I don't get conservative Methodists in the UMC.

[Timket]

Regarding swine and shellfish, Jesus declared all foods clean, so from the very beginning of the Church it's remained that way:

"Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)" (Mark 7:18-19 ESV)

Regarding Sunday as the Sabbath, that's been the custom since the very beginning of the Church also and hasn't changed. Justin Martyr wrote in the 100s AD:

"Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ~130 AD)

About usury, the Church has never allowed it in the past and still doesn't allow it now.

 

[shnarkle]

Regarding swine and shellfish, Jesus declared all foods clean, so from the very beginning of the Church it's remained that way:

"Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)" (Mark 7:18-19 ESV)

That parenthetical statement doesn't exist in any of the original manuscripts. It only shows up in the Codex Bezai and even then it is in the margins. You can actually see the jpeg images online, it isn't there at all because they don't show the marginal notes.

Moreover, the scribe who penned that marginal note didn't understand what he was talking about as unclean foods explicitly refers to food that has gone bad. Rotten food is not clean food, and no Christians are inclined to justify eating rotten food. Additionally, there are no places in the entire bible where swine or shellfish are even referred to as food, much less unclean food. It isn't categorized as food to begin with. The scribe should have written, (Thus he declared all unclean animals clean). He didn't do that. He simply didn't know what he was talking about.

If we look at the context itself, it becomes even more obvious. You are assuming that Jesus (an observant Jew) would assume that those he is talking to (also observant Jews) would include swine and shellfish as food. They wouldn't any more than they would include the entrails of an animal, an animal that had died on its own, or a rotting carcass.

Jesus points out that defilement comes from within the human heart, and when sin is conceived in the heart, it defiles the person without the person ever actually committing the sin. To then commit the sin cannot defile them because they are already defiled. Your argument has been used by drug addicts and sodomites as well, and will undoubtedly be used by pedophiles, and any other perversion with just as much justification.

Regarding Sunday as the Sabbath, that's been the custom since the very beginning of the Church also and hasn't changed. Justin Martyr wrote in the 100s AD:

"Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ~130 AD)

There is nothing in that statement that annuls or claims that the Sabbath is done away with or that it should be profaned. Again, Jesus himself points out that customs do not trump the commandments of God. Christ began the church and built it upon his followers who were all observant Jews. Those gentiles who converted were explicitly asked to keep in mind that they could no longer be expected to conform to their old ways, and the elders of the church also point out that they needn't belabor the point with an exhaustive record of the entire Mosaic law because they were already going to the synagogues on the Sabbath

"20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15:20,21

Note that they are instructing them to keep the certain of their most egregious transgressions of the Mosaic law, most notably a few right from the dietary laws themselves.

About usury, the Church has never allowed it in the past and still doesn't allow it now.

Since when? There are no members of the church who have borrowed money at interest? No one in the church is allowed to carry a mortgage? Make payments on a car, boat, etc.? That's news to me.

 

[Timket]

That parenthetical statement doesn't exist in any of the original manuscripts. It only shows up in the Codex Bezai and even then it is in the margins. You can actually see the jpeg images online, it isn't there at all because they don't show the marginal notes.

Moreover, the scribe who penned that marginal note didn't understand what he was talking about as unclean foods explicitly refers to food that has gone bad. Rotten food is not clean food, and no Christians are inclined to justify eating rotten food. Additionally, there are no places in the entire bible where swine or shellfish are even referred to as food, much less unclean food. It isn't categorized as food to begin with. The scribe should have written, (Thus he declared all unclean animals clean). He didn't do that. He simply didn't know what he was talking about.

If we look at the context itself, it becomes even more obvious. You are assuming that Jesus (an observant Jew) would assume that those he is talking to (also observant Jews) would include swine and shellfish as food. They wouldn't any more than they would include the entrails of an animal, an animal that had died on its own, or a rotting carcass.

