According to Jesus the Real Issue Isn't the Lack of Morals -- It's the Abundance of Hypocrisy

[moostraks]

Jesus himself went head to head with the Pharisees and exposed their judgmental hypocrisy. He pushed them as far as he could to expose their hypocrisy to their own hearts and minds. Why did Jesus do that? I believe he did it to reveal to them and to us that the greatest threat any follower of God faces is not the temptation to sin morally; rather, it is the temptation of using God's name to become judgmental towards others. When a follower of God falls into this temptation, they also fall into a lifestyle of continual hypocrisy....

The Pharisees spent a great deal of their time pointing the finger at others and accusing them of a 'lifestyle of sin' while thinking of themselves as the defenders of God's truth. The very last thing they expected was for God's Messiah to come along and do the exact same thing to them, accusing them of a lifestyle of hypocrisy, and doing so while befriending the very people they so loudly condemned...

Jesus was nothing like the Messiah the Pharisees expected. Not then, and not now. The Pharisees wanted a Messiah that endorsed their judgmental hearts and cold public shaming sessions of those whom they deemed sinners. Instead, they were confronted with a Messiah who was not a condemner of sinners, but an authentic friend of theirs. He didn't separate himself from them, but rather enjoyed their company and ate and drank with them. The Messiah wasn't at all what the Pharisees expected him to be, but he is who he is; and Jesus will keep defending those who the religious want to condemn. Jesus will keep loving. And whenever a judgmental finger is pointed at someone with the intention to condemn them, Jesus will be right there pointing his finger back and asking: "Who are you, o man, to judge?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mick-m...p_ref=religion

[TER]

Keeping the truths and unity of faith, excommunicating those whose innovative teachings go against the deposit of faith and threaten the peace and fellowship of the Church, and restricting the Holy Eucharist to those who are in one mind, one faith, one spirit is not being hypocritical (in case this is the reason for the thread). Calling out heresies, protecting the body of the believers and rejecting the claims of others who destroy the bond of unity is not being hypocritical. It is the apostolic teaching and what it means to be one body contending in this world. A world which seeks its own worldy comfort and self-justification and which hates the Church.

The sin of the Pharisees was not because they followed traditions, for God Himself instituted those traditions and laws of the Old Covenant, and Christ Himself told them to 'do these things' and that the listeners should 'do as they [the leaders of the Pharisees] say:

"Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do" (Matthew 23)

Obedience under leaders and teachers of the faith was not new to the early Church, it has always been the commandment of God, and quite clearly expressed within both the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

What Christ reprimanded the leaders of the Pharisees was because they did not do the things they taught others to do:

Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (Matthew 23)

Also, He reprimanded them because they showed no love or mercy.

But showing love and mercy does NOT mean one should disregard the truth. We are commanded to speak the truth in love, but not at the expense of truth. We must worship God in spirit AND truth (John 4:24).

Being loving does not mean we should ignore the teachings of the faith as revealed by Christ and by the Holy Spirit through the body of Christ which included the Apostles who did not hesitate for one second to keep away for the sake of the Church those who did not conform themselves and publicly confess to the faith and teachings of the fathers of the faith and who instead were introducing their own ideas and notions which ran contrary to the teachings once handed down to the Church, ESPECIALLY with regards to the Holy Eucharist which the Church from the beginning believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ and the sacrament of love, unity, and communion within the body. Christ quite clearly also said not to cast pearls before swine and to brush the sand off the feet as a testimony against those who refuse to accept the word as revealed by God.

It is not hypocritical to defend the faith from those who wish to twist it to suit their own selfish needs.

What is hypocritical in fact is to do the opposite, to twist the faith handed down to fit ones own needs and then claim that others who follow the teachings of the Apostles and the Saints of the early Church are being exclusive because they reject the innovators personal and self-serving beliefs.

[moostraks]

Keeping the truths and unity of faith, excommunicating those whose innovative teachings go against the deposit of faith and threaten the peace and fellowship of the Church, and restricting the Holy Eucharist to those who are in one mind, one faith, one spirit is not being hypocritical (in case this is the reason for the thread). Calling out heresies, protecting the body of the believers and rejecting the claims of others who destroy the bond of unity is not being hypocritical. It is the apostolic teaching and what it means to be one body contending in this world. A world which seeks its own worldy comfort and self-justification and which hates the Church...

