|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Asgard is not a place, it is a people"
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
[possible spoilers here]
A quote from Thor Ragnorak, which we saw last night (and very good it is too). It struck me that the same is often said about the church.
"We are not supposed to prevent Ragnorak. We are meant to enable it" (possible misquote). Which seems like a good approach. Lets put this into pure Church terms.
The Church is not a place, it is a people. Maybe we are not supposed to prevent the ruin of the church. Maybe we are supposed to enable it.
Maybe we are supposed to enable and encourage the ruin of the church, because that is how it finds a new home. And the truth is, there will be those dedicated to the preservation of the existing place, and (in the film) they largely died. But Asgard was saved, because the people were relocated.
As a side note, I thought Korg reminded me of a lot of church people. Who actually came through in the end.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I think the church has always been, and always will be, the people of God and not the edifice.
Breaking down of that which was in people helps them rebuild (if they will) themselves and their lives into something better. Just so with the tearing down of institutions within the Church that might interfere with the connection of the people to God helping the real Church (the people) build something better.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I recall a Tibetan monk saying that though the Chinese invasion had been a disaster for the country it had led to a re-invigoration of Tibetan Buddhism. There were now centres all over the world and contact with Western ideas had led to a rethinking of the religion.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Breaking down of that which was in people helps them rebuild (if they will) themselves and their lives into something better. Just so with the tearing down of institutions within the Church that might interfere with the connection of the people to God helping the real Church (the people) build something better.
And yet, so many in the church seem to be insistent on supporting the institutions at any cost. Though they may be really good and positive, it may actually be better for them to be torn down.
I think there is a lot of talk of the church being the people not the institution, but much less actual action. That was the turning point of the film, really, when they realised that.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Interestingly a good number of political entities take this attitude as well. For example, Scottish monarchs prior to James VI & I were kings (and sometimes queens) of "the Scots", not "of Scotland". Napoleon Bonaparte styled himself "Emperor of the French" rather than "Emperor of France", to highlight his contention that he was emperor through the acclamation of his people. Another example is Charlemagne, who was crowned "Emperor of the Romans" (Romanorum Imperator) by Pope Leo III, not "Emperor of Rome" (Imperator Roma).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've said more than once that the Church as an institution is one of the greatest misunderstandings ever spawned by the New Testament.
And repeated my contention that a local church should be a service station not Disneyland.
All that said, I think one irreducible aspect of church is the physical gathering of a group of believers. It's quite difficult to do that on a regular basis without an institution growing up quite quickly. And initiatives that don't do that don't seem to last very long.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Another movie analogy might be The Last Jedi. (This is not especially spoilery I hope.)
It could be that the Jedi Order went off the rails badly, as evinced in the movies #1-3 (the Anakin ones). You remember how the Jedi had that fancy HQ, lots of followers, status and wealth. And it all blew up on them. The movies 4 to 8 (I think we're up to 8?) essentially explore this spiral downwards.
In this latest movie there is a suggestion that that was a big mistake, and the Last Jedi has realized it. The strength of the Jedi had always been intended for the poor and downtrodden, the hewers of wood and groomers of taun-tauns. It remains to be seen, whether in further movies they go onwards with this notion.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I think the idea of tearing down the church so it can thrive is a bit of a Protestant (read: unpleasantly innovative) way of looking at things, the continuing reformation and all that. I can only speak of Catholicism (and not very knowledgeably) but I strongly suspect that Orthodoxy in all its forms would agree that the continuous tradition of the church catholic embodied in the practicing of the liturgy by priests and others authorised by bishops in the apostolic succession constitutes true Christianity. Props to the CofE for giving that a red hot go too.
It is of course very important to fight over the detail, but despite that I feel (important word) that the saying of the mass is vital. The hearing of it is less important, and mostly implied in the saying. I reckon I know this on a spiritual level but I am prepared to concede that it might have something to do with my upbringing.
I am privileged to have prayed the hours with a Coptic Priest, a Malankara Orthodox Priest, and a distinguished Protestant Minister from the Methodist tradition in a room in a former Carmelite Monastery in suburban Melbourne. It was sublime.