Jesus points out that defilement comes from within the human heart, and when sin is conceived in the heart, it defiles the person without the person ever actually committing the sin. To then commit the sin cannot defile them because they are already defiled. Your argument has been used by drug addicts and sodomites as well, and will undoubtedly be used by pedophiles, and any other perversion with just as much justification.

The parenthetical statement is in the Greek, as far as I can see - It says "καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα" which means "he is cleansing all the foods". The verb "καθαρίζων" is the same verb Jesus used when he told the leper "be made clean".

But even if we discard that verse completely we still have the one before it, which says "everything entering from outside is not able to defile a man" -

Greek: οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι.
Literal translation: (do you) not know that everything which from-outside entering into the man not is-able to defile him.

There is nothing in that statement that annuls or claims that the Sabbath is done away with or that it should be profaned. Again, Jesus himself points out that customs do not trump the commandments of God. Christ began the church and built it upon his followers who were all observant Jews. Those gentiles who converted were explicitly asked to keep in mind that they could no longer be expected to conform to their old ways, and the elders of the church also point out that they needn't belabor the point with an exhaustive record of the entire Mosaic law because they were already going to the synagogues on the Sabbath

You'll have to tell that to the Disciples, then, who also met on the "first day of the week" (Sunday) to hold a church service including communion and a sermon. (Recall that the Sabbath is the seventh day, when God rested, so this is a different day that they're having church):

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Additionally as far as our church records exist outside the Scriptures, we've always worshipped on Sunday and have never changed that ecclesiastical practice in 1,900 years.

Since when? There are no members of the church who have borrowed money at interest? No one in the church is allowed to carry a mortgage? Make payments on a car, boat, etc.? That's news to me.

Usury means to charge exorbitant interest, and the church members aren't charging the interest that when they sign up for a mortgage.

 

[shnarkle]

The parenthetical statement is in the Greek, as far as I can see

You're seeing things then because it isn't there.

- It says "καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα" which means "he is cleansing all the foods".

Yep. Purging, cleansing, etc. You're conflating what it says just prior to the parenthetical statement with the parenthetical statement. Food goes through the digestive tract and is purged or cleansed from the body.

The verb "καθαρίζων" is the same verb Jesus used when he told the leper "be made clean".

Yep and the body is made clean by purging all food from it. The digestive tract doesn't redefine what food is, nor does Jesus' teaching.

But even if we discard that verse completely we still have the one before it, which says "everything entering from outside is not able to defile a man" -

Yep, and Jesus points out the origin of defilement, i.e. from what emerges from within their heart including "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness" The one who conceived murder in his heart IS ALREADY defiled, and desiring to transgress any of God's law is conceived within one's own heart, and defiles them. This doctrine doesn't abrogate any of God's laws. That's just a blatant Non Sequitur. The digestive tract doesn't annul God's commandments.

Greek: οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι.
Literal translation: (do you) not know that everything which from-outside entering into the man not is-able to defile him.

Again, drug addicts, alcoholics, sodomites, etc. have all used this same exact logic to justify their behavior as well. There is no essential difference whatsoever. Look at the same exact scenario played out except this time substitute the disciple neglecting to wash after engaging in relations with his wife. Jesus then says, "nothing that enters from outside can defile anyone for it enters into the womb and is expelled during the time of a woman's separation (Thus he declared all sex as clean and acceptable)" See how that doesn't follow? Do you see the Non Sequitur yet?

You'll have to tell that to the Disciples, then, who also met on the "first day of the week" (Sunday)

Yep. They couldn't meet to collect money for those in Jerusalem because that's work.

to hold a church service

Where does it say a church service?

including communion and a sermon. (Recall that the Sabbath is the seventh day, when God rested, so this is a different day that they're having church):

False. Note what precedes your quote: "we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread,"

If you're going to claim that this is just a passing remark with no significance, then we could say the same thing with regards to "breaking bread".

