You've completely derailed this thread, but the answer is short and sweet.

First among equals does not mean the pope has unilateral authority to speak for the church, any more than the speaker of the house can create legislation alone. It also does not mean that he can depose other bishops, again, any more than the speaker can remove other congressmen from their seats.

Does first among equals mean something? Yes. Does it mean what the current Roman church says? No.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Does first among equals mean something? Yes. Does it mean what the current Roman church says? No.

---

Good, first among equals. Will take that.

I would agree- Pope is like the speaker (leader of his peers, given leadership authority by his peers). Note: the selection process evolved over time.

Now taking your speaker of the House of Representatives example. Not everyone has to agree, a simple majority is required. Please show me where the pope worked alone against all the other bishops? Where all the other bishops were against the pope and he worked alone.

Quote:

---

'The letter kills,' says Scripture, 'but the Spirit gives life'. Consequently the letter whose nature it is to kill must be killed by the life-giving Spirit. For what is material in the Law and what is divine -- namely, the letter and the Spirit -- cannot co-exist, nor can what destroys life be reconciled with that which by nature bestows life.
...
Thus it is necessary that the one who seeks after God in a religious way never holds fast to the letter lest he mistakenly understand things said about God for God Himself. In this case we unwisely are satisfied with the words of Scripture in the place of the Word, and the Word slips out of the mind while we thought by holding onto this garment we could possess the incorporeal Word. In a similar way did the Egyptian woman lay hold not of Joseph but of his clothing, and the men of old who remained permanently in the beauty of visible things and mistakenly worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.
...
God did not order the sabbath, the new moons and the feasts to be honored because He wanted men to honor the days themselves: this would have been tantamount to decreeing by the Law that man should worship creation rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25), and should regard the days as holy in themselves and therefore to be venerated. On the contrary, He indicated that He Himself was to be honored symbolically through the days.
For He is the sabbath, as the soul's repose after its exertions in the flesh, and as the cessations of its sufferings in the cause of righteousness.
He is the Passover, as the liberator of those held in the bitter slavery of sin.
He is the Pentecost, as the origin and consummation of all created beings, and as the principle through which all things by nature exist.
Thus the Law destroys those who apprehend it in a literal or outward way, leading them to worship creation rather than the Creator, and to regard as holy in themselves things that were brought into existence for man's sake; for they remain ignorant of Him on whose account they were created.

-St Maximos 1

---

Maybe I'm the only one, but my alarm bells ring like crazy reading this passage. I get a crazy Marcion-vibe from that passage. Marcion taught that the physical world and the OT God were all evil, and only the Spirit and NT God was actually good. Maximos is entirely stating that physical observance of God's Law is sinful, and only spiritual observance is appropriate. It is a classic Greek v Hebrew philosophical divide. The Hebrew focuses more on actions and the physical, while the Greeks were more concerned with thoughts and the Spiritual. Marcion took this to a ridiculous extreme, but the realtive unimportance of the physical compared to the spiritual is still common in Christianity.

This disconnect of the physical from the spiritual is the same error of the Pharisees, only the flip side of the coin. Why do we need to disconnect the physical law from the spiritual law? After all, we follow Christ who was the ultimate perfect mix of the physical and the spiritual. Why should we follow only a spiritual law when we also have a physical savior? We cannot aspire to be God the Father, who is soley spiritual, but we are born of the water and the Spirit. We are dual physical and spiritual beings, and God provided us with both a physical and spiritual law.

You find it dangerous to follow Torah. I agree with Maximos that we must worship God and not his creation or his ordinances, but don't call the Torah evil or dangerous. Like the Neshutan bronze serpent, it was given as a blessing. The misuse and mistreatment must be entirely on us, and we can't blame the blessing of God for our poor behavior. Unlike the Neshutan, we can still receive the God's blessing of the Torah. I find it dangerous to disregard the Torah, because God was never before or since so clear with his instructions and wishes.

Well, I guess I would say that if I ever found myself on the wrong side of St Maximos, I would assume the error was mine. St Maximos is not Marcion, or a heretic, and this writing comes from the Philokalia, probably the most influential and widely used book in orthodoxy obviously other than Holy Scripture, particularly among monastics. What I mean to say, is this was preserved for it's great beauty and usefulness.

St Maximos is not teaching that the physical is bad. Quite the contrary, much of what St Maximos' cosmology includes the redemption of the entire universe, including the physical. He also doesn't teach a divide between physical in spiritual, but that the "physical way" is not the "divine way" (my summary). The anti-physical "common" in western Christianity is not actually all that common in the east, largely in part to our teaching from people like St Maximos.