It is not hypocritical to defend the faith from those who wish to twist it to suit their own selfish needs.

What is hypocritical in fact is to do the opposite, to twist the faith handed down to fit ones own needs and then claim that others who follow the teachings of the Apostles and the Saints of the early Church are being exclusive because they reject the innovators personal and self-serving beliefs.

I am well aware of your opinion of those who fail to submit themselves to your church. The purpose of the thread was I found it interesting, and was sharing with others.

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Conformity is beneficial for the participants to gain clarity to the purpose of the mission of a group and maintain authority over the fledglings one is grooming. I always favored judging a tree by its fruits and not by the noise it makes...

[TER]

And the fruits of self-serving opinions apart from the truths revealed and handed down are divisions and disunity and distortion to the faith, leading many to fall. A simply study of the writings of the New Testament and early Church history explains how the Church is to protect the faith and the faithful from those who wish to introduce false self-serving teachings.

[moostraks]

And the fruits of self-serving opinions apart from the truths revealed and handed down are divisions and disunity and distortion to the faith, leading many to fall. A simply study of the writings of the New Testament and early Church history explains how the Church is to protect the faith and the faithful from those who wish to introduce false self-serving teachings.

Maybe instead of being so rude by claiming that anyone who is not a proper member of your church is providing a self serving opinion but give rise to the possibility one is living their faith as it has been given to them?

Track record for the church being a witness to Love vs. the individual. Yep. Surely the individual is much more destructive. All that power and influence the individual is capable of wielding when making the greatest commandments the measurement of their faith. Those folks should be humiliated for their laziness and selfishness until they conform to the members first argument.

[TER]

Maybe instead of being so rude by claiming that anyone who is not a proper member of your church is providing a self serving opinion but give rise to the possibility one is living their faith as it has been given to them?

My problem is when some claim it 'to be given to them' as being from the Holy Spirit when it goes completely against the Apostolic teachings, knowing there is no confusion in the Spirit of Truth. Sometimes, it seems much more plausible to be on account of self-serving reasons. Just pointing this out, because the teachings of heretical teachings are to no one's benefit. If you have a problem with my objection, then that is unfortunate. I am not singling you out, so don't take it so personal. My suggestion for you is simply to stop ignoring the testimony of the saints and stop defining the faith on your opinions or conclusions, unless of course you believe yourself to be infallible. If that is so, then we are just wasting our time here.

Track record for the church being a witness to Love vs. the individual. Yep. Surely the individual is much more destructive. All that power and influence the individual is capable of wielding when making the greatest commandments the measurement of their faith. Those folks should be humiliated for their laziness and selfishness until they conform to the members first argument.

There is a reason why Arianism is called Arianism, Nestorianism is called Nestorianism, Marcionism is called Marcionism, etc etc. Individuals do have destructive power to the unity and peace of the Church. But by the grace of God, they have been rejected and the truth has endured and will continue way after each of us are dead.

[Terry1]

Maybe instead of being so rude by claiming that anyone who is not a proper member of your church is providing a self serving opinion but give rise to the possibility one is living their faith as it has been given to them?

Track record for the church being a witness to Love vs. the individual. Yep. Surely the individual is much more destructive. All that power and influence the individual is capable of wielding when making the greatest commandments the measurement of their faith. Those folks should be humiliated for their laziness and selfishness until they conform to the members first argument.

Since you're the one whose called us the "mafia" and said that we "bow down to demons" yesterday--This is how the mafia women deal with smart asses who like to toss lies and slurs around. Not sayin that's how I'd do it--but hey, sometimes whatever works eh?

[TER]

But in seriousness moostraks, do you believe the Scriptures that Christ established a Church, and that this Church was to be the guardian of the faith, the pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you believe anybody can believe whatever they will apart from the teachings of the Apostles and still claim to be in conformity to the truth and be a standing member of that Church?

Do you deny the anointing of bishops and priests and deacons to lead and minister to the faithful?