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

This would be the first of the seven Sabbaths that precede Pentecost. Each and everyone of those first days is a Sabbath including Pentecost itself. It depended upon the harvest (Duet. 16:9), and it was always the day after the Sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Leviticus 23:15)

Additionally as far as our church records exist outside the Scriptures, we've always worshipped on Sunday and have never changed that ecclesiastical practice in 1,900 years.

You may have an argument there, but one could just as easily be made for claiming that the church never observed heterosexual marriage. It doesn't then follow that it is acceptable, or that it isn't explicitly condemned in the biblical texts.

Usury means to charge exorbitant interest,

Not in the bible, it isn't. The practice was abolished during Ezra Nehemiah e.g. Neh. 5

and the church members aren't charging the interest that when they sign up for a mortgage.

Doesn't matter who is charging who. Jesus says NOT to charge interest to one's enemies, and under the Mosaic law, one couldn't charge interest to their neighbors or kinsmen. Jesus effectively abolishes the practice completely. One can only lend or borrow without interest.

 

[Timket]

You're seeing things then because it isn't there.

It's quite clearly in every version of the Greek; you can see for yourself here:

Mark 7:19 Greek Text Analysis (biblehub.com)

Yep. Purging, cleansing, etc. You're conflating what it says just prior to the parenthetical statement with the parenthetical statement. Food goes through the digestive tract and is purged or cleansed from the body.

The participle καθαρίζων is masculine and must go with a masculine person, and the only masculine thing in the verse for it to fit with is Jesus. It modifies Him (it's something he's doing - cleansing all foods).


I was going to post more, but instead I think I'm going to quit this forum. I just started posting today, and I don't think I have energy to debate much. Peace be with you!

 

[shnarkle]

It's quite clearly in every version of the Greek; you can see for yourself here:

Mark 7:19 Greek Text Analysis (biblehub.com)

Yep, I see it quite clearly as well. There is no parenthetical statement anywhere in that text. If so, where???

The participle καθαρίζων is masculine and must go with a masculine person, and the only masculine thing in the verse for it to fit with is Jesus.

Jesus isn't referring to himself at all. He's referring to food entering into "the man, it cannot defile HIM (masculine)" Again, you're ignoring my point that this is within the context of observant Jews who do not view swine or shellfish as food to begin with.

It modifies Him (it's something he's doing - cleansing all foods).

Not even close. You're fabricating that all out of whole cloth. He doesn't refer to himself as "the man". lol.

I was going to post more, but instead I think I'm going to quit this forum. I just started posting today, and I don't think I have energy to debate much.

Sorry to hear that. I understand though. It's troubling to engage in debating our cherished doctrines only to discover that there are aspects of them that don't add up. I can distinctly remember feeling the same way after a few years of translating the gospels in college. I didn't just conclude that I don't have the energy, I eventually became completely disillusioned with Christianity Seeking the truth isn't for the faint of heart, but I can tell you this: I don't regret it despite the loss of my entire faith community. There is nothing more important than the truth.

Peace be with you!

Thanks, and you as well.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I haven't been in a Methodist church in about 8 or 9 years now, but the last one was fairly tame by comparison to the two previous churches I attended in California. One had two services; a "traditional' service at 9 am, and a "contemporary" service at 10:30 am. The contemporary reminded me of "The Exotic Erotic Ball" which was held in San Francisco each year. I never attended that function, but there were posters, and pictures all over the place. Anyways, it was quite an eyeful, and it soon became apparent that I would be better off as a Muslim if I wanted to think about God. There were women walking into that place like they just got off work walking the streets all night.

Good grief. At that point it's less of a church and more of a temple of Aphrodite.

 

[shnarkle]

Good grief. At that point it's less of a church and more of a temple of Aphrodite.