[ 30. December 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think the mass as ding-an-sich is more of a Catholic than Orthodox thing. For instance an Orthodox priest cannot say the Liturgy unless there is a layperson to receive, whereas a Catholic priest can do a one-man mass. For us the purpose of the Liturgy is to feed the flock.
The idea that the institution of the church was a misreading of the NT strikes me as a very Protestant (and grossly inaccurate) concept. That the Holy Spirit could so totally fuck it up within one or two generations after the Ascension beggars imagination. Christ and Paul both emphasized the act of Communion, which is a communal act requiring a stable church. It is a formalized ritual already in Paul, and by Justin Martyr it's got all the parts we recognize today.
The threefold ministry is already hinted at in the NT, and by the Didache is firmly in place. Certainly the office -- and authority -- of the bishopric was firmly in place by the time 1 Timothy was written.
The idea that the early Church was a bunch of people meeting in living rooms singing Wimber rounds and passing Hovis loaves is a restorationist fantasy. We don't need to tear the church down and build a new one. We need to go back to the apostolic witness and the acts that grew in it and from it. Those acts -- and especially the "dominical" mysteries -- have served us well for near on 2000 years. As St. Clive sarcasted, "The charge to St. Peter was feed my lambs, not teach my performing dogs new tricks."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
I have said it before, and may as well say it again: the Church has to die, in order that it may be resurrected.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Maybe that is where the Thor interpretation works better for me than the Jedi one - which I do get, but I think it is not as strong (and spread over the whole series).
The Thor interpretation is that the people - the systems and roles - are still there. There is still a ruler of Asgard. But they had held onto the idea of the place for a long time - that it was the place they returned to.
When the place was no longer viable - "There go the foundations" - Asgard is not destroyed. Ragnorok is not the destruction of Asgard, it is the destroying of the buildings that it occupies, becasue that is the only way to destroy the evil that has arisen there.
At the least, it is about seeing that the buildings, the structures are not the essence of faith. They may be helpful and positive and useful - or not - but if they are a necessity of faith, then the faith is in the structures, whereas it should be in God.
Which is more of the lesson of Jedi, I think. Jedi faith should not be in the Order of the Jedi, but in the Force in individuals.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that the institution of the church was a misreading of the NT strikes me as a very Protestant (and grossly inaccurate) concept.
I didn't say that the institution of the church was a misreading of the NT, rather that the Church becoming an institution was a mistake - not at all the same thing.
quote:
That the Holy Spirit could so totally fuck it up within one or two generations after the Ascension beggars imagination.
Perhaps it does, but your current sig suggests you agree with lilbuddha that people have an amazing ability to do just that. The Church is made up of people, so...
quote:
Christ and Paul both emphasized the act of Communion, which is a communal act requiring a stable church.
With this I agree. As I said above, it seems to me that gathering together is an irreducible part of church. I could have added that our church celebrates communion every Sunday and is attached to doing so, far more than many other protestant churches I know. quote:
The threefold ministry is already hinted at in the NT, and by the Didache is firmly in place. Certainly the office -- and authority -- of the bishopric was firmly in place by the time 1 Timothy was written.
My view on all this kind of thing changed dramatically when I began to see the Acts and Epistles as descriptive rather than prescriptive for all time. quote:
The idea that the early Church was a bunch of people meeting in living rooms singing Wimber rounds and passing Hovis loaves is a restorationist fantasy.
With this I also agree. I don't know what the Church of the future should look like but I am not confident that the institutional church is the answer any more than bourgeois charismatic fantasies are. quote:
We don't need to tear the church down and build a new one. We need to go back to the apostolic witness and the acts that grew in it and from it.
Indeed. quote:
As St. Clive sarcasted, "The charge to St. Peter was feed my lambs, not teach my performing dogs new tricks."
My preferred soundbite is that Jesus instructed his disciples to seek the Kingdom, and promised that he would build the Church.
Many believers mistakenly seem to think the onus is on them to build the Church and hope Jesus will usher in the Kingdom with no help from them.