I guess my question is (because the examples can go on and on), how many of the Scriptures and teachings of the early Church do you reject so that you can be right and the Scriptures and Saints be wrong?

[TER]

And BTW, what I find is rude is you putting your teachings above the teachings of the Scriptures and the Saints and then blasting me because I don't pick and choose this and that to serve my own purposes (iow, be self-serving) but struggle to be in obedience and submit myself and my beliefs to those greater then me and the Church tracing back in unity to the beginning.

Should I just say you are right and that your beliefs are true? Would that make you happy and make me less rude? But the truths of the faith are not relative, even though relativism is the spirit of these later times, and I cannot do such a thing unless I put you above the Church.

[pcosmar]

how many of the Scriptures and teachings of the early Church do you reject so that you can be right and the Scriptures and Saints be wrong?

I do not reject scripture,, but I do reject many teachings that have been handed down over the years.
I put Scripture over the teachings and errors of men.

Oh,, and there are 7 churches. (that make up the Bride of Christ)

Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

That is scripture.

[TER]

I do not reject scripture,, but I do reject many teachings that have been handed down over the years.
I put Scripture over the teachings and errors of men.

Oh,, and there are 7 churches. (that make up the Bride of Christ)



That is scripture.

Pete, there is one Church, in one faith. The quote from Revelations is talking about the assemblies of believers in those seven cities, but they all were members of the one Church in sacramental unity centered around the common Cup of salvation which is the Holy Eucharist. There is a difference between little 'c' church and what they all together were in unity and communion as the one Church spread far and wide.

[heavenlyboy34]

Pete, there is one Church, in one faith. The quote from Revelations is talking about the assemblies of believers in those seven cities, but they all were members of the one Church in sacramental unity centered around the common Cup of salvation which is the Holy Eucharist.

This^^ To this day all the EO churches are in communion. I could take communion at a Greek, Russian, etc. church even though I am a member of an Antiochian parish.

[pcosmar]

This^^ To this day all the EO churches are in communion. I could take communion at a Greek, Russian, etc. church even though I am a member of an Antiochian parish.

And the Roman church claims to be the one and only Church too. (which you all split from)

as do many in Baptist,,Lutheran,, Methodist and the several others..
everyone claims to be the only way..

Jesus Christ is the way,, All the churches today have errors.. but there are believers in all of them.

[TER]

And the Roman church claims to be the one and only Church too. (which you all split from)

and do many in Baptist,,Lutheran,, Methodist and the several others..
everyone claims to be the only way..

Jesus Christ is the way,, All the churches today have errors.. but there are believers in all of them.

Just because many Churches claim to be the one Church of the New Testament doesn't mean that none of them are that one Church. In fact, the very fact that the oldest Churches tracing back to the Apostles claim that there is one Church (even though each respective one claims to be it) gives even more credence to the fact.

[TER]

And BTW, it was the Roman bishop which split from the entire rest of the Church. Of course they will say it was the other way around, but it was their one see which broke communion with the remaining sees (which, btw, have remained in communion and unity of faith since then 1000 years ago, with the same creed and confession as the early Church).

[pcosmar]

And BTW, it was the Roman Church which split from the entire rest of the Church. Of course they will say it was the other way around,

pot-ay-to/pot-ah-to

[moostraks]

Since you're the one whose called us the "mafia" and said that we "bow down to demons" yesterday--This is how the mafia women deal with smart asses who like to toss lies and slurs around. Not sayin that's how I'd do it--but hey, sometimes whatever works eh?

I did not name names as to whom the title applies but expressed what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this territorial pissing match of self professed Christians spreading their love...act like a thug don't be surprised when somebody calls it likes they sees it. Don't act like a thug twisting arms and threatening people who are living their faith in good conscience and you have no reason to feel like the title is be applied to you.

[moostraks]

And the Roman church claims to be the one and only Church too. (which you all split from)

as do many in Baptist,,Lutheran,, Methodist and the several others..
everyone claims to be the only way..

Jesus Christ is the way,, All the churches today have errors.. but there are believers in all of them.

Indeed, well said...