There is no divide between Greek and Hebrew in Christianity; philosophy is not what our faith practices. We practice Theology, which is from God. Since you quoted St Clement's Stromata, in it he says "The Hellenic philosophy is like the torch of wick which men kindle, artificially stealing the light from the sun. But on the proclamation of the Word all that holy light shone forth." and "Men must then be saved by learning the truth through Christ, even if they attain philosophy." In Christianity there is one Truth, which is only Christ: we "have only one Teacher".

St Maximos is not stating that physical observance of the Law is evil. He is saying that merely observing the letter, merely observing the physical, is idolatrous. The Law is an icon of Christ. Second temple Judaism mistakenly elevates the Torah to the expression of the Divine Will, the Wisdom of God. This is incorrect; Christ is the Divine Wisdom, the Logos of the Father. St Paul said Christ was "the power of God and the wisdom of God." To this end, Christ is the LAW of the universe, the divine logos by which the universe was made (as we say in the symbol of faith "by whom all things were made"), while the Torah is merely the Law, an Icon of The LAW, something that points us to its prototype.

St Maximos is expanding here on 2 Corinthians 3. But as St Paul states (and St Maximos quotes) in 2 Cor 3:6 "[God] made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." In that same chapter St Paul calls the Law "the ministry of death" and "the ministry of condemnation". St Paul says "For indeed what had glory [i.e., the Law], in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it [i.e., Christ, the LAW]. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory." These are bold words, which St Paul recognizes - he says "we use great boldness in our speech".

In that light, re-read what St Maximos says. If we cling to what kills, we will not find life. If we cling to the Law, which is about Christ, and are satisfied with something in place of Christ, we have nothing. Such a person would then worship the icon instead of the real thing. As Christ said "a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." And then St Maximos goes on to show how the sabbath, Passover, Pentecost, etc. are icons of true salvation, which is Christ.

Which, of course, is perfectly harmonious with the next passage of 2 Corinthians 3. St Paul says that the understanding and ability to view the glory of Christ is like a veil over the old covenant, and can only be lifted in Christ. In Christ we behold His glory, and in Christ we are transformed to be like Him.

The Law cannot deify us. If followed, it can save us - but who can follow it? No one, "not even one".

Faith in Christ can save us. In this regard, it is the same as the Law. The difference is that it is effective, it works. And so, with Christ, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled. Salvation is by Christ, He is the end, the culmination, the completion, the telos of the Law. (Romans 10:4).

The amazing part is that the new covenant covers the old and surpasses it so much further. Once justified, once saved, we proceed onward in Christ. Not by the Law, but in the LAW. We aren't subject to the "tutor" (the pedagogue, Galatians 3:24) that the Law was, because we aren't slaves. We are elevated by the "Lawgiver and Judge" to become co-heirs with the Son (Romans 8:17).

The lack of this beautiful gospel is why the ebionites were considered "poor" in their understanding. This is why St Maximos says if we apprehend the Law in a literal way -- meaning in an absence of understanding the spiritual way -- there is death. Which is exactly what St Paul taught.

/////////////////////

If it makes you feel any better, St Maximos likes to use the Joseph and Potiphar's wife metaphor to help teach the difference between God and things around God. In his Ambigua he uses the exact same imagery about Holy Scripture (!) saying that if we stop at the scriptures we'll lose out on Christ Himself. So don't presume he's saying that it's evil, because obviously he doesn't think the Scriptures are evil and he spoke of them in the same way.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't really have a problem with any of that, except one. If Maximos was teaching against Torah observant Christians that only followed the "letter" of the Law, then he was attacking something that doesn't exist. Someone who only follows the "letter" of the Torah isn't actually Torah observant. At least not as a Christian.

Jesus specifically taught in this topic several times. The Torah is founded on love for God and love for each other. Following a set of instructions without love is entirely worthless and a waste of time. The whole good Samaritan parable was given for this exact reason. The priest and the Levite avoided the near dead man, because there are Torah restrictions specifically regarding their roles in the Temple and prohibitions against exposure to dead bodies. The Samaritan had no such hang-ups and showed love. Jesus affirmed that the Samaritan was the only one that actually followed Torah. After all, love of neighbor is a more important commandment than any except love of God.

The foundational principles of the Torah according to Jesus are those two great commandments. Every other commandment flows specifically from those commandments, and they are all subordinate to those two. So someone following "the letter" without love isn't Torah observant at all, because they are breaking the most basic commandments.

