get paid to do it and feel justified in taking a paycheck in return for abusing the flock. The sheep should all have a say in where they are going to graze and have no need for a leader outside of Jesus. Since they are all believers filled with the Holy Spirit there is never disagreement or dissension unless there is a pastor there to muck things up. The flock should be no bigger that what will fit in a medium sized house.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What I have learned from this thread.

Any man who holds the title pastor is by default seeking to lord it over other believers. As bad as that is it gets worse. Most of them get paid to do it and feel justified in taking a paycheck in return for abusing the flock. The sheep should all have a say in where they are going to graze and have no need for a leader outside of Jesus. Since they are all believers filled with the Holy Spirit there is never disagreement or dissension unless there is a pastor there to muck things up. The flock should be no bigger that what will fit in a medium sized house.

As long as the house is a one-story structure. Basement OK though.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What I have learned from this thread (and others):

Since there is no scriptural support for an assembly consisting of a single pastor/preacher/orator giving a sermon to a silent, passive laity, the only way to defend this model is to mock the alternatives, despite the fact that the alternatives more closely resemble the New Testament assembly. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What I have learned from this thread (and others):

Since there is no scriptural support for an assembly consisting of a single pastor/preacher/orator giving a sermon to a silent, passive laity, the only way to defend this model is to mock the alternatives, despite the fact that the alternatives more closely resemble the New Testament assembly.

Why don't you post the passage(s) that prohibit/condemn/ the Pastor Teacher model....

The term pastor teacher come right from scripture.