A new twist on "Phariseeism?"

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Extrabiblical teachings and rules? Yeah I'd call them pharisees.

But even those kinds of Pastors look for loopholes, For example they don't own a TV but they watch TV over the internet.

The whole "precaution" is really just an excuse to enforce rules that have no biblical foundation. Like facial hair...we heard it was due to the hippy movement...well that is false but even so where is the precaution? Does that mean if a man grows a beard the hippy spirit is gonna jump on him, make him smoke weed and drive a van?

Well we know that McKee signs the AS but doesn't preach, teach or believe it.

[Rob McKee]

Great re-post(thank you)...Great dialog...Christ sat in the seat of Moses (that one made me giggle)...Rob doesn't believe the Affirmation Statement...Rob is a buffoon.

Have a great day...if you come by GC stop by the POK Booth in the George R. Brown.
Rob McKee <---This statement has been trademarked...all rights reserved.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Rob McKee

Great re-post(thank you)...Great dialog...Christ sat in the seat of Moses (that one made me giggle)...

Have a great day...if you come by GC stop by the POK Booth in the George R. Brown.
Rob McKee <---This statement has been trademarked...all rights reserved.

Rob, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. It obviously was sparked by one of your posts.

I'm not sure why you giggles over Christ fulfilling the "seat of Moses." Can you explain? Do you believe Christ fulfilled the authority and the entirety of the Law in his person, and in his teaching? If you're going to giggle at me, at least do me the honors of showing me how much smarter you are.


Socialite - (Just in case you want to quote me or need my autograph)

[Socialite]

There's another post on AFF somewhere on this topic (Moses' Seat), but here's an excerpt:

The Old Testament may not say these exact words “Moses' seat,” but there are lots of terms and phrases that are interpreted in the New Testament that have its roots and meaning in the Old Testament. The phrase has the idea of wanting to be the leaders of Israel as Moses was. The Pharisees were public teachers that had the office of explaining that Law and it was the custom to sit while they expounded the law and prophets (Matthew 5:1; Luke 4:20-22).

By the seat of Moses, it meant that they had the authority to teach the law. And Jesus affirms that they should be listen to as they read Moses’ law for it was the Scripture. But then He tells the people not to act the way they do “for they say, and do not do.” They went beyond the law (called the tradition of the elders (Mk.7 where they made void the commandments of God by their own laws which became the tradition they obeyed.)

In other words do as they say (as long as it is Scripture) but don’t do what they do (living in their tradition).

Had they taught what Moses taught and lived it, Jesus would have had no rebuke. Jesus then points out how they want the best of everything and be noticed because of their teaching position, he then explains they are to be servants, not self exalting themselves and that He instead of they should be their teacher.

I draw your attention to Jesus' authority (which I hope you'll agree), the Road to Emmaus conversation he had with disciples after his resurrection, and the idea that the totality of the law is fulfilled perfectly in Jesus. Even my Dispensationalist friends will agree that Jesus brings in a new "age." Israel now has a grafted in people, Gentiles, and all are followers of Jesus, not Moses.

[Maximilian]

I also appreciate folks that sign their name after every FB post

A little ribbing is good for you, Rob.

[Rob McKee]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Rob, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. It obviously was sparked by one of your posts.

I'm not sure why you giggles over Christ fulfilling the "seat of Moses." Can you explain? Do you believe Christ fulfilled the authority and the entirety of the Law in his person, and in his teaching? If you're going to giggle at me, at least do me the honors of showing me how much smarter you are.


Socialite - (Just in case you want to quote me or need my autograph)

Sorry...wasn't trying to be flippant with my brief comment.
"Christ sat in the seat of Moses?"...I giggled because I wondered where Moses was going to sit now?

Jesus came to fulfill the Law...not to do away with it. The dispensation of grace is much more restrictive than the law (Matt. 5...I thing starting around verse 26 or 27) ...but the motivation is different. Now I don't do it to earn salvation...I do it to express my love and passion for God...(which according to Mark 8:38 IS a salvation matter)

Trust me when I tell you...I'm probably not smarter.
Rob McKee (all rights reserved)

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Rob McKee

Sorry...wasn't trying to be flippant with my brief comment.
"Christ sat in the seat of Moses?"...I giggled because I wondered where Moses was going to sit now
?
Jesus came to fulfill the Law...not to do away with it. The dispensation of grace is much more restrictive than the law (Matt. 5...I thing starting around verse 26 or 27) ...but the motivation is different. Now I don't do it to earn salvation...I do it to express my love and passion for God...(which according to Mark 8:38 IS a salvation matter)

Trust me when I tell you...I'm probably not smarter.
Rob McKee (all rights reserved)

I giggled because I wondered where Moses was going to sit now

I can see Moses befuddled, cursing and plucking his own beard! That was rich!



If something is vague and then fulfilled, what does that mean? What then, are we still under the Law? Too many references in Hebrews and Galations (among others) that articulate that the Law has brought us to this point, but that we are no longer under the Law. It's not the same as saying the Law is done -- but rather, to keep the Story in focus, the Law has been fulfilled. It's here. It looks different. The Messiah perfectly fulfilled the role of the Law, to bring us to God.

