Are We Any Better Than The Pharisees?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed so Major in fact three of the four images posted on this thread (so far) were taken from this web sight:
http://www.bugbog.com/images/beaches/south-pacific-pictures/tahiti-pictures-3.jpg (Just one example)
An extract from that same web sight is as follows:
Photographic images are the copyright of bugbog.com unless stated otherwise.
Written information is the intellectual copyright of the contributing writers and is used by Bugbog with permission where necessary.
Copyright material may not be reproduced in any way, electronically or otherwise, without the express written permission of the copyright holder/s.
this material can be viewed in full here: http://www.bugbog.com/company/legal.html
The first image appears to be a 'frame capture' from a video and the matter of copyright is not all that easy to determine.
however 75% minimum copyright infringement is a matter for Banarenth to consider.
I just think that in the interest of Christian integrity, all areas of relevant copyright should be observed.
Sorry DRS, this material might have found a safe haven in Net Chaplain's thread, but this is about Pharisees after all is said and done.
Matt 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Hmmm I guess these hypocrites were pre-Christian era missionaries.....never noticed that before....the overseas travel part I mean.

It seems that to me that our brother Rusty made it very clear that copywrite laws needed to be observed and I do agree 100% with him. But in the same breath I would also say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If there is to be an open suggestion of "Christian integrity" aimed at others, which there was, then it must also apply here as well. Don't ya think???

Rusty made it a point to say that it is "Christian integrity" which is involved and that he was "watching our backs" for us.

OOOps!

So, agreeing with Rusty, it then behoves ALL of us to follow the same rules.........does it not????

On another thread, our Mod, Banarenth stated that he was not imune to the rules, which Rusty agreed with.
 
Yeah, blew my mind too, I was taught way back when the Jews didn't baptize, ...so why would they flock to John the Baptist??? Anyway, give me some time to research it, I think I read it in Edershiem, but then again it might have been Josephus, but give me some time, ...I bought myself a new toy for Father's Day so it's occupying my time right now.

Gene

Baptism was a normal practice of the Jews and pointed to cleansing. It would then be "normal" for the Jews to then be baptized by John.

According to Jewish law there are three basic areas where immersion in the mikveh is required.

1. Immersion is required for both men and women when converting to Judaism. There were three prerequisites for a proselyte coming into Judaism: Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).

2. Immersion is required after a woman has her monthly period (Lev. 15:28).

3. Immersion is required for pots and eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jew (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion p-263).
 
As the copyrighted images have been officially removed, I see no reason to continue that discussion unless we have some desire to prove the OP correct.

2. Immersion is required after a woman has her monthly period (Lev. 15:28).

I've seen people leave church fellowship over this verse believe it or not. I'm often amazed at how finicky people can be regarding certain issues.
 
As the copyrighted images have been officially removed, I see no reason to continue that discussion unless we have some desire to prove the OP correct.



I've seen people leave church fellowship over this verse believe it or not. I'm often amazed at how finicky people can be regarding certain issues.

Yes my brother, I have seen the same thing. I am not sure however that "amazed" the the correct feeling.
 
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

Perhaps if you read Rev. Wade's post mentioned in #66 you might see what we are both indicating.
I can't answer your questions because you don't seem to be able to explain your own words of "partially accepting Jesus". Are you not able to explain that?? As I said before "partially accepting Jesus" is unbiblical nonsense but I would love to hear your explanation of it.lol
 
Um...OK...let's see...There's foxhole "conversions", peer pressure conversions, Revival conversions that "don't stick", stony ground conversions, marriage accommodation conversions, forced conversions....gee....shall I continue?


and Jesus made this very clear in the parable of the Sower and the Seed. What exactly is your point here?
 
About Jewish baptism, Major has posted what I was referring to, we find the custom was still practiced by the Pharisees in their "washings" of their hands, clothes, etc. as recorded in the Gospels, something else that intrigued me was what the people of that time believed (not only then, but even today there are many who "wash" in sacred rivers) that their sins were carried away with the water, now, isn't that an interesting example, a sneak preview, so to speak, of what the Sinless One did on Calvary when taking on the sins of others.

Gene
 
Rosh Hashanah observes a form of Baptism IIRC, though it could have been another of the related High Holidays with the way my memory works. A few years ago I invited my Sunday School class to "observe" several of these so that we could all learn something about the traditions mentioned in Scripture. I seem to remember that during one of these we met at a lake and stuffed food in our pockets.
 
Um...OK...let's see...There's foxhole "conversions", peer pressure conversions, Revival conversions that "don't stick", stony ground conversions, marriage accommodation conversions, forced conversions....gee....shall I continue?
Those people never accepted Jesus to begin with Rusty. What you don't seem to understand is that one is either a child of God or not there is no middle ground. Let us read Matt. 12:30 shall we? "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." So the idea of being able to partially accept Jesus is nonsense.
 
I'm not sure how we can claim this is a ridiculous idea. Certainly the conversion isn't genuine, but to reject the very idea that some people believe they have been converted but were not is really odd to me. I'm honestly trying to figure out if someone is trolling here because it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that some seeds have fallen on stony ground where they started to grow but were chocked out. That's "partial success", but also "complete failure" at the same time. Partial conversion wouldn't buy you anything. It wouldn't grant you a ticket into Heaven. I wouldn't consider it really a good thing at all unless it later has the potential to lead to genuine conversion. But I'm failing to see why this has become such a controversial issue here.
 
@ Rusty and Grappler

As odd as this may sound; I think both of you are saying the same thing from two different perspectives. I think we take for granted and assume that others think like we do-when we clearly do not....
 