[moostraks]

And BTW, what I find is rude is you putting your teachings above the teachings of the Scriptures and the Saints and then blasting me because I don't pick and choose this and that to serve my own purposes (iow, be self-serving) but struggle to be in obedience and submit myself and my beliefs to those greater then me and the Church tracing back in unity to the beginning.

Should I just say you are right and that your beliefs are true? Would that make you happy and make me less rude? But the truths of the faith are not relative, even though relativism is the spirit of these later times, and I cannot do such a thing unless I put you above the Church.

No, I am not blasting you at all and that is what seems to be eluding you. Yeah, it is completely self serving not to concede the responsibility of my faith to another human, why thank you so much for your ever so perfect judgement in all matters spiritual. You have such a perfect track record regarding your knowledge of me to date.

[otherone]

pot-ay-to/pot-ah-to

poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe

[otherone]

Since you're the one whose called us the "mafia" and said that we "bow down to demons" yesterday--This is how the mafia women deal with smart asses who like to toss lies and slurs around. Not sayin that's how I'd do it--but hey, sometimes whatever works eh?

HAWT

[TER]

No, I am not blasting you at all and that is what seems to be eluding you. Yeah, it is completely self serving not to concede the responsibility of my faith to another human, why thank you so much for your ever so perfect judgement in all matters spiritual. You have such a perfect track record regarding your knowledge of me to date.

Moostraks, no one is claiming that you should concede the responsibility of your faith to another human. That is a straw man.

And neither do I make the claim that I have ever so perfect knowledge in matters spiritual. That is another straw man.

What I am pointing out to you is that the things your are passing around as being Christian are simply not in accordance to the written Scriptures and the actual historical record, nor of the teachings of the Christian Saints going back to the Apostles and the first century. It is for these reasons (and nothing personal against you as a person) why I reject your teachings. I simply cannot go along with your teachings which are against the historical truths. I would have to put you above the teachings of the saints going back all the way to the beginning, and while I think you are a sincere and good-hearted person, I simply cannot do that. Logic, reason, and common sense cannot allow me, unless of course you can convince me you are some unknown prophet come to restore the Christian Faith, but so far I haven't seen that.

All I ask is for you to stop alluding that I am less of a Christian than you or that I am prideful or rude when it is you who are casting stones from glass houses. I submit myself to the authority of the Church which is the pillar and foundation for truth, and because I try to conform myself to the teachings of the Apostles and the saints and do not simply and blindly accept your historical innovations as being either beneficial, apostolic or according to the reality and truth, you cast stones at me. Well, you better collect a lot of stones, because the testimony and witness against your teachings are against (until now) 2000 years of saints and including the Apostles. If that sits well with you, and you feel so confident in yourself, then good luck with that. You are much more self-confident in you holiness than I am of mine.

[moostraks]

Moostraks, no one is claiming that you should concede the responsibility of your faith to another human. That is a straw man.

And neither do I make the claim that I have ever so perfect knowledge in matters spiritual. That is another straw man.

What I am pointing out to you is that the things your are passing around as being Christian are simply not in accordance to the written Scriptures and the actual historical record, nor of the teachings of the Christian Saints going back to the Apostles and the first century. It is for these reasons (and nothing personal against you as a person) why I reject your teachings. I simply cannot go along with your teachings which are against the historical truths. I would have to put you above the teachings of the saints going back all the way to the beginning, and while I think you are a sincere and good-hearted person, I simply cannot do that. Logic, reason, and common sense cannot allow me, unless of course you can convince me you are some unknown prophet come to restore the Christian Faith, but so far I haven't seen that.

All I ask is for you to stop alluding that I am less of a Christian than you or that I am prideful or rude when it is you who are casting stones from glass houses. I submit myself to the authority of the Church which is the pillar and foundation for truth, and because I try to conform myself to the teachings of the Apostles and the saints and do not simply and blindly accept your historical innovations as being either beneficial, apostolic or according to the reality and truth, you cast stones at me. Well, you better collect a lot of stones, because the testimony and witness against your teachings are against (until now) 2000 years of saints and including the Apostles. If that sits well with you, and you feel so confident in yourself, then good luck with that. You are much more self-confident in you holiness than I am of mine.