I think the Church is supposed to be a natural byproduct of seeking the Kingdom and not an end to be pursued in itself. I think Christianity's resources have historically been mis-assigned to, and taken up by, the Church instead of the calling of seeking the Kingdom.
Of course Christianity benefits in many ways from the Church instituions that have grown up, not least the infrastructure in many countries, but I'm not sure that was how it was supposed to be, and think we could yet learn to do without it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I have said it before, and may as well say it again: the Church has to die, in order that it may be resurrected.
How many times would you like this to happen? Five? Seventeen? A thousand? Do you have scriptural warrant for the church dying in whatever sense you mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
At the least, it is about seeing that the buildings, the structures are not the essence of faith. They may be helpful and positive and useful - or not - but if they are a necessity of faith, then the faith is in the structures, whereas it should be in God.
That's like saying because you can't serve soup without a mug or a bowl or something, what you're really serving is the mug or bowl, not the soup. Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it's the main thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that the institution of the church was a misreading of the NT strikes me as a very Protestant (and grossly inaccurate) concept.
I didn't say that the institution of the church was a misreading of the NT, rather that the Church becoming an institution was a mistake - not at all the same thing.
What I said was ambiguous; sorry about that. I didn't mean the act of founding ("the institution of") the church, but rather the church qua institution.
quote:
quote:
That the Holy Spirit could so totally fuck it up within one or two generations after the Ascension beggars imagination.
Perhaps it does, but your current sig suggests you agree with lilbuddha that people have an amazing ability to do just that. The Church is made up of people, so...
People fuck up religion, to be sure. But so completely and totally, within 100 years of its founding, that it is for all intents and purposes gone, and needs to be reconstituted from first principles? This is the claim of restorationism, and with it much of modern conservative Christianity. The idea that the church needs to die in order to be reborn is just another expression of that idea. Interestingly few people who hold this idea go all the way to rejecting Trinitarianism, which one might argue they should do, it being the product of a church 300 years (as they would have it, if they were consistent) into complete non-existence. But then the ideas that THEY like are obvious and easily read in scripture, whereas the ideas they DON'T like are invisible. Such as the church being the pillar and ground of the truth.
quote:
quote:
The threefold ministry is already hinted at in the NT, and by the Didache is firmly in place. Certainly the office -- and authority -- of the bishopric was firmly in place by the time 1 Timothy was written.
My view on all this kind of thing changed dramatically when I began to see the Acts and Epistles as descriptive rather than prescriptive for all time.
Say more. What were your views then, and what are they now?
quote:
I don't know what the Church of the future should look like but I am not confident that the institutional church is the answer any more than bourgeois charismatic fantasies are.
"The institutional church" is something of a weasel term. Take away the priesthood, and the bishopric, and the sacraments, you get hovis loaves in living rooms. Where's the middle ground?
quote:
My preferred soundbite is that Jesus instructed his disciples to seek the Kingdom, and promised that he would build the Church.
As they did. As He did.
quote:
Many believers mistakenly seem to think the onus is on them to build the Church and hope Jesus will usher in the Kingdom with no help from them.
No need. The church is already built. If we tear it down, we will feel the need to rebuild it, no doubt. But why reinvent the wheel?
quote:
I think the Church is supposed to be a natural byproduct of seeking the Kingdom and not an end to be pursued in itself. I think Christianity's resources have historically been mis-assigned to, and taken up by, the Church instead of the calling of seeking the Kingdom.
Agree.
quote:
Of course Christianity benefits in many ways from the Church instituions that have grown up, not least the infrastructure in many countries, but I'm not sure that was how it was supposed to be, and think we could yet learn to do without it.
Again I would need to know what you refer to as "it." The tripartate ministry? I see no need to abolish this. It is useful and very, very old -- and very, very apostolically attested.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
My view on all this kind of thing changed dramatically when I began to see the Acts and Epistles as descriptive rather than prescriptive for all time.
Say more. What were your views then, and what are they now?
During my restorationist phase (ironically enough in view of your comments) I saw Acts and the Epistles as divine blueprints for how church was supposed to be done.