So who are these people Christ is clearly saying "I never knew you"...who call Him Lord, work miracles in His name, cast out devils in His name....You haven't gotten around to answering that, Grap.
Buddhists?
Hindus?
Muslims?

Read it again Grappler:
You don't know?? To put it simply they are children of the Devil. You see Rusty if you are not a child of God then you are a child of the Devil. If you don't walk in the light you are in darkness. Those who Jesus will tell to depart from him are called liars and workers of iniquity....they are the worse kind of people because they hide behind the name of Christ but do the works of the Satan. Does that help you?
 
"I am a Pharisee"…. says Paul in Acts 23:6 …

one source of confusion with us human beings when we discuss is that we associate a neutral noun with an adjective ....

i.e.: faulty generalization
 
Rusty, I was in once in the "category" of what you "might" call a partial Christian, ...when I started going to church I jumped in feet first and was running at full speed, I taught an Adult Bible Study, I was in charge of the youth, I helped wherever I was needed in Sunday School, I played in the Worship band and I organized the men's fellowship, all of these things BEFORE I was born again, if for some reason I had died before my conversion/regeneration I could/would of protested to the Lord because of all my "works" for Him done in "MY" faith, but as you know I wasn't "one" of His children so he would of had the right to say He never knew me.

So as you know there are many who "go" to church and do many works in sincere faith, but we know we can't "go" to church because we "are" the church and our "works" come from faith and faith comes from God's Word.

Blessings,

Gene
 
I'm not sure how we can claim this is a ridiculous idea. Certainly the conversion isn't genuine, but to reject the very idea that some people believe they have been converted but were not is really odd to me. I'm honestly trying to figure out if someone is trolling here because it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that some seeds have fallen on stony ground where they started to grow but were chocked out. That's "partial success", but also "complete failure" at the same time. Partial conversion wouldn't buy you anything. It wouldn't grant you a ticket into Heaven. I wouldn't consider it really a good thing at all unless it later has the potential to lead to genuine conversion. But I'm failing to see why this has become such a controversial issue here.

I can not speak for others here, only for myself.

You said..........
"I'm not sure how we can claim this is a ridiculous idea."

I for one am not saying that it is a ridiculous idea. I am saying that Biblically, there in no such thing!!!

IF we are using the example of ...........
" foxhole "conversions", peer pressure conversions, Revival conversions that "don't stick", stony ground conversions, marriage accommodation conversions, forced conversions", as the basis for our opinon, THEN that IMO is the ridiculouse idea!

Those examples are clearly those people who did not receieve the Lord Jesus by faith upon hearing the gospel. Their personal choices based on pressure to do something to get something for their choices is not salvation at all.

Now I understand and even agree with the premise that ..........
"it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that some seeds have fallen on stony ground where they started to grow but were chocked out".

Someone who has heard the gospel, read the gospel, had the seeds poured over their stoney heart does NOT make them "partcially saved". If so, what Bible verse can be posted to substainate that????

That person may have heard, but until they "Believe and accept Christ" my brother, they are still 100% lost!

Romans 10:17.........
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

Acts 17:31
"And they said, "BELIEVE UPON the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"!

One must confess the Lord Jesus to be saved and can not be coerced, or pressured or "lets make a deal".

1 John 2:19
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us".

What is John's point???

John places 5 tests and this is the 5th one (another syllogism) by which the believers may find out whether the self-authenticating people who claim to be a believer is actually a truth or a lie.

First it is to be expected that a false (make believer) will come about. Where there is truth, there is always a lie.
So then the meaning of this verse or play on words is very obvious. They (make believers) associated with the real believers but they were never real believers to begin with. John here uses a contrary-to-fact condition in the Greek to express his proof that the false believers (make believers) are in fact imposters.

Therefore, the examples of ................
" foxhole "conversions", peer pressure conversions, Revival conversions that "don't stick", stony ground conversions, marriage accommodation conversions, forced conversions",
can NOT be used to substainciate some who is "partically saved" because There is NO SUCH THING BIBLICALLY AS PARTCIALLY SAVED.

Man is either saved or he is lost and there is no such a thing as "in-between/partically". IMO of the Scriptures.

The Bible declare through the same John in Rev. 3:13-15 to the church in Laodica................
"I know thy works that thou art neither cold not hot, I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke warm and neither cold not hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth".

I John 4:15
"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God".
 
Rusty, I was in once in the "category" of what you "might" call a partial Christian, ...when I started going to church I jumped in feet first and was running at full speed, I taught an Adult Bible Study, I was in charge of the youth, I helped wherever I was needed in Sunday School, I played in the Worship band and I organized the men's fellowship, all of these things BEFORE I was born again, if for some reason I had died before my conversion/regeneration I could/would of protested to the Lord because of all my "works" for Him done in "MY" faith, but as you know I wasn't "one" of His children so he would of had the right to say He never knew me.

So as you know there are many who "go" to church and do many works in sincere faith, but we know we can't "go" to church because we "are" the church and our "works" come from faith and faith comes from God's Word.

Blessings,

Gene

Ahhh yes! How many of us would truthfully agree with your statement!

Gene.......isn't what you described the actions of a Chruch Member?????

The church is full of people who are not saved but instead are church members being busy for all the worng reasons.
That is exactly what is destroying the church today. It is full of people who think that because they sit in a pew and give $1.00 once a month and sing a song, they are saved when in fact they are only coming to be entertained.

"Knowing About" has never lead them to accepting Christ as SAvior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top