You say strawman:

Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?


Quoted in "Memoir of George Fox", The Friends' Library: comprising journals, doctrinal treatises, and other writings of members of the Religious Society of Friends, edited by William Evans and Thomas Evans (1837) volume 1, page 76

"That which makes a people blessed and happy, is, that they hear and obey the still small voice, which says, this is the way, walk in it. This is the voice of the true shepherd, and the sheep know it, follow it and obey it, and a stranger they will not hear nor follow."

~ William Shewen, 1631-1695

A Greek orthodox priest works to handle all of the spiritual needs of their parishioners. Though they are similar to other types of clergy, they may play a more involved role in educating their parishioners on the various elements of this detailed religion

http://careers.stateuniversity.com/p...#ixzz3INyDPQ9n

Clergy in the Orthodox Church are those individuals set aside to perform certain tasks and/or exercise certain authority in the life of the Church. Orthodox clergy take care of the ritual aspects of the religious life of the Church, teach, or otherwise help in spreading Orthodox doctrine and practices.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clergy

If a Council sees the Priest as an employee and not as the Parish’s spiritual leader, then the temptation is to forget who the Priest is and what he represents.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/pa...uncilandchurch



When I pass on Orthodox links I am not insulted nor humiliated but when I comment on my own reactions to a certain temptation by some Christians (this is limited to no denomination) to place love beneath whatever idol they have that causes them to lash out at others in the defense of it, I am told I have no faith, and am somehow passing around things that are not Christian when all I am doing is witnessing to a certain behavior by those who aggress upon others under the pretense of their faith and wondering is there a better way to promote one's faith without insult or aggression.

I am not alluding to anything with you specifically with the general posts but you are choosing to take offense and prove the very nature of these general posts through your behavior and failure to listen to what is being said to you when I address you directly.

“There must be amidst all the confusions of the hour a tried and undisturbed remnant of persons who will not become purveyors of coercion and violence, who are ready to stand alone, if it is necessary, for the way of peace and love among men.” ~ Rufus Jones, 1940

"Only the inner vision of God, only the God-blindedness of unreservedly dedicated souls, only the utterly humble ones can bow and break the raging pride of a power-mad world."
~ Thomas Kelly

I wish you peace on your path but you do not know me and may not make the types of claims you have directed to me specifically and expect that I will just wilt under your ignorant claims regarding my beliefs. Being true to my faith is more important to me than the opinions of anyone and I am finally standing up to you for my right to my sincerely held beliefs. I am sorry if you find this offensive...

[moostraks]

poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe

Lol! I thought it was a yupper thing to maybe say his that way up there.

[moostraks]

How some believe they should spread the love and testimony of their faith...

[TER]

But in seriousness moostraks, do you believe the Scriptures which write that Christ established a Church, and that this Church was to be the guardian of the faith, the pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you believe anybody can believe whatever they will apart from the teachings of the Apostles and still claim to be in conformity to the truth and be a standing member of that Church?

Do you deny the anointing of bishops and priests and deacons to lead and minister to the faithful?

I guess my question is (because the examples can go on and on), how many of the Scriptures and teachings of the early Church do you reject so that you can be right and the Scriptures and Saints be wrong?

Good morning moostraks. Was wondering when you might answer this post.

[pcosmar]

How some believe they should spread the love and testimony of their faith...

[acptulsa]

How does an unusually lucid bit of comment from HuffPo, presented without further comment, warrant this?

The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath. And Other Cheeks are made for Pharisees, for whom else has such a lust for them as this?

HAWT

And are you a Pharisee too..?

[jmdrake]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

The OP was not about EO or RCC or the Eucharist or anything else. I wish people wouldn't carry fights from one thread to another. And yes I've done that before. I was wrong. Time to let this particular flamewar die. Who benefits from it? Who is glorified by it? Not Jesus, that is for sure.

[moostraks]

Good morning moostraks. Was wondering when you might answer this post.

I have answered my position on the hierarchy, power, and what I believe defines the term Church as opposed to church, as well as the argument you put forth about complying to the people proclaimed to be Saints. You should have been listening to what I specifically state when I have approached various discussions on the matter.