I hope I'm not coming across as judgmental. It's more a reflection of my own carnal weakness than anything else. I think that people who immerse themselves in that lifestyle become completely desensitized to it. They probably burn out so badly that they could walk around bare naked and not be phased at all. There's nothing lurid or provocative about any of it for them.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I hope I'm not coming across as judgmental. It's more a reflection of my own carnal weakness than anything else. I think that people who immerse themselves in that lifestyle become completely desensitized to it. They probably burn out so badly that they could walk around bare naked and not be phased at all. There's nothing lurid or provocative about any of it for them.

I think people have to try to become desensitized to that sort of thing. At some point in childhood we develop a natural sense of modesty. For me, it happened at about the time I became very self-conscious about the fact that my parents were giving me baths (maybe 8 years old?) What changes in some people as they become older that causes them to think nothing about seeing naked or near-naked people in public places, especially those who think nothing about being exposed themselves?

 

[shnarkle]

I think people have to try to become desensitized to that sort of thing. At some point in childhood we develop a natural sense of modesty. For me, it happened at about the time I became very self-conscious about the fact that my parents were giving me baths (maybe 8 years old?) What changes in some people as they become older that causes them to think nothing about seeing naked or near-naked people in public places, especially those who think nothing about being exposed themselves?

It's part of the culture. From day one, we're wrapped up which in itself is a direct result of the fall. Before the fall, "they were naked and they were not ashamed". You can still see what it was like before the fall by checking out any of those tribes in Africa or south America where the children don't wear anything, and the adults wear only slightly more than that, and even then it isn't out of modesty as much as necessity.

 

[Nic]

I grew up in the UMC. In fact, my grandparents founded the church I grew up in, my uncle was the sexton and I was his assistant, so I was literally there every time the doors were open, because I was the guy who opened the doors. And in our small town, our church was the center of the social universe.

I ended up getting saved in my early twenties and left the UMC when I discovered that learning more and more about Christian theology, I could no longer affirm many of the beliefs of the UMC.

Although I have serious theological disagreements with the UMC, I have nothing but fond memories of my time there.

But, that having been said, I agree with you. I don't see how any Bible believing Christian could stay there.

I have fond memories of things not holy, if we're honest, I bet we all do. It doesn't mean we don't confess and repent of those sins of unholy things or occasions of awareness of sins. Including the sins of fond memories of sin.
Nic

 

[Nic]

Post Error , nt

 

[Bonnie]

In the year 2000-2001, my husband was finishing up his 4 years at Concordia Lutheran Seminary in St. Louis. Just for fun, we decided to go to several other denominations' churches. We went to 4 different ones--UCC, UMC, a conservative Southern Baptist church, and a conservative Presbyterian church.

We had positive experiences at the Baptist and Presbyterian churches--the services focused on Jesus Christ and what he did for us on the cross. But the other two churches....! Eh, not so much.

The sermon in the UMC church was all about how reliable the Bible is. Now, that would be a fine discussion for adult Bible class, but for a sermon...? We never heard the Good News at all in this church service. My husband, who had been taught to preach sermons that are Christ-centered, and have both Law and Gospel in them, muttered to me, after the sermon was finished, "Where was Jesus in that sermon?" Answer--nowhere.

I think all churches purporting to be Christian should preach Christ and Him crucified for sinners and raised for our justification, and WHY, each and ever time the pastor preaches a sermon. Because we never know who might just visit a church--it could be someone who did not know who Jesus was and is. By the time such a person would leave the church service, he or she should have a pretty good idea who Jesus is, and what He has done for us and WHY!

 

[John t]

The liberal element in their church were believed to have set the church sanctuary on fire, by heaping all bibles and hymnals in the middle of the room, adding lighter fluid. The Heat and Air was turned on (it is always shut off during the week) so that it would circulate the flaming material. There had been an unsuccessful attempt to allow homosexual marriage etc, which the small church voted down. There was a legal battle which they eventually won and were allowed to retain the burned out building. Many of the same members continued to attend but it was no longer a Presbyterian church. They had a website at that time that showed the photos taken of the damage. These liberals are not God's people. They are out to destroy the church and effectively are doing so by their liberal policies, which destroys the faith.