Finally, if you want to get into the idea of people turning icons into idols, then you could really apply it to anything. It happened with the bronze serpent, it happened at times with Torah, and IMHO it has happened at times with Scripture itself and also God's Church. All of these things are poor substitutes for direct interaction and fellowship with God, but they are all also given to us directly by God Himself as blessings.

I agree, yes. Christ is the same God who said

"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them."

And

"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.' "

And

"He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

St Paul takes it to the point that with Christ, observing the Law has no further purpose. He speaks of it a pedagogue, and uses child to adult imagery. Adults don't have pedagogues. He says it has an end. He says it is passing away and pales in comparison to the new. He says that if people receive circumcision i.e. the first step into the Law, they are obliged to keep the whole Law, that Christ is of no value to them, that they are severed from Christ, that they've fallen from grace.

Again, as St Peter said "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

You said "Unlike the Neshutan, we can still receive the God's blessing of the Torah."

What blessing of the Torah are you talking about that we can receive?

You can bring up St Paul as being anti-Torah all you want, but that has been done to death here. In fact, people accused Paul of teaching against Torah in his own lifetime, and he repudiated them in deed and action. Trust me, everyone who follows Christ and Torah has been confronted by selected excerpts of Paul. It's literally "defend your beliefs 101". Your arguments on development of the Church and it's importance are much stronger. With Paul, all I have to do is point to James asking him to take a Nazairite Vow (a very serious and completely optional act of Torah observance) and Paul agreeing to do so, all with the goal of repudiating the claim that he taught against Torah.

In regards to your last question, it's hard to explain. If you read an English translation of Don Quixote, you get the story. If you've lived in Spain, then you get more out of it. If you are a native Spanish speaker, then you get even more out of it. If you are a native Spanish speaker who lived in that time period it was written, then you get as much as you can out of it. The entire Bible was written by Torah observant followers of God, and all but a few books were written specifically for Torah observant followers of God.

There is a reason Christians place so much emphasis on those few books. It's because it's hard for then to relate to the rest of Scripture. So much of it just doesnt make sense or is missed. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the Good Samaritan story to Christians in light of the specific commandments given to priests and Levites. Almost no Christians knows that a priest can never in his life touch a dead body, and a Levite would require over a weeks worth of purification rituals before he could go back to Temple service after touching a dead body. Any observant Jew in the world would know this by age 13. But Christians don't follow the law, don't study it, and don't know it. So most skip over 70% of the Bible, because they just don't connect with it.

I used to be very shy, and impossiby shy about religion, in person anyway. I started wearing tzitzit in Brooklyn, and I would regularly get stopped by Jews on the street or at my school asking why I was wearing them. I get the same questions from Christians and non-religious people in Texas. This entirely trivial and optional commandment has given me the opportunity to witness hundreds of times.

During Sukkot, I lived in a tabernacle in a small yard in the worst neighborhood of Brooklyn. I would hear shootings at night and sirens. I realized that the brick walls of my apartment only made me ignorant of the danger, and that I could only be safe by the grace of God. I was really in no more danger in that backyard than I was in the house, but it seemed different. I began to realize and appreciate the work God had done to keep me safe the rest of the year.

I could go on forever about this, but my Torah observance has been a never ending stream of blessings.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You can bring up St Paul as being anti-Torah all you want, but that has been done to death here. In fact, people accused Paul of teaching against Torah in his own lifetime, and he repudiated them in deed and action. Trust me, everyone who follows Christ and Torah has been confronted by selected excerpts of Paul. It's literally "defend your beliefs 101". Your arguments on development of the Church and it's importance are much stronger. With Paul, all I have to do is point to James asking him to take a Nazairite Vow (a very serious and completely optional act of Torah observance) and Paul agreeing to do so, all with the goal of repudiating the claim that he taught against Torah.

In regards to your last question, it's hard to explain. If you read an English translation of Don Quixote, you get the story. If you've lived in Spain, then you get more out of it. If you are a native Spanish speaker, then you get even more out of it. If you are a native Spanish speaker who lived in that time period it was written, then you get as much as you can out of it. The entire Bible was written by Torah observant followers of God, and all but a few books were written specifically for Torah observant followers of God.