(Indeed, founding Restorationist Arthur Wallis famously/notoriously imagined NT church on this basis and came up, oddly enough, with something very like your living-room Hovis-sharing Wimber-singing restorationists...)
Then I suddenly saw that these books could equally be taken, not as templates for all time, but as descriptions of how the early church tried to get organised and face various challenges in their cultural context - allowing for the possibility of a fudge from time to time (Acts 15?) or even that sometimes they might have got it wrong (Ananias and Saphira??).
I certainly don't see these books recording the establishment of an institution - for one thing, the apostles seem to have been fairly convinced Christ's return was exceedingly imminent, and for another, persecution was too much of a threat.
quote:
"The institutional church" is something of a weasel term. Take away the priesthood, and the bishopric, and the sacraments, you get hovis loaves in living rooms. Where's the middle ground?
My problem with the idea of the priesthood and the bishopric, especially in an institutional setting, is that over time these not only detract from my understanding of "the priesthood of all believers" but also confer privilege and a tendency to become part of the elite.
My biggest problem with institutional church, however, is quite simply its tendency to acquire real estate, consolidate these acquisitions over time, and as a result become more concerned with managing these assets than with seeking the Kingdom.
The tendency of real estate to excite ungodly passions passed off as religious zeal has been around since the days of Jezabel, and I think it gets the Church tied up in politics and power plays in really unhelpful ways.
Inasmuch as I can discern any middle ground, the recurring passage in my mind is the believers scattered by persecution "gossiping the Gospel" as they went (Acts 8:4). It's lightweight, informal, not hipster, and it seems to have worked.
quote:
The church is already built. If we tear it down, we will feel the need to rebuild it, no doubt. But why reinvent the wheel?
The Church invisible is indeed being built, "terrible as an army with banners", but how this is tangibly expressed to Joe Pagan is a work in progress. I'm too old to consider tearing things down, and realistic enough to know that I benefit from institutional church structures in many ways, but I'm not confident that the institutional, hierarchical, asset-focused structures of many churches are the way forward.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Of course "gossiping the gospel" worked in a particular time and place. That doesn't mean it would work today. Of course this is true of any method of spreading the word.
On the other hand, I hope you will agree that the method of doubling down on sexual assailants as political candidates is untried, and far from guaranteed to win a lot of converts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course "gossiping the gospel" worked in a particular time and place. That doesn't mean it would work today. Of course this is true of any method of spreading the word.
Well, obviously. The appeal to me is as I said, that it was lightweight, flowed spontaneously out of necessity, and didn't create institutions along the way.
quote:
On the other hand, I hope you will agree that the method of doubling down on sexual assailants as political candidates is untried, and far from guaranteed to win a lot of converts.
Of course. Are you sure you sent this message to the right recipient? A more blatant example of the pernicious effects of the institutionalisation of religion is hard to find.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The Church is Christ's body, and we are part of it. Christ's body had to die before it could be resurrected. We cannot be resurrected unless we die first. So too the institutional Church, I fear. What I would like is beside the point.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The Church is Christ's body, and we are part of it. Christ's body had to die before it could be resurrected. We cannot be resurrected unless we die first. So too the institutional Church, I fear. What I would like is beside the point.
This starts to get "turtles all the way down"ish. Then the metachurch of which the institutional church died and reborn was a part, must die and be reborn, then the metametachurch -- and so on ad infinitum. I dunno. I don't see anything in the Scriptures or the Fathers that suggests that. What evidence can you adduce that it is true?
Religions or churches that cite a parade of prophets are amusing on this point. To cite just one line: Abraham was replaced by Moses, who was replaced by Jesus, who was replaced by Mohammed, who was replaced by the Bab, who was replaced by Baha'ullah. I asked, when will the prophet come who will replace Baha'ullah? I was met with unholy silence. He's the last one, don't you know. THIS time it won't go wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Religions or churches that cite a parade of prophets are amusing on this point. To cite just one line: Abraham was replaced by Moses, who was replaced by Jesus, who was replaced by Mohammed, who was replaced by the Bab, who was replaced by Baha'ullah. I asked, when will the prophet come who will replace Baha'ullah? I was met with unholy silence. He's the last one, don't you know. THIS time it won't go wrong.