Begging your pardon but you are calling all liberals evil, and that is flat-out wrong to do so.

The fire may have have begun as you stated, but the absence of evidence presented in your short post cannot be the basis for continued rumor mongering.

In a church I pastored below the Mason-Dixon Line we had some satanists break into the church and painted demonic runes inside of the organ using grape juice mixed with urine in order to make a demonic curse. I saw both the pictures of the fresh damage, and I saw the remnants of the stains remaining in the sound board in the back.

As I left, someone from a church in our denomination told me that there was a couple who were very involved in the KKK. That was confirmed by a vision given by Holy Spirit while visiting the family

Can you see the difference in what you wrote? You relied on third-hand information to make a curse on all liberals. I wrote things that I personally observed, and which actually happened.

Theologically speaking God loves all liberals, and Satanists, and it is not our job to condemn another human made in the image of God. On the other hand both Liberals and Satanists are reprobates because they despise the offer of free salvation through Jesus Christ. But that never gives Christians the right to curse them by saying that they are evil people.

 

[shnarkle]

that never gives Christians the right to curse them by saying that they are evil people.

Pointing out that the carnal man cannot please God, or that they are evil isn't a curse. It's an observation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'm sure it doesn't discriminate based upon political affiliation.

However, I would agree to the extent that even God waits until people are dead to carry out his judgements.

 

[HillsboroMom]

On the other hand both Liberals and Satanists are reprobates because they despise the offer of free salvation through Jesus Christ.

I really appreciate your post. Most of it was spot-on.

I needed to pull this one sentence out, because you are doing exactly the thing you (rightly) chastise Cynthia for doing.

Now clearly, Satanists reject Jesus, because the name means, by definition, they embrace Satan, and reject Jesus.

However, not all liberals reject Jesus. There are many liberals (in various meanings of the word) who are as devout as you are. They love Jesus, they pray just as hard as you do, they follow Jesus just as ardently, they believe as deeply as you do, they accept the offer of free salvation, they love God by loving their neighbor, and they serve God by serving their neighbor. Certainly, not all liberals do this. Some are not Christian, and some indeed reject Christianity, and some are hostile toward everything Jesus loves, including you and me. But there are literally millions -- possibly billions -- of liberals who are among Jesus' most devoted followers, and you are wrong to denounce them. If Jesus accepts them, you must, too.

 

[John t]

John t said:
On the other hand both Liberals and Satanists are reprobates because they despise the offer of free salvation through Jesus Christ.

I really appreciate your post. Most of it was spot-on.

I needed to pull this one sentence out, because you are doing exactly the thing you (rightly) chastise Cynthia for doing.

Now clearly, Satanists reject Jesus, because the name means, by definition, they embrace Satan, and reject Jesus.

Thank you, but you seem to miss my point. Calling people who reject Jesus "retrobate" is an accurate theological description of their state before God. Calling people "evil" is an unwarranted act of condemnation towards another person.. The difference is in the viewpoint, personal versus what God thinks, as revealed in the Bible.

 

[John t]

grin.

swine and shellfish... how gross.

It is called "surf and turf"

 

[HillsboroMom]

Thank you, but you seem to miss my point. Calling people who reject Jesus "retrobate" is an accurate theological description of their state before God. Calling people "evil" is an unwarranted act of condemnation towards another person.. The difference is in the viewpoint, personal versus what God thinks, as revealed in the Bible.

I think you missed my point.

I have no problem with you calling people "retrobate" if and when they reject Jesus.

I have a problem if and when you accuse people of rejecting Jesus when they haven't.

 

[John t]

I have a problem if and when you accuse people of rejecting Jesus when they haven't.

Since we really do not know their heart, that presents a degree of difficulty, eh?

However, it is not wrong to hold their posts up as sort of a "litmus test" and make a reasonable conclusion based upon those pieces of evidence. If that person hates Jesus, their hatred will show up in their writings. Really, it is not too hard to determine.