When you say Grace is more restrictive, I think I get what you say, but it almost makes me cringe. Grace is freeing, liberating, not restrictive. Grace is not a higher stack of codes and regulations, it's one massive one that governs our entire life-thought. It helps us live life fully, abundantely.

So, to you, the only difference between the Law and Grace is the person's motive? It has nothing to do with Law and Grace itself? And when you say "now I do it," what do you mean? Do what? The Law?

Living life fully, authentically and openly before God -- if we have to say it this way -- is much more "challenging" than just complying with rules anyday. When someone tells me what to wear, there's an early period of resistance (no one enjoys being a slave), but then conformity becomes quite easy. But living life where we must each follow after Jesus, allow sanctification to transform, listen for His voice, trust each other in community and grow --- that can't be done on our own... takes Grace.

When I say Christ perfectly fulfilled the seat of Moses -- that's what I mean. I'm not a Dispensationalist at all... but it's something we agree on in concept.

[Rob McKee]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I can see Moses befuddled, cursing and plucking his own beard! That was rich!



If something is vague and then fulfilled, what does that mean? What then, are we still under the Law? Too many references in Hebrews and Galations (among others) that articulate that the Law has brought us to this point, but that we are no longer under the Law. It's not the same as saying the Law is done -- but rather, to keep the Story in focus, the Law has been fulfilled. It's here. It looks different. The Messiah perfectly fulfilled the role of the Law, to bring us to God.

When you say Grace is more restrictive, I think I get what you say, but it almost makes me cringe. Grace is freeing, liberating, not restrictive. Grace is not a higher stack of codes and regulations, it's one massive one that governs our entire life-thought. It helps us live life fully, abundantely.

So, to you, the only difference between the Law and Grace is the person's motive? It has nothing to do with Law and Grace itself? And when you say "now I do it," what do you mean? Do what? The Law?

Living life fully, authentically and openly before God -- if we have to say it this way -- is much more "challenging" than just complying with rules anyday. When someone tells me what to wear, there's an early period of resistance (no one enjoys being a slave), but then conformity becomes quite easy. But living life where we must each follow after Jesus, allow sanctification to transform, listen for His voice, trust each other in community and grow --- that can't be done on our own... takes Grace.

When I say Christ perfectly fulfilled the seat of Moses -- that's what I mean. I'm not a Dispensationalist at all... but it's something we agree on in concept.

Christianity should be based on relationship, not law or even freedom from it.
Just because a man can stay out all night and have "buddies" that are women without his wife divorcing him, doesn't mean it's good to do that. If a man is only committed to marriage/divorce or Heaven/Hell issues he's headed to divorce court and hell. The law was a our schoolmaster...pointing us to Christ. Just because we are out of school doesn't invalidate the truth that we learned while enrolled. Motivation matters...Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15)

As an adult I push myself to learn more than while enrolled in college...not because I HAVE to...but because I WANT TO.

The truth is...EVERY church has a line of obedience to the law...even the most liberal. I don't know of many who would ask Black Sabbath to lead worship. The question is...where do you draw that line? To say that we are "free from the law" would mean we were embracing anarchy. There HAS to be law that we are subject to...(not just a undefinable puffy cloud of love of God that no one can explain).

When we look at the end time church described in Revelation...IT IS NOT A PHARISAICAL CHURCH bound by strict adherence to the law of Moses. The Antichrist would have a hard time Pastoring that one...

It's a church that has no problems holding hands with every other religion/doctrine on earth. Who does that best describe? Either we are not living in the last days or the modern mega church in America..particularly here in Houston, describes exactly what John said would happen. Or do you think John just saw Catholics? Contrary to what many now believe, obedience to doctrine does matter. Jesus said...IF you love me...Keep my Commandments. Which commandment was he referring to? Do we get to decide? Shouldn't we keep ALL of them not just the ones that we like?
Did Jesus call the Apostle Paul? Was he in the will of God when he wrote his epistles? Should we tear out all scripture past the four gospels? If Paul spent so much time correcting the doctrine of the churches...shouldn't all doctrine matter? Is it possible that the Endtime would not only have an Anti-Christ but also Anti-Pharisees (copyright 2010). Again...the "Endtime Apostate Church" is NOT DESCRIBED BY SCRIPTURES AS A PHARISAICAL CHURCH...but a carnal one who's flushed doctrine like a dead gerbil. They will also embrace ALL other doctrines/churches/religions and belittle those who stand for truth. I have decided...I want to make sure...I'm not in THAT church. Guys...I just really really want to be saved. Nothing this world has is worth missing Heaven.
God Bless...
Rob McKee (copyright 2010)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Rob, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. It obviously was sparked by one of your posts.

I'm not sure why you giggles over Christ fulfilling the "seat of Moses." Can you explain? Do you believe Christ fulfilled the authority and the entirety of the Law in his person, and in his teaching? If you're going to giggle at me, at least do me the honors of showing me how much smarter you are.


Socialite - (Just in case you want to quote me or need my autograph)

I think he meant google. He didn't understand what it meant so he needed to google it :-)

[Rob McKee]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think he meant google. He didn't understand what it meant so he needed to google it :-)

No...I meant giggle