There is a reason Christians place so much emphasis on those few books. It's because it's hard for then to relate to the rest of Scripture. So much of it just doesnt make sense or is missed. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the Good Samaritan story to Christians in light of the specific commandments given to priests and Levites. Almost no Christians knows that a priest can never in his life touch a dead body, and a Levite would require over a weeks worth of purification rituals before he could go back to Temple service after touching a dead body. Any observant Jew in the world would know this by age 13. But Christians don't follow the law, don't study it, and don't know it. So most skip over 70% of the Bible, because they just don't connect with it.

I used to be very shy, and impossiby shy about religion, in person anyway. I started wearing tzitzit in Brooklyn, and I would regularly get stopped by Jews on the street or at my school asking why I was wearing them. I get the same questions from Christians and non-religious people in Texas. This entirely trivial and optional commandment has given me the opportunity to witness hundreds of times.

During Sukkot, I lived in a tabernacle in a small yard in the worst neighborhood of Brooklyn. I would hear shootings at night and sirens. I realized that the brick walls of my apartment only made me ignorant of the danger, and that I could only be safe by the grace of God. I was really in no more danger in that backyard than I was in the house, but it seemed different. I began to realize and appreciate the work God had done to keep me safe the rest of the year.

I could go on forever about this, but my Torah observance has been a never ending stream of blessings.

---

Ok, so you have basically made two arguments here.

1. St Paul was not anti-Torah as shown by him taking the Nazarite vow.
2. Christians don't understand the 70% of the bible because they don't follow Torah / understand the OT.

The conclusion to these two facts is that Christians are wrong about St Paul and the Law, but you stopped shy of saying it. I don't find the argument particularly tight, or correct.

St Paul taking the vow with the four in Jerusalem does not show that the Law is binding to gentiles, or to St Paul. Why did St James advise him? To appease the Law-zealous Jews. Why? Not that the charges against St Paul's teachings were false, but that he himself still followed the Law. The matter of interest was whether St Paul followed the Law, so he calmed their concerns. Read it again. St James doesn't say "so that you can show that what they say about your teaching is false". It's about St Paul following the Law. St James didn't order him to do it, St James clearly wasn't worried about what St Paul was teaching. It was advice for economy, not censure. Obviously what St Paul was teaching was in the same spirit as the Council of Jerusalem (not subjecting gentile converts to the Law). And note that St Paul could not complete his vow, because the "Jews from Asia" tried to kill him.

As for two, your argument is basically one of superior insight or knowledge that gives you a different conclusion when you read. I doubt very seriously you are the equal of many of the fathers in OT study. St John Chrysostom had the entire OT memorized. He didn't agree with you, they didn't agree with you. I've quoted from fathers east and west, as ancient as 150 AD, who didn't agree with you. You (I don't think) can find a single one that does. I would just advise you -- be careful. Christian humility demands submission to Christ. Christ is the Church, on this matter the scriptures are clear.

The latter part, about blessings. You could replace tzitzit with wearing ridiculous clothes, or a bright shirt that says "I AM A CHRISTIAN TO BE MARTYRED" and have opportunity to witness hundreds of times. You could serve in a bad neighborhood and realize and appreciate the work God has done.

But temporal blessings are not what I'm asking about. What is the blessing of the Torah -- what was the reason for it being given? What do the scriptures say?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the Good Samaritan story to Christians in light of the specific commandments given to priests and Levites. Almost no Christians knows that a priest can never in his life touch a dead body, and a Levite would require over a weeks worth of purification rituals before he could go back to Temple service after touching a dead body. Any observant Jew in the world would know this by age 13. But Christians don't follow the law, don't study it, and don't know it. So most skip over 70% of the Bible, because they just don't connect with it.

---

I am glad you brought up the good samaritan parable. In it we see very clearly the priest do the Wrong Thing- ignores neighbor in the ditch, because he did not want to be unclean. The entire reason the laws/rules are put in place so that we love God and neighbor. That is why Jesus comes to clarify and set things right and calls us to Love.

Jesus comment on working on Sabbath- the love and care trumps the law. Matt 12:11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? Note: find it interesting- neighbor was in a ditch (pit)

I do agree with you that many Christians miss the debth of the Old Testament and all the connections to the NT.

Rambling- Good samaritan parable is like story of Jonah (God's joke). The evil/bad Samaritan does the right thing and the holy Jew (priest) does not.

We see same thing in Jonah- evil bad guys Nineveh repent (get it correct) and God's chosen people (stiff neck Jews) will not repent and change their ways.

Jewish people in OT are role models for all of us. We can relate and learn from both their good and bad actions. Part of the beauty of OT is the Jewish people were unique because they pointed out their faults. We can all identify ourselves as the priest- when we ignore our neighbors in need.