I heard this said about Sun Myung Moon (the Moonies used to have a house nearby, whatever happened to them?). There is nothing new under the sun. (or moon)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
(the Moonies used to have a house nearby, whatever happened to them?)
I believe they still own the Washington Times, a far-right scandal rag.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, they do. But they have been reduced to giving away the paper, since nobody will buy advertising in it. It is, in essence a tax deduction for the church, or perhaps a way to launder money.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Mousethief, I think we're talking past each other. We are the Church. Each generation of us dies, and is succeeded by a new generation. So the Church is resurrected.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Mousethief, I think we're talking past each other. We are the Church. Each generation of us dies, and is succeeded by a new generation. So the Church is resurrected.
That is tautological, and a far cry from saying the institutions of the church need to die and a new form of churchliness take their place. You seem to have shifted ground.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Christ and Paul both emphasized the act of Communion, which is a communal act requiring a stable church. It is a formalized ritual already in Paul, and by Justin Martyr it's got all the parts we recognize today.
What do you mean by formalised already in Paul? It seems to be to have begun as quite a spontaneous unregulated celebration of fellowship.
Today it is surrounded in ceremony and incantation..almost occultic. How can ‘what we recognise today’ be an improvement or indeed claim provenance and authority?
When and why did it cease to be part of a shared meal and become the ‘eucharist’?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Yes, that is a fair point. But as the generations pass and change, so does the Church. Francis is not the same as Benedict.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Yes, that is a fair point. But as the generations pass and change, so does the Church. Francis is not the same as Benedict.
True, but what conclusion are you drawing from this obvious fact?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Christ and Paul both emphasized the act of Communion, which is a communal act requiring a stable church. It is a formalized ritual already in Paul, and by Justin Martyr it's got all the parts we recognize today.
What do you mean by formalised already in Paul? It seems to be to have begun as quite a spontaneous unregulated celebration of fellowship.
Spontaneous unregulated? Paul specifically lays down regulations. Something that is repeatedly and intentionally happening is not spontaneous, by definition. You are inventing something for which you have no evidence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's not quite what Jamat said, though. He said it started spontaneously, and Paul and others then set out to regulate it.
Reading Paul's epistles as descriptive rather than prescriptive, Paul is setting out his own rules to try and impose some semblance of order on what were apparently quite disorderly meetings. There is much to be learned from what he says, but Paul is at pains to make it clear when an instruction is his and not the Lord's.
Few churches today carry out his instruction - to be carried out during a meeting of the Church - to hand misbehaving believers over to Satan so that their bodies may be destroyed but their souls saved (1 Cor 5:5). To me that was a crucial passage in deciding that not everything Paul instituted was for all time.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The conclusion I draw is that the Church has not yet reached a conclusion and probablly never will. We all exist in the mind of God, which is infinite.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's not quite what Jamat said, though. He said it started spontaneously, and Paul and others then set out to regulate it.
Yes. For which there is exactly zero evidence. As I said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Acts 2 reads pretty spontaneously to me. After Pentecost the believers met at the Temple because they were still pretty much geared to Jewish traditions. Acts 6 clearly records setting up deacons to deal with an emerging crisis, and one gets a similar feeling in much of the pastoral epistles about overseers. The Council of Jerusalem was similarly organised in response to a developing crisis.
Are you claiming that Pentecost was organised? Because it sure sounds like it.
[ 05. January 2018, 15:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Acts 2 reads pretty spontaneously to me. After Pentecost the believers met at the Temple because they were still pretty much geared to Jewish traditions. Acts 6 clearly records setting up deacons to deal with an emerging crisis, and one gets a similar feeling in much of the pastoral epistles about overseers. The Council of Jerusalem was similarly organised in response to a developing crisis.
Are you claiming that Pentecost was organised? Because it sure sounds like it.
I was referring to the eucharist. Don't change the subject.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
