I loved Blacklist...
The "jab" was to the poster who said he was here to learn the basis or lack of basis for MAD doctrine, and I was reading his take on these Mid-Acts passages to be potentially supportive of the MAD theology...
So please forgive me the provocation - I simply had a different take on the passages being discussed, and was trying to get the matter back on the track of his purpose of posting here...
My peeve is with the common and unrebuked MAD practice here of launching personal attacks on people with whom they disagree... It is so pervasive that I suppose "vendetta" would be the appropriate term for my confronting it when it arises... But this comment was not one of those... I think you know that I would not shy away from admitting it were it the case...
Arsenios
I did not receive it offensively,actually I think it is good to examine the spirit of an individual as to their purpose of posting so I will tell you of mine. I think that we as Christians have in one way or another always had "a different take" on the exact meanings of certain matters concerning scripture. If we contemplate it the counsel at Jerusalem in it's self is a testimony to this that one portion was of the mind that they should be circumcised and follow the law and the other not. Paul and Barnabas held different positions on Mark over leaving off the work.
In the christian letters we saw some who said they were of Paul,some of Apollos some of Peter some Christ. Now to contemplate it there is a great similarity in this, that is as it seems they were of the mind that these had set up different schools of thought on the matter of Christ(so to speak). So they were disputing over the matter one saying "well when I heard Peter this is the way he Taught and I agree with his rendering of it",while another said "no,no,no I think that Apollos is who understands it and Peter and Paul misunderstand this part",but any way we look at it they saw things a different way one from the other and to them they were of the mind that all the others were incorrect.
As it seems also evident in the early church letters there are many accounts of corrections by the apostles some as warnings of err,some suggestions as to behavior,at times some were delivered over to satin. In the letters to the seven Churches in Asia there are many things brought up some as admonishment and approval to the same. As time went on it was much the same there is the five books written by Irenieus over the issues of many scriptural differences that had arose after the death's of the eyewitnesses(A.H. books 1-5). In the sporadic letters of Irenaeus Polycarp nor Anicetus could persuade the other to the positions they held of the celabration of the Eucharist tho Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in respect.
Now as time went on the same happened as before (which is not captive only to Christianity),that is even the Jew's differed over the meanings of the scriptures as to if there were Angels or a Resurrection of the dead(same thing differences over what they thought it meant) but there has always been divisions over certain matters. If we begin a thread about the word "azamoth" would it not turn to a debate over whether it is Satin or Christ? What is a Shamir worm,and then will we not differ over Jinns?
I note that across the history of the Church this has repeated it's self from generation to generation counsels met to discuss Church at "x" teaching "Y" and determining what manner of conclusion to hold to as correct. Then as time went on there became more and more denominations one saying "i am of" and inserting a name,and another "well i am of" and inserting another name. As it seems this is from way back then all the way to now and the thing that we do whether it is correct to do or not we seem to have very little strength to resist doing it. Maybe it's suppose to be this way to have us ponder these matters.
So who am I for? What side am I on? There are no shortages of denominations and there is no need to add another. When I was born I lived in a town and there was a Catholic Church,a Baptist Church,A Church of Christ,an Assembly of God,and a Friends meeting house(Quaker) but it being a small town there were no other Churches close to us. As time went on and the town grew they built a Pentecostal Church and then a Lutheran and a Nazarene and then many others,but this was by the time I was grown. Now as you could imagine if it was not taught in any of the ones in my town(especially the ones from when I was young) I had never heard of it. Now in the late 80's early 90's when the internet boomed I being compelled to read and study all I could find about God began following the Christian chat/forums,researching world history,looking at the fragments of Christian books in libraries ect.,,, As I approached this in this manner I saw "new words" pre., post,dispensationist,sabatarian,grass roots,ect.ect. and many more(I guess it depends on what town we grow up in),but I thought that the "great battle over whose church was the true church" was only between the four or five churches in my home town,what a shock to find a thousand more.
Well if we took the thread title and changed it to "the core of the argument between Christians and the Baptist",or "the core of the argument between Christians and the Seventh day Adventist" we could supplant every denominations name here and it will remain the same,that is "I am of" will soon be said by many. And as it seems I just had to throw in a portion of mine own life story along with the worlds. Christian's argued over it before i was born,Christians argued over it throughout my life and are still in the midst of it. I am "christian",I am not of the mind to call myself after another name.
